What happens if we move past bakers and florists?
What if a doctor, fireman police start refusing service to LGBT. It has already happened once.
I believe one of these religious freedom bills specifically states the Doctors can refuse counceling services. This is a segment of the population that have higher suicide and depression rates and now it is legislated that we can belittle and dehumanize them more by refusing counceling or medical care.
“It’s not uncommon here for providers to be connected to specific venues, which are attached to houses of worship, such as megachurches and large synagogues. It is my personal suspicion that those people are often members of that congregation who were hooked into the positions, but that’s another thread. But it does happen.”
Yes, I agree with that but it’s not because the refuse to do other religions weddings. I have a friend who is a kosher caterer and his business is largely doing conservative and orthodox weddings ( and he is a member of a conservative temple.) However, he will cater anyone’s wedding as long as they don’t care that the food is kosher (his equipment and anything he would need to bring into another establishment is kosher.)
I know a certain yacht club in Westchester County were you are only allowed an outside caterer if you need to serve kosher. The thing is the food isn’t so good at this yacht club so people who aren’t kosher or even Jewish say they need to serve kosher to insure the food is good.
I’ve never heard of anyone having to hire a specific wedding photographer depending on the venue. Neither have I ever heard of a photographer who only takes wedding pictures for couples of a specific religion.
The “it’s against my religion” nonsense is simply an excuse by those who think LBGTQ’s are icky.
.
“Flying a plane is your normal task, so it’s not analogous. If you were a private pilot who was a Sabbath observant Jew and were threatened with legal action if you didn’t fly that Muslim passenger on Saturday, you would be closer to the mark.”
No, because the observant Jew wouldn’t fly ANYONE on the Sabbath. Not even a family member. The observant Jew couldn’t even fly his plane solo on the Sabbath.
No, because the reason you are discriminating against this person is because he’s a sleaze bag. Sleaze bags aren’t a protected class. Now if it turns out that all those you decide are sleaze bags also happen to be in a protected (semi protected) class, you may run into trouble justifying your standards.
Businesses discriminate all the time. Dress code, cost of services, hours of operation all might exclude whole groups of people, but are those people in a protected class? A business can get a permit to serve only women (health club, spa) and that leaves out men. A business may only serve a certain age group (25-35 year olds for a dating service). That same dating service may not offer services to match gay customers. A business can have a certain service area. I used to work for a lender that required customers to live in certain areas, and refused to lend to those who lived in other areas even if they came to one of our storefronts. Was it discriminatory? Absolutely.
"
I’ve never heard of anyone having to hire a specific wedding photographer depending on the venue. Neither have I ever heard of a photographer who only takes wedding pictures for couples of a specific religion."
I have seen both. Not that uncommon.
To post 183 - and some observant people won’t provide any services for weddings that don’t involve a man and a woman. If they provide non wedding services to gay people, then it’s not about ickiness. Some people hold their religion very deeply and it’s not just Christians.
@zoosermon, are you saying there are certain venues where you have to hire a specific photographer only? What venues are these?
Those observant people who won’t provide services (other than ministerial) to gay people are in violation of the public accomondation laws and can be sued - especially in New York which has a comprehensive law (SONDA) against sexual orientation discrimination.
I know I am biased as I am the parent of a gay child who is currently in college, but I knew from a very young age that he was different and I lived through his struggles. I have no doubt he was born gay.
I have seen many people change religion completely or move churches because they had a better basketball program for example. I don’t understand how beliefs trump real people’s lives.
“Sincerely held religious belief” is something that moves around as society changes. Here’s a case of a university arguing that its racist policies should be allowed, because religion.
*Bob Jones University excluded African Americans completely until the early 1970s, when it began permitting black students to attend so long as they were married. In 1975, it amended this policy to permit unmarried African American students, but it continued to prohibit interracial dating, interracial marriage, or even being “affiliated with any group or organization which holds as one of its goals or advocates interracial marriage.” As a result, the Internal Revenue Service revoked Bob Jones’ tax-exempt status.
This decision, that the IRS would no longer give tax subsidies to racist schools even if they claimed that their racism was rooted in religious beliefs, quickly became a rallying point for the Christian Right. Indeed, according to Paul Weyrich, the seminal conservative activist who coined the term “moral majority,” the IRS’ move against schools like Bob Jones was the single most important issue driving the birth of modern day religious conservatism. According to Weyrich, “it was not the school-prayer issue, and it was not the abortion issue,” that caused this “movement to surface.” Rather it was what Weyrich labeled the “federal government’s move against the Christian schools.”
When Bob Jones’ case reached the Supreme Court, the school argued that IRS’ regulations denying tax exemptions to racist institutions “cannot constitutionally be applied to schools that engage in racial discrimination on the basis of sincerely held religious beliefs.” But the justices did not bite. In an 8-1 decision by conservative Chief Justice Warren Burger, the Court explained that “[o]n occasion this Court has found certain governmental interests so compelling as to allow even regulations prohibiting religiously based conduct.” Prohibiting race discrimination is one of these interests*
“No, because the reason you are discriminating against this person is because he’s a sleaze bag. Sleaze bags aren’t a protected class. Now if it turns out that all those you decide are sleaze bags also happen to be in a protected (semi protected) class, you may run into trouble justifying your standards.”
