Forced to perform same sex weddings?

215 posts / 0 new
Last post
GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230
Forced to perform same sex weddings?

Everyone said it would never happen, yet here it is. Should these ministers be forced to perform same sex weddings even if it is against their beliefs?

Donald and Evelyn Knapp are apparently ordained ministers who run The Hitching Post, a chapel in Coeur d?Alene, Idaho, at which they conduct weddings. (This strikes me as quite similar to many ministers? practice of charging to officiate weddings when they are invited to do so at other venues.) Coeur d?Alene has an ordinance banning discrimination based on, among other things, sexual orientation in places of public accommodation. Earlier this year, after a federal judge in Idaho held that Idaho had to recognize same-sex weddings, a City of Couer d?Alene deputy city attorney was quoted by a local TV station (KXLY) as saying,

?For profit wedding chapels are in a position now where last week the ban would have prevented them from performing gay marriages, this week gay marriages are legal, pending an appeal to the 9th Circuit,? Warren Wilson with the Coeur d?Alene City Attorney?s Office said?.

?If you turn away a gay couple, refuse to provide services for them, then in theory you violated our code and you?re looking at a potential misdemeanor citation,? Wilson said.

A newspaper article carried a similar quote:

?I think that term is broad enough that it would capture (wedding) activity,? city attorney Warren Wilson said.

Similar laws have applied to florists, bakeries and photographers that have refused to work on same-sex weddings in other states, Wilson noted.

?Those have all been addressed in various states and run afoul of state prohibitions similar to this,? he said. ?I would think that the Hitching Post would probably be considered a place of public accommodation that would be subject to the ordinance.?

According to the Knapps, the City Attorney?s office repeated this statement in telephone conversations with the Knapps.

Friday, the Knapps moved for a temporary restraining order, arguing that applying the antidiscrimination ordinance to them would be unconstitutional and would also violate Idaho?s Religious Freedom Restoration Act. I think that has to be right: compelling them to speak words in ceremonies that they think are immoral is an unconstitutional speech compulsion. Given that the Free Speech Clause bars the government from requiring public school students to say the pledge of allegiance, or even from requiring drivers to display a slogan on their license plates (Wooley v. Maynard (1977)), the government can?t require ministers ? or other private citizens ? to speak the words in a ceremony, on pain of either having to close their business or face fines and jail time. (If the minister is required to conduct a ceremony that contains religious language, that would violate the Establishment Clause as well.)

I think the Knapps are also entitled to an exemption under the Idaho RFRA. The Knapps allege that ?sincerely held religious beliefs prohibit them from performing, officiating, or solemnizing a wedding ceremony between anyone other than one man and one woman?; I know of no reason to think they?re lying about their beliefs. Requiring them to violate their beliefs (or close their business) is a substantial burden on their religious practice.

And I find it hard to see a compelling government interest in barring sexual orientation discrimination by ministers officiating in a chapel. Whatever interests there may be in equal access to jobs, to education, or even in most public accommodations, I don?t see how there would be a ?compelling? government interest in preventing discrimination in the provision of ceremonies, especially ceremonies conducted by ministers in chapels.

I was very pleased to have the officiants I had for my wedding. But if I had instead asked a rabbi, and he told me that he didn?t want to preside over a wedding between my wife (who isn?t ethnically Jewish) and me, I can?t see how that sort of ethnic discrimination would create a harm that justifies trumping the rabbi?s religious freedom rights and free speech rights. Perhaps some might feel offended by such a statement of religious rejection, but I don?t think there can be a compelling government interest in shielding people from such rejections when it comes to the performance of ceremonies. The same, I think, is true when officiants refuse to perform ceremonies for interfaith couples, couples remarrying after a divorce (notwithstanding state laws that ban marital status discrimination), intercaste couples, or interracial couples ? or same-sex couples.

Note that, if the law can be applied against the Knapps, public accommodation laws could also equally be applied to ministers who provide freelance officiating services in exchange for money. The particular Coeur d?Alene ordinance might not apply there, since it covers only ?place,? and that might be limited to brick-and-mortar establishments; but similar ordinances in other places cover any ?establishment,? and if a wedding photography service is an ?establishment? then a minister who routinely takes officiating commissions would be covered as well. And the logic of any rejection of the Knapp?s Free Speech Clause claims and Idaho RFRA claims would apply just as much to the itinerant officiant as to the one who has his own chapel.

