Do you apply this to everyone? Should wedding planners be allowed to turn down interracial couples, or Jewish couples (for secular themed weddings), if they feel their religious beliefs requires them to? Or just gay couples?
To me, that’s just inviting the return of Sundown towns.
It no more infringes on anyone’s beliefs than being required by law to serve interracial and black couples.
No, you don’t get it – you (again) are oblivious to the beliefs and motivations or real-world liberals, and are only capable of analyzing the fantasy liberals in your own head. Stop listening to Hannity. If you want to know about liberals, then ask some liberals.
Sure it does. I know of no religions that ban people from serving interracial or black couples. Admonitions against homosexuality on the other hand, are very common. As is aiding people in the commission of sin.
There is a huge difference between having to serve sinners and having to plan and execute their sin. That’s why I used the kosher caterer and pork example. At least so far, no one has questioned the right of kosher caterers to not serve pork, even though that discriminates against non-Jews. I mean, what if a Jewish guy is the only caterer in town?
But let’s go back to the standard talking point liberals used not too long ago. “No one will be forced to do a gay marriage.” This was certainly not true. The only exception you’ve allowed(at least for now) is actual clergy. Is that an actual principle, or is it just a temporary concession?
Here we go with States’ Rights again. Conservative baboons trying to desperately to oppress and discriminate, all the while wrapping their bigotry in the cloak of religion.
Hey Adaher, get the biggest Jesus-monkey cross you find and shove it up your ass.
So now you are the judge of which religions deserve to discriminate? If I claim a religious belief that miscegenation is a sin, who are you to say it is not protected under this law?
I know of no religion that bans people from serving homosexuals, or at least no more than those that ban people from serving interracial couples.
Where in the Bible (or any religious text) does it say “thou shall not do commerce with gay couples”?
We’ve addressed this. The Kosher caterer can do only Kosher catering, but he can’t refuse service to gay couples (or others) that are fine with Kosher catering.
In the same sense, a Christian wedding planner can do only Christian wedding planning, but he can’t refuse service to gay couples that are fine with a Christian wedding. It doesn’t matter if the planner doesn’t believe that it’s a “real” wedding – he doesn’t have to. All he has to do is arrange the flowers, find a venue, decorate, etc. There’s no prohibition against “finding a venue for gay people”, or “calling a florist for gay people”, etc, in any religion.
What does it mean to “do a gay marriage”? Is it any different from “do an interracial marriage”? I’m not familiar with the use of “do” in such a talking point.
If we’re talking about service in public accomodations, I agree with you. However, if you’re talking about contracting for services from an individual to do something that individual believes to be sinful, that’s a different situation.
There are no laws requiring anyone of any sort to do an interracial marriage if they don’t want to, as in officiate, or work on it in any capacity. Do you advocate laws mandating this?
Remember, legally there is a huge difference between a public accomodation and an individual contracting out his or her services. The concept that these independent contractors can choose who they will and won’t do business with is pretty much sacrosanct in law and culture. Are you advocating that this has to change? Because that kind of change usually ends up going farther than just your one pet issue.
When it comes to race, the freedom being infringed on is freedom of association. The government deemed, and the courts agreed, that in many situations the right of people not to be discriminated against on the basis of race was a compelling enough interest to force business owners and landlords and government officials to associate with people they didn’t like. I think the same protections should be extended to gay Americans. But what you and others are talking about is actually pretty radical: extending protections against discrimination to whole new areas. There’s a reason we haven’t gone that far: because the right to not be discriminated against does not outweigh all rights. It only outweighs some. One that we all agree it does not outweigh is personal relationships. But I wonder, is that a principle, or simply that it’s hard to enforce and there’s more low hanging fruit to address, like cabbies not picking up certain people? Which BTW is an ongoing problem that the law can’t really protect anyone from, nor is there any will to take draconian action.
Here’s a juicy contribution to this thread:
http://www.kpho.com/story/28620533/az-senator-church-attendance-should-be-mandatory
Republican state Senator wants to make church attendance mandatory. Bonus: she represents someplace called Snowflake, AZ. WTF?
Well, there’s the parable of Lot and his wife. Perhaps that’s where they get the idea that all contact with Sodomites and “sexual sinners” should be shunned and avoided lest you incur the wrath of Og.
