If anyone missed it, here are actual, ongoing legal battles involving this issue from the past year or two. The businesses are losing or have lost in just about every case:
http://www.abcfoxmontana.com/story/26879803/hitching-post-lawsuit-gains-national-attention
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I don’t see why it’s okay to discriminate against one group in order to eliminate discrimination from another group. You can’t have your cake and eat it too…
[/quote]
That’s the point. This isn’t a clear cut line in the sand. It is blurry as fuck, and these laws SHOULD be clearing it up.
You can refuse service to anyone, for any reason. However if the person refused feels it was improper (they were black, woman, old, gay, etc) they can sue the living shit out of you. In a lot of those cases you’ll lose.
[/quote]
I understand. I just think it’s bullshit.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
And that is bullshit in my opinion (Note, I would serve gays because I don’t really give a shit). I always thought the constitution was the law of the land.
[/quote]
I’m not a lawyer, but it’s not the first time the whole “a compelling state interest” card has been drawn in a legal battle. This is why no law is absolute, it’s always changing. One or two court interpretations can change the entire playing field.
The American people never cease to disappoint. It went from allowing devout orthodox Catholics (let’s say) to maybe staying in the wedding business, to ensuring they’ll have to close down? Really? What a bunch of wannabe dictators, the American public. And to hell with their child-like desire for a paternalistic government. “DAAAAAAAAAAADDDDDYYYY, make little Timmy play with me!”
“The amendment to the Religious Freedom Restoration Act released Thursday prohibits service providers from using the law as a legal defense for refusing to provide services, goods, facilities or accommodations. It also bars discrimination based on race, color, religion, ancestry, age, national origin, disability, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity or United States military service.”
https://search.yahoo.com/yhs/search?p=freedom+of+religion+amendment&ei=UTF-8&hspart=mozilla&hsimp=yhs-001
Who the hell are these people to tell me I can’t refuse a service? I can refuse it based on them not wearing a shirt and/or shoes when they come into my establishment, but I can’t make a refusal informed by my religious beliefs? Really? Which is one even in the Constitution, specifically? The freedom to exercise my religious beliefs, or the freedom to be free of shirtless and shoeless people walking into my establishment? Seems like the “rights” not listed are the most protected (like the right to an abortion where even a human life can be taken), as opposed to the ones that are actually there in writing. Disgusting. Get bent America.
Oh, and remember all the “oh that’s just a slippery slope argument?” Pffft.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
My understanding is they can only be refused based on religious ceremonies.
So, gay couple walks into family owned Hardware Store looking for brake cleaner. Owner says “you homo’s get out, and here’s a free can of bearing grease for yur anus”. Owner is going to get the fuck sued out of him and lose. [/quote]
That may be true, but I don’t understand why. If you are a devout Catholic, for example, you should be able to refuse to serve anyone that you feel is in violation of your beliefs, imo. The first amendment seems pretty cut and dry to me.
[/quote]
See, this I completely understand. A random everyday purchase for a random everyday reason is not grounds for refusing service on any number of levels. There is NO compelling religious reason to not serve a gay person in this case (the hardware store etc). The only reason you can really come up with is “I don’t like gay people”.
Now, under current law that really isn’t good enough in many places. There’s no religious foundation for this, and you can’t even point to it in the Bible where it’s stated to “inasmuch as you are able, live in peace with your brothers and with your neighbors”…I forgot the original verse wording so my apologies people. The point is, it doesn’t violate any central belief of Christianity and moreover it is actually more IN line with many of the teachings of Christianity to help cheerfully serve LBGT people to the best of your abilities as they are “your neighbor” and you are to live in peace with them to the best of your abilities and they whole, you know, “love your neigbhor as yourself” thing.
The sticky part is a conflict of central beliefs ala marriage or the morality of being gay. That is pretty central to Biblical teaching.