Can ministers who make a living by conducting weddings be required to conduct same-sex weddings? - The Washington Post

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 6 hours ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3475

Maybe we can debate this when its not conjecture and something actually happens?

Well, i shouldn't assume that people don't want to discuss it. I'll rephrase. I personally would much rather do this debate if it becomes more than just conjecture.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"KimPossible" wrote:

Maybe we can debate this when its not conjecture and something actually happens?

Well, i shouldn't assume that people don't want to discuss it. I'll rephrase. I personally would much rather do this debate if it becomes more than just conjecture.

It is happening. The city attorney has already told them that they face up to a $1000 fine and 180 days in jail if they refuse. They have already refused one same sex wedding so they could be charged at any time. You don't think they are going to jump all over this and file a lawsuit just like they did to the bakery that refused to make a cake? It is only a matter of time.

City Attorney Warren Wilson told The Spokesman-Review in May that the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel likely would be required to follow the ordinance.

“I would think that the Hitching Post would probably be considered a place of public accommodation that would be subject to the ordinance,” he said.

He also told television station KXLY that any wedding chapel that turns away a gay couple would in theory be violating the law, “and you’re looking at a potential misdemeanor citation.”

Wilson confirmed to Knapp my worst fear -- that even ordained ministers would be required to perform same-sex weddings.

“Wilson also responded that Mr. Knapp was not exempt from the ordinance because the Hitching Post was a business and not a church,” the lawsuit states.

And if he refused to perform the ceremonies, Wilson reportedly told the minister that he could be fined up to $1,000 and sentenced to up to 180 days in jail.

Now all of that was a moot point because, until last week, gay marriage was not legal in Idaho.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit issued an order on May 13 allowing same-sex marriages to commence in Idaho on Oct. 15. Two days later, the folks at the Hitching Post received a telephone call.

A man had called to inquire about a same-sex wedding ceremony. The Hitching Post declined, putting it in violation of the law.

City threatens to arrest ministers who refuse to perform same-sex weddings | Fox News

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 6 hours ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3475

Well what i mean is that they don't actually know what will happen. You can file lawsuits for all sorts of stuff. Doesn't mean that you surely violated any laws or not. I'm going by the wording in the article you presented. I get that it can be debated...which is why i rephrased what i said. I'd really like to see the outcome of this before i bother giving my opinion.

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3348

Agree with Kim. Nothing has actually happened yet.

This article offers more of the specifics: For-Profit Wedding Chapel Sues After Idaho Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage | ThinkProgress

Basically the question is, are they a business or a religious organization? If they're religious, there's no issue and no requirement to perform same-sex weddings. If they're just a business, then they are subject to the same laws as other businesses and not allowed to discriminate.

I believe they are in the process of trying to change their business to qualify as a religious one or be associated with a church.

But churches are still exempt.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

Agree with Kim. Nothing has actually happened yet.

This article offers more of the specifics: For-Profit Wedding Chapel Sues After Idaho Legalizes Same-Sex Marriage | ThinkProgress

Basically the question is, are they a business or a religious organization? If they're religious, there's no issue and no requirement to perform same-sex weddings. If they're just a business, then they are subject to the same laws as other businesses and not allowed to discriminate.

I believe they are in the process of trying to change their business to qualify as a religious one or be associated with a church.

But churches are still exempt.

But that is the whole point. You don't leave your religious beliefs at the door just because you own a business. Why should a Christian be forced to go either go against their religious beliefs or close their business? Just like the wedding photographer and the bakery and the Christian t-shirt business that was told they had to print Gay Pride t-shirts.

Hands On Originals discriminated against gay organization, hearing officer rules | Business | Kentucky.com

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3348

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

But that is the whole point. You don't leave your religious beliefs at the door just because you own a business. Why should a Christian be forced to go either go against their religious beliefs or close their business? Just like the wedding photographer and the bakery and the Christian t-shirt business that was told they had to print Gay Pride t-shirts.

Hands On Originals discriminated against gay organization, hearing officer rules | Business | Kentucky.com

The t-shirt company didn't print the shirts; looks like the company has been found guilty of discrimination but they don't know what that means yet in terms of the consequences.

Businesses should not be able to turn away customers because of their race, gender, sexual identity, etc. I think it gets very tricky, legally, to find the line between discriminating against a group and actually having an issue with a message.

But once you become a business, you are not allowed to discriminate against people. Religion isn't a carte blanche excuse to discriminate.

