Should businesses be able to deny service to gays based on religion?

Should businesses be able to deny service to Jews, Buddhists, Druids, etc? How about unmarried couples cohabitating? People of color? Can Muslims refuse to serve Christians and vice versa? Can I ask to see a marriage license before serving any pregnant woman? Doesn’t Christianity say something about not having tattoos? Pork eaters? Shellfish eaters? Wearers of mixed fibers?

What’s with fuckers being able to pick and choose what parts of the Bible they’re going pick and choose from to support their bigotry?

Besides the obvious analog to racial discrimination, why aren’t Catholic business owners refusing to serve divorced people and birth control users?

You are either in business or are not. Some businesses like the ones that sale Mormon underwear have a limited clientele but as far as I know they’ll sell to gay Mormons. Are there gay Mormons?

Anyway the Indiana “religious freedom bill” will allow discrimination, ironically in the name of religion. Will it prevent the government from interfering with “honor killings” and female circumcision? After all they are religiously mandated too.

I suppose if individuals are going to discriminate against anybody, their going to do it whether it’s legal or not. As a business, no, not logically. As a businessman, you are in business to make money, not turn it away. What somebody else is or does outside of any business making money shouldn’t be any of any business’s business.

I suppose if individuals are going to discriminate against anybody, their going to do it whether it’s legal or not

Nope.

In my lifetime, segregation and “whites only” facilities were common in the US. I’m 52 years old.

The US 1964 Civil Rights Act of 1964 outlawed discrimination based on “race, color, religion or national origin.”

Discrimination isn’t gone. But it was legal before. Now it’s A LOT less common and A LOT less acceptable and you can end up in court for it.

Didn’t Walmart refuse to sell birth control pills? So it’s legal. Hardly the right thing to do though.

I think you are looking at the “slippery slope” theory. If we allow them to discriminate against gays then they will want to be able to discriminate against people on religious grounds, then color, then sex, then national origin, then I don’t know which testicle hangs lower?

First of all religious pastors will never be forced to perform any marriage. I don’t know where the religious right gets that from. Rabbis have been refusing to do inter-religious marriages since the beginning of time and no American law is going to try to change that.

Secondly, very small businesses that bake cakes for weddings and plan weddings can refuse any businesses they want to without much question. The owners can be booked for that day. My boss just had to refuse business yesterday, because we can’t handle any more business and give reliable service.

A store that has a store front like a grocery, restaurant, bakery, etc., that has walk in service should not be allowed to refuse to serve anyone based on race, religion, sexual orientation, and so on. These new laws are terrible. They are a throw back to segregation and an embarrassment.

I just saw that the CEO of Marriott spoke out against the new laws. I’m feeling really good about being Marriott loyal for many years now. Marriott was founded by a very religious Mormon and still today has many Mormons in the ivory tower of that company.

I also saw Rubio and Jeb Bush spoke out in favor of the laws. Yuck. I’m surprised Jeb Bush did. Disappointed and surprised.

First, listen to this bit. Okay, with that fresh in your mind, can you see how allowing discrimination on religious grounds could be problematic in ways that proponents of such “religious freedom” haven’t thought of?

So while I would like to say that such discrimination should not be allowed, there is an evil little voice in my ear saying that such discrimination should be allowed simply as it opens up a way to hoist those like Governor Pence on their own petard.

Personally, I think a better way to combat these laws would be to just let those who tend to put business’ rights above human rights just leave the US (like they tried to in 1861). That way they could have whatever laws they want while the US remains tolerant and inclusive. ~ I’m sure that a region that takes more federal taxpayer funds than they give currently is economically able to survive as a sovereign nation without sinking into poverty.

Just because some may choose to discriminate doesn’t mean that all will. Again, a matter of fact.

@kritiper With these laws being passed it’s saying the government basically is discriminating.

@JLeslie Maybe, but not ALL people will discriminate.
And you can’t pass a law that protects one group from discrimination while that law then allows discrimination of another. The law of the land states that you can’t pass or enact any law that discriminates against religion. (Or something like that.) If you pass a law that basically allows something that religion is against, then you have done exactly that. Allowed one type of discrimination in favor of another.
As I said before, no one should discriminate for any reason, but there are those that will discriminate no matter what the law says or does.

If you pass a law that basically allows something that religion is against, then you have done exactly that.

By that logic, absolutely nothing can be allowed that “is against” a religion.

Working on Sunday – not allowed.
Working on Saturday – not allowed.
Pork – not allowed.
Coffee – not allowed.
Eating shellfish – not allowed.
Birth control – not allowed.

The list is endless.

The governor of Indiana says they are going to clarify their law to show that it does not allow for discrimination based on sexual preference. I am interested to see how that is done without gutting the very purpose of the law. My guess, smoke and mirrors, and more smoke.

@rojo In that George Stephanopoulos interview, Pence kept saying he was clarifying it, while refusing to answer basic questions about its purpose and interpretation. So, my guess is more smoke, more mirrors, as you say.

The governor of Indiana says they are going to clarify their law to show that it does not allow for discrimination based on sexual preference.

That would be simple. Pass a law banning discrimination based on sexual preference.

I won’t be holding my breath.

@jaytkay OK, as an example, let us toss sodomy into the ring. Sooner or later that topic will rear it’s ugly head between church and state. The church forbids it. Will the state, which now deems it illegal, okay it and be at odds with the churches?? What is religious is not a subject for the state to answer to, or seek to control. Should it? What about the separation of church and state, which is a serious issue here?
So the list, while long, is NOT endless.

