# Should private businesses be allowed to discriminate **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [July 8, 2015, 12:03am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529 "2015-07-08T00:03:24Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 14
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2015, 4:59am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/261 "2015-07-10T04:59:38Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > And if they can’t find a better job elsewhere? Then they can take a job of equal or lesser quality elsewhere, or subsist on some combination of welfare, charity, and the generosity of family and friends. To state the obvious, hiring is an agreement between employee and employer. Obviously whenever it occurs terms are agreed on which may not exactly match what the employee wants. For that matter, the same could be said of every relationship between two human beings. There is no right to stop other people from putting conditions on a relationship. ---
**Author:** ![Robert163](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/4af34b/32.png) [@Robert163](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Robert163)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2015, 5:23am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/262 "2015-07-10T05:23:48Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Then they can take a job of equal or lesser quality elsewhere, or subsist on some combination of welfare, charity, and the generosity of family and friends. I’m not even sure how to respond to that. Are you really as devoid of compassion as this response makes you sound? ---
**Author:** ![Hiker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/3be4f8/32.png) [@Hiker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hiker)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2015, 9:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/263 "2015-07-10T09:58:57Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Then they can take a job of equal or lesser quality elsewhere, or subsist on some combination of welfare, charity, and the generosity of family and friends. > > To state the obvious, hiring is an agreement between employee and employer. Obviously whenever it occurs terms are agreed on which may not exactly match what the employee wants. For that matter, the same could be said of every relationship between two human beings. There is no right to stop other people from putting conditions on a relationship. I disagree. The fact that people need jobs and jobs are sometimes hard to come by can place thos who can offer jobs in a position of superiority which can be exploited. Most western countries have implemented laws with the intention to prevent or at least limit such exploitation. Example: If a male employer hires a female employee on the condition that she agrees to have sex with him once a week, that agreement would be considered void in most jurisdictions (and probably a felony too). ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2015, 12:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/264 "2015-07-10T12:08:19Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > The right to walk into a store and not be refused service based on sexual orientation. You may want to reread the thread then. I’ve repeatedly indicated that I fully acknowledge that right. That is one of the two rights I talk about when I’ve repeatedly spoken of two competng rights. Just because I acknowledge both rights and don’t come out where you do when weighing them does _not_ mean I have no interest in either of them. > [@msmith537](#): > > Freedom from religion is the main reason we have a separation of church and state. Well, supposed to. We all know how God-ferin’ folks love letting other people do what they want. Looks like you have more rereading to do. Namely American History and the U.S. Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2015, 12:11pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/265 "2015-07-10T12:11:04Z")
> [@msmith537](#): > > Yes, as in “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof”. IOW, your religion is not the business of the government, but we won’t do anything to keep you from practicing it. Great. So you agree that the power of the state should not force someone from doing things against his religion. Agreement after all. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2015, 12:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/266 "2015-07-10T12:28:30Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > And if they can’t find a better job elsewhere? Then they have a choice to make. They might also have to choose between taking a job that doesn’t offer health insurance at all and not taking a job at all. This notion that job opportunities should never ask the individual to make choices where they have to give something up that they want is odd in the extreme. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2015, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/267 "2015-07-10T12:32:29Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > It’s an ugly issue both ways. Take military cemetery headstones, with religious symbols. The military must have a list of “permitted” symbols, and that puts the government in the nasty position of saying to some, “No, that isn’t a real religion.” It’s going to be a while, I think, before military cemetery headstones will have symbols for Jedi Knights, Pastafarians, followers of the IPU, or the Church of Red Sonja (Topless Moiety.) Is there some application process for new symbols? > [@Trinopus](#): > > Similarly, I think, if people are going to be foolish enough to file lawsuits demanding relief on religious grounds, we need to know: what is a legitimate religious ground? This is why **Moriarty** suggests it leads to all kinds of unanswerable questions. A legitimate religious ground would be one that passed the test laid out in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (for federal laws, that is). Assessing the claimant’s interpretation of the Bible isn’t part of that test, thankfully. A person’s religious beliefs are what they say they are. > [@Trinopus](#): > > If the baker can discriminate against gays, why not against blacks, Jews, women, Catholics, Russians, or people in wheelchairs? Because there’s a compelling government interest in preventing such discrimination. In some states, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation isn’t prohibited. Religion is really orthogonal to this: in those states, you don’t need a religious reason to discriminate, and in the states where such discrimination is illegal, religious claims don’t allow you to violate the law. > [@Moriarty](#): > > If we open the door to allowing “religion” to be a basis to act differently than what the law generally compels, we need some metric to determine when religion applies. That door has been open for centuries. due to the First Amendment. The metrics already exist: Employment Division vs. Smith and the Religious Freedom Restoration Act are notable examples. > [@Moriarty](#): > > Otherwise, couldn’t anybody claim that they act according to their “religion” whenever they don’t want to do something? (Pay property taxes? My religion forbids making tribute to anybody but God). They certainly can, yes. But that’s not the end of the process, it’s the beginning. In addition to having a sincere religious belief, it must be a) substantially burdened by the government activity, and b) the burden must not be furthering a compelling government interest and/or not be the least restrictive way to advance that interest. > [@Moriarty](#): > > I was trying to think of the most non-invasive way to make this determination. I freely admit that it is not easy. I thought of a two-part test: 1) does a religion actually say what you are claiming? 