Refusing Service on Religious Grounds

[kelvinf]

What I am saying is that you cannot use your conscience as a reason to deny service to someone when you operate a business that is open to the public.

So you believe Christian charities should not operate because they would not offer certain services to gays?

 

[CatholicGeek1]

As you have already been told, skin colour is not the same thing as sexual orientation. But again, freedom of religion always applies. Individuals providing services that are not neccessities are free to operate according to their conscience. When this is not observed, you would have what you have in the US where the govt forces religious organisations to provide services that violate their conscience. This is what would happen when we start compromising on religious liberties.

Your comparison does not hold. We are not talking about a private or religious organization, we are talking about a public business.

Here is another question that seems pertinent, what about the case of a corporation? It is a separate entity in the eyes of the law at least from the owners. This allows the owners to be shielded behind the corporation for liability. Since a corporation cannot have a conscience as it is not a person, could the owners of a corporation use their conscience(s) to deny service?

 

[Julianna]

Your comparison does not hold.** We are not talking about a private or religious organization, we are talking about a public business.**

Here is another question that seems pertinent, what about the case of a corporation? It is a separate entity in the eyes of the law at least from the owners. This allows the owners to be shielded behind the corporation for liability. Since a corporation cannot have a conscience as it is not a person, could the owners of a corporation use their conscience(s) to deny service?

 

[Julianna]

As you have already been told, skin colour is not the same thing as sexual orientation. But again, freedom of religion always applies. Individuals providing services that are not neccessities are free to operate according to their conscience. When this is not observed, you would have what you have in the US where the govt forces religious organisations to provide services that violate their conscience. This is what would happen when we start compromising on religious liberties.

Learn some of the caveats of this…it only applies when a 'private" or “religious” organization borrows/accepts “public taxpayer money.” Fundy/evangelicals have mega churches, support missionaries, however, they don’t except a dime of gov funds. Why is that? hmmmm, I wonder. Also most fundy/evangels are required to tithe 10-20% of their income to their church. They money the collect “stays” in the local church and funds what their local church does as far as missionary and charity work.

 

[PetrusRomanus]

In order for your argument to be consistent, you would have to investigate the future spouses in the manner that the Church does in order to make sure their wedding is valid; i.e., baptismal status, whether or not they the parties are Catholic, whether they are free to marry, whether or not diriment impediments exist, etc. Because if a heterosexual couple comes in the door and order and you make a cake for them, and it turns out one is Catholic and is marrying outside of the Church without dispensation, then you’ve just given tacit approval to this invalid marriage. If you don’t do this, any competent attorney would chew up your argument and spit it out in a court of law.

Once again, there is a difference between working with the general public and a private organization. If you want to avoid these situations, go work directly for the Church. If not, you have to deal with the laws that apply to the general public.

Sorry my brutha, but the laws that also apply are the ones that also lete EXERCISE my religion. Everyone always overlooks that one.

Refusing to.contribute to a gay union is exercising my religion.

 

[kelvinf]

Your comparison does not hold. We are not talking about a private or religious organization, we are talking about a public business.

Here is another question that seems pertinent, what about the case of a corporation? It is a separate entity in the eyes of the law at least from the owners. This allows the owners to be shielded behind the corporation for liability. Since a corporation cannot have a conscience as it is not a person, could the owners of a corporation use their conscience(s) to deny service?

Medical professionals can create ‘public businesses’ but freedom of therapy (which can be influenced by religious beliefs) would still apply. Meaning they would still have the freedom to refuse certain services that they don’t agree with.

Moreover, corperations are legal persons and have certain rights like people as far as I understand US law. But I don’t know this in details and can’t say whether religious liberties also apply to them.

But I already gave one good example. You can have a corperation that deals with blood and organ donations. This corperation will not for instance entertain people who fall under high risk groups like gay men or prostitutes.

 

[CatholicGeek1]

Medical professionals can create ‘public businesses’ but freedom of therapy (which can be influenced by religious beliefs) would still apply. Meaning they would still have the freedom to refuse certain services that they don’t agree with.

Moreover, corperations are legal persons and have certain rights like people as far as I understand US law. But I don’t know this in details and can’t say whether religious liberties also apply to them.

