The Right To Serve

[mark46]

Yes, we discriminate every day. It is not discrimination that is illegal. It is discriminating against those that the government has found to have suffered institutional racism for decades or centuries. The idea is that some groups are protected from discrimination, or more properly for discrimination based on illegal criteria.

If a large Muslim baker in Detroit chooses to discriminate against white males in his hiring, then he is breaking the law. If a hospital discriminates against males in its hiring of nurses, this is illegal.

Most of us remember or have seen or read about the alternative society where discrimination was the order of the day for much of the country.

To me, this brings up the question of why the government has the responsibility to protect against someone's perceived internal feelings.

I'm a white male, and I've been discriminated against by white males. Do I qualify?

This question of service also goes to hiring practices...Why should a health club be required to not consider someone's health when it comes to hiring?
It also goes to the Catholic priesthood.

Regarding specific businesses, such as pharmacies, you can discriminate by not providing a product, can't you? If you're a good Catholic, and you don't want to fill birth control pill prescription and you don't want to sell condoms, can you do that?

Personally, I believe every one of us discriminates in some way every day. Discrimination is placing a label on someone based on their outward appearance.

I remember this commercial on TV, these kids were in a room, and a man was serving ice cream, and one kid said he wanted some ice cream, the man said "Sorry, new customers only!". The other kid said he'd like some ice cream, and the guy said "Sure!" And the first kid said "But I'm a new customer." And the guy said, "Well, he's new.....er."

There's also 'good' discrimination. If you do something for someone, for example, giving a blind person the right of way, or help an aged woman across the street.

I try very hard not to base my views on someone's appearance. It's hard, though...like the kid with the back of his jeans closer to his knees than his butt...

 

[Root of Jesse]

Yes, we discriminate every day. It is not discrimination that is illegal. It is discriminating against those that the government has found to have suffered institutional racism for decades or centuries. The idea is that some groups are protected from discrimination, or more properly for discrimination based on illegal criteria.

If a large Muslim baker in Detroit chooses to discriminate against white males in his hiring, then he is breaking the law. If a hospital discriminates against males in its hiring of nurses, this is illegal.

Most of us remember or have seen or read about the alternative society where discrimination was the order of the day for much of the country.

But why is that any different than a health club telling a heavy woman she can't have a job?

What I'm railing against is that government gets to decide what constitutes discrimination and what's good discrimination or bad discrimination.

Personally, I'm glad I don't have to make those decisions. But I've been in stores recently where a boy who wants to be a girl was working in a women's clothing store, I've been in big box stores where they're employing down's syndrome people. I've never seen discrimination in the work place. Not saying it's not there, I'm sure it is.

But I think, if a business wants to limit its customer base, which limits its income, so be it. I cannot blame a wedding planner who doesn't want to work for a homosexual couple who's planning to get married. Someone will serve the couple, I'm sure.

It's different when you're talking about essentials-food, medicine, and so on.

 

[mark46]

Consider both your statements. The reason that federal government decides is because there has been a history of discrimination with regard to a particular group and the states have refused to act for decades.

The laws clearly have had major effects in employment. Would you be surprised if I have a friend who recalls when the first Irish person was hired to management in their local utility? The laws were implemented to right wrongs. You need not decide. You simply need to abide by the law.

Folks in much of the South didn't want to serve blacks. If they served them, they wanted them in separated areas (and schools). Blacks weren't allowed to vote, or were greatly discouraged from doing so. Now Atlanta is a model city with respect to integration. A higher percentage of blacks vote in Mississippi than whites. The laws and court decisions have had their effects.

We have a system that many don't like. However, the vast majority accept our system.
=========

Many states have found that there was a need to have laws with regard to discrimination based on sexual preference. So many states have passed such laws. There may or may not be a future need for federal legislation.

What I'm railing against is that government gets to decide what constitutes discrimination and what's good discrimination or bad discrimination.

Personally, I'm glad I don't have to make those decisions.

 

[Erose]

What about the right to equal treatment?

What about it? If we don't respect the reasonable beliefs of others then there is no equality at all.

Let us take a look at the baker situation. If the lesbian couple came in wanting a birthday cake and they were refused because of their lesbianism then they would have a legitimate case IMO against the bakery, for this would be discrimination. But when the lesbians came in wanting a wedding cake for their own wedding, the baker then has every right to refuse, because at that point the concept of gay marriage is being pushed onto the bakery and if they did give in would have violated their own principles. IMO the leabian couple not willing to respect the beliefs of the bakery on this, are the one who are now discriminating against the religious faith of the baker.