To make it more complicated, it's not like Christianity and anti-gay sentiment go hand-in-hand. Multitudes of Christians are pro-gay marriage. So you could argue that many Christian-owned businesses would not have any issues with gay weddings, and therefore it really is personal discrimination.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 6 hours ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3475

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

The t-shirt company didn't print the shirts; looks like the company has been found guilty of discrimination but they don't know what that means yet in terms of the consequences.

Businesses should not be able to turn away customers because of their race, gender, sexual identity, etc. I think it gets very tricky, legally, to find the line between discriminating against a group and actually having an issue with a message.

But once you become a business, you are not allowed to discriminate against people. Religion isn't a carte blanche excuse to discriminate.

To make it more complicated, it's not like Christianity and anti-gay sentiment go hand-in-hand. Multitudes of Christians are pro-gay marriage. So you could argue that many Christian-owned businesses would not have any issues with gay weddings, and therefore it really is personal discrimination.

Oh fine, you enticed me back into this thing. I agree with all of this.....up to the last paragraph.

I share the label of Christian with lots of people, but just because lots of people call themselves Christian and don't believe the same thing I believe on all aspects of life, does not mean my personal beliefs aren't founded in my own religion or spiritual beliefs. The term Christian really only defines one thing about ones religious beliefs...a belief in Christ and not much else.

However, i do agree with the rest of what you said, especially "Religion isn't a carte blanche excuse to discriminate." so it doesn't really matter Smile

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

To make it more complicated, it's not like Christianity and anti-gay sentiment go hand-in-hand. Multitudes of Christians are pro-gay marriage. So you could argue that many Christian-owned businesses would not have any issues with gay weddings, and therefore it really is personal discrimination.

All the more reason that if you shouldn't be forced to do something that goes against your religious beliefs or close your doors. There are plenty of other options available. Go down the street to someone who believes the way you do.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 6 hours ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3475

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

All the more reason that if you shouldn't be forced to do something that goes against your religious beliefs or close your doors. There are plenty of other options available. Go down the street to someone who believes the way you do.

The bold when it comes to discrimination, you know historically that has proven to not work nor foster an equal society, correct?

I support a religious institutions right to not officiate a wedding and do the actual marrying of a couple. I do not support a businesses right to not make someone a cake or make t-shirts, because the customers are lesbians.

Providing equal service to lesbians does not make you a lesbian, nor does it mean you married them. You can still think its a sin and not be a lesbian and make them a cake. If making them a cake for hire causes you to sin...then you need to live in a country with a religion, or you need to not be in the business of making cakes for hire. The US is allowed to protect gay and lesbian couples rights, just like they protect other groups.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

Our local market has it right they have a sign.. they reserve the right to refuse business to anyone.. I think It should be up to the business owners if they want to be seen as "racist" "bigots" "homophobic" etc.

Secondly, WHY should what you do in the bedroom ever need to be an issue? ... Reason.. they want it known... A quiet civil union or party isn't enough.. Mine was... we has 25 people at my "church wedding".. lots of my friends just go to the justice of the peace.. One doesn't have a RIGHT to have a huge wedding done where ever they want.. In our church you had to go through counseling and we were members of the church (with that comes believing in the tenants of the church)...

Ok.. not a church you say...

Should private businesses have a right to refuse business to someone based on (BLANK).. I think yes.. I would dare say I could find a point you would agree with me on.. how about someone without shoes? can a restaurant refuse to feed them? YUP.. OK how about.. say leprosy.. YUP.. humm how about.. just being a jerk and not serving people with glasses... DO you think that business will survive? Maybe it will if it serves good food.. and those without glasses do not mind spending money where people are jerks... Should the state regulate it???? I don't think so.

Whether sleeping with someone is a choice or not.. patronizing a business sure is.. why be belligerent and force someone to accommodate you... WHEN unlike the blacks during the Civil Rights Movement and before during Slavery especially.. there are MANY places to patronize for the homosexuals.. not sure I get the point of it all..

It is like walking into a KKK establishment when Black and demanding service... Allow them to disagree and only those that disagree will patronize them ;).

We should have FREEDOM of religion ... It is more important than someone getting a cake or getting married from us.

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3348

So it should be legal for businesses to turn away black people because they can always go somewhere else? And you think that's okay?

Well I don't. We have anti-discrimination laws for a reason, we don't want a society in which it's legal to turn people away from homes, products, and services because of their race, gender, sexual identity, etc.

