Refusing Service on Religious Grounds

[PetrusRomanus]

…adding that, if you had any brains, you would not state a specifically religious reason for refusing certain kinds or conditions of service, merely that you don’t allow containers of alcohol, etc., that your availability to bake a wedding cake is limited due to demand, and may not be satisfied regardless of the amount of notice. Also, you keep confidences, not making available names of current customers with wedding timelines, etc., so as not to provide ammunition for litigious couples to sue you for specific discrimination laws.

You can also segment your services, limiting them entirely at your discretion. A previous ob-gyn of mine limited his practice only to high-risk pregnancies, another to the opposite (no high risk, for reasons of litigation), another eventualy refused obstetrical cases except extremely rare examples (usually if he knew the mother personaly) and limited his practice to gynecology, even though he was still called an Ob-Gyn.

This makes perfect sense if you want to avoid confrontation but if we have laws that protect religious liberty, then perhaps the owner was trying to exercise his rights openly and prove a point?

 

[Elizabeth502]

This makes perfect sense if you want to avoid confrontation but if we have laws that protect religious liberty, then perhaps the owner was trying to exercise his rights openly and prove a point?

Sure. I have no problem with that.

I think others may have been assuming, though, that merely serving the public requires the service provider to suspend choice in whom he or she serves, and that’s what my post addressed (instead). What would be much more problematic, IOW, is to state as a policy, publicly, that one will not serve a particular class of people (race, religion, orientation, age, etc.) as an absolute. Thus, as a store owner you can specify that only 2 unaccompanied minors (usually students) are allowed into your store at any one time, but you would have a problem if you had a public policy of refusing to allow minors in the store at all (and it were not a liquor store, tobacco store, or other Adult Products store).

 

[kelvinf]

That’s likely because the legal systems in the U.S. and Germany are not the same.

It doesn’t matter what people think, it matters what the legal precedence in the matter is. Different rules apply to different situations, such as private individuals to private individuals, religious or private organizations not dealing with the public, religious or private organization dealing with the public, whether the organizations receives public funding, etc. There can also be issues if a person in a private/religious organization holds a public license. All of these details play into the level of discrimination permitted.

Private and religious entities, and public entities, are handled entirely differently under the law. If you really are interested, it’s best to do some major reading on the subject, since you’ll have to start from the ground up because of the difference in the legal systems.

Well, your basic law guarantees religious liberties and freedom of conscience. What I am saying here is not different from what the majority of US folks on this forum have been saying.

Whatever the law is, Catholics cannot follow laws that are in conflict with our religious believes.

 

[kelvinf]

The Church also does not teach that it is sinful for anyone to be single, regardless of sexual orientation. So the single-parent argument is moot.

You were the one who brought up single parents–comparing 2 gays to a widow; an argument I didn’t not understand.

 

[kelvinf]

Then you likely would not provide fertility services at all, as many of those go against Church teaching. So again, moot point.

I wasn’t even talking about ‘fertility services’ per se. What I had in mind was a very simple example. If a man and a woman haven’t been able to conceive a child and they go to a Catholic doctor, the doctor would entertain them. If 2 lesbians go to the same doctor to discuss pregnancy issues, the doctor might not entertain them because children shouldn’t be raised in a homosexual household. So there is no consultation to provide to 2 lesbians on this issue.

 

[kelvinf]

The answer is simple, if the “Catholic” business owner deals with the “public”, employees and or customers, follows “business license laws”, “minimum wage laws”, “does quarterly taxes” and most important, if that “business owner” received a grant, subsidy, loan from the FED GOV…said business owner cannot discriminate, period.

Business owners discriminate all the time.

 

[PetrusRomanus]

To be a bit controversial, I would exercise my religion and morals openly even if it were against the law. And as Catholics, I feel we are called to be Catholic first and whatever else second.

 

[PJM]

=Daizies;10638730]There have been several threads lately about Christian business owners refusing service to same sex couples based on their religious convictions. There seems to be a lot of support for this concept.