If I was the baker, I think I would counter sue the lesbian couple for their obvious discrimination against me as a Christian.

 

[mark46]

It is good that your are not a retailer. You would be spending lots of time in jail.

What about it? If we don't respect the reasonable beliefs of others then there is no equality at all.

Let us take a look at the baker situation. If the lesbian couple came in wanting a birthday cake and they were refused because of their lesbianism then they would have a legitimate case IMO against the bakery, for this would be discrimination. But when the lesbians came in wanting a wedding cake for their own wedding, the baker then has every right to refuse, because at that point the concept of gay marriage is being pushed onto the bakery and if they did give in would have violated their own principles. IMO the leabian couple not willing to respect the beliefs of the bakery on this, are the one who are now discriminating against the religious faith of the baker.

If I was the baker, I think I would counter sue the lesbian couple for their obvious discrimination against me as a Christian.

 

[Erose]

It is good that your are not a retailer. You would be spending lots of time in jail.

Why on earth would you say that? If in your world I do not have the right to follow my faith, then yes I would spend a lot of time in jail. But at this point time your worldview doesn't fully exist yet, so I am ok.

 

[Erose]

Consider both your statements. The reason that federal government decides is because there has been a history of discrimination with regard to a particular group and the states have refused to act for decades.

The laws clearly have had major effects in employment. Would you be surprised if I have a friend who recalls when the first Irish person was hired to management in their local utility? The laws were implemented to right wrongs. You need not decide. You simply need to abide by the law.

Folks in much of the South didn't want to serve blacks. If they served them, they wanted them in separated areas (and schools). Blacks weren't allowed to vote, or were greatly discouraged from doing so. Now Atlanta is a model city with respect to integration. A higher percentage of blacks vote in Mississippi than whites. The laws and court decisions have had their effects.

We have a system that many don't like. However, the vast majority accept our system.
=========

Many states have found that there was a need to have laws with regard to discrimination based on sexual preference. So many states have passed such laws. There may or may not be a future need for federal legislation.

See this is the problem that many of you on the left have. You truly have no concept of what discrimination is, as you have never experienced it. Refusing to partake in something that violates a person's reasonable religious beliefs, is not discrimination. The discrimination occurs when you try to force someone to violate their reasonable religious beliefs. Racism is not a reasonable religious belief and I am not sure if it has ever been in any religion except for perhaps Mormonism.

At one point you have to learn to participate in a rational debate without trying to vilify those who oppose your understanding. If not you are never going to learn anything.

 

[mark46]

OK, I don't know YOUR world. Perhaps you live in a state where it is legal to discriminate against homosexuals.

My point is that if you lived in one of the 20 states (plus DC) where this is illegal, you would spend a lot of time in jail.

Some folks faith does not allow them to serve one of these groups: blacks, whites, Hispanics, homosexuals, women, and so forth. Some believe that their faith requires that their ordinary products only be sold to certain people.
===============

No, sir. This has nothing to do with worldview. It has to do with what it means to live in a secular state and follow its laws. The consequence of civil disobedience should be jail time, as it always has been. There is nothing wrong with that.
======

And with regard to worldview, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, it is decidedly un-Christian to refuse to serve sinners. Do you really think that the self-righteous folk who would not sell cake and flowers (a similar case) also refused to sell to divorcees who were re-marrying? Or those using birth control? Or those folks living together. Perhaps you world view is that it reasonable to decide which customers are good enough to be served. IMHO, that is neither the American nor the Christian Way.
===========

And just BTW, the victims are not those who refuse to sell to those they do not like because they are uncomfortable with their beliefs that differ from our own.

Why on earth would you say that? If in your world I do not have the right to follow my faith, then yes I would spend a lot of time in jail. But at this point time your worldview doesn't fully exist yet, so I am ok.

 

[mark46]

You are free to have your own created view of American law.

And to suggest that those on the left have never experienced discrimination is really silly.

Racism was accepted and supported by many Christians in the 1850's and the 1950's. Scriptural bases for racial differences have often been cited.

See this is the problem that many of you on the left have. You truly have no concept of what discrimination is, as you have never experienced it. Refusing to partake in something that violates a person's reasonable religious beliefs, is not discrimination. The discrimination occurs when you try to force someone to violate their reasonable religious beliefs. Racism is not a reasonable religious belief and I am not sure if it has ever been in any religion except for perhaps Mormonism.