Now, again, I agree with DB’s stance and smh’s stance on the issue posted way back on the first page regarding the law and an owner’s ability to do what they want with their property and business and livelihood. What I am saying, though, is that I can see no serious religious reason that people would refuse random service to a gay person though and do not see that as a legitimate argument. Therefore in the context of presently instated civil rights laws and places where LBGT is a protected class this is a bunk reason.
However I perfectly understand the unwillingness to support what you deem to be sacrilegious practice according to your religious beliefs, and completely agree with that.
I believe there are very central and legitimate reasons to hold EITHER side of the wedding ceremony debate from a Christian perspective. This is in line with what I feel are similar takes on imbibing alcohol…hold on, stay with me for a minute! Some denominations of Christianity (Nazarene in particular) prohibit consumption of alcohol. Some, (Baptists, Catholics, etc) do not. In the case of the Nazarenes this is because they have viewed all of the societal ills that alcohol has brought–abuse, neglect, addiction, etc. etc. and want nothing to do with supporting a practice that allows these societal ills to continue flourishing. Ok, sensible. Baptists, Catholics and others don’t view it this way and are more along the lines of “all that God made is good” and “if it was good enough for Jesus it’s good enough for me”. Also sensible.
In a similar way many people can and do hold that gay marriage is wrong and sacreligious in a Christian sense and therefore cannot provide support for a practice that openly goes against their beliefs–this would be the same as helping someone to commit sin in their eyes and thus be guilty of sinning themselves (“better a millstone be tied around your neck and you be thrown into the sea than you should cause one of these to stumble and sin”).
Also in a similar way many Christians may hold that because nonreligious people do not believe that sin exists, that it is a higher duty to love your neighbors as yourself and help them in any way you can regardless of whether what they are doing is sinful to you.
All analogies limp as smh is fond of saying, and I certainly view this subject as more important than say alcohol, but hopefully you all can see where my train of thought is going. I am not saying either position is right and the other wrong, only that Christian people can hold either one of them sincerely and as such both positions represent a central and sincere religious belief that should not be infringed by the government.
The same, however, cannot be said of random hardware store owner that refuses to allow a gay person to buy a dremel or power saw or whatever. So while I agree a business owner should be able to dispose of his/her property and business whatever way they may wish, I do not see that example being anywhere near a reasonable argument against current civil rights laws where they are applicable.
What if we extend it beyond the gay theme…
How about a devout Catholic that refused to provide goods and/or services when knowing one of the parties has been previously divorced?
Or a Southern Baptists that knows alcohol will be served at the reception?
Or a Church Of Christ that knows dancing will take place?
etc…etc.
Would this outrage be the same if a Muslim business owner did not serve homosexuals ?
[quote]Aragorn wrote:
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
[quote]countingbeans wrote:
My understanding is they can only be refused based on religious ceremonies.
So, gay couple walks into family owned Hardware Store looking for brake cleaner. Owner says “you homo’s get out, and here’s a free can of bearing grease for yur anus”. Owner is going to get the fuck sued out of him and lose. [/quote]
That may be true, but I don’t understand why. If you are a devout Catholic, for example, you should be able to refuse to serve anyone that you feel is in violation of your beliefs, imo. The first amendment seems pretty cut and dry to me.
[/quote]
See, this I completely understand. A random everyday purchase for a random everyday reason is not grounds for refusing service on any number of levels. There is NO compelling religious reason to not serve a gay person in this case (the hardware store etc). The only reason you can really come up with is “I don’t like gay people”. [/quote]
Where in the Constitution does it say there needs to be a “compelling religious reason” to refuse a service? As far as I’m concerned any religious reason is enough to deny service the way the 1st amendment reads to me.
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
Requiring a business owner, by law, to provide a service or good to anyone and everyone that requests it of them is a violation of the underline phrase imho.
Ee either amended the 1st or deal with the consequence, imo.