Shoeless people, not a protected group. Carriers of an infectious disease... different story. Should a restaurant be able to turn away women? Asians? Isn't the beauty of this country that we actually care about equality?

p.s. Being gay isn't about what happens in the bedroom any more than being straight is.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 6 hours ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3475

"Rivergallery" wrote:

Our local market has it right they have a sign.. they reserve the right to refuse business to anyone.. I think It should be up to the business owners if they want to be seen as "racist" "bigots" "homophobic" etc.

Well they can hang whatever sign they want and you can think whatever you want, but its actually not true. They can't refuse business to people depending on the reason. So if it can be proven that they refused service to someone because they were black, for example, they would get into legal trouble.

Secondly, WHY should what you do in the bedroom ever need to be an issue? ... Reason.. they want it known... A quiet civil union or party isn't enough.. Mine was... we has 25 people at my "church wedding".. lots of my friends just go to the justice of the peace.. One doesn't have a RIGHT to have a huge wedding done where ever they want.. In our church you had to go through counseling and we were members of the church (with that comes believing in the tenants of the church)...

I had a much bigger, non quiet wedding. I wanted a cake, at a reception hall, a photographer and everything else. I'm heterosexual. Just because you had a quiet unassuming wedding doesn't mean thats what everyone wants. That has nothing to do with anyone's sexual orientation.

Should private businesses have a right to refuse business to someone based on (BLANK).. I think yes..

Legally speaking, it depends on what that 'blank' is. You know this...i know this. People simply take issue with the fact that gay couples are being protected. But we have precedent to protect groups, its not like this never existed before.

Whether sleeping with someone is a choice or not.. patronizing a business sure is.. why be belligerent and force someone to accommodate you... WHEN unlike the blacks during the Civil Rights Movement and before during Slavery especially.. there are MANY places to patronize for the homosexuals.. not sure I get the point of it all..

Because it doesn't bode well for you as a person if people are allowed to discriminate against you. Maybe the cake, or wedding venue isn't a big deal, but allowing people to discriminate against you in general is.

We should have FREEDOM of religion ... It is more important than someone getting a cake or getting married from us.

Big picture vs little picture here. The cake is the little picture. And you can practice your own religion, but there is no way you can practice it in this purest sense when you have to interact with others in a society that does not have a universal religion. Thus the reason I say if your religion is so strict that providing business to people who sin makes you a sinner:

a)You need to find a religious society with a religious government that has the same religious beliefs that you have and makes them law
b)I don't really know how you can provide anyone business anyway.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"KimPossible" wrote:

Big picture vs little picture here. The cake is the little picture. And you can practice your own religion, but there is no way you can practice it in this purest sense when you have to interact with others in a society that does not have a universal religion. Thus the reason I say if your religion is so strict that providing business to people who sin makes you a sinner:

a)You need to find a religious society with a religious government that has the same religious beliefs that you have and makes them law
b)I don't really know how you can provide anyone business anyway.

In other words it is ok for our government to discriminate against someone who has conservative religious values but not those who have liberal values, because only those with liberal values are allowed to run a business.

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3348

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

In other words it is ok for our government to discriminate against someone who has conservative religious values but not those who have liberal values, because only those with liberal values are allowed to run a business.

How is the government discriminating? is it refusing service to conservative religious people?

It's not about values or thoughts, it's about actions. And it's part of what makes this country great, that you can't turn people away because of these things.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

Providing service -
What about lets take the marijuana topic...
Refusing to sell to those for recreational use not Medical use.
How about cutting alcohol off for people in bars?

I am saying in our current society.. OR specifically MINE.. as I concede there are places in the US where racism is rampant...etc.. That in most places People of whatever skin color, gender, age, sexual preference can find a place to patron where they can get there needs met. That is my point.. It is NOT like it was in the time of the civil war or civil rights movement (at least where I live).. maybe it is still that bad in some Southern areas..

a) good thing I do live in a society where I can live out my religious beliefs.
b) not sure why someone should have to serve anyone they don't want to as long as there are viable options for the patron... It is a service.. not a right.

No one has a right to these things.. a cake or someone to marry them.. If legal they have the right to have it available.. that doesn't mean that EVERYONE has to participate in it.

So... if someone comes to you as a cake maker you have to make the cake for them no matter what?

If someone comes to you and wants to be married you have to marry them no matter what?

Seriously?

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3348

"Rivergallery" wrote:

So... if someone comes to you as a cake maker you have to make the cake for them no matter what?

If someone comes to you and wants to be married you have to marry them no matter what?

Seriously?

No. You can refuse to make the cake if...

you are overbooked
they want a cake you don't know how to make
they want it done in a specific way you don't do
they want ingredients you can't afford
etc.

