A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Do you think the people described in the excerpt I posted by Ilya Shapiro, and such examples as described in MarcoPolo’s thread, should have the right to deny service?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Religious liberty and refusing homosexual couples in certain circumstances
- Status
- Not open for further replies.
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
Absolutely notDo you think the people described in the excerpt I posted by Ilya Shapiro, and such examples as described in MarcoPolo’s thread, should have the right to deny service?
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Little off topic from first post, although it is still on issue of religious liberty, do you think that Little Sisters of the Poor should comply with the HHS mandate?Absolutely not
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
No I do not believe they should be forced to comply. that is very different then selling cakes to the public though.Little off topic from first post, although it is still on issue of religious liberty, do you think that Little Sisters of the Poor should comply with the HHS mandate?
L
losh14
Guest
No, but there can be objective evil in making the sign itself.Do you really believe graphic designers agree and/or endorse all of the companies and organizations they design for?
Depends on your definition of “obscene”. Think of the clowns.As long as they are not making obscene signs they should do it.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
It is a different issue but it still an issue of religious liberty. Owner of Masterpiece bakery could face jail or fines if he does not comply and sell cakes for ceremonies he does not agree with. Little Sisters of the Poor could fail fines or maybe even jail, I am not sure, if they do not comply with the HHS mandate, although they have at least temporary repreive at the moment. Both are having government and/or state laws intrude in their right to religious liberty.No I do not believe they should be forced to comply. that is very different then selling cakes to the public though.
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
It is a different issue but it still an issue of religious liberty. Owner of Masterpiece bakery could face jail or fines if he does not comply and sell cakes for ceremonies he does not agree with. Little Sisters of the Poor could fail fines or maybe even jail, I am not sure, if they do not comply with the HHS mandate, although they have at least temporary repreive at the moment. Both are having government and/or state laws intrude in their right to religious libertyNo I do not believe they should be forced to comply. that is very different then selling cakes to the public though.
T
Tzimisce
Guest
I believe that businesses have a right to refuse service.
Would we demand that a gun shop owner sell weapons to people who are insane? Or known violent criminals? Citizens have a right to own weapons don’t they?
Obviously not.
Would we demand that a gun shop owner sell weapons to people who are insane? Or known violent criminals? Citizens have a right to own weapons don’t they?
Obviously not.
T
Tzimisce
Guest
There is an interesting equivocation in gay debate. On one hand gays think they should be allowed to get married because of “Freedom of Religion”.
On the other hand, someone can’t use their religion to refuse service to gays who are getting married.
Apparently some civil rights are more equal than others…
On the other hand, someone can’t use their religion to refuse service to gays who are getting married.
Apparently some civil rights are more equal than others…
D
DMC12
Guest
Remember something Jesus said, be like the snake, look for another ways to reject them, for example when someone asks for a cake, leave the date till the end, so at the end after all the details are done you can go with “…thursday? sorry i can’t do it that day” (mental restriction, not lie since you really can’t do it that day, or the others.) altough they could sent someone else to ask for a cake and reveal your plans, well, i dont know, seek for something that you can go along with, you know your businness better than me, or look for other stuff so you can decline, think of Alcapone, he was arrested for other stuff, not for being in the mafia.
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
The OP mentions avoiding boycotts and terminations of contracts. Aren’t both of those forms of exercising one’s personal right not to do something?The OP is arguing for a personal right to not do something, not about the implementation of a law that restricts personal freedoms.
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
And so I am certain that you would not advocate laws against someone who, on religious grounds as defined in their religious documents ;It is a different issue but it still an issue of religious liberty. Owner of Masterpiece bakery could face jail or fines if he does not comply and sell cakes for ceremonies he does not agree with. Little Sisters of the Poor could fail fines or maybe even jail, I am not sure, if they do not comply with the HHS mandate, although they have at least temporary repreive at the moment. Both are having government and/or state laws intrude in their right to religious liberty
Married more than one woman
Performed Female Genital mutilation
Sacrificed Cats and Dogs
Sacrificed humans
Performed a Suicide ritual
Gang raped
Denied service to Black people.