This led me to think of something I had read about in the news, about Muslim cab drivers refusing to take passengers who carry alcohol with them on the grounds that they will be punished in the afterlife for transporting alcohol. (This is from 2006/7, but I think is a good comparison. Links here, here, and here)

My question is, if you support the right of Christians to refuse service to same sex couples on the basis of religious objections, would you also support the right of Muslim taxi drivers to refuse to take passengers who are transporting alcohol on the basis of religious objections? If not, why?

YES I would!

It is their religious belief; why not:shrug:

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Business owners discriminate all the time.

Business owners also get sued all the time for discrimination. A discrimination lawsuit could cost you a few million dollars.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Well, your basic law guarantees religious liberties and freedom of conscience. What I am saying here is not different from what the majority of US folks on this forum have been saying.

Whatever the law is, Catholics cannot follow laws that are in conflict with our religious believes.

You have no been reading my posts correctly. I have never said that the doctor should give advice in conflict with the doctor’s religion. I have effectively said the the doctor should give the same ethical advice to anyone walking in the door, regardless of who they are. Once you start giving different advice to people because they have certain characteristics, that is blatant discrimination, can cost you a few million dollars, result in your license being pulled, and put you out of business.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Business owners also get sued all the time for discrimination.

Not nearly as often as not getting sued.
And even less often losing such lawsuits.

If you are operating as a private business person, you have considerable freedom in (a) what services you provide (b) to whom you provide those (c) the conditions of proviidng them (d) how much you need to publicize any of that, and conversely the advantages in being clear about the limits of your services.

If you are operating as a public agency, or if your company is “parented” by a larger company with very specific policies, then you have much less freedom & less discretion.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Not nearly as often as not getting sued.
And even less often losing such lawsuits.

If you are operating as a private business person, you have considerable freedom in (a) what services you provide (b) to whom you provide those (c) the conditions of proviidng them (d) how much you need to publicize any of that, and conversely the advantages in being clear about the limits of your services.

If you are operating as a public agency, or if your company is “parented” by a larger company with very specific policies, then you have much less freedom & less discretion.

Remember that a doctor holds a state license. People holding state licenses are governed and must abide by state license law, and have considerably less freedom than a non-licensed private individual. If you hold a state license and provide those services differently to people based on certain characteristics, you are going to run into some major problems.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

I wasn’t even talking about ‘fertility services’ per se. What I had in mind was a very simple example. If a man and a woman haven’t been able to conceive a child and they go to a Catholic doctor, the doctor would entertain them. If 2 lesbians go to the same doctor to discuss pregnancy issues, the doctor might not entertain them because children shouldn’t be raised in a homosexual household. So there is no consultation to provide to 2 lesbians on this issue.

I just don’t see this being a real scenario. The only way that a lesbian couple could do anything pregnancy related would be with fertility services so they would go to a doctor that works in that area to discuss pregnancy issues.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

To be a bit controversial, I would exercise my religion and morals openly even if it were against the law. And as Catholics, I feel we are called to be Catholic first and whatever else second.

I agree, but Catholicism also says that we must follow the legitimate laws of government. Government says that we cannot discriminate, so until you are at the point of cooperation in a sinful act, I think you need to follow the law. I think the real question being asked is at what point are you cooperating in sin.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Remember that a doctor holds a state license. People holding state licenses are governed and must abide by state license law, and have considerably less freedom than a non-licensed private individual. If you hold a state license and provide those services differently to people based on certain characteristics, you are going to run into some major problems.

I live in a very liberal state, and private practice doctors have never had a problem bieng selective in their individual practices. They can justify segmenting their practice by a number of valid qualifers. For example, an OB-GYN who takes on “only high-risk pregancies” will have a client population which tends to “discriminate” based on age. (The “discrimination” is a result. Such high-risk cases tilt strongly toward older mothers.) Not a single one in my State has been sued for that reason, or had a complaint opened.

Also, providers get to set their own standard for capacity. I know various M.D.'s (various practices) which have a very conservative ceiling on the number of patients/cases they will take, even within their own stated segmentation. It has to do with their subjective assessment of the quality of their service. Some M.D.'s (and some lawyers) have a thorough style of working which limits the number of cases they will accept.

Even if I were not Catholic, by the way, and IF I were an OB-GYN, I would refuse artificial insemination procedures as a blanket policy. Ditto for surrogacy. I would probably also refuse IVF procedures as well. All of those situations effectively eliminate entire populations which have an entitlement attitude toward becoming parents, outisde of the natural family structure. I promise you there would be zero grounds for a lawsuit as long as my practice was private (self-determined).