You can NOT refuse to make the cake if the reason for refusal is their skin color, gender, sexual identity, or a bunch of other things.

And if you are part of a religious organization, like a church, then you don't have to officiate at any wedding that goes against your faith. If you're an officiant-for-hire, and you're not part of a religious organization, then you can't discriminate.

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3348

Oh and p.s. it's illegal to sell marijuana for recreational use.

You can refuse to serve a drunk person. You can't refuse to serve an Asian person because you think Asians can't handle their liquor.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 6 hours ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3475

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

Oh and p.s. it's illegal to sell marijuana for recreational use.

You can refuse to serve a drunk person. You can't refuse to serve an Asian person because you think Asians can't handle their liquor.

Or because your religion thinks asian people shouldn't drink.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

ok... let's take this one more step.. is cake decorating an art form?
Are we now going to mandate artists take jobs from anyone? why can't they choose who they want to make cakes for? black white.. men women.. only native weddings.. only children's birthday.. only 2-10 yr old kids and heterosexual weddings.. or only Goth cakes...

So everyone with a license to marry MUST marry anyone that wants to? They have no choice? What if they simply do not like the people? What if they do not think the people should get married.. and do not want to participate in a union they feel is doomed from the start (ie shotgun weddings) Marrying for "baby" and not for love.. etc. etc.. I think there are many reasons and any of the above.. INCLUDING who they are marrying could come into play.. Just like it would be fine of someone didn't want to officiate a wedding between two religious beliefs or two genders, or two races...

Again as long as there are plenty of opportunities to live (freely) rent a place hold a wedding.. get a cake.. in their area not sure why EVERYONE should have to accomodate everyone...

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3348

So you are pro-discrimination?

You don't see the negative impact of, say, landlords refusing to rent apartments to black people?

And by the way, you can refuse to serve lots of people for all kinds of reasons, just not the ones protected by law. You can certainly refuse to serve anyone you don't like just because you don't like them. You can kick someone out of your store for being loud, or rude ... you can't kick them out for being Jewish.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

How is the government discriminating? is it refusing service to conservative religious people?

It's not about values or thoughts, it's about actions. And it's part of what makes this country great, that you can't turn people away because of these things.

Yes it is. It is threatening them with fines and possibly jail time if they don't run their business according to how the government wants it run, not according to their own beliefs.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

No one should have to marry someone against their beliefs weather they belong to a church or not. In the same way, a pharmacist should not be forced to carry or dispense abortion causing drugs or a cake maker to make a cake they do not want to. I know others on this board disagree, but owning a business does not strip you of all rights. You are taking away one person's freedoms to give them to another. Businesses are made up of people, and people should not be forced to go against their moral convictions.

These are all issues that fit a liberal agenda, but what if it was the other way around? What if we passed a law that businesses must let guns inside their establishments? Or that stores had to sell Bibles? Would you want the Government to control your business in that way?

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

. And it's part of what makes this country great, that you can't turn people away because of these things.

No, What makes this country great is its freedoms, which is what is being stripped away by the Government trying to control every aspect of a business.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

DP

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3348

So if my moral convictions tell me that Asian people shouldn't drink alcohol, should I be legally allowed to refuse to serve them?

Same for renting an apartment to black people?

Can I refuse to fit a wedding dress on an atheist because I think only religious people should get married?

And no, I don't think a pharmacist should be able to make decisions about which drugs to dispense. If I have a legal prescription I am entitled to get it from a pharmacy, I can't imagine allowing a random individual to make that decision. Lots of people live in small towns with one pharmacy ... they're just out of luck?

I seriously can't believe that you all think it should be legal to discriminate against people. Let's start refusing to give jobs to women because our morality tells us that they should be at home with their kids. That should be legal, right? I shouldn't have to hire anyone I don't want to even if the reason I don't want to is the color of their skin. Yikes. That's quite a few steps back in your country's history, isn't it?

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

So if my moral convictions tell me that Asian people shouldn't drink alcohol, should I be legally allowed to refuse to serve them?

Same for renting an apartment to black people?

Can I refuse to fit a wedding dress on an atheist because I think only religious people should get married?

And no, I don't think a pharmacist should be able to make decisions about which drugs to dispense. If I have a legal prescription I am entitled to get it from a pharmacy, I can't imagine allowing a random individual to make that decision. Lots of people live in small towns with one pharmacy ... they're just out of luck?