Yes?
If not, why are people restricted in some aspects of those types of religious beliefs ?
T
ThinkingSapien
Guest
As I understand the Civil Right’s Act of 1964 (from the end of the Jim Crow era) the answer to this may sometimes be “no.” But I don’t think that one’s sexuality is [yet] a status that comes with such protections.I believe that businesses have a right to refuse service…
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
It is a protected status in some states, but not federally.As I understand the Civil Right’s Act of 1964 (from the end of the Jim Crow era) the answer to this may be “no.” But I don’t think that one’s sexuality is [yet] a status that comes with such protections.
R
rossum
Guest
And by local laws in some cities. Including Phoenix AZ, IIRC.It is a protected status in some states, but not federally.
rossum
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
I am not sure I fully understand your point. What have most of those got to do with the right to deny business in certain situations?And so I am certain that you would not advocate laws against someone who, on religious grounds as defined in their religious documents ;
Married more than one woman
Performed Female Genital mutilation
Sacrificed Cats and Dogs
Sacrificed humans
Performed a Suicide ritual
Gang raped
Denied service to Black people.
Yes?
If not, why are people restricted in some aspects of those types of religious beliefs ?
christianpost.com/news/issue-analysis-arizona-bill-does-not-give-businesses-license-to-discriminate-against-gays-115093
- A RFRA law, either state or federal, does not give anyone the license to do anything they want based upon their religious beliefs. Rather, it says what needs to happen for the government to take away someone’s religious freedom. RFRA provides citizens with religious freedom protections, but that does not mean that everyone who claims their religious freedom is violated will win a court case using RFRA as their defense.
B
Blitzwing
Guest
Yes on all four. People should be able to walk into any store without having to worry about the personal hang-ups of the people working thereParallels:
Consider the following sole proprietors in the business of making graphic design flyers.
- Should an animal rights advocate who is a graphic designer be forced to make flyers for a duck hunt event even if the designer considers duck hunting evil?
- Should an Orthodox Jewish graphic designer be forced to make a flyer for a promiscuous person’s “swingers” party even if the designer considers promiscuity inherently evil?
- Should a “pro-choice” graphic designer be forced to print signs to be placed in front of an abortion clinic even if the designer considers pro-lifers oppressive to women?
- Should a feminist activist graphic designer be forced to make brochures for a men-only country club even if the designer considers that club inherently discriminatory?
J
Jon_S_1
Guest
What it has to do with is religious freedom is restricted when it violates the rights of another person.I am not sure I fully understand your point. What have most of those got to do with the right to deny business in certain situations?
christianpost.com/news/issue-analysis-arizona-bill-does-not-give-businesses-license-to-discriminate-against-gays-115093
Therefore, if you decide not to sell goods and services to someone, it violates their rights.
Imagine that the nation became militant secularist (not all that hard to imagine) and the grocery store chains decided based on their religious beliefs they could not in any way support Christians. So they decide they will not sell groceries to any Christians.
Would that be ok to you?
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Would a militant secularist be religious?What it has to do with is religious freedom is restricted when it violates the rights of another person.
Therefore, if you decide not to sell goods and services to someone, it violates their rights.
Imagine that the nation became militant secularist (not all that hard to imagine) and the grocery store chains decided based on their religious beliefs they could not in any way support Christians. So they decide they will not sell groceries to any Christians.
Would that be ok to you?
Given that, here are some of the main changes the Arizona bill would make:
- Those covered by RFRA would include “any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution or other business organization.”
- A religious freedom violation can be asserted “regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding.”
- The person asserting a religious freedom violation must show three things: “1. That the person’s action or refusal to act is motivated by a religious belief. 2. That the person’s religious belief is sincerely held. 3. That the state action substantially burdens the exercise of the person’s religious beliefs.”
In sum, the bill would essentially make three changes for RFRA: 1) Clarify that any association, including for-profit corporations, are covered. 2) Clarify that the government does not have to be a party in the case. And, 3) to prevent frivolous RFRA claims, require that those claiming a religious freedom violation show that there is an actual religious belief behind their action, that they are sincere in their religious belief, and a state action has placed a substantial burden on their religious belief.
