I provided a cite. You just didn’t like the interpretation, because you’re weird that way. So I’ll counter your cite demand with one of my own. Given how common homophobia is, why don’t you show me an independent contractor who has been successfully sued or fined? I already provided an example of a baker, but he was operating an establishment, rather than being directly employed by the gay couple in question.
You’ll find plenty of articles about wedding planners and florists who refused to work for gay couples. What you won’t find is legal consequences for those actions. Yet.
It does trample on freedom of association, but the courts have ruled that the government’s compelling interest in preventing discrimination in the LIMITED cases covered by the CRA allows the infringement.
I doubt you’ll find courts willing to rule that you can force a person to provide you with personal services, for any reason. If we establish that a person can refuse to do something because fucking freedom, then their reasons don’t matter. We can’t then turn around and force them because they said it was because they don’t like black people. The fact that we hate racism is not a license to do anything to fight it, any more than the fact that we hate terrorism is not a license to do anything, infringe any freedom, to stamp it out.
And besides, if your side had any confidence in the rightness of your cause, it wouldn’t be necessary to lie so blatantly about laws like the one Indiana passed. All they are is applying the very popular and sensible RFRA to the states, since the RFRA only covers the federal government.
Bullshit – your cite didn’t say what you said it did. You repeatedly misstated it – do you understand now that “public accommodation” refers to a private entity (the business owner)?
Why would I? You’re the one arguing that liberals are somehow infringing on religious rights… and what the hell is an “independent contractor” in this context? You keep referring to that as if it’s a legal or defined term, but it shows up nowhere in the CR Act.
So, basically your worries about “trampling on religious freedoms” (which are unwarranted, since no one’s religious freedoms are any more threatened than they were under the CR Act of 1964) haven’t happened. Then what are you worried about?
A person is not an accomodation. Prove that it is. Cite, please.
Local laws that force people to work for people they don’t want to work for. Under the RFRA, the courts are to weigh such laws using the strict scrutiny standard. But they don’t for the states, because the RFRA doesn’t apply to the states. This is just handling a problem in a smart way before it becomes a big problem. THe liberal howling about the issue kinda portends that they intend to claim some scalps before this is all over. Let’s make sure the scalps they claim are justified, like the Denver bakery owner.
Anyone who says that Indiana’s law allows discrimination by anyone just by claiming a religious objection is either monumentally stupid or intentionally deceptive. You can choose.
Because religious freedom involves practicing, otherwise there’s no religious freedom. Again, with liberals trying to define the 1st amendment as narrowly as possible. Why do you think some groups are exempt from having to get health insurance under ACA for religious reasons? Why can’t the government just force the Amish to get health insurance? Are they just being nice to the Amish?
Your own cite. Here it is again. “Public accommodation” is legally defined as a “private entity”.
No doubt many liberals (and conservatives) are playing politics with this to try and gain an advantage. That happens with every issue. But on this issue, the liberals are right – there really is no legitimate governmental motivation, or religious motivation, for that matter, to deny service in a business/exchange-of-goods-or-services context to gay couples – any more than there is any legitimate religious motivation to deny service to interracial couples. No one’s rights are affected – Christian wedding planners can still do Christian weddings only, if that’s what they want. But they have to do those Christian weddings for any couple who wants one, regardless of gender, orientation, and race.
So you’re admitting that you were incorrect, then. That’s a good first step. The CR Act defines “public accommodations” as “private entities” that own places of business, and provides several examples.
Right, I think they should have to (not that many gay couples will insist on Christian weddings). I’ve included the “should” qualifier in past posts, but forgot in this one.
…place open to the public. The venue owner is the “public accommodation”, according to the CR Act.
If those services are charged for and paid, and if the service provider has a business license, and if the provider has a place of business (if only a billing address) then, no, they cannot discriminate on the basis of race, religion, etc.
The religious rights restoration shit is an attempt by bigots to legitimize discrimination. It can’t possibly survive constitutional review. We’ll see it struck down, and rightly so.
Not all wedding planners own places of business. Like me, who provides computer repair services to people on the side, I go to their place to do the job. I am not a “public accommodation”. However, only their place of business is a publc accommodation. A wedding planner cannot be forced to go to a place you dictate to provide services you demand. However, I will concede that perhaps if the wedding planner works only from her office that maybe she can be compelled to provide the service. ALthough that would be kinda difficult, planning a wedding without ever leaving the office.
No problem, but there does seem to be an inconsistency here. You claimed that wedding planners are already covered by the CRA.
All right, but do you concede that there must be a place involved for the public accommodation law to be applicable? A person going to your place is not himself a public accommodation.
Can a Jewish event planner refuse a Holocaust denial conference?
The national RFRA is quite legal and the courts have been faithfully using it to interpret laws infringing religious freedom for quite some time. Why would the courts strike down a state version?
I don’t see the CR act parsing it this way. If a baker delivers cakes, the can refuse to deliver to far away parts of town, but they can’t refuse to deliver to a couple because they’re gay.
They are, with regards to race and religion. I want gays to be protected too.
I’m not sure, but I don’t think a pizza place can legally refuse to deliver to black people.
Oh yeah, duh. I agree with that as well. Sexual preference should be added to the CRA.
Actually, taxi drivers and delivery drivers of any sort can claim safety fears. The law gives people having to go places tremendous latitude in determining what they believe to be safe and unsafe, even if this has a hugely disproportionate effect on African-Americans. There does seem to be an “I’m scared shitless” exception to the CRA. Which is why black people complain about not being able to hail a cab, but no one actually does anything about it.