Conscience protections for those opposed to gay marriage?

[D0UBTFIRE]

But, given the argument, many businesses refuse service to men with no shirt or shoes, but that’s ok? What about fancy restaurants who refuse to accommodate men without a tie? What about malls that play classical music to discourage loitering teens? Finally, there are still clubs out there like country clubs that refuse membership to certain people. Isn’t this also discrimination? I believe that there’s still a lot of anti Semitism in this country too, and certain neighborhoods don’t want Jewish people to buy homes or blacks for that matter, but there’s very few if any discrimination lawsuits. Any business, whether you agree with them or not has the right to refuse service. In fact some retail stores forbid you to wear backpacks or carry bags into a store unless they’re checked in. So, if I don’t agree with any of this, I have the right to take my business elsewhere. I don’t see how a business can refuse a gay customer a meal etc. that would be bad for business. Furthermore, how could you even tell an individual is gay? It would certainly be bad for business. But if a business owner doesn’t agree with an event, now it could even be a happy divorce part, they have the right to refuse, and cheerfully refer them to another business that will accommodate them.

Just thinking out loud…

Saying you can’t come in because you don’t have a shirt on is very different than saying you can’t come in because you are black

They are both discrimination but one is immoral.

Your solution to my dilemma seems to be a libertarian one … It involves lots of personal freedom on behalf of the business owner.

But that kind of freedom would have us still living in a time where blacks were openly discriminated against. The laws to diminish such discrimination and segregation were good and just laws for the common good.

So no, I don’t think it’s good to just let every business make up their rules about this.

I also don’t think people should have to violate their conscience or risk loosing their livelihood… But the two ideals seem to conflict.

 

[Arandur]

Just thinking out loud…

Saying you can’t come in because you don’t have a shirt on is very different than saying you can’t come in because you are black

They are both discrimination but one is immoral.

Your solution to my dilemma seems to be a libertarian one … It involves lots of personal freedom on behalf of the business owner.

But that kind of freedom would have us still living in a time where blacks were openly discriminated against. The laws to diminish such discrimination and segregation were good and just laws for the common good.

So no, I don’t think it’s good to just let every business make up their rules about this.

I also don’t think people should have to violate their conscience or risk loosing their livelihood… But the two ideals seem to conflict.

There is always tension among rights. The ways to resolve rights involve considerations of the hierarchy of rights (for instance, the Right to Life should trump everything – but it doesn’t in our abortion-minded country, of course), comparative harm done vs. potential alternatives/recourses available, compelling public interest, ways to remedy the situation, etc.

More examples:
Discriminating based on choices/acts (things you DO) is far less imposing than on things you ARE/can’t change. Thus, refusing service because of skin color is more of an imposition on rights than upon what you choose to wear (drag queen attire, dress codes, etc). Group membership or event holding is a bit different because group membership is voluntary (there is a choice, an ACT, not a matter of being) and events are also ACTivities – you choose freely to put them on, attend them, serve them, associate with them.

Therefore on that basis, it should be entirely permissible to refuse to attend a wedding or party you don’t wish to (for whatever reason), or to serve/provide services for one.

The existence of alternatives and the comparative harm can lessen these as well. Can someone find a different baker? Yes? Non meaningful harm done, period. No bakers available at all? Do they HAVE to hire a baker to do this? No? Still no harm done. That’s a CHOICE, not a matter of BEING.

Denying service to someone based on race or because they are an active gay is different than agreeing to serve a particular event (particularly one like marriage that in itself includes public witness and endorsement). However, it must also be admitted that race is different because it is not something acted upon, but a state of being. Having same sex attraction may affect you, it does not define your being (this is one of the demeaning lies told to people these days). Also, acting on sexual desires or engaging in activism for a cause is just that: ACTing, not BEing.

Was intending to give more examples, but those are pretty on point, I think, to illustrate the interplay of rights and where discrimination can be acceptable.

Oh, and BTW, there is no “right” to not be offended. So even if someone is particularly offensive about how they discriminate (or maybe they don’t refuse service but are just offensive about it), that doesn’t really impact the rights/discrimination issue.