 

[Lochias]

If I was a cake-shop owner and I saw two guys come in, holding hands, and ask about “their wedding cake”, I would refuse them. I would not contribute to what I see as a sin and a lie within the context of their wedding.

If a man came in alone and asked about wedding cakes, I wouldn’t need to ask him if he’s gay at all. If he chose to divulge that information in some form or fashion, and he wanted a cake for his upcoming “wedding” to another man, I would refuse. If he doesn’t say anything about it and just picks out a white cake with X toppings to be delivered on Y day, I would have no idea what the cake was for and, having no right to demand that information, would serve him as best as I’m able.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

I live in a very liberal state, and private practice doctors have never had a problem bieng selective in their individual practices. They can justify segmenting their practice by a number of valid qualifers. For example, an OB-GYN who takes on “only high-risk pregancies” will have a client population which tends to “discriminate” based on age. (The “discrimination” is a result. Such high-risk cases tilt strongly toward older mothers.) Not a single one in my State has been sued for that reason, or had a complaint opened.

Specializing in one area is not considered discrimination under the law. Specializing in one area and not selecting people because of their race, religion, etc. is discrimination under the law. Is the doctor in your very liberal state advertising that he’ll take only high-risk pregnancy patients as long as they’re not lesbians?

Also, providers get to set their own standard for capacity. I know various M.D.'s (various practices) which have a very conservative ceiling on the number of patients/cases they will take, even within their own stated segmentation. It has to do with their subjective assessment of the quality of their service. Some M.D.'s (and some lawyers) have a thorough style of working which limits the number of cases they will accept.

It is obvious that you are using a broad definition of discrimination which includes specialization of services. However, there is a legal interpretation of discrimination which refers specifically to people, not services. Conflating the two creates the confusion present in this thread.

Even if I were not Catholic, by the way, and IF I were an OB-GYN, I would refuse artificial insemination procedures as a blanket policy. Ditto for surrogacy. I would probably also refuse IVF procedures as well. All of those situations effectively eliminate entire populations which have an entitlement attitude toward becoming parents, outisde of the natural family structure. I promise you there would be zero grounds for a lawsuit as long as my practice was private (self-determined).

Your paragraph was good until the last sentence when you went off on a tangent. A doctor’s type of practice has zero relevance when it comes to discrimination because the doctor holds a license and must abide by that states license law, which includes issues related to discrimination.

As far as the first part of the paragraph goes, that is what I’ve been saying all along. If a lesbian couple wants advice on getting pregnant via IVF, the doctor can simply state that he/she does not perform that procedure. However, the doctor would give exactly the same advice to a heterosexual couple. Therefore there is not discrimination because the doctor treated both the heterosexual and homosexual couples equally. Once the doctor tells the lesbian couple that he would treat them because they are lesbians, the doctor has discriminated against them solely on the basis of their sexual preference. The result may be the same in both cases (lesbian couple doesn’t get treated), but one course of action is discriminatory, while the other is not.

 

[Publisher]

I don’t know why that is so confusing. If a Catholic business owner is going to tell a gay couple that they aren’t going to provide them service because it goes against their religion, then they should do the same to people who are doing other things that goes against church teaching. Period. If you are going to provide a service for the person that isn’t going to have a valid marrige in the church, but NOT provide a service to the gay couple you are being a bigot. Stand firm in all the the teachings or none at all. I don’t have a problem with people saying that they don’t want to provide certain services, just don’t pick and choose.

Agreed…if you claim “religious beliefs” for discrimination against same sex couples, yet do not claim refusal of service because of “religious beliefs” to those thrice married and divorced, you are “picking and choosing” when to practice your faith…to me that is absolute hypocricy…which is also a “sin”…is it not? Either you live your faith…or you do not…you don’t get to take if down from the shelf and "play"at it when you don’t like the people you are serving. Either live your faith or don’t cry “religous beliefs are offended” helter skelter simply because you have an issue with a single group of people.