But I already gave one good example. You can have a corperation that deals with blood and organ donations. This corperation will not for instance entertain people who fall under high risk groups like gay men or prostitutes.

That is not a business, it is a charity. It is also not discriminating for religious reasons, it is doing it for health and safety issue.

 

[kelvinf]

That is not a business, it is a charity. It is also not discriminating for religious reasons, it is doing it for health and safety issue.

I am certain that there are companies with limited liabilities that provide such services. I checked. Right, the reason is not based on religion so I will drop that example. That was just to show that not everything is discrimination or that discrimination is not always wrong.

But I gave another example of doctors owning a company with a limited liability. They can refuse to prescribe certain drugs for instance for religious reasons.

What about an insurance company that is owned by a Catholic. Is this a public or private business? Do religious liberties apply to the owner or not?

 

[CatholicGeek1]

I am certain that there are companies with limited liabilities that provide such services. I checked. Right, the reason is not based on religion so I will drop that example. That was just to show that not everything is discrimation or that discrimation is not always wrong.

But I gave another example of doctors owning a company with a limited liability. They can refuse to prescribe certain drugs for instance for religious reasons.

What about an insurance company that is owned by a Catholic. Is this a public or private business? Do religious liberties apply to the owner or not?

In my opinion the difference is, the doctors offer certain services, if say contraception is not one of those services, no problem - they offer it to no one, go somewhere else.

If you run a hotel, you offer rooms. If you offer rooms to some, you shouldn’t say that you are not going to offer rooms to others just because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

 

[oldcatholicguy]

In order for your argument to be consistent, you would have to investigate the future spouses in the manner that the Church does in order to make sure their wedding is valid; i.e., baptismal status, whether or not they the parties are Catholic, whether they are free to marry, whether or not diriment impediments exist, etc. Because if a heterosexual couple comes in the door and order and you make a cake for them, and it turns out one is Catholic and is marrying outside of the Church without dispensation, then you’ve just given tacit approval to this invalid marriage. If you don’t do this, any competent attorney would chew up your argument and spit it out in a court of law.

Once again, there is a difference between working with the general public and a private organization. If you want to avoid these situations, go work directly for the Church. If not, you have to deal with the laws that apply to the general public.

In order for your argument to be valid we must first have the “right” to know the particulars of the marriage and the individuals involved. We don’t have that “right.” Big difference between-
-a Catholic baker refusing to sell a wedding cake to two women who walk in and state “yes, we’d like a wedding cake for our homosexual marriage on Friday” (refusal based on freely given information)

and

-two women walking in and stating “yes, we’d like a wedding cake for Friday” and the Catholic baker demanding to know if it’s for a homosexual marriage. (baker demanding information he has no “right” to)

You can’t give tacit approval for something when a requirement for this approval is based on information you have no right to know.

 

[Used2beSherryG]

I don’t know how many people are seeking out places that they know will be denied. I think in most of these cases the people show up and are denied service.

If you think a business should be able to do whatever they want then should the be able to refuse service to African-Americans as well?

Unjust discrimination is immoral.

Unjust discrimination is immoral. Religious beliefs have never told anyone to shun someone based on the color of their skin. Your argument is illogical. This is a discussion about refusing service on religious grounds.

 

[Used2beSherryG]

Your comparison does not hold. We are not talking about a private or religious organization, we are talking about a public business.

Here is another question that seems pertinent, what about the case of a corporation? It is a separate entity in the eyes of the law at least from the owners. This allows the owners to be shielded behind the corporation for liability. Since a corporation cannot have a conscience as it is not a person, could the owners of a corporation use their conscience(s) to deny service?

“Public business” is run by private individuals who have a right to religious liberty (so far) to uphold their conscience and adhere to their religious beliefs in the operation of their own personal business which is open to the public. A ;publicly held company with stock holders and a board of directors is a totally different type of entity.

 

[kelvinf]

In my opinion the difference is, the doctors offer certain services, if say contraception is not one of those services, no problem - they offer it to no one, go somewhere else.

If you run a hotel, you offer rooms. If you offer rooms to some, you shouldn’t say that you are not going to offer rooms to others just because of their race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.