I seriously can't believe that you all think it should be legal to discriminate against people. Let's start refusing to give jobs to women because our morality tells us that they should be at home with their kids. That should be legal, right? I shouldn't have to hire anyone I don't want to even if the reason I don't want to is the color of their skin. Yikes. That's quite a few steps back in your country's history, isn't it?

First, what I think is right and what I think should be legal are not always the same thing. Second, it is not the pharmacy's fault if there is only on pharmacy in town. That would be like saying if an ice cream shop only sold two flavors of ice cream that should be illegal because there might only be one ice cream shop in town so they should be forced to sell 10 flavors of ice cream. Most pharmacy's do not keep every single rx known to man in them. They make a decision based on what they think they will reasonably need. Many times I have been told a pharmacy does not have something and I will need to go somewhere else. They should not HAVE to stock anything. No, I do not think someone should have to fit someone for a wedding dress for whatever reason. Be it they smell, or whatever. However, I also think you should be able to be fired for not doing your job. That is up to the employer though, not the Government.

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

If a Christian group wanted to rent a venue for public use, but the owner said, "No, I don't rent to Christians," the backlash would be pretty severe. Calls for boycotts, flooding media with negative comments, lawsuits...

Yet, for some reason when it's any other group that is being discriminated against - as long as the discrimination is religious-based - it's perfectly fine.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

"ethanwinfield" wrote:

If a Christian group wanted to rent a venue for public use, but the owner said, "No, I don't rent to Christians," the backlash would be pretty severe. Calls for boycotts, flooding media with negative comments, lawsuits...

Yet, for some reason when it's any other group that is being discriminated against - as long as the discrimination is religious-based - it's perfectly fine.

Not sure anyone said it was "Fine".. It is a RIGHT of our country to follow our religious beliefs even if that means not hiring or serving certain people in certain sections of society.. or not getting blood transfusions or vaccines.. cover our heads or not.. piercing ourselves or not.. Choosing to do or not do something should be a right.. physically harming or inciting harm is NOT what this is about.. It is avoiding... same as Amish avoid school after the 8th grade.. and military service... Those with this belief are avoiding something.. Not going after and harming others.. They are simply stating that they will NOT do something.

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

My view - Supreme Court is Wrong: Christian Businesses Should Refuse Service to Homosexuals!

oh and Christians are being discriminated against and most do not hear a word about it.. here is just one -https://www.lifesitenews.com/news/software-company-refuses-service-to-pro-life-group-over-abortion-marriage-v

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3348

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

First, what I think is right and what I think should be legal are not always the same thing. Second, it is not the pharmacy's fault if there is only on pharmacy in town. That would be like saying if an ice cream shop only sold two flavors of ice cream that should be illegal because there might only be one ice cream shop in town so they should be forced to sell 10 flavors of ice cream. Most pharmacy's do not keep every single rx known to man in them. They make a decision based on what they think they will reasonably need. Many times I have been told a pharmacy does not have something and I will need to go somewhere else. They should not HAVE to stock anything. No, I do not think someone should have to fit someone for a wedding dress for whatever reason. Be it they smell, or whatever. However, I also think you should be able to be fired for not doing your job. That is up to the employer though, not the Government.

What?

When my pharmacy doesn't have a drug I need, they order it.

An ice cream shop sells a luxury item, and they decide what flavors to stock.

A pharmacist is filling prescriptions made by a doctor. It's not the same business model at all, or the same type of service.

And again -- YES you can refuse to fit a dress to someone who smells! That's not discrimination. Refusing to fit a dress to someone because they are black is discrimination.

I am baffled by your inability to see the difference.

Do you actually think a business should be legally allowed to refuse to allow black people to go there? Is that reasonable and fair to you? Lunch counter sit-ins were about this EXACT issue...telling black people they are not entitled to the same services as white.

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3348

"Rivergallery" wrote:

Not sure anyone said it was "Fine".. It is a RIGHT of our country to follow our religious beliefs even if that means not hiring or serving certain people in certain sections of society.. or not getting blood transfusions or vaccines.. cover our heads or not.. piercing ourselves or not.. Choosing to do or not do something should be a right.. physically harming or inciting harm is NOT what this is about.. It is avoiding... same as Amish avoid school after the 8th grade.. and military service... Those with this belief are avoiding something.. Not going after and harming others.. They are simply stating that they will NOT do something.

Huge difference between decisions you make for yourself and decisions you make for others. No one is forcing anybody to marry another person of the same sex, themselves.

