They are protected, but not absolutely so - just like every other right. No religious claim will excuse you from laws against murder, even if you happen to be orthodox Aztec. Nor will it excuse you, in your capacity as the operator of a bakery, from the 1964 Civil Rights Act’s prohibition of discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. If we’re to have such laws, I see no reason why sexual orientation and gender identity shouldn’t also be protected.
Do you feel the same way about the Civil Rights Act’s classifications, or just sexual orientation? That is, should a free-exercise religious claim allow one to discriminate on the basis of race, religion, or national origin?
My apologies for having missed these replies earlier.
I’m not suggesting that this kind of discrimination or obstructionism is necessarily widespread, I’m just saying that it exists, and it shouldn’t be legal. That was my point from the beginning. Many others here have made that point quite eloquently.
Tell this guy:
There have been a number of such statements or implications here. All I’m saying is that this is false. I’m not saying that free markets should necessarily be expected to lead social change (although, in fact, large corporations in my opinion do have societal obligations commensurate with their size and influence). But by and large individual businesses represent only the interests of their owners. Usually that interest is just profit, but sometimes it’s personal bigotry such as the expression of the belief that Jesus hates blacks or Jesus hates gays. The only agent capable of supporting the larger public interest is the government, and in the matter of non-discrimination all three branches of government have their respective roles.
See my replies above. The short answer is that this was a sad period in American history when racism was widespread, and the salient question is what was the agent largely responsible for curtailing it and driving social progress. It sure as hell wasn’t private business or the proverbial “free market”.
Hobby Lobby is remarkable because it went to the Supreme Court. If they hadn’t been the subject of well-publicized litigation it’s highly doubtful that any of us would even have known of their position.
so - when talking to another business owner - its reasonable/fair to potentailly ask about hiring practices. Expecting them to be honest with you regarding the hiring of ‘illegals’ is another matter entirely.
When looking at an individual coming into your business - you yell “papers please” to all people or just those that look illegal?
The New Jersey case involved a beachfront event venue that was generally rented out to anyone without question, including non-Christians. It was a classic public accommodation that merely happened to be operated by a church for profit.
In general, however, I think nearly all of us would agree that churches cannot be required to host same-sex weddings or perform them.
Weddings are not public church services. No church will ever be forced to perform religious ceremonies against its collective will. Nice effort, I suppose, but the sky is not falling. Your cites are alarmist hogwash and, frankly, breaking the spirit of the Commandment against bearing false witness. If not its letter.
Not it is not. It is telling a devout Jew “If you provide a service to the public, you can’t refuse to provide that same service to people based on their sexual orientation.” That’s what Oregon state law says.
Nobody is going to force that guy to open his business on Saturdays. However, if he chooses to be open on Saturday he can’t then refuse service to some customers because he finds them religiously objectionable in some way. For example he couldn’t serve atheists but throw other Jews out because he thinks that they ought to be going to services on the Sabbath.
The Oregon bakery case was not about their religious beliefs, it was about whether they broke state law. I read the BOLI decision yesterday (it’s a 122 page PDF so be warned if you look it up). The bakers stated in an interview that they knew before this case that refusing to serve a same-sex couple would be breaking the law and that they were probably going to wind up doing so anyhow. Then they refused service to this specific couple and they knew they were breaking the law at that time. And then the bakers said that they would likely continue to refuse service to other same-sex couples in the future.
So they knew the law and felt that they’d have to break it. Then they broke it. Then they said that they’d probably continue to break it.
I don’t see that it matters WHY they felt that way. Breaking the law because of their “sincere religious belief” isn’t any more of an excuse than a couple of atheists breaking the same law because they just hate gay people.
A lot of people feel the same way about their civil rights.
I see that others have already responded to this comment, so I’ll just add that I support those rebuttals and note that your third sentence contradicts your second sentence. If they choose to bake a cake, this isn’t like forcing a Jew to work on the Sabbath, since they made that choice. Having made that choice (and having made that choice to do so as a business open to the public), they can’t then renege on their choice based on a customer’s sexual orientation (at least, in places where it is against the law).
[QUOTE=Gyrate]
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.
[/QUOTE]
Absolutely correct! Others have helpfully pointed out to me that the court isn’t going to wade into religious dogma to determine how valid one’s religious objection is, but I will. And Christianity does not prohibit one from doing business with one who sins (presuming that Christianity does consider homosexuality a sin, notwithstanding that it isn’t a commandment and wasn’t discussed by Jesus). If a person says that they don’t want to do business with a gay person, then they are not justified by Christian dogma, except perhaps that perverted Christianity that also supports the ideology of the Klan.
