I just saw that Ring Star has also cancelled a concert in North Carolina. It’s been a tough few months for the LBBT community but it does help to see businesses and celebrities fighting for us.
Would you say that a wedding photographer who, for religious reasons, does not want to work a same-sex wedding is “hurt” if he is faced with the choice of either working the wedding or facing fines? I would say that he is hurt; it’s just that a lot of people think he’s wrong about the views that lead to the hurt.
I find these cases difficult, because there are conflicting liberty interests here. We’ve made the decision collectively that you give up some of your liberty interests if you operate a place of public accommodation. How far do we want to push that into personal services? I can imagine a court saying, for example, that services that are general in nature–like, say, the exterminator who comes to spray for termites–are like public accommodations, but those that require the exercise of creativity or artistry are too much like speech to require people to exert them on behalf of ideas with which they don’t agree. I think the cake baker is kind of a silly example, but I can imagine a court saying that a cake baker could decline to make a cake that said “Happy Wedding, Mary and Sarah,” but could not decline to make one that said “Happy Birthday, Mary” just because Mary is gay. I think hairsplitting is inevitable when different rights are in conflict.
{Edited to add a “not” I left out}
@Hunt The same argument you just gave about the wedding photographer was used in the 60"s proclaiming that white people were hurt by having to sit next to black people as their religion told them to keep separate…
and EXACTLY the same argument was used for photographers having to photograph interracial marriages… how it violated their religious beliefs… fortunately we as a society have moved past that this is no different…
if your religion forces you to discriminate then you need to find another job
I think Hunt is just being a lawyer and trying to paint a nuanced picture, rather than making a personal argument. I find it sad when people can’t even consider that an issue might be complicated beyond their personal views.
In terms of public accommodations, do posters think that any accommodation should be made for houses of worship, and if so, what? Is it ok for streets to be closed for a St. Joseph’s Day carnival? Is it ok for a city to provide extra garbage pick-up just before Passover? What about providing school buses or school nurses for a religious school? Should religious schools be allowed to provide sub-par secular education in favor of religious education? Is it ever ok to say to someone with whom you disagree “hey, you do you Boo Boo and I’ll do me” and just not interact?
@Hunt http://wakeforestlawreview.com/2012/04/a-unique-religious-exemption-from-antidiscrimination-laws-in-the-case-of-gays-putting-the-call-for-exemptions-for-those-who-discriminate-against-married-or-marrying-gays-in-context/
How far do we want to push that into personal services? I can imagine a court saying, for example, that services that are general in nature–like, say, the exterminator who comes to spray for termites–are like public accommodations, but those that require the exercise of creativity or artistry are too much like speech to require people to exert them on behalf of ideas with which they don’t agree."
SCOTUS already refused to even hear that argument in the New Mexico photography case - in which the defendants lost.
I know you may be shocked to hear this, but it’s not such a bad argument. The question is how much do we give up our liberty interests in order to be allowed to pursue a profession.
Here’s a thought experiment for you. Let’s say that you operated a ghost-writing business. In other words, you write books for people, to their specifications. Let’s say that you are a staunch Roman Catholic. The following people come to you for help writing their book. Which of them can you reject?
- An officer of the National Abortion Rights Action League wants to write a book on why abortion should be safe and legal.
- A same-sex couple wants to write a book defending same-sex marriage, giving examples from their own experiences.
- An African-American activist wants to write a book condemning the Catholic Church for racism.
You want to refuse all of these, because the message of the book conflicts with your religious beliefs. If any of them sue you, you will rely on freedom of speech and freedom of religion to defend your position. You will say that it is the views expressed, not the fact that the people are gay, or black, that makes you want to reject their proposals.
How should a court rule? Should you be required to ghost-write any of these books or face a fine?
From the ACLU :
While the situations may differ, one thing remains the same: religion is being used as an excuse to discriminate against and harm others.
Instances of institutions and individuals claiming a right to discriminate in the name of religion aren’t new. In the 1960s, we saw institutions object to laws requiring integration in restaurants because of sincerely held beliefs that God wanted the races to be separate. We saw religiously affiliated universities refuse to admit students who engaged in interracial dating. In those cases, we recognized that requiring integration was not about violating religious liberty; it was about ensuring fairness. It is no different today.
Religious freedom in America means that we all have a right to our religious beliefs, but this does not give us the right to use our religion to discriminate against and impose those beliefs on others who do not share them.
This------" I know you may be shocked to hear this, but it’s not such a bad argument. The question is how much do we give up our liberty interests in order to be allowed to pursue a profession."
leads to ISIS
[rant] No, and I think they should start paying their taxes just like everyone else. While you’re at it, ixnay on the charitable deductions. It’s bad enough what they do to people trying to live their lives without shame and discrimination; I’m supposed to subsidize it with the taxes that I pay also? [/rant]
I actually agree with you about the financial accommodations, but do you really think all houses of worship of every religion, denomination or faith discriminate? You do know that many perform gay marriages joyfully, right?