Will the state, which now deems it illegal, okay it and be at odds with the churches??

Yes, for over a decade, that is the law.

Google ‘Lawrence v. Texas’ if you’re interested in learning something.

I’m not interested in learning something that may not be relevant to what’s going on now. All I care about is what will happen when it happens. There is a certain state vs. religion thing going on here and some area of gray exists. Can’t say if a line will be drawn, by whom, or where. @jaytkay You can call it any way you want to. The state cannot tell a person what to do in a religious matter. Period.

You can moan make decrees to the air, but the trend is overwhelmingly in favor of equal rights in the US. People who are upset by that should move to Saudi Arabia or Iran where they’re views are appreciated.

@kritiper “The church forbids it. Will the state, which now deems it illegal, okay it and be at odds with the churches??”

You’d think eternal damnation would be sufficient punishment – what should the churches care whether a person is sentenced for it on Earth?

The law of the land trumps religion. It doesn’t matter if your religion calls for a virgin sacrifice or stoning a woman to death, in America that’s illegal.

It wasn’t against the law to allow black people to sit at the counter, but if the shop owner wanted to segregate those seats for whites only the law allowed for it. The government supported it. That’s the same thing as these laws allowing discrimination against gay people. The Christian organization that used to wear white hoods also felt righteous for religious reasons.

Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964—the federal law which prohibits discrimination by private businesses which are places of public accommodation—only prevents businesses from refusing service based on race, color, religion, or national origin. Federal law does not prevent businesses from refusing service to customers based on sexual orientation.

So if there are no state or local laws to the contrary, private business owners may legally choose to refuse service to customers based on their sexual orientation—and some have publicly done so. In light of the law you can’t force religious businesses and pastors to serve gays when it’s marriage related. As far as that go’s, you can’t force non-religious folks to serve gays when it’s marriage related either. Why would you want too anyhow?

@CorneliusHerkermer If you have to ask why we would want to “force” people to serve gays, then look in the mirror. Yes, people like the person you see there are part of why we even have the Civil Rights Act.

Federal law will likely be amended because some people need to be told that it’s not okay to ruin people’s lives for arbitrary reasons. If you maintain that gays are okay to discriminate against and should remain so, you are saying the Civil Rights Act as well as a couple of our constitutional amendments are, at best, invalid.

Then again, many in the places where state/local law actually condones discrimination are themselves oppose our federal government enough on other things that laws don’t matter anyways. We sent troops in 1860s, and the 1960s; maybe it’s time to do it again.

If you “force” this issue of same sex marriage, what’s next on the force agenda? The next question that needs to be asked is whether or not same sex marriages are a civil right. We need to be clear about what constitutes a civil right.

It is certainly true that the contention over marriage is about civil law. Marriage law has long been a state matter, and in the United States that has meant, literally, a state rather than a federal matter. In any case, the law has until now taken for granted that marriage is an institutional bond between a man and a woman.

Moreover, marriage is something people of all faiths and no faith engage in. Churches, synagogues, and mosques may bless marriages but they do not create the institution. In that sense the question of marriage is not first of all a religious matter in the sense in which most people use the word “religion.”

However, to insist that the question of marriage is a matter of civil law and not first of all a religious matter does not take us very far. After all, the argument is about what government ought to do about keeping or changing the legal definition of marriage. The debate is not between husbands and wives within the bond of traditional marriage—like a court case over divorce and child custody.

No, this debate is about whether the law that now defines marriage is itself good or bad, right or wrong. And to join that debate one must appeal, by moral argument, to grounds that transcend the law as it now exists. In that regard, the question of marriage is not about a civil right at all. It is about the nature of reality and interpretations of reality that precede the law.

Those who now argue that same-sex couples should be included, as a matter of civil right, within the legal definition of marriage are appealing to the constitutional principles of equal protection and equal treatment. But this is entirely inappropriate for making the case for same-sex “marriage.”

To argue that the Constitution guarantees equal treatment to all citizens, both men and women, does not say anything about what constitutes marriage, or a family, or a business enterprise, or a university, or a friendship.

An appeal for equal treatment would certainly not lead a court to require that a small business enterprise be called a marriage just because two business partners prefer to think of their business that way. Nor would equal treatment of citizens before the law require a court to conclude that those of us who pray before the start of auto races should be allowed to redefine our auto clubs as churches.

Marriage law has long been a state matter, and in the United States that has meant, literally, a state rather than a federal matter.

States cannot outlaw same-sex marriage. It’s done. Game over.

State laws against interracial marriage were ruled unconstitutional by the federal Supreme Court almost 50 years ago.

The same-sex marriage question is pretty much the same question. It may take some time to sink in, but in ten years most people will see gay marriage bans as ancient history.

@CorneliusHerkermer Well, most of the places that have problems with same-sex marriage have enough issues with the feds anyways that they tried seceding about 150 years ago. It stands to reason that the “State’s Rights” card would be played. Then again, anything the feds do is considered “force”, “coercion” or “extortion” by those who wrap themselves in teh Tenth Amendment and pine for the good old days when only wealthy white male Christians had any power while everyone else was property, so I have to take what you say with a huge grain of salt.

I barely started on that grain as it’s bigger than my torso, so it may be a while before I can get back to you with anything non-snarky. For now, I’ll just say that at least you are respectful, and your points are well thought out, so take my delay in an actual response to your post as a sign that I respect you enough to spare you from my temper. Migraines make me bitchy.