That’s not what the Indiana law, or its ilk in other states, say. Best Western can refuse to allow a gay couple to stay together in one room under this law.
I think these discriminators should be required to post “NO GAYS ALLOWED” signs to clarify their positions.
There is a difference though. The sign painter can’t claim that it’s against his religion. The wedding planner can.
You can say that the government’s compelling interest in preventing people from being discriminated against in the purchase of personal services outweighs the 1st amendment. But you don’t get to just ignore the 1st amendment entirely.
If they do a poor job, deliberately, and you can demonstrate that, that’s another grounds for lawsuit. It’s also a way for a company to lose their business license.
Go ahead, just try being a barber who gives black people bad haircuts. There’s a whole special department of the California Department of Justice dealing with professional licensing violations.
Not true. All it says is that the owners could go to court to protect their right to discriminate. They would almost certainly lose, given that hotels are public accomodations.
However, a Christian charity that already banned unmarried couples from sleeping in the same room would be on firmer ground.
Not all occupations are licensed. You can’t revoke what doesn’t exist. However, I suppose where licensing is required you could use that as a cudgel.
In the case of wedding planners, most states do not require licenses and many wedding planners don’t even need a business license since they just provide the service without the need for a professional office. Fortunately, we do not need the government’s permission to exchange goods or services in all cases. Yet.
Interesting. I have many orthodox businesses in my area. In three years, a bakery who only sells to synagogue/Orthodox Jewish events any goods, five new owners, four new signs.
The concept is not strange neither ignorant. It’s common sense. Dollar helps with life, prayer and tradition (on any religious basis) does not. This discrimination against gays, which is entirely religious and therefore bogus, not only sanctions individuals from making better money and being a good part of community, is constitutionally corrupt, violating church and state and that is what’s ignorant.
The state cannot interfere with religious practice. It does not violate seperation of church and state if the state declines to interfere with religious practice.
You’re misinterpreting the 1st amendment to mean that government should stamp out religious practice outside of houses of worship. And I have no doubt you’ll be invading those places eventually. Other nations are already doing it, charging pastors with hate speech.
The State most certainly can, and does, interfere with religious practice and they do every day. All they have to show is “a compelling interest.”
I’m not talking about government limiting religion (though I’m getting hard thinking about it), I’m talking about discrimination. Doesn’t matter what the basis is. The state can interfere with any sort of discrimination even if it is religious.
And yes, any words from a pastors mouth is hate speech.
You don’t think a pastor can engage in hate speech?
Sure they can. If you ever want to listen to it, try looking up Steven Anderson on YouTube. Granted, he seems to hate just about everyone.
But here we have the issue in the US that even hate speech is protected, the problem seems to be figuring out what constitutes speech.
Which is a pretty high bar to clear.
the issue is lying about whether you’ll interfere with religious practice in this case. Don’t say that a change doesn’t threaten religion when the plan is actually to threaten religion
If one has the courage of their moral convictions, then they can be up front about their intentions. I never understood why gay rights supporters were swearing up and down that nothing about gay marriage would violate anyone’s religious beliefs. They went so far as to say that it wouldn’t affect ANYBODY who wasn’t interesting in getting a gay marriage.
Now we see otherwise. Anyone associated with the marriage industry is supposed to participate now.
Should someone who provides wedding services be able to decline to provide said services for an interracial male/female couple?
They can’t do it for that as far as I know, but they can refuse interfaith weddings and do.
There are no federal laws barring wedding planners from discriminating on the basis of race, but there are local ordinances in some places. So we’re back to these RFRA-style laws, all they do is allow someone with a religious objection to go court. If your religion forbids you to associate with Pakistanis, then you get your day in court to argue for that. Who could object to that?
Pastors are not religion. You can easily threaten pastors without threatening religion. Fail to go all Shakespeare on us, expanding the scope from what you were on about.
That’s an interesting way of looking at it. Religion is sacroscant under our Constitution, but the people who practice it have no such rights? How does that square with liberal opposition to Citizens United on the logic that corporations aren’t people? How can a religion have rights? It’s FOLLOWERS have rights.
Besides, the party line on gay marriage was that no one would be harmed by it. If they were honest, they would have said, “No one we give a shit about will be harmed by it, but we will be claiming some scalps.”
Pakistanis, for a start.
Freedom of association does not mean that you can force every single American to associate with you. Anti-discrimination law applies only to certain circumstances, namely housing, employment, government, and public accomodations. It’s doubtful that any other attempt to expand anti-discrimination law would get past the first amendment. Even if people like wedding planners weren’t covered by religious freedom, they’d be likely covered by freedom of association.
You simply cannot force someone to be somewhere they don’t want to be, with people they don’t want to be with, as a matter of law, unless there is a compelling government interest. Saving people from being butthurt because this plumber won’t come to their house but another one will is not a compelling government interest. We protect people from discrimination not to spare their feelings, but so that they can fully participate in society. A wedding planner turning down your business does not hurt you in any way, shape, or form, other than your feelings.