@zoosermom, I do understand that. I identified as a Unitarian some years ago (until someone burned a question mark on my lawn, sorry, old Unitarian joke). There are exceptions, but I see so many of our problems tracing back to religion (or its other disguises such as nationalism, etc) that the distinctions fade.
I did identify it as a rant. I have some religious friends. Actually, not so many, but some. 
Hunt, this was the analogy I was trying to get at with the “should I be forced to provide marketing consulting to the NRA or Philip Morris” scenario. I continue to be frustrated how the concept of not being forced to provide a custom product/service is blurred with the concept of not being allowed to refuse general service to a person/class of people.
“Religious freedom in America means that we all have a right to our religious beliefs, but this does not give us the right to use our religion to discriminate against and impose those beliefs on others who do not share them.”
Answer the question, runswimyoga. Regardless of whether my beliefs are driven by religion or not, am I “allowed” to turn down the NRA or Philip Morris as a client because I don’t share their belief that guns or smoking are good things to promote? Clue: I am not imposing my belief on them, I am simply refusing to facilitate it (as a member of the private sector).
As far as I am aware neither the NRA or cigarette manufacturers are a protected class so you can indeed turn down their business. Also, corporations aren’t people - despite the SCOTUS ruling on campaign funding. So, I think those two things combined allow you to say no without fear of being accused of discrimination. JMO as I am not a constitutional scholar.
Of course you can turn down the NRA or Philip Morris.
I think the short answer to your larger question is that for hundreds of years it was legal and socially acceptable to discriminate against LGBT and gay marriage in the same way it’s legal and socially acceptable to discriminate against tobacco and hate speech.
But we as a society both ethically and legally are coming to the determination that it is no longer acceptable to discriminate against LGBT in any way, including gay marriage and bathroom access, and we’re changing the laws (and setting precedent) to match. If at some point in the future we as a society decide that the NRA deserves the same protections as LGBT people, then yes it would become illegal at that point to refuse them.
For the examples you bring up including the NRA, Philip Morris, etc it will become illegal when it becomes illegal. That is, until they can rally support and win court cases and get legislation passed just like has been done for LGBT, it’s not illegal. Therefore there’s no point in lumping them together or using them as an analogy.
A more interesting analogy, IMHO, would be a conservative Muslim taxi driver refusing to pick up a single woman not wearing a hijab. Or perhaps a Muslim (or Catholic) photographer refusing to serve a baby shower for a single, pregnant woman. That’s a closer intersection of religion and a somewhat custom service vs a protected class (women/gender).
http://nypost.com/2015/12/18/muslim-cabby-fined-for-not-allowing-woman-up-front/
Hold on a second. We do have the right to use our religion to discriminate against others in lots of respects. I can choose not to have friends of other races, sexes, or religions. I can choose not to frequent businesses run by members of races or religions I don’t like. I can vote for or against a candidate because I don’t like people of that race, sex, or gender.
Rather, we can discriminate as much as we like unless that discrimination conflicts with the rights of another person, such as the right to be served in a place of public accommodation. But we do have to remember that the right to do as I please, with whom I please, for whatever reason I please, is also an important right. It’s too easy, I think, to forget this when we really don’t like the other person’s reasons for doing what he wants to do.
This is one reason why I posed the ghost-writer example, because there you can see how there is a conflict between the right to be free of discrimination and the right of free speech.
I just spit all over my monitor. Never heard that one!
Or the actual cases of Muslim cab drivers in Minnesota who refuse to carry service dogs in their vehicles. What are your thoughts on that?
@Pizzagirl As I said before, yes you can turn down NRA or Phillip Morris and it is different (besides the fact that they are corporations) from turning down someone in a protected or suspect class. A suspect class has these characteristics:
The US Supreme Court has mentioned a variety of criteria that, in some combination, may qualify a group as a suspect classification
The group has historically been discriminated against, and/or have been subject to prejudice, hostility, and/or stigma, perhaps due, at least in part, to stereotypes.[1]
They possess an immutable[2] and/or highly visible trait.
They are powerless[2] to protect themselves via the political process. (The group is a “discrete” and “insular” minority.[3])
The group’s distinguishing characteristic does not inhibit it from contributing meaningfully to society.[4]
THE reason SCOTUS has such an impetus to protect people (via suspect classes) is because of the 14th amendment-The Equal Protection Clause that says the Gov has an impelling interest in not having inferior groups of people that are subject to unequal treatment… (The NRA and Phillip Morris don’t have any immutable or highly visible traits so they wouldn’t qualify)
To allow the kind of choice discrimination that you gave, we as a country would have to get rid of the 14th Amendment