In this case “bigot” suits the situation perfectly. Believe it or not “bigotry” is not a religous or constitutional right.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Your paragraph was good until the last sentence when you went off on a tangent. A doctor’s type of practice has zero relevance when it comes to discrimination because the doctor holds a license and must abide by that states license law, which includes issues related to discrimination. [snip]…

My point is that you have a simplistic understanding, i.m.o., of the choices any private party has with regard to serving the public. It never means the universal public, necessarily. A provider can limit services, and can limit the population he/she serves, for all kinds of reasons. I provided the example of the OB-GYN because age discrimination is a frequent civil rights complaint, and I am telling you that businesses whose focus accidentally results in discrimination by age, sexual orientation, marital status, and even gender (when not a gender-specific business, such as NOT an OB-GYN) are protected by the fact that they announce first of all whom they are serving, exclusively, and secondly by informal, unpublished choices they make.

Smart providers do not announce what they limit, if they believe those limits will be challenged, and I definitely support such decisions on their part. And I’m sorry, but if you think they do not get away that, then your experience is, I believe, much more limited than mine.

Simply, “I don’t have the capacity for more customers/clients at this time” covers a whole host of reasons. It’s a subjective judgment which is protected by being a private provider. And no client, patient, or customer, has blanket privileges to invade the privacy of other clients or patients, especially in medical situations, given privacy privileges/rights which trump activism every time.

Another example: Supposing an OB-GYN had in fact occasionally done IVF and other fertility procedures for straight couples, and that same doctor has a single lesbian for a patient (has had for some time), who announced one day that she wanted to be inseminated with his professional assistance. He could simply tell her that in his professional medical opinion, insemination for her would not be a good idea, and he could not be party to that. However, he could refer her to other providers who might provide that.

Of course, the paragraph above is not entirely realistic. Why? Because normally homosexuals, both single and coupled, specifically seek out “gay-friendly” providers. Lesbians in particular prefer female Ob-Gyns, often because they don’t trust men, often because they consider female providers more friendly to them, more trustworthy, and sometimes with an interest in “rewarding” (supporting) “gay-friendly” providers. There are official lists of these on various websites in those communities.

 

[Publisher]

My point is that you have a simplistic understanding, i.m.o., of the choices any private party has with regard to serving the public. It never means the universal public, necessarily. A provider can limit services, and can limit the population he/she serves, for all kinds of reasons. I provided the example of the OB-GYN because age discrimination is a frequent civil rights complaint, and I am telling you that businesses whose focus accidentally results in discrimination by age, sexual orientation, marital status, and even gender (when not a gender-specific business, such as NOT an OB-GYN) are protected by the fact that they announce first of all whom they are serving, exclusively, and secondly by informal, unpublished choices they make.

Smart providers do not announce what they limit, if they believe those limits will be challenged, and I definitely support such decisions on their part. And I’m sorry, but if you think they do not get away that, then your experience is, I believe, much more limited than mine.

Simply, “I don’t have the capacity for more customers/clients at this time” covers a whole host of reasons. It’s a subjective judgment which is protected by being a private provider. And no client, patient, or customer, has blanket privileges to invade the privacy of other clients or patients, especially in medical situations, given privacy privileges/rights which trump activism every time.

Another example: Supposing an OB-GYN had in fact occasionally done IVF and other fertility procedures for straight couples, and that same doctor has a single lesbian for a patient (has had for some time), who announced one day that she wanted to be inseminated with his professional assistance. He could simply tell her that in his professional medical opinion, insemination for her would not be a good idea, and he could not be party to that. However, he could refer her to other providers who might provide that.

Of course, the paragraph above is not entirely realistic. Why? Because normally homosexuals, both single and coupled, specifically seek out “gay-friendly” providers. Lesbians in particular prefer female Ob-Gyns, often because they don’t trust men, often because they consider female providers more friendly to them, more trustworthy, and sometimes with an interest in “rewarding” (supporting) “gay-friendly” providers. There are official lists of these on various websites in those communities.

Those lesbian women I personally know would disagree with you. There is a “callousness” with female OBGYN’s that is not found in their male counterparts. Those lesbian women I personally know prefer male OBGYN doctors…they tend to be more attentive to their complaints and more compassionate…according to the lesbian women I am acquainted with.