I guess my broader point that I was making is … generally speaking, who do I have to “justify” my standards too? I mean, if I turn down my friend’s ex-husband and new chickie, there isn’t some government registry where I have to indicate that I did so because he was a sleaze bag.
^ if the sleaze bag sued you because you wouldn’t provide him your services he would lose in court. That is the difference. Sleaze bags are not a protected class of people and you would not be violating the public accomondation laws. The Court would justify your actions.
I just want to make it clear I DO personally think it’s scummy for a baker not to bake a cake for a gay wedding. I am just troubled with figuring out where the law is, that forces the baker to bake the cake, but doesn’t force me to take on a tobacco client or a gun rights client. I appreciate it’s under protected class, but I can’t help feeling there are fine lines here.
@Pizzagirl what you have is the constitutionally protected freedom of religion vs non constitutionally protected LGBT anti-discrimination laws. In @anomander 's example, there is already ample precedent with the civil rights act and constitutional amendments. The problem is that local governments could impair one groups freedoms by forcing them to serve another group whose behavior they do not agree with. That goes against the founding principals of the USA.
As you say, ‘protected class’ is the root of the problem.
There is no question that the Colorado bakery case was about people on both sides making a point. The bakery owners openly said they would not make a cake for gays. The gay couple went there to prove a point. It is not a famous bakery. The couple had hundreds of other choices, including bakeries own by gay bakers (and there is a directory of those businesses). I don’t think this couple would have ever gone to this bakery if the owners hadn’t publicly said they wouldn’t make a cake for a gay wedding.
This case was not about cake. The NC law is not about college students, it is about children in public schools.
The NC law also prevents cities for deciding for themselves what is best for its citizens. It prevents cities having a local minimum wage and other labor laws. This anti LGBT law is so much more than bathrooms in public schools.
It does not matter if they could go to another baker. They wanted a cake made by that baker. The baker is in the business of making wedding cakes and he is subject to the public accomondation laws. If he doesn’t like it he can go into another business or stop making all wedding cakes.
If the NC law was about children in public schools they would have crafted the bill to only effect bathrooms in k-12 public schools - but they did not. However, that bill would also likely be overturned by SCOTUS if the case even made it that far.
" what you have is the constitutionally protected freedom of religion vs non constitutionally protected LGBT anti-discrimination laws. In @anomander 's example, there is already ample precedent with the civil rights act and constitutional amendments. The problem is that local governments could impair one groups freedoms by forcing them to serve another group whose behavior they do not agree with. That goes against the founding principals of the USA.
While the case of the New Mexico photographer didn’t specifically cite freedom of religion (they used freedom of speech) the New Mexico appeals court sided with the plaintiffs and on appeal to SCOTUS by the defendants - SCOTUS declined to even hear the appeal.
"The Huguenins’ petition to the Supreme Court was based on their freedom of speech, which they interpret as the right to decide what messages their photography conveys.
“Of particular relevance here is the Huguenins’ sincere religious belief that marriage is the union of a man and a woman,” their petition said. “They believe that if they were to communicate a contrary message about marriage — by, for example, telling the story of a polygamous wedding ceremony — they would be disobeying God.”
@TooOld4School You keep talking about freedom of religion and religious practice. Let’s take the Oregon case of the Christian baker not wanting to bake a gay couples’ cake. How – precisely – was the gay couple preventing the Oregon baker from practicing her religion? As far as I know, they did not prevent her from going to church. They did not prevent her from reading her Bible or praying. They did not prevent her from tithing, or taking communion, or doing ministry. Unless baking cakes is part of her religious practice, then baking that particular cake did not prevent her freely practicing her religion.
If the idea is that baking the cake was somehow condoning sin (which, as a Christian, I don’t buy at all), let’s be consistent. Christian bakers should refuse to bake a cake for anyone who’s ever committed adultery. They should refuse to bake a cake where one of the partners is divorced without biblical justification. They should refuse to bake a cake where one of the partners isn’t a born-again Christian (unequally yoked). How about other kinds of sin? After all, God doesn’t rank sin. So anyone who has has ever lied, or shaved their taxes just a bit, or even gossiped should not get a cake.
Let’s just be honest. The cake business isn’t about Christianity at all. It’s about thinking that gay is icky.
I know it’s trivial but the Colorado bakers also made a cake for a dog wedding, yet they wouldn’t serve humans.
Last I heard dogs couldn’t enter into a contract whether civil or religious.
I want what every parent wants. I want my child to be happy, have equal opportunities and be productive members of society. He can’t do that with all these obstacles in his path.