2) Are you authentically practicing that religion? > > But even that is fraught with peril, as my later questions demonstrate. How do we determine what the religion says (the religious text? Any religious leader? Whatever the practitioner sincerely believes?)? And how do we determine if a person is an adherent? How do we even determine what constitutes a religion? > Exactly. Whatever the practitioner sincerely believes. Religious freedom is an individual matter, it’s not abrogated to one’s pastor, or other peoples’ interpretation of your holy books. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2015, 12:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/268 "2015-07-10T12:32:55Z")
> [@Robert163](#): > > I’m not even sure how to respond to that. Are you really as devoid of compassion as this response makes you sound? How is that lacking compassion. He merely outlined the choice that we all have. We either work and earn money or we depend on money given to us. And if we work, we choose between different job opportunities. That’s simple reality. What part of it do you object to or consider lacking compassion. It’s not compassionate or not compassionate. It’s a factual iteration of the options we all have. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2015, 12:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/269 "2015-07-10T12:34:07Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Great. So you agree that the power of the state should not force someone from doing things against his religion. Agreement after all. Unless it’s in furtherance of a compelling government interest, right? ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2015, 12:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/270 "2015-07-10T12:44:05Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Is there some application process for new symbols? Yup - [VA.gov | Veterans Affairs](http://www.cem.va.gov/hmm/emblems.asp) ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2015, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/271 "2015-07-10T13:02:25Z")
> [@Telemark](#): > > Yup - [VA.gov | Veterans Affairs](http://www.cem.va.gov/hmm/emblems.asp) Thanks! It sounds pretty reasonable…I wonder which, if any, have been turned down over the years. ---
**Author:** ![Telemark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/telemark/32/372_2.png) [@Telemark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Telemark)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2015, 1:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/272 "2015-07-10T13:12:21Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > Thanks! It sounds pretty reasonable…I wonder which, if any, have been turned down over the years. Note that there’s no #50 - I wonder what used to be in there? ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2015, 1:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/273 "2015-07-10T13:18:51Z")
This is America. We exist to make the lives of Americans better. We do not exist for you to make money from us. To the degree that it makes our lives better, we are willing to allow you to engage in commerce with Americans and to profit by that commerce. Oh, you’d like to do that? Okay, fine. Just keep in mind that you have to abide by our regulations, and we will be happy to allow you to take advantage of the infrastructure and population of consumers that America can provide you. Be aware, one of those regulations is that you have to provide your service to Americans (including people we say can be in America). What’s that? You want to serve some Americans and not others? Too bad. It doesn’t make the lives of Americans better to have some of our fellow Americans excluded. Go profit from some other existing infrastructure. What’s that you say? You love America? Great! Provide your service to Americans. Your conscience prevents you from doing so? Sounds like a personal problem to me. ---
**Author:** ![msmith537](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/d9b06d/32.png) [@msmith537](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/msmith537)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2015, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/274 "2015-07-10T15:06:03Z")
> [@Trinopus](#): > > Compadre! I, too, have made the Kali cultist argument! Now there are two of us, so we form a legitimate denomination! > > Jhirnee! Bali mangthi Kali ma! ---
**Author:** ![Moriarty](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/moriarty/32/49_2.png) [@Moriarty](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Moriarty)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2015, 3:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/275 "2015-07-10T15:36:33Z")
> [@Human\_Action](#): > > In addition to having a sincere religious belief, it must be a) substantially burdened by the government activity, and b) the burden must not be furthering a compelling government interest and/or not be the least restrictive way to advance that interest. That seems reasonable. I think, in applying this standard to people who claim a religious basis to refuse service to a gay person (or, to be more pedantic, to refuse to serve a gay person in furtherance of their wedding plans), that there is no legitimate basis for relying on religious beliefs: A baker is not substantially burdened by being legally obligated to bake a cake to someone who is willing to pay for it; baking cakes is what they have otherwise voluntarily chosen to do. It is a compelling government interest to encourage commerce and prevent people from being denied services due to their identity. There is not a more restrictive way to enforce this interest then to require somebody who opens the doors of their business to the public to actually accept members of the public without regard to their sexual orientation. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2015, 3:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/276 "2015-07-10T15:44:50Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > A baker is not substantially burdened by being legally obligated to bake a cake to someone who is willing to pay for it; baking cakes is what they have otherwise voluntarily chosen to do. I’m not religious myself, but I find this attitude fairly astounding. It’s akin to forcing a devout Jew to work on the Sabbath. Yes, they chose to bake cakes. But they also chose to adhere to a particular sert of religious beliefs. I think many of the posters here are having a hard time with this because they view religious beliefs to be silly, so “What’s the big deal.” For some people, religious beliefs are very serious things. And whether everyone likes them or not is not the point, they are protected. It was a foundational principle of the founding of the country and is enshrined in the Constitution. ---