 

[Horton]

In 1964 the Civil Rights Act named six protected classes. Race, Color, National Origin, Age, Sex, Disability. Other than those six no class of people are protected by current Federal law.

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

Denying service to someone based on race or because they are an active gay is different than agreeing to serve a particular event (particularly one like marriage that in itself includes public witness and endorsement). **However, it must also be admitted that race is different because it is not something acted upon, but a state of being. **Having same sex attraction may affect you, it does not define your being (this is one of the demeaning lies told to people these days). Also, acting on sexual desires or engaging in activism for a cause is just that: ACTing, not BEing

.

Yeah, I’m not talking about denying service like at a restaurant… I’m talking about when a white woman chooses to marry a black man. That is an ACT just like a man choosing to marry a man is an act.

They are both acts that some Christians are opposed to for religious reasons. Obviously a great many more are opposed to gay marriage than interracial marriage at this moment in history.

My question is for those that disagree with gay marriage and would like the legal protection to not have to provide any service related to gay weddings… Should we afford the same liberty to those few who disagree with the act of interracial marriage and allow them the same legal protection?

Do both groups deserve the same conscience protections? If not, why not? If yes, isn’t that an injustice to the interracial couple?

 

[SwizzleStick]

Yeah, I’m not talking about denying service like at a restaurant… I’m talking about when a white woman chooses to marry a black man. That is an ACT just like a man choosing to marry a man is an act.

They are both acts that some Christians are opposed to for religious reasons. Obviously a great many more are opposed to gay marriage than interracial marriage at this moment in history.

My question is for those that disagree with gay marriage and would like the legal protection to not have to provide any service related to gay weddings… Should we afford the same liberty to those few who disagree with the act of interracial marriage and allow them the same legal protection?

Do both groups deserve the same conscience protections? If not, why not? If yes, isn’t that an injustice to the interracial couple?

Apples and oranges. An interracial couple can marry. A same sex couple cannot.

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

Apples and oranges. An interracial couple can marry. A same sex couple cannot.

So are you denying that there are any Christians that believe that interracial marriage is a sin???

It might be apples to oranges in your opinion but people have different religious beliefs and this seems very relevant to the discussion on conscience protections.

 

[Horton]

Yeah, I’m not talking about denying service like at a restaurant… I’m talking about when a white woman chooses to marry a black man. That is an ACT just like a man choosing to marry a man is an act.

They are both acts that some Christians are opposed to for religious reasons. Obviously a great many more are opposed to gay marriage than interracial marriage at this moment in history.

My question is for those that disagree with gay marriage and would like the legal protection to not have to provide any service related to gay weddings… Should we afford the same liberty to those few who disagree with the act of interracial marriage and allow them the same legal protection?

Do both groups deserve the same conscience protections? If not, why not? If yes, isn’t that an injustice to the interracial couple?

Most companies have the right to refuse service for whatever reason except those who are protected by the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That means a bakery may not refuse to make a wedding cake for an interracial couple simply because they are interracial. The bakery may say they are too busy, or make up any number of excuses to not make the cake but it can not be because of race. (Not saying it’s right, just that it is)

With a gay couple a bakery may say they choose not to make a cake for a gay wedding because gay unions are a conflict with deeply held religious beliefs. It may not be wise to say such a thing but it’s not against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Again race is a protected class, sexual orientation is not.

 

[Horton]

Maybe a little more clarification on the Christian opposition to SSM. It is not about fear or hatred of gay people, it’s about the idea that two people of the same sex cannot make a marriage due very specific anatomy. A marriage between two same sex people are not physically capable of procreation together without the assistance of the medical field.

Interracial couple ARE capable of procreation between the two of them. Yes, many years ago there were those who either feared or hated the idea of an interracial marriage, and there may still be some today but that has changed significantly in the last 50 years or so.

So your comparison is apples to oranges.