At one point you have to learn to participate in a rational debate without trying to vilify those who oppose your understanding. If not you are never going to learn anything.

 

[Erose]

OK, I don't know YOUR world. Perhaps you live in a state where it is legal to discriminate against homosexuals.

No my state doesn't, and I wouldn't. Maybe you can save yourself a little bit of face by going back and actually read what I wrote. As obviously you didn't do a very good job of doing.

My point is that if you lived in one of the 20 states (plus DC) where this is illegal, you would spend a lot of time in jail.

I don't believe those 20 states have risen to the level of being intolerant to religion.

Some folks faith does not allow them to serve one of these groups: blacks, whites, Hispanics, homosexuals, women, and so forth. Some believe that their faith requires that their ordinary products only be sold to certain people.
===============

Name faith group were it is a foundation of their faith to be racist.

No, sir. This has nothing to do with worldview. It has to do with what it means to live in a secular state and follow its laws. The consequence of civil disobedience should be jail time, as it always has been. There is nothing wrong with that.
======

So in your worldview, people's reasonable religious convictions don't mount to a hill of beans. Got it.

And with regard to worldview, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, it is decidedly un-Christian to refuse to serve sinners. Do you really think that the self-righteous folk who would not sell cake and flowers (a similar case) also refused to sell to divorcees who were re-marrying? Or those using birth control? Or those folks living together. Perhaps you world view is that it reasonable to decide which customers are good enough to be served. IMHO, that is neither the American nor the Christian Way.
===========

Again this comment shows that you are gripping about something that wasn't wrote. Go back and just reread what I wrote.

And just BTW, the victims are not those who refuse to sell to those they do not like because they are uncomfortable with their beliefs that differ from our own.

When their religious rights are violated they are.

Let me do this one more time with the analogy of the baker.

A) If the baker refused to sell the lesbian couple pastries because they were lesbians then the lesbians would have a case.

B) But that wasn't the case. They asked to have a wedding cake made for a gay wedding. In this case if the baker would have said ok and made them a cake, and their religious conviction was against gay marriage, that baker would be violating their religious conviction in doing so by directly supporting the sinful act.

So the baker was left with two choices: a) bake the cake and as such support the gay wedding, thus choosing making a profit over following his/her Faith. Thus committing a mortal sin. Or b) do not support the wedding by not providing the cake, and maintaining his/her relationship with God. I will choose 'b' every single time. There is no other choice for me as I will not allow this world to come between me and my God. Send me to jail if you wish. Kill me, beat me, put me in a pot of boiling oil, whatever you want. This world isn't going to last forever, but were my destination will be does.

You are right, we do not have the right to discriminate against others for who they are, and I am not advocating that. What I am saying is that when religious freedom starts taking the backseat, then religious freedom you do not have.

If you want to throw your faith away to follow the world, have at it; but I will not be following you there.

 

[Erose]

You are free to have your own created view of American law.

I am not doing so, you are.

And to suggest that those on the left have never experienced discrimination is really silly.

I don't think so. The left spend way too much time being the discriminaters to be the discriminatees. Every racist person I know are Democrats.

Racism was accepted and supported by many Christians in the 1850's and the 1950's. Scriptural bases for racial differences have often been cited.

No, no it wasn't. You will be hard press to find a denomination where racism is part of their doctrinal beliefs. Has there been Christians who were racist? Yes there has been, but Chistianity has never claimed that their members are not sinners.

 

[imind]

enough with this nonsense! christians complaining about a baker having to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding? who cares? they are not supporting this marriage, only following the law...

i could MAYBE understand some christians views here if they weren't so darn choosy about which sinners they claim they cannot do business with...goodness, why are homosexuals the ONLY sinners they refuse? what about atheists? the bible states they are abominations. what about those of other religious beliefs/those who worship other gods? if you're going to refuse service to sinners, you would have to refuse service to EVERYONE.

so, why is it that some christians deny service only to teh homosexual variety of sinner?

 

[Erose]

enough with this nonsense! christians complaining about a baker having to bake a cake for a lesbian wedding? who cares? they are not supporting this marriage, only following the law...

No body is complaining here. It should be a rational discussion of ethical issues. I really do not understand the need to get emotional here. Think. Reason. Rationalize.

i could MAYBE understand some christians views here if they weren't so darn choosy about which sinners they claim they cannot do business with...goodness, why are homosexuals the ONLY sinners they refuse? what about atheists? the bible states they are abominations. what about those of other religious beliefs/those who worship other gods? if you're going to refuse service to sinners, you would have to refuse service to EVERYONE.