So again ... is it okay to "avoid" black people in your restaurant? Should that be legal?

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

People should be allowed to avoid who they want.. You own the restaurant or does the state own it?

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 6 hours ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3475

Just because you own something doesn't mean you can do whatever you want with it. That's never been true.

But I'm assuming your last response does indeed mean people should be able to refuse blacks. Wow... Well at least you are consistent!

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

Should an owner that has darker skin have to serve a KKK member?

Should a Jew have to serve a Neo-****?

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

There are LOTS of places that discriminate already -
Men's clubs..
Lions/Elks/Shriners etc etc

How about Gay bars? think a homosexual would be treated comfortably there?

How about Girls/Boys school?

How about high end country clubs?

Restaurants that need a suit and tie? (This is not a health issue.. it is a discrimination issue against those with less income).

Rivergallery's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 year 8 months ago
Joined: 05/23/03
Posts: 1301

Now... ALLOWING owners to have the same rights as the customer... doesn't Imply or mean I personally would or would not frequent a place that made these decisions.. Just that they have the RIGHT to do so.

The customer then has the right not to frequent them.. and if their choice is socially aborhent then their business will fail.

AlyssaEimers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 months 1 week ago
Joined: 08/22/06
Posts: 6803

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

What?

When my pharmacy doesn't have a drug I need, they order it.

An ice cream shop sells a luxury item, and they decide what flavors to stock.

A pharmacist is filling prescriptions made by a doctor. It's not the same business model at all, or the same type of service.

And again -- YES you can refuse to fit a dress to someone who smells! That's not discrimination. Refusing to fit a dress to someone because they are black is discrimination.

I am baffled by your inability to see the difference.

Do you actually think a business should be legally allowed to refuse to allow black people to go there? Is that reasonable and fair to you? Lunch counter sit-ins were about this EXACT issue...telling black people they are not entitled to the same services as white.

I think there are plenty of times (I have experienced it more than once), where a pharmacy does not have something you want, so they say they do not have it try somewhere else. Many times due to shortages and they simply do not have enough. They might say we only have enough for some people so they first give to children and people in high risk Fields like nurses (Think flu shots).

A business is a business. There is nothing that says an ice cream shop can sell what it wants because it is a luxury but a Pharmacy can not because it is deemed more necessary. There is also no difference in saying I will not serve someone because they smell and saying I will not serve someone because you do not approve of their lifestyle.

About the Black/White issue, I think it is despicable to not want to serve someone because of the color of their skin and I would never go to a place that I knew practiced this. That said, I do not think there should be a law stating who you can serve and what you have to serve.

It all boils down to either wanting the Government to control every aspect of life, or wanting the Government to mostly stay out of the way unless it is really necessary. If someone is practicing really stupid things like refusing to serve a Black man, then they will loose business and not stay in business for long.

PP was right in that it is no different than a country club refusing to serve someone unless they look/dress/act a certain way. Discrimination happens every day all the time. That does not make it right, but that also does not mean that we should legislate our freedoms away.

I did want to say that personally, while I know many disagree, I do see a difference in the Black/White issue and the Gay/Straight issue. There is nothing anyone can do about being Black or White. There is also probably nothing you can do about what sexual tendencies you have, however there is something you can do about your behavior. If I owned a restaurant and two woman were sitting in the restaurant making out I absolutely should be able to ask them to leave. Not because of their sexual preferences, but because of their actions in my establishment.

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 04/12/03
Posts: 1763

Wouldn't it be wonderful if people did the right thing on their own, without having to force them to?

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3348

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

It all boils down to either wanting the Government to control every aspect of life, or wanting the Government to mostly stay out of the way unless it is really necessary. If someone is practicing really stupid things like refusing to serve a Black man, then they will loose business and not stay in business for long.

But we're not talking about just those extremes. I think the government absolutely needs to step in when its citizens are treated unfairly. We made it illegal in this country to discriminate against people because the whole country had been set up for so long to favor whites exclusively. People fought hard during the civil rights movement to make the point that we all are entitled to the same rights and privileges. We NEED these laws to protect our people.

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

PP was right in that it is no different than a country club refusing to serve someone unless they look/dress/act a certain way. Discrimination happens every day all the time. That does not make it right, but that also does not mean that we should legislate our freedoms away.

There is a huge difference between a dress code and racial or sexual discrimination.