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

Most companies have the right to refuse service for whatever reason except those who are protected by the 1964 Civil Rights Act. That means a bakery may not refuse to make a wedding cake for an interracial couple simply because they are interracial. The bakery may say they are too busy, or make up any number of excuses to not make the cake but it can not be because of race. (Not saying it’s right, just that it is)

With a gay couple a bakery may say they choose not to make a cake for a gay wedding because gay unions are a conflict with deeply held religious beliefs. It may not be wise to say such a thing but it’s not against the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Again race is a protected class, sexual orientation is not.

Okay, good. Thank you for clearly explaining that.

But what happens if/when sexual orientation becomes a protected class? Can conscience protections be used even against protected groups? I hope the way I phrased that question makes sense…

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

Maybe a little more clarification on the Christian opposition to SSM. It is not about fear or hatred of gay people, it’s about the idea that two people of the same sex cannot make a marriage due very specific anatomy. A marriage between two same sex people are not physically capable of procreation together without the assistance of the medical field.

Interracial couple ARE capable of procreation between the two of them. Yes, many years ago there were those who either feared or hated the idea of an interracial marriage, and there may still be some today but that has changed significantly in the last 50 years or so.

So your comparison is apples to oranges.

Yes it has changed significantly but it does still exist. Should those groups have a right to legal conscience protections? What say you?

 

[Horton]

Yes it has changed significantly but it does still exist. Should those groups have a right to legal conscience protections? What say you?

I’ve answered this twice before. The 1964 Civil Rights Act states the six protected classes may not be discriminated against. It is a violation of the law. So my answer obviously is no, they may not.

I personally cannot envision a day when sexual orientation is a protected right because everyone in the US (and world) has a sexual orientation. How would that law look?

 

[john_ennis]

Doubtfire, it seems you are merely recognizing a fact–a messy truth–about the tension we have between our liberties and the common good.

There will always be religious views, sincerely held but unacceptable when put into active practice in society (e.g., polygamy, racial discrimination…). The wrongness of them trumps the right to practice this religion unfettered. I’m talking about the ones that you and I and any reasonable person would agree were always wrong and should never have been permitted.

The problem, of course, is that what kinds of religious practices are considered wrong and unacceptable by the culture is subjective and constantly changing. So of course not everything it says is unacceptable truly ought to be.

Which presents the dilemma you have repeatedly brought up: does the fact that certain really unacceptable social behaviors are claimed to be legitimate religious practices, mean that NO special consideration should be given on religious grounds, if the practice would otherwise be unacceptable?

No. Even though it’s a subjective decision, we constantly have to attempt to determine which practices to honor–in which cases would a denial amount to a greater injustice than the practice itself is causing. I’m sure right now that courts COULD make a distinction about how refusing to participate in a same-sex union is more legitimate and tolerable than refusing to recognize interracial marriage.

 

[Julianna]

Okay, good. Thank you for clearly explaining that.

But what happens if/when sexual orientation becomes a protected class? Can conscience protections be used even against protected groups? I hope the way I phrased that question makes sense…

It is a protected class with regard to hiring with the federal government and against harassment.

 

[john_ennis]

I’m thinking that it becomes more clear when you imagine some other situation in which a person’s principles cause her to recoil, to refuse to participate, to discriminate.

It need not be about religion or marriage. Here’s a scenario–absurd, but what the heck; you make personalized greeting cards, and a mom wants you to make a card for her toddler, congratulating him on “surviving” his first spanking; he learned his lesson, it wasn’t such a terrible experience, he is better off because of it.

You are convinced that spanking is harmful to children. Parents have a right to it, but you do not want to have anything to do with this.

Clearly you ought to be able to follow your conscience, and discriminate, yes? And isn’t it possible that even though there are people who would “follow their conscience” in order to inflict really unacceptable discrimination on people, that doesn’t mean you couldn’t be judged as being reasonable in your case?

 

[pnewton]

A couple of thoughts before I ask my questions:

It seems to me the sin is the sex. So technically two gay men getting a civil marriage aren’t sinning at the moment of being wed.

Also, it’s possible that they are getting married to benefit from the privilege that comes from it but might in fact be celibate. We can’t really know for certain unless we ask.