And no body here is advocating this either that I have read and surely not I. This whole thing has nothing to do with discrimination at all, except as in the baker case, lesbians discrimating against the baker because he/she is a Christian.

You are right we are all sinners in this world and any discrimination against a sinful group is well sinful. But you cannot force people to violate their religious convictions.

Let me give you a few examples here. Let us say we have a group approach a hotel manager and wants to rent their conference hall to have a huge orgy. If that manager refuses, due to his religious and moral principles, are you ok with that?

What if a woman goes to her gynecologist and tells him, she wants an abortion and she wants him to do it. If he is pro-life, should he be forced to do so?

Or you have an engineering firm, who is owned by someone like Fantine, who is very much against firearms, and the government approaches that firm wanting them to design and build a weapon that can kill hundreds with one shot, and Fantine refuses to do so because it will violate her moral convictions, should she be forced to build the weapon anyway?

What about a priest is approached by a couple who both parties have been in divorces and neither have gotten an annulment, should he be forced to do so?

I can go on and on with examples here.

so, why is it that some christians deny service only to teh homosexual variety of sinner?

I got even a better question for you. Why are there so many Christians who have no problem violating their beliefs to get along in this world? Who feel that secular morality trumps their Christian morality?

 

[bach90]

Private businesses have the right to refuse service to whomever they feel like. To suggest otherwise is to say that the government has the right to regulate a business when it has not taken on any of the risk, skill, or investment involved in maintaining a business.

 

[Gwendolyn]

When I was studying theology in university, this topic came up in one of the moral theology classes.

The professor opined that if you cannot morally do what your job obligates you to do, then you ought to stay out of that line of service.

Personally, this issue makes me frustrated, because if pharmacists and doctors get to refuse contraception, then I'm up the creek without a paddle. I don't take hormones for contraception. I take them to keep me from having radical surgery. The hormones keep my symptoms at bay such that I can live a normal life. The other option is a hysterectomy and menopause at age 28.

I'd rather take the hormones, and if a doctor would refuse to prescribe them to be just because they didn't trust that I wouldn't be having sex... they ought to choose another job. To put it lightly.

 

[Sarcalogos Deus]

OK, I don't know YOUR world. Perhaps you live in a state where it is legal to discriminate against homosexuals.

My point is that if you lived in one of the 20 states (plus DC) where this is illegal, you would spend a lot of time in jail.

Some folks faith does not allow them to serve one of these groups: blacks, whites, Hispanics, homosexuals, women, and so forth. Some believe that their faith requires that their ordinary products only be sold to certain people.
===============

No, sir. This has nothing to do with worldview. It has to do with what it means to live in a secular state and follow its laws. The consequence of civil disobedience should be jail time, as it always has been. There is nothing wrong with that.
======

And with regard to worldview, IN MY HUMBLE OPINION, it is decidedly un-Christian to refuse to serve sinners. Do you really think that the self-righteous folk who would not sell cake and flowers (a similar case) also refused to sell to divorcees who were re-marrying? Or those using birth control? Or those folks living together. Perhaps you world view is that it reasonable to decide which customers are good enough to be served. IMHO, that is neither the American nor the Christian Way.
===========

And just BTW, the victims are not those who refuse to sell to those they do not like because they are uncomfortable with their beliefs that differ from our own.

Not wanting to decorate a wedding cake for a gay couple isn't something that's unreasonable, and quite frankly if the government forced me to do it I would make them a rather bad cake.

Anyway if the situation was refusing to sell them any cake for any occasion I would agree with you, but this isn't one of those cases.

 

[Erose]

When I was studying theology in university, this topic came up in one of the moral theology classes.

The professor opined that if you cannot morally do what your job obligates you to do, then you ought to stay out of that line of service.

Gwen we are talking about businesses. Do you think it is reasonable to state that if you are a Christian you need not to own your own business?

Personally, this issue makes me frustrated, because if pharmacists and doctors get to refuse contraception, then I'm up the creek without a paddle. I don't take hormones for contraception. I take them to keep me from having radical surgery. The hormones keep my symptoms at bay such that I can live a normal life. The other option is a hysterectomy and menopause at age 28.

I'd rather take the hormones, and if a doctor would refuse to prescribe them to be just because they didn't trust that I wouldn't be having sex... they ought to choose another job. To put it lightly.