While the first two changes are designed to make sure that religious freedom is protected in the broadest way possible, the third change is to make sure that people are not concocting their own religion or religious belief in order to sue. If the bill is passed, those asserting a religious freedom violation would have to prove to the court that it is based upon an actual religious belief, and that they hold strongly to that religion.
While the bill clarifies the broad coverage of RFRA, it also makes it more difficult to sue under RFRA. Let us assume, though, the Arizona bill is signed and becomes law, and someone is able to pass those stricter tests and is allowed to sue under RFRA. Being allowed to sue does not mean they automatically win in court.
Under RFRA, government action may still violate one’s religious beliefs. To do so, though, it must show there is a “compelling government interest” and the “least restrictive means” were used to further that government interest. Claiming the law is generally applicable (applies to all faiths or no faith), though, is not sufficient reason, under RFRA, to take away someone’s religious freedom.
christianpost.com/news/issue-analysis-arizona-bill-does-not-give-businesses-license-to-discriminate-against-gays-115093This means RFRA is telling the court to balance the needs of government to accomplish its purposes against the religious freedom of its citizens. Religious freedom must be protected, unless there is an important government purpose that outweighs religious freedom and there is no other way to accomplish that purpose without violating someone’s religious belief.
Is it automatically accepted for anybody to say, ‘I am religious so can’t serve XYZ?’
A
_Abyssinia
Guest
Would a militant secularist be religious?What it has to do with is religious freedom is restricted when it violates the rights of another person.
Therefore, if you decide not to sell goods and services to someone, it violates their rights.
Imagine that the nation became militant secularist (not all that hard to imagine) and the grocery store chains decided based on their religious beliefs they could not in any way support Christians. So they decide they will not sell groceries to any Christians.
Would that be ok to you?
Given that, here are some of the main changes the Arizona bill would make:
- Those covered by RFRA would include “any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution or other business organization.”
- A religious freedom violation can be asserted “regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding.”
- The person asserting a religious freedom violation must show three things: “1. That the person’s action or refusal to act is motivated by a religious belief. 2. That the person’s religious belief is sincerely held. 3. That the state action substantially burdens the exercise of the person’s religious beliefs.”
In sum, the bill would essentially make three changes for RFRA: 1) Clarify that any association, including for-profit corporations, are covered. 2) Clarify that the government does not have to be a party in the case. And, 3) to prevent frivolous RFRA claims, require that those claiming a religious freedom violation show that there is an actual religious belief behind their action, that they are sincere in their religious belief, and a state action has placed a substantial burden on their religious belief.
While the first two changes are designed to make sure that religious freedom is protected in the broadest way possible, the third change is to make sure that people are not concocting their own religion or religious belief in order to sue. If the bill is passed, those asserting a religious freedom violation would have to prove to the court that it is based upon an actual religious belief, and that they hold strongly to that religion.
While the bill clarifies the broad coverage of RFRA, it also makes it more difficult to sue under RFRA. Let us assume, though, the Arizona bill is signed and becomes law, and someone is able to pass those stricter tests and is allowed to sue under RFRA. Being allowed to sue does not mean they automatically win in court.
Under RFRA, government action may still violate one’s religious beliefs. To do so, though, it must show there is a “compelling government interest” and the “least restrictive means” were used to further that government interest. Claiming the law is generally applicable (applies to all faiths or no faith), though, is not sufficient reason, under RFRA, to take away someone’s religious freedom.
christianpost.com/news/issue-analysis-arizona-bill-does-not-give-businesses-license-to-discriminate-against-gays-115093This means RFRA is telling the court to balance the needs of government to accomplish its purposes against the religious freedom of its citizens. Religious freedom must be protected, unless there is an important government purpose that outweighs religious freedom and there is no other way to accomplish that purpose without violating someone’s religious belief.
Is it automatically accepted for anybody to say, ‘I am religious so can’t serve XYZ?’
- Status
- Not open for further replies.