Nonetheless, some conservative Christians feel they shouldn’t have to participate in any way with these ceremonies, such as making the wedding cake or being the photographer. They would like to have legal protections so they don’t get sued for discrimination.

**Should they be given that kind of protection by the law? Should they be legally allowed to discriminate against gay couples when it comes to wedding services?

If so, considering this is because they have deeply held religious beliefs, should those with religious beliefs that interracial marriage is sinful also be allowed to discriminate against interracial couples for wedding services?**

Once you answer those, I’m also curious whether you think Christians that believe divorce and remarriage is a sin should be allowed to discriminate against couples who are entering a second marriage? What about couples that happen to mention they don’t want to have any children?

I think you bring up a lot of good points. I would point out that getting one of these neomarriages while being celibate is not the sin of homosexuality, it still misses the point that it is not marriage and never will be. If I “marry” my sofa and stay celibate, it is not sexual sin, but it is also not marriage.

As to others that participate in a non-marriage “marriage”, I totally agree. I have always thought no fault divorce was the first and worst blow against the family.

 

[john_ennis]

It is a protected class with regard to hiring with the federal government and against harassment.

But when sexual orientation is classified the way race is, with the same protections against discrimination, then the answer to Doubtfire’s question, “Can” conscience protection still be given? is a big fat no.

To his original question, “Should” it be, the answer is yes.

 

[SwizzleStick]

So are you denying that there are any Christians that believe that interracial marriage is a sin???..

I don’t know anything about that topic, but this thread is about homosexual “marriage.” A man and woman of any race can consummate, and thus have, a real marriage. That is not so for two people of the same sex.

 

[Horton]

But when sexual orientation is classified the way race is, with the same protections against discrimination, then the answer to Doubtfire’s question, “Can” conscience protection still be given? is a big fat no.

To his original question, “Should” it be, the answer is yes.

How can sexual orientation be a protected class when every single human has one from birth to death? My sexual orientation is heterosexual female so if orientation is a protected class, who am I being protected from? It’s kind of like saying humans are a protected class. If only certain sexual orientations are protected then what becomes of those of us who are not part of that protected class.

Can a homosexual property owner refuse to rent to a heterosexual person? Can a bi-sexual baker refuse to bake a wedding cake for a man/woman marriage? Can a transgendered florist refuse to do flower arrangements for a man/woman marriage?

I think so much of this boils down to dignity & respect. I put in some volunteer hours at a social service agency in my community. We serve anyone who walks in the door, no questions asked. We have people of all races, colors, ages, marital situation, most likely some have SSA. We serve all who walk in the door to the best of our ability to help them with the resources we have.

I will never agree with the idea of gay marriage. Not from fear, hate, or bigotry. My faith teaches me marriage is between a man & woman. I don’t hate or fear gay people, I just disagree with the marriage issue.

 

[D0UBTFIRE]

How can sexual orientation be a protected class when every single human has one from birth to death? My sexual orientation is heterosexual female so if orientation is a protected class, who am I being protected from? It’s kind of like saying humans are a protected class. If only certain sexual orientations are protected then what becomes of those of us who are not part of that protected class.

Can a homosexual property owner refuse to rent to a heterosexual person? Can a bi-sexual baker refuse to bake a wedding cake for a man/woman marriage? Can a transgendered florist refuse to do flower arrangements for a man/woman marriage?

I think so much of this boils down to dignity & respect. I put in some volunteer hours at a social service agency in my community. We serve anyone who walks in the door, no questions asked. We have people of all races, colors, ages, marital situation, most likely some have SSA. We serve all who walk in the door to the best of our ability to help them with the resources we have.

I will never agree with the idea of gay marriage. Not from fear, hate, or bigotry. My faith teaches me marriage is between a man & woman. I don’t hate or fear gay people, I just disagree with the marriage issue.

There could be a law that says that people could not discriminate based on sexual orientation.

 

[Horton]

There could be a law that says that people could not discriminate based on sexual orientation.

That would be like a law people could not discriminate based on people breathing. Which orientation is protected? Only homosexual men? Only lesbian woman? Only heterosexual men? Who is protected from whom?