They have many options, including leaving their profession. They can also discriminate for a myriad of non-Federally-protected reasons. They can probably turn down just about any customer they want, legally.
So yes, no one will be forced to bake cakes or take photographs. If they don’t want to serve gay couples, they can leave their jobs, or find other, legal ways of not serving a particular couple.
Even though no one is “forced”, I have no doubt that some will whine and complain being “forced” to serve gay couples.
But I don’t see how that’s a negative.
Positives: Freedom
Negatives: The hardcore elements of the Religious Right (whichever religion they are) will compress into smaller but louder, more radical, and more dangerous fringe groups. These groups will not only fight even harder to do things such as deny passage of ENDA, but some of the fringiest fringes could resort to isolated terrorist acts.
Again, this kind of double talk is absurd; this is akin to President Obama’s promise that “If you like your healthcare coverage, you can keep it”. Point blank untrue, at least without serious qualification.
If the motivation to deny a couple is due to their orientation, then it the denial is illegal. There would be no other legal way. This is reverse discrimination, as hard as you wish to deny it. Either be honest about that you believe this kind of discrimination is necessary, or acknowledge that this is unfair and that it must be corrected.
Don’t lie and say that no one is adversely affected by homosexual marriage when this is point blank untrue.
How is it “discrimination” or “reverse discrimination” to say that someone cannot discriminate?
Sometimes, I wonder if people even know what the words they are using mean.
If a photographer is forced out of her industry because her religious beliefs preclude her from photographing a wedding they believe to be invalid, this is discrimination due to the photographer’s religious beliefs. Either admit that this is discrimination and adverse impact you believe is necessary, or admit that it must be corrected.
All I ask is for an intellectually honest discussion. I can only assume you used the photographer example because the courts recently ruled that that photographer could not refuse service on the basis of orientation. You then used this as an example of someone NOT being adversely affected by homosexual marriage. This is about as intellectually dishonest as it gets.
Gratuitous insults do not help your case.
No, it isn’t. Her beliefs are not being affected. She is free to believe whatever she wants. No one at all is suggesting that people who believe X may not become wedding photographers. “No person who believes in God may open a business.” That’s discrimination. “You may not use illegal discrimination against others in running your business” is not discrimination. You can’t just take a secular action, claim it’s part of your religion, then claim there can be no law about it because that impacts your religion. You can’t say your religion requires child sacrifices so any law against murder is discriminatory. You can say that your religion requires communion so any law against communion is discriminatory.
Having a religion does not give you more rights than not having a religion.
Its not discrimination. Nobody has to make accommodations for stupidity. Just because a person claims its their religious belief doesn’t make it so, but that seems to be the tactic a lot of conservatives are taking because they are so completely losing the fight and they are desperate. It is a factual statement that no religious business owner has ever been discriminated against by being forced to serve gays. Any attempts to claim so is just terrible lying
In order to place a burden on the freedom of religion, the state must first have a compelling interest. Protecting children is a perfectly acceptable reason to discriminate. As a less insane example, forcing religious nuts to take their kids to doctors rather than “prayer healers” is perfectly acceptable.
Legally requiring a photographer to serve all customers, even if their beliefs preclude some customers, may or may not be a compelling interest. However, it dishonest to say that it is not a discriminatory burden. It is simply not a factual statement, and clouding the debate with such statements is dishonest.
This statement is again untrue. The First Amendment specifically protects religious beliefs and expression. Not all beliefs can or should be accommodated, though.
Belief and non-belief are equally protected. Having a religion does not give you more rights than not having a religion. Having a religion is not legally privileged over not having a religion.
Yes, that is correct. However, the there is constitutional mandate to not burden religious beliefs and practices, unless there is sufficiently compelling reason.
All I ask is that the debate be framed honestly. Admit that some people may be adversely affected by homosexual marriage. One need not agree with their reasoning for claiming an adverse impact, but acknowledge the impact.
It is a bait-and-switch to take a recent case where a couple was fined $6000 for refusing to cover a homosexual wedding, a fine upheld by the New Mexico Supreme Court, and say that “No one will be forced to photograph or bake cakes for gay weddings”. Yes, in the most technical sense, they are not “forced” to do anything, but prior to recent legislation and court rulings, they enjoyed the unencumbered practice of photography without violating their conscious by covering homosexual weddings or commitment ceremonies. The legalization of homosexual marriage, and the requirement that vendors provide equal services to heterosexual or homosexual wedding couples, places a burden on their conscious that previously did not exist.
Again, I don’t expect you to agree with such individuals. I only wish that you would frame the debate to acknowledge this. Say upfront that yes, some are burdened, but that you believe the burden is justified.
You are otherwise making promises to people who would otherwise support your cause, but who may be offended and angered when these promises are shown false or misleading.
I think people in this thread are having trouble fathoming that someone’s soul can be irrevocably tarnished by taking pictures at a same-sex wedding, or that baking a cake for hire indicates anyone’s approval of anything except the credit-card company approving the transaction.
I know I am.
Yes, I know it is.
I personally have never said people are not “burdened” by laws and regulations that do not permit them to discriminate. I have said they are not discriminated against. Running a business will put a burden on you to obey the laws and regulations regarding running a business. Not being able to discriminate against black people is not itself discrimination.
Same-sex marriage and non-discrimination laws aren’t the same thing. A state with equal marriage doesn’t have to ban businesses from discriminating on the grounds of sexual orientation (and vice-versa).
ETA: New Mexico’s discrimination law was enacted in 2003, before same-sex marriage was allowed in any state.
Especially given the number of sins people don’t seem to have any trouble accepting in their clientele.
No more Sharon Kowalskis. Sharon (who I met, along with Karen Thompson, in 1992) was the impetus for the gay marriage initiative in the first place. At first, Karen Thompson was just doing speaking engagements trying to raise money for Sharon’s legal fund, but one Sharon got to go home, Karen began speaking out about the need for some kind of legally recognized partnerships for gay people, so what happened to them wouldn’t happen again.
Back in the 1990s, everyone who heard them speak rushed out to get durable springing powers of attorney done. You could buy DIY paperwork packets at any gay or women’s bookstore.
Very true. There are states right now with anti-discrimination statutes that do not allow SSM. And the feds prohibit discrimination on the basis of orientation for federally-assisted housing. (Maybe for other stuff too, but I’m only aware of the housing.)
And New Mexico was one of those states when Elaine Huguenin was sued for refusing to photograph a commitment ceremony.
You are simply making arguments that are incomplete, and refuse to admit it. You are holding back honest debate more than the so-called ignorant fools who oppose homosexual marriage.
It’s funny. Earlier in the thread I said something, you said it was wrong, I repeated it, and you agreed with me. I really don’t think I’m the problem with this debate, sunshine.