**Author:** ![Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/e8c25b/32.png) [@Really\_Not\_All\_That\_Bright](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Really_Not_All_That_Bright)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2015, 3:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/277 "2015-07-10T15:51:42Z")
I ask - as others have - what distinguishes gay wedding cakes from interracial wedding cakes. And what distinguishes gay hotel guests from black hotel guests. And so on. [QUOTE=ITR Champion] If a company chose to discontinue buying health insurance for its employees, the employees could buy individual health insurance plans. Indeed, under Obamacare, they would be required by law to do so. Anything else obvious that you’d like me to explain? [/QUOTE] Oooh, I know! Explain if you were able to type that with a straight face after starting 5,000,000 threads complaining about Obamacare and/or demanding its immediate repeal. ---
**Author:** ![Human\_Action](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ac91a4/32.png) [@Human\_Action](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Human_Action)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2015, 3:56pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/278 "2015-07-10T15:56:46Z")
> [@Moriarty](#): > > That seems reasonable. I think, in applying this standard to people who claim a religious basis to refuse service to a gay person (or, to be more pedantic, to refuse to serve a gay person in furtherance of their wedding plans), that there is no legitimate basis for relying on religious beliefs: > > A baker is not substantially burdened by being legally obligated to bake a cake to someone who is willing to pay for it; baking cakes is what they have otherwise voluntarily chosen to do. > > It is a compelling government interest to encourage commerce and prevent people from being denied services due to their identity. > > There is not a more restrictive way to enforce this interest then to require somebody who opens the doors of their business to the public to actually accept members of the public without regard to their sexual orientation. I agree, and so do the courts. The problem is [this map](https://www.aclu.org/map/non-discrimination-laws-state-state-information-map). In most states, it’s not illegal to discriminate in housing, employment, or public accommodation on the basis of sexual orientation (though some, like my state of Kentucky, have laws at the municipal level). So, a baker in Oregon who wishes to discriminate is out of luck, whether their motivation is religious or not. A baker in Texas who wishes to discriminate is free to do so, whether their motivation is religious or not. Thus, the focus on religious exemptions is misplaced: it’s state laws that are out of step, not the concept of free-exercise claims or the RFRA. ---
**Author:** ![iiandyiiii](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/iiandyiiii/32/7924_2.png) [@iiandyiiii](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/iiandyiiii)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2015, 3:59pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/279 "2015-07-10T15:59:13Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I’m not religious myself, but I find this attitude fairly astounding. It’s akin to forcing a devout Jew to work on the Sabbath. > > Yes, they chose to bake cakes. But they also chose to adhere to a particular sert of religious beliefs. I think many of the posters here are having a hard time with this because they view religious beliefs to be silly, so “What’s the big deal.” For some people, religious beliefs are very serious things. And whether everyone likes them or not is not the point, they are protected. It was a foundational principle of the founding of the country and is enshrined in the Constitution. Yes, but the government (including the Supreme Court) has already determined that this protection does not apply in all cases (for example, it’s not lawful to deny service to interracial couples even if your religious beliefs mandate that interracial marriage is wrong or not legitimate marriage), so it seems reasonable to me that this would apply to gay marriages as well. ---
**Author:** ![Gyrate](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/gyrate/32/3588_2.png) [@Gyrate](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gyrate)\ **Post date:** [July 10, 2015, 4:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529/280 "2015-07-10T16:03:06Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I’m not religious myself, but I find this attitude fairly astounding. It’s akin to forcing a devout Jew to work on the Sabbath. No it isn’t. This is an entirely inaccurate metaphor. Their religious beliefs prohibit homosexuality. They are not being forced to be gay or to marry someone of the same sex. They are being forced to sell someone a cake in the same way they sell all their other customers a cake. In other words, they are being forced to treat their customers equally. At no point in the process are they being asked to violate their religious strictures. > [@](#): > > I think many of the posters here are having a hard time with this because they view religious beliefs to be silly, so “What’s the big deal.” For some people, religious beliefs are very serious things. And whether everyone likes them or not is not the point, they are protected. It was a foundational principle of the founding of the country and is enshrined in the Constitution. Well that’s not insulting at all. :rolleyes: One’s religious beliefs are protected, but that protection ends at the point it causes harm to others. And that’s also a foundational principle of the founding of the country and is enshrined in the Constitution. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529.md?page=13) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/should-private-businesses-be-allowed-to-discriminate/724529.md?page=15)