Not a double standard but hypocrisy.
And in that case,
“A restaurant in Virginia has refused service to a Christian group on religious grounds: they don’t like the group’s stance on LGBT+ issues or on abortion.”
the restaurant wins.
I’m skeptical as to the extent to which our dominionist leaning supreme court will recognize such a subtle distinction.
Do you have any cite that shows that the restaurant is arguing that their objection to hosting this group is based on their (restaurant owner’s) religious beliefs? I don’t see this anywhere in the linked article.
I must now assume that I’ve incorrectly parsed that sentence.
Fair, I’m skeptical that they will make any rulings that are not entirely ideologically self serving, but that’s not the point.
It is not that subtle a distinction. If they host other Christian events and parties, then they are not discriminating against the group due to their religion.
If SCOTUS rules the restaurant is in the wrong here, then that means that every KKK and Nazi group can require that businesses accommodate their events.
Nothing in the article says so, but this hasn’t reached the level of legal actions yet either. But, if it comes to legal action, and the owner says that her religion prohibits her from serving hate groups, then now you have religious rights against hate rights. If SCOTUS makes them serve hate groups against their religion, then they undercut their own rulings about basing refusal to serve based on religion.
Not that they would care about hypocrisy, but I’d be interested in reading the scathing dissents.
That sentence was @Superdude’s interpretation of the article. It was not the headline and it did not appear in the article.
Unfortunately, for a lot of these people, the only way they’ll ever figure out that it’s wrong is if they end up on the receiving end of the abuse. I’d be much happier if they came to that conclusion on their own via contemplation and thought, but if they win in the Supreme Court, and this kind of religious bigotry becomes the law of the land, then, well, I’m a law-abiding citizen, and will deny them as much service as I possibly can.
It’s both. I suspect that the restaurant may have refused service to a Christian group as a means of highlighting Christian businesses which have refused service to LGBTQIA+ customers. Anyone who supports discrimination by Christian business, and opposes discrimination against Christian customers is guilty of a double standard.
The reverse is also true. Someone who says that businesses should be compelled to serve LGBTQIA+ customers, but can refuse Christian customers is also advocating a double standard. They may be doing it to highlight conservative hypocrisy, but it’s a double standard nonetheless.
The conservatives are hypocrites for accusing the restaurant of a double standard while not recognizing their own.
Agreed. To properly indicate my feelings on this I should have put the word “subtle” in scare quotes.
But is the restaurant owner even religious? All it says in the article is that he was worried about his staff feeling uncomfortable and unsafe.
Except I’m not turning them away because of their religious beliefs, I’m turning them away because of my religious beliefs.
I mean, it’s right there in the Bible:
“And the King will say, ‘I tell you the truth, when you did it to one of the least of these my brothers and sisters,f you were doing it to me!’
41“Then the King will turn to those on the left and say, ‘Away with you, you cursed ones, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his demons. 42For I was hungry, and you didn’t feed me. I was thirsty, and you didn’t give me a drink. 43I was a stranger, and you didn’t invite me into your home. I was naked, and you didn’t give me clothing. I was sick and in prison, and you didn’t visit me.’
44“Then they will reply, ‘Lord, when did we ever see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or naked or sick or in prison, and not help you?’
45“And he will answer, ‘I tell you the truth, when you refused to help the least of these my brothers and sisters, you were refusing to help me.’
46“And they will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous will go into eternal life.”
If you’ve turned someone away, I’m commanded to turn you away. Sorry, guys, it’s Jesus you’re arguing with now.
What does it mean to be “religious”? The US government has spent a long time shying away from defining that. If you say it’s a religious belief, then it pretty much is one, under the law. “I have a religious belief that I must protect the feelings of my employees, as a shepherd tends his flock.” Bam, protected expression of religion.
The Right is quite expert at that.
That’s not automatically true. It’s not hypocritical to think that some groups should be protected from discrimination, and some groups should not. If someone thinks sexuality should be a protected class, but religion should not, they’re not exhibiting a double standard. Maybe a bad standard, almost certainly an illegal standard, but it’s not a double standard.
C’mon, you’re just putting up a front there. You’re doing the right thing because you have morals and want to be kind to the people who work for you. That isn’t protected.
What’s protected is doing mean things to others because someone cherry picked two sentences out of a 750,000 word text written centuries ago and threatened you with eternal damnation if you didn’t follow those rules.
I disagree. If I think that businesses should be compelled both to serve LGBTQIA+ and Christian customers, but the law says otherwise, then it is not a double standard to follow the law as written, even if I disagree with it.
I’d also point out, again, because this is important and it seems people keep sliding over it, that they were not refused service because they are Christian, they were refused service because of their political activism.
I don’t know, you don’t know, and the courts don’t know. I’m just saying that if the owner chose to make that claim, then it would be, IMHO, a valid claim.
Ah, but the religious right has taught us, it doesn’t matter what I believe, it matters what I claim to believe.
That’s a rather fine distinction to draw, and it also cuts both ways. If someone thinks that religion (or political actions under the cloak of religion) should be protected, and sexuality should not, then they’re not guilty of a double standard, or hypocrisy, either.
I don’t think it’s particularly fine, but it does cut both ways. Someone who argued that the wedding cake guy should be able to deny service to whoever he wants, but complains about this group getting kicked out of a cafe, is guilty of a double standard. But someone who thinks religion should be a protected class, and sexuality should not, is absolutely not arguing for a double standard.
It’s possible to distinguish based on content. There are Quakers, who believe in recognizing and loving the light within one another. And there’s the World Church of the Creator, a religion that advocates a racial holy war to exterminate all the non-white people. If someone discriminates against the later but not the former, I’m not going to be fussed about their bigotry.
Also, some Christian groups meet in restaurants to further (directly or indirectly) their work finding housing for homeless folks. Other Christian groups meet in restaurants to further their work denying access to reproductive services. You can discriminate against the latter and not the former without a double standard.
The question to ask is, would the restaurant workers have been hunky-dory with an atheist group who was carrying on work similar to the Christian group? If so, then they were discriminating based on religion. But if they would think the atheists were the same level of asshole, then their decision was based on actions, not on religion.
Republicans voted against a bill to help victims of child sex abuse .