[quote]
Now, under current law that really isn’t good enough in many places. There’s no religious foundation for this, and you can’t even point to it in the Bible where it’s stated to “inasmuch as you are able, live in peace with your brothers and with your neighbors”…I forgot the original verse wording so my apologies people. The point is, it doesn’t violate any central belief of Christianity and moreover it is actually more IN line with many of the teachings of Christianity to help cheerfully serve LBGT people to the best of your abilities as they are “your neighbor” and you are to live in peace with them to the best of your abilities and they whole, you know, “love your neigbhor as yourself” thing.
The sticky part is a conflict of central beliefs ala marriage or the morality of being gay. That is pretty central to Biblical teaching.
Now, again, I agree with DB’s stance and smh’s stance on the issue posted way back on the first page regarding the law and an owner’s ability to do what they want with their property and business and livelihood. What I am saying, though, is that I can see no serious religious reason that people would refuse random service to a gay person though and do not see that as a legitimate argument. Therefore in the context of presently instated civil rights laws and places where LBGT is a protected class this is a bunk reason.
However I perfectly understand the unwillingness to support what you deem to be sacrilegious practice according to your religious beliefs, and completely agree with that.
I believe there are very central and legitimate reasons to hold EITHER side of the wedding ceremony debate from a Christian perspective. This is in line with what I feel are similar takes on imbibing alcohol…hold on, stay with me for a minute! Some denominations of Christianity (Nazarene in particular) prohibit consumption of alcohol. Some, (Baptists, Catholics, etc) do not. In the case of the Nazarenes this is because they have viewed all of the societal ills that alcohol has brought–abuse, neglect, addiction, etc. etc. and want nothing to do with supporting a practice that allows these societal ills to continue flourishing. Ok, sensible. Baptists, Catholics and others don’t view it this way and are more along the lines of “all that God made is good” and “if it was good enough for Jesus it’s good enough for me”. Also sensible.
In a similar way many people can and do hold that gay marriage is wrong and sacreligious in a Christian sense and therefore cannot provide support for a practice that openly goes against their beliefs–this would be the same as helping someone to commit sin in their eyes and thus be guilty of sinning themselves (“better a millstone be tied around your neck and you be thrown into the sea than you should cause one of these to stumble and sin”).
Also in a similar way many Christians may hold that because nonreligious people do not believe that sin exists, that it is a higher duty to love your neighbors as yourself and help them in any way you can regardless of whether what they are doing is sinful to you.
All analogies limp as smh is fond of saying, and I certainly view this subject as more important than say alcohol, but hopefully you all can see where my train of thought is going. I am not saying either position is right and the other wrong, only that Christian people can hold either one of them sincerely and as such both positions represent a central and sincere religious belief that should not be infringed by the government.
The same, however, cannot be said of random hardware store owner that refuses to allow a gay person to buy a dremel or power saw or whatever. So while I agree a business owner should be able to dispose of his/her property and business whatever way they may wish, I do not see that example being anywhere near a reasonable argument against current civil rights laws where they are applicable.[/quote]
I don’t follow the last paragraph. Are you saying a hardware store owner shouldn’t be allowed to decide who they’ll sell to, citing religious beliefs as their explanation? Or are you saying a random hardware store owner, who is not religious, should not be able to decide who to sell to?
As far as I’m concerned, in 2015, a store owner should be allowed to disposed of his or her assets as they see fit. An out and out bigot will be out of business very quickly, which is fine with me.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Oh, and remember all the “oh that’s just a slippery slope argument?” Pffft. [/quote]
Slippery Slope argument? I used these when everyone tried the whole “well if gays can get married then everyone is just going to start marrying dogs, trees, and their computers.”
Which is patently absurd logic and demonstrably false considering the lack of these in states who have already approved gay marriage.
I don’t recall people using them in religious freedom cases on this forum unless I don’t remember something.
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
What if we extend it beyond the gay theme…
How about a devout Catholic that refused to provide goods and/or services when knowing one of the parties has been previously divorced?
Or a Southern Baptists that knows alcohol will be served at the reception?
Or a Church Of Christ that knows dancing will take place?
etc…etc. [/quote]
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
“Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.”