Yes there are (except for clergy). Florists, bakers, planners, and the like, can’t turn away interracial couples due to their race. That’s against the law. They run a business that serves the public (public accommodation per the CR Act of 1964), and they can’t turn away people due to race. Private clubs and clergy are unaffected.
You’ll have to cite this, because I’m unaware that florists and bakers and wedding planners (or “private contractors”, whatever that means) are somehow exempt from the “public accommodation” requirement of the CR Act. The only exemptions called out are private clubs and clergy.
Actually, Jesus encouraged association with sinners. That’s not the problem. Aiding them in sin and committing sin yourself is.
Jesus was a friend to the sinners but he did not join them, or aid them in, their sins.
Which reminds me of another hypothetical. Can matchmakers legally discriminate against the married, on the basis that adultery is wrong?
Your definition of public accomodation is incorrect. A public accommodation is a place. It is not a person.
http://www.eeoc.gov/facts/adaqa2.html
Their places of business, should they have them, are public accommodations. The services they provide outside that building are not. Part of the issue is personal safety and the right to feel safe doing your job. A public accommodation is public, so there’s a certain measure of safety. But when you have a job that requires you to come into people’s neighborhoods and homes, you have the right to refuse service, even if it’s because of their race. We’re never going to get to the point where we force people to do things that scare them. that’s one area where freedom of association outweighs the right to not be discriminated against. Another is religious practice.
This is the only US case I’ve found so far where actual legal action was successfully taken against a business that discriminated against gay weddings, and in this case it looks entirely justified:
The guy didn’t want to do a wedding cake for a gay wedding. This is of course total BS. He’s just selling a cake, the same cake he sells to straight couples. Unless the gay couple wanted two men on the cake, a request he had every right to refuse, he should have sold them a cake.
Now if he was asked to come set up or serve the cake at the wedding, that would be a different matter. I’ve seen a lot of articles reporting that such workers have refused to work at gay weddings and how awful that is, but I’ve seen no evidence that successful legal action was taken, or even plausible.
But if we’re going to start going down that road, then it’s a good idea, IMO, for state legislatures to remind courts that religious infringements require strict scrutiny.
Do you even read your cites? “A public accommodation is a private entity that owns, operates, leases, or leases to, a place of public accommodation.”
The public accommodation is a “private entity” that owns and runs a business.
As your cite showed, the public accommodation is not a place, but a private entity that owns and runs a business.
You’ll have to cite (an accurate cite – please read your cites this time) if you want to argue something else. Florists and bakers can’t refuse to deliver flowers and cakes to black people because they’re black (they can refuse for other reasons – e.g. they’re too far, they don’t serve that area of town, etc.). There’s no exemption in the CR act for private contractors – only for private clubs and clergy.
Then why is this law even necessary? I don’t get it. I agree with you. Wedding planners (I’m thinking her of the hands-on kind) (but not bridal stores as such) have a broad right to refuse customer Y in favor of customer Z, already. SO WHY THIS LAW, THEN?
No, you know what, don’t answer that UNLESS YOU TAKE IT INTO ANOTHER THREAD.
Good grief.
An idiot Hoosier (who is actually a transplant from Pennsylvania) at work turned away from his computer yesterday, and said with a triumphant grin: “Looks like my governor is pushing out the gays!”
Of course that was his first response. Indiana’s law is obviously about discrimination. But that won’t stop the bastards from denying it, when they feel they must, as though they’re fooling anyone.
(he’s an idiot because he’s an idiot, not because he’s a hoosier…)
Asking this of adaher is like asking a stopped clock for the time.
A stopped clock who was an idiot, I should specify, out of respect for clocks.
Great. Another three page hijack by our resident troll. Why do you people continue to let yourselves be baited by this idiot?
I do read cites. Iiandyii is just very creative in his interpretation.
[QUOTE[A public accommodation is a private entity that owns, operates, leases, or leases to, a place of public accommodation.[/QUOTE]
He kinda forgot to read the last part: owns, operates, leases, or leases to, a PLACE."
The examples given in the cite do not cover anything but actual places. Believe it or not, that is not an oversight on the part of the EEOC. However, iiandyii is welcome to write to them and ask them to add wedding planners, plumbers, and Uber drivers as “public accomodations”/