You keep bring up race into this discussion. The Catholic Church has never taught that a certain race is immoral.

I honestly don’t get your argument. Based on everything you have said on this thread, you seem to be very okay with ‘discrimination’ as long as it is done by the Church, a religious or private organisation, doctors…and probably other examples that haven’t yet been mentioned.

Why should the above be able to refuse services on religious grounds but a hotel owner shouldn’t? Doesn’t the “go somewhere else” also apply in this case? And again, does sexual orientation takes precedence over religious liberty?

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

Medical professionals can create ‘public businesses’ but freedom of therapy (which can be influenced by religious beliefs) would still apply. Meaning they would still have the freedom to refuse certain services that they don’t agree with.

It’s important to note that the medical professional may refuse to to perform a certain services. However, that is different from refusing a service for some and not others, which is the issue in the OP.

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

yes, we’d like a wedding cake for our homosexual marriage on Friday"

Said no one ever.

Here’s the deal: You cannot know all the details without probing. If you don’t probe, then you will make mistakes and open yourself up to very expensive lawsuits.

 

[kelvinf]

It’s important to note that the medical professional may refuse to to perform a certain services. However, that is different from refusing a service for some and not others, which is the issue in the OP.

If a husband and a wife go to a (Catholic) doctor to discuss pregnacy for instance, the doctor would attend to them. If two lesbians go to the same doctor to discuss pregnancy, the doctor might not attend to them.

 

[SuperLuigi]

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?

Well, it seems like a fair comparison, although the progressives don’t really have the stomach to mess Islam, especially since Muslims have been voting their way since 2004.

I think the larger concern though is the implementation of sharia law. Granted, there are some Catholics on here who think that a Catholic theocracy should be our government.

All in all, I’d have to say that consistency is credibility.

 

[SuperLuigi]

I don’t think so. If you are going to conduct business in the public square, you cannot pick and choose who you serve. You have a right to your conscience, but you do not have a right to discriminate.

That is not freedom and like it or not, discrimination happens ALL them. To quote Jason Lewis, “I discriminate every time I pick one product over another at the grocery store.”

The private sector picks and chooses who it serves all the time. In fact, some companies have lists of potential customers that are pre-screened based on qualifications for their products.

Should they not be allowed to do that just so people can feel good inside?

 

[TheWarriorMonk]

If a husband and a wife go to a (Catholic) doctor to discuss pregnacy for instance, the doctor would attend to them. If two lesbians go to the same doctor to discuss pregnancy, the doctor might not attend to them.

If the doctor refuses to discuss pregnancy issues solely on the basis they are lesbian, in this country it is flat-out discrimination. Obviously, the doctor does not have to discuss artificial insemination, IVF, etc., because those methods are not part of the doctor’s practice and the doctor does not discuss them with anyone, regardless of sexual preference.

 

[kelvinf]

If the doctor refuses to discuss pregnancy issues solely on the basis they are lesbian, in this country it is flat-out discrimination.

Well, in that country, I am pretty sure that in some states, refusing to place children in homosexual households is also considered flat-out discrimination. What some secularists consider as discrimination does not carry any weight when it comes to Catholicism.

But please tell me, how can a Catholic doctor really discuss pregnancy options with 2 lesbians for instance?

Obviously, the doctor does not have to discuss artificial insemination, IVF, etc., because those methods are not part of the doctor’s practice and the doctor does not discuss them with anyone, regardless of sexual preference.

If doctors don’t deal with IVF who does then? I am not sure I understand what you are trying to say here.

There was a case of some doctors in California who were sued for refusing to provide this service to a lesbian. The doctors said they don’t provide the service to heterosexuals either. But the California Supreme Court accused them of discrimination. That antidiscrimination laws take precedence over their 1st Amendment rights.

Leftists will continue in their mission of attacking religious freedom. Some Catholics unfortunately will sympathise with them in the name of antidiscrimination. In places like Canada and Massachusetts for instance, I understand they even have laws that basically prevent people from voicing their opposing to same sex relationships in the name of bullying or hate speech.

Some people pretty much fail to see the bigger picture of this so called “discrimination”.