Catholic moral theology makes exceptions in these cases, as birth control is used frequently for medical conditions that have nothing to do with preventing pregnancy. I doubt very seriously that a doctor is going to refuse anyone the needed medication. I good Catholic Doctor most probably will look at other treatment options, where a another doctor will not make the attempt.

 

[Root of Jesse]

Consider both your statements. The reason that federal government decides is because there has been a history of discrimination with regard to a particular group and the states have refused to act for decades.

The laws clearly have had major effects in employment. Would you be surprised if I have a friend who recalls when the first Irish person was hired to management in their local utility? The laws were implemented to right wrongs. You need not decide. You simply need to abide by the law.

Folks in much of the South didn't want to serve blacks. If they served them, they wanted them in separated areas (and schools). Blacks weren't allowed to vote, or were greatly discouraged from doing so. Now Atlanta is a model city with respect to integration. A higher percentage of blacks vote in Mississippi than whites. The laws and court decisions have had their effects.

We have a system that many don't like. However, the vast majority accept our system.
=========

Many states have found that there was a need to have laws with regard to discrimination based on sexual preference. So many states have passed such laws. There may or may not be a future need for federal legislation.

If you're speaking of slavery, that was, for all practical purposes, built in to the US, and in this case, the government had to step in to stop it, just the way God had to lead the Jews out of Egypt. It happens in stages. But answer honestly-did racial discrimination really stop? Or was it just driven under ground? Personally, I do not believe you can legislate against discrimination.

Would it surprise you if I tell you I remember when there was a sign, a moveable sign, in a public bus, that any white person could move to any row in the bus, and every black person on the bus had to sit or stand or pack like sardines behind that sign? Or racially separate water fountains? Now we make fun of it with movies like "The Help". The law did very little to stop the inner feelings.

You ought not lecture me about racial discrimination. I'm from New Orleans, and I've seen it first hand. And fought against it. In fact, I worked many times along side of black people as a young man and realized that only their color was different, even with my own parents' attitudes. But laws aren't what needed to change. It's hearts.

FWIW, I'm very pro-life, but I don't think it does any good to march, shout and scream. The way to change minds is to walk with someone in that situation, and offer a hand. That's also the best way to convert people to Christianity.

Government rules only solve issues on the surface. That's why there's still so much racial tension.

 

[LoAmmi]

Private businesses have the right to refuse service to whomever they feel like. To suggest otherwise is to say that the government has the right to regulate a business when it has not taken on any of the risk, skill, or investment involved in maintaining a business.

This is not a true statement legally speaking. First, the government does regulate businesses. There are unfair business practices that are illegal such as laws against collusion. So, businesses are already regulated.

Secondly, it would not be legal for a story to refuse to serve all black people in the United States. So you can't just say a business can refuse service to whomever they feel like because certain restrictions are placed upon that. A business cannot violate civil rights laws.

The way I see it, allowing a business to incorporate actually removes risk from the owners by reducing liability. It is a way society has come together to encourage that business. But it also means the business is agreeing to perform per the legal expectations of the society they live in.

I'd be ok with a law that says sole ownership or partnerships that don't reduce liability for the owner could behave however they wanted. It is a great risk for that owner. But that isn't the way it current works.

 

[Root of Jesse]

When I was studying theology in university, this topic came up in one of the moral theology classes.

The professor opined that if you cannot morally do what your job obligates you to do, then you ought to stay out of that line of service.

Personally, this issue makes me frustrated, because if pharmacists and doctors get to refuse contraception, then I'm up the creek without a paddle. I don't take hormones for contraception. I take them to keep me from having radical surgery. The hormones keep my symptoms at bay such that I can live a normal life. The other option is a hysterectomy and menopause at age 28.

I'd rather take the hormones, and if a doctor would refuse to prescribe them to be just because they didn't trust that I wouldn't be having sex... they ought to choose another job. To put it lightly.

Gwen, that was an example. Any good Catholic pharmacist will know that there are circumstances when hormones are prescribed. I was referring to the majority of situations, not those like yours.
It's sad that these days 90 % or more of hormone prescriptions are for contraception. The point I was making is that it's a business's right to decide how they will do business. I do believe that any pharmacy that chose to not provide contraception say it just that way..."We do not sell contraceptive pills and devices." In your case, the Pill is not for contraception, I believe. You know from your studies that using the Pill for other medical conditions is permissible.

I'm sorry if I hurt you by the example I used.

God help you through your struggles.