Someone else noticed. Or else we are both missing some important subtext. But like I said it did use the workplace nondiscrimination rule as an example of a differential treatment.
Actually there is a debate here – where is the line drawn as to what activities should come under the aegis of “religious freedom”. But it looks like most of us are satisfied to have it apply inside the house of worship and to sacramental rites, and to the private lives of the congregants, and if so see no need to erase the line altogether.
Meanwhile it is true that some religious leaders want it drawn wide and use a “religion card” to not have to abide by the law (abiding by social convention is up to the individual anyway) and other posters have decided to take the opportunity to once again debate that.
I’m not sure if anyone has mentioned this (I didn’t read every post) but SCOTUS came very close to explicitly ruling on an analogous case in 1968. The ruling was made explicitly by a U.S. District Court and the case did make it to the Supreme Court but SCOTUS accepted the merits of the previous rulings and only actually made their own ruling on a technicality, the extent of attorney fees which would be awarded to the plaintiffs who were discriminated against. However, in a footnote of the SCOTUS decision, the defendant’s religious objections to serving black people were deemed “patently frivolous”. From Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. (1966 district court ruling):
While the district court rejected the defendant’s religious claims as nonsensical and barred by precedent, the court actually ruled that only the defendant’s “sit-down” restaurants were covered by the Civil Rights Act and that the defendant’s other set of restaurants, which were “drive-in” style, were not covered by the act.
The case then went to the federal appeals court. In a unanimous decision, this court sustained the district judge’s opinion except for reversing the the point about “drive-in” restaurants by deciding they were covered by the Civil Rights Act. The appellate court remanded the case back to the district judge to decide the attorney fees but there was a dispute between the appellate judges about what factors the district judge should consider in deciding how much to award in fees. The governing opinion states a distinction should be made between defenses made “for purposes of delay and not in good faith” and those which the defendant “honestly believes-- however lacking in merit that position may be.” A Judge Winter, joined by one other judge on the panel, wrote a concurring opinion with further thoughts on this point:
[emphasis mine]
SCOTUS accepted the case only to rule on the issue of the attorney fees. They ruled that no consideration should be made for whether the defendants acted in good faith or honestly believed their defenses and that, in all cases under Title II of the Civil Rights Act, attorney fees are to be awarded to successful plaintiffs. However, in a foot note, the court also noted that the defendants asserted “defenses so patently frivolous” and specifically **
[quoted Judge Winter’s characterization of the religious arguments]
(Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. :: 390 U.S. 400 (1968) :: Justia US Supreme Court Center)** as being frivolous.
An example of intolerant customers objecting to inclusive businesses, to show there are those who want “the line to be drawn” around them anywhere they go even in businesses not their own.
But by now ISTM the People Have Spoken about what they want the thread to be about, Omar.
As I understand it, they don’t have to shut down the business - they only have to stop baking wedding cakes of any sort. If they aren’t making cakes for any weddings, then they aren’t discriminating against gays by not baking gay-wedding cakes.
No, I certainly would not want to dump it but religious groups should be compelled to pay the same rate on property taxes that the rest of us do.
I really don’t know the size of the aggregate property taxes they would owe but I can guess it would be a very large chunk of total property taxes collected.
It was an example of someone who has the courage to discriminate against bigotry itself. Hooray for him. “No bigots need apply.”
Not all discrimination is bad. If a customer comes in to a fast-food restaurant, and happens to be engulfed in flames, the management has the right to ask him to go back outside. We are not obliged to be tolerant of people on fire.
Religious ones are required to pay property tax on investment property. They are only exempt on property used in the fulfillment of their chartered purpose.
I think property taxes are determined at least by state and maybe even county by county. In which case you have to get rule changes through at least 50 and possibly thousands of little fiefdoms.
It’s been a long time since I was married and I honestly forget but I think we were encouraged to make a donation to the church and there was a “suggested” donation (e.g. you can give more but not less). While I am sure in some fashion this was technically optional I am pretty sure it was not optional at all. Maybe the fee part covers the cost of cleaning, electricity and the organist and those things just happen to be expensive. I am not sure how they claim it is not an outright charge for services but they seem to be able to keep up the pretense of a donation. I think it is fair to pay the church for the use of their premises but not sure how that doesn’t make them a business.
For instance, back in the mists of time I was downtown Chicago with friends. As high schoolers we did not have much money. Bored we decided to go to the Art Institute which asked for a donation of $5 (or whatever it was at the time). We did not have enough to cover the cost so declined the donation (it said “donation” right at the turnstyle). The person guarding the turnstyle said it was not optional. I told her it was a donation, not an entrance fee. She disagreed and we did not get in. (These days they just outright charge money and make no pretense about donations.)
I think they call it a “donation” in part because it sounds better, but also in part because it allows them some flexibility for people who cannot afford the “suggested donation” but whom the church doesn’t wish to turn away. But the “how that doesn’t make them a business” is probably a little more complicated. Do they rent the church/auditorium/parish hall to basically anyone who asks and generally only refuse based on availability? Can the people getting married bring in the officiant of their choice? Seems no different than catering hall with a chapel and it is unquestionably a business. Is use of the church/auditorium/parish hall restricted to those who are members of the congregation (or at least the denomination) who want to have a ceremony recognized by the denomination , performed by an officiant authorized by that denomination and who are willing to complete the congregation’s pre-marriage preparation? Definitely not a business. There are a whole lot of cases in the middle that probably need to be determined on a case by case basis - is a Lutheran congregation that allows its pastor to perform a wedding for a Roman Catholic couple who can’t marry in the RC church a business or a simply a church performing a religious ceremony for two baptized Christians of a different denomination? What about a Unitarian congregation that allows its minister to perform an interfaith wedding where neither partner is a member of the congregation?
The only thing new about that is that it involves a same sex marriage- teachers and guidance counselors have lost jobs at Catholic schools for living with someone outside of marriage, for being divorced and remarried without an annulment , for undergoing certain fertility treatments and for being unwed parents for as long as I can remember. Does everyone in these situations get fired? Of course not. But most of them keep it quiet * because they know they could be fired and most don’t have a sister-in-law looking to cause trouble.
if it’s possible. It’s difficult for an unmarried woman to keep her pregnancy a secret , but it’s not so hard for a married teacher not to tell anyone she got pregnant through artificial insemination or IVF.
I think the best way to deal with this issue is to refuse public contracts to religious organisations (including schools) that practise discrimination and to refuse to provide such organisaitons with public sector grants. That way the state does not interfere with religious views but neither does it pay people to discriminate against others.
Not sure what this has to do with this thread.