And the reason they got hit with a huge fine wasn’t because they refused to serve a gay couple, but because they published the names and phone numbers of said couple in attempt to harm them.
Well, not exactly. The names and phone numbers were already public record. They primarily got a big fine because they kept going on TV and talking about the case.
Looks like their BOLI complaint does have their names and other info however that’s only supposed to be shared with people directly involved (including the bakery, attorneys, etc) but it sounded like it was not supposed to be made generally available, which was one of the issues with the bakers posting a copy of the complaint in their store window. The judge found it unreasonable that they didn’t know the complainants names were on the report since that info was right below the baker’s names/info.
Another big part of the judge’s decision r.e. fines was the emotional impact of the whole mess on the lesbian couple. There’s a lot of background in the complete document regarding their two adopted special needs kids and requirements to keep their info private, a lot of family drama (one of the death threats came from one of the women’s own relatives who threatened to “shoot her in the face” and other fun stuff), etc.
A complaining party’s beliefs about what Christianity (or whatever other religion) does or does not require is absolutely irrelevant. That line of reasoning is a No True Scotsman fallacy.
So SSM supporters won’t make headway by arguing that someone is or is not acting in accordance with what the complainant believes is required by the defendant’s religion. The issue is whether the person objecting to being required to perform some act or service holds a sincerely held religious belief that is on point, whether government is requiring that person to act contrary to that belief, and whether there is a less restrictive means of government achieving its goal.
Lawsuits have already started and over a period of years will work their way up to the high court. Only then will there be any legal settling of under what circumstances, if any, a religious objection might trump a legal requirement to act contrary to a defendant’s free exercise of religion in accordance with his stated beliefs.
Not exactly. Courts can and do look into the question of whether a particular belief is sincerely held, and may find that a belief is insincere based on the totality of an adherent’s behavior. If the adherent professes to follow a particular belief system, that may well inform that inquiry. For example, a prisoner who demands not to be fed spam because he keeps kosher is not going to prevail if the court finds that he willingly eats lobster (or something else non-kosher; shellfish are prohibited, right?)
As noted many times, in the Oregon case the issue was not what the bakers believed. It was that they knowingly broke Oregon law which says you cannot discriminate based on sexual orientation and while I only looked at the BOLI’s posted information on this quickly I’m pretty sure that there wasn’t an asterisk with a note saying “Except if you think your religion justifies it, in which case discrimination is OK”.
If instead of the bakery quoting Leviticus at the woman and calling her an abomination, they had said “We’re atheists and we think queers are disgusting, we will not sell you a wedding cake” would you find that more or less acceptable, since it doesn’t involve any religious belief? Do you think that one of those positions should be Constitutionally protected and the other should not? Which one?
Which is as you would expect. Remember, the customers DO choose whether to shop there.
And I REALLY would hope that most people would not do business with someone like that. If someone can act that way AND stay in business, it’s a sad thing.
Really, if you’d just left out the “only”, we’d be okay. The most powerful agent of serving the public interest is the members of the public, making decisions in their own interest. However, in the sad case where the market (i.e. the public) effectively supports appalling behavior (which is what you’re talking about), well, here we are…and that’s why I don’t really have a problem with the rest of what you said.
One of the realities that has come to temper my libertarian views over the years is that the market can’t be trusted to make good decisions any better than “democracy” can, because both ultimately reflect the stupidity of the public. Of course, the icky alternative is government muscle-flexing. It’s quite a quandary.
I SO wish I had a good solution for the “stupidity of the public” problem.
This concept works in theory, but in practice, people can and are often manipulated into patronizing a business that is against their own interests and/or others. This can be especially debilitating when the majority of society does not see a certain kind of discrimination as bad. Take blacks for instance during the Jim Crow era. Yes people could have stopped going to businesses that did not serve black people, but the majority of people didn’t care, so nothing was going to change without the government getting involved. Yes African Americans had other places to go, such as African American owned businesses or separate but equal facilities, but that was far from the point.
One might argue that society would have changed eventually and racist business owners would eventually be run out of business by market pressure just as many food businesses are being pressured to have healthy options. But that begs the question of how long a group of people should have to wait for this to happen?