[/quote]
How about a Jewish baker refusing to provide a celebration cake to a Neo Nazi’s centennial party?
Is that the road we want to go down? As far as I’m concerned private business owners should be allowed to conduct their business as they see fit. Let capitalism sort it out.
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
What if we extend it beyond the gay theme…
How about a devout Catholic that refused to provide goods and/or services when knowing one of the parties has been previously divorced?
Or a Southern Baptists that knows alcohol will be served at the reception?
Or a Church Of Christ that knows dancing will take place?
etc…etc. [/quote]
Those are all completely legal reasons to refuse service, anywhere, as far as I can ascertain.
You can refuse service or deny the customer’s business, so long as the reason isn’t tied directly to a protected “class,” e.g., race, creed, ancestry, sex, age, disability, religious affiliation, sexual orientation (in some cases), and national origin, for most examples, though exact wording and group(s) protected vary by state. There is also the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 that includes some of these groups, but does NOT yet include sexual orientation or transgendered citizens.
If someone isn’t from a protected class, you can’t be held culpable under the anti-discrimination laws, so unless otherwise explicitly stated as a protected class, a divorcee, a drinker or a dancin’ fool at a wedding could all be denied service without consequence, as could a host of other plebeians.
[quote]usmccds423 wrote:
I don’t follow the last paragraph. Are you saying a hardware store owner shouldn’t be allowed to decide who they’ll sell to, citing religious beliefs as their explanation? Or are you saying a random hardware store owner, who is not religious, should not be able to decide who to sell to?
As far as I’m concerned, in 2015, a store owner should be allowed to disposed of his or her assets as they see fit. An out and out bigot will be out of business very quickly, which is fine with me.
[/quote]
While I agree in principle, this carte blance legal mentality can create it’s own problems whereby businesses or individuals attempt to usurp or circumvent state laws or local ordinances, citing free exercise of religion and the Supremacy Clause.
Hence, the “compelling religious reason” is a potentially reasonable legal litmus test whereby courts can attempt to balance the interests of the state versus the liberty of the individual to prevent cases of people concocting obscure, far-flung or otherwise self-fabricated religious reasons to circumvent otherwise tolerable legal prohibitions.
[quote]BlueCollarTr8n wrote:
What if we extend it beyond the gay theme…
How about a devout Catholic that refused to provide goods and/or services when knowing one of the parties has been previously divorced?
Or a Southern Baptists that knows alcohol will be served at the reception?
Or a Church Of Christ that knows dancing will take place?
etc…etc. [/quote]
Should a Jewish Deli be forced to serve a bacon cheeseburger if a black, gay woman orders it?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]H factor wrote:
[quote]Sloth wrote:
Oh, and remember all the “oh that’s just a slippery slope argument?” Pffft. [/quote]
Slippery Slope argument? I used these when everyone tried the whole “well if gays can get married then everyone is just going to start marrying dogs, trees, and their computers.”
Which is patently absurd logic and demonstrably false considering the lack of these in states who have already approved gay marriage…
[/quote]
But you were wrong because as a result legal polygamous marriage is already being pursued (and it must be granted for the gay marriage legal argument to be consistent).[/quote]
People have been fighting for this even before gay marriage. The two are not related no matter how much anti-gay marriage people want them to be. It’s just another “please protect us government from those who think different from me” appeals. And is the religious freedom of these people not important? Religious freedom is ok to not have gay people eat in a restaurant but not ok if it is part of someone’s belief in polygamy from the Bible?
Which ironically is exactly what those who are fighting against these religious liberty laws are doing. Wanting the government to protect them from the ideas of certain religious business owners.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Better safe the sorry is the employable cliche here.
Better to save religious liberty at the expense of the state’s compelling interest being subjugated in some instances.[/quote]
Where do we draw the line? What if a business owner claims his religion forbids him from washing his hands before handling your food, or someone who claims that his religion doesn’t allow him to follow proper sanitation disposal protocols? If there isn’t some modicum of sanity here, this can set a precedent that has unintended legal consequences.