"AlyssaEimers" wrote:

I did want to say that personally, while I know many disagree, I do see a difference in the Black/White issue and the Gay/Straight issue. There is nothing anyone can do about being Black or White. There is also probably nothing you can do about what sexual tendencies you have, however there is something you can do about your behavior. If I owned a restaurant and two woman were sitting in the restaurant making out I absolutely should be able to ask them to leave. Not because of their sexual preferences, but because of their actions in my establishment.

You can bar people from your restaurant for making out and having bad BEHAVIOR. Being gay is not a behavior. You can be gay and not be having any sex at all. Even when I wasn't dating anyone and I was single I was still straight.

So you showed the difference yourself. You are NOT allowed to ask the women to leave because they are a couple. You ARE allowed to ask the women to leave if they are making out in your establishment.

And a flu shot shortage is not the same thing. I'm not saying pharmacies aren't allowed to run out stock! I'm saying that a specific pharmacist, due to the nature of his/her job, should not be able to dictate ON MORAL GROUNDS what prescriptions they will fill and which ones they won't. I don't know what the laws are regarding such things.

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3348

"Rivergallery" wrote:

There are LOTS of places that discriminate already -
Men's clubs..
Lions/Elks/Shriners etc etc

How about Gay bars? think a homosexual would be treated comfortably there?

How about Girls/Boys school?

How about high end country clubs?

Restaurants that need a suit and tie? (This is not a health issue.. it is a discrimination issue against those with less income).

Gay bars are indeed very nice to homosexuals. Smile
Okay, I know that was a typo.

Gay bars do not forbid heterosexuals from going there, they are not allowed to discriminate either. Are we talking comfort or are we talking refusing to do business? Two different things.

Of course you're allowed to have an all-girls school or a boys' swim team or a club that is specific to a certain group. That's why we have these groups! That's not discrimination.

People who don't own jackets and ties are not a protected class. I know rich people who don't own ties and low income people who do.

I find it shocking that there are people who think there should not be any anti-discrimination laws. Do we bring back Jim Crow? Keep women out of medical school? Create whites-only neighborhoods?

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3348

"Rivergallery" wrote:

Now... ALLOWING owners to have the same rights as the customer... doesn't Imply or mean I personally would or would not frequent a place that made these decisions.. Just that they have the RIGHT to do so.

The customer then has the right not to frequent them.. and if their choice is socially aborhent then their business will fail.

I think there are more than enough racists around to ensure some of those businesses thrive.

And the owners already have the same rights as the customer.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"freddieflounder101" wrote:

And again -- YES you can refuse to fit a dress to someone who smells! That's not discrimination. Refusing to fit a dress to someone because they are black is discrimination.

I am baffled by your inability to see the difference.

Do you actually think a business should be legally allowed to refuse to allow black people to go there? Is that reasonable and fair to you? Lunch counter sit-ins were about this EXACT issue...telling black people they are not entitled to the same services as white.

So if a straight person came in and ordered gay pride t-shirts is it ok for them to say no? I'm not sure how someone can tell if someone is gay or not just by looking at them. They are not discriminating against the person but the message.

Offline
Last seen: 3 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 03/08/03
Posts: 3348

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

So if a straight person came in and ordered gay pride t-shirts is it ok for them to say no? They are not discriminating against the person but the message.

That's actually a great question.

I don't know the technicalities of that one! It might NOT be discrimination in that case. Interesting to think about.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 6 hours ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3475

I think a lawyer defending a place of business would have a good case in that scenario. It would be interesting to see how that played out.

Or to further complicate it, i wonder if they could agree to print an anti-gay statement, but not a pro-gay one, as long as they 'said' they would do it for anyone no matter who they are.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

The thing is that the same type of argument could apply to all these things, because they aren't really discriminating against the person. If a gay person goes into a bakery and orders a birthday cake and is not refused service, but then orders a wedding cake and told they don't do gay wedding cakes ... why is that discrimination? If a photographer will photograph any other event for a gay person except for a wedding ... why is that discrimination? They are not discriminating against the person, they are just refusing to do something that is against their religious beliefs. If a straight person orders a gay wedding cake and they say no is that discrimination? After all do you really think that a business asks someone if they are gay or straight before they order something? Is there some magical way to tell that someone is gay? That is another reason that I don't see how this can be compared to race or gender discrimination. It is pretty obvious at least most of the time what race you are or your gender... but unless someone offers up the information there is no way to tell if you are gay.

Spacers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104

No one forced these people to go into SERVICE professions. They could work on a manufacturing line, be an accountant in a big corporation, dig ditches, develop smart phone apps, do construction, there are all kinds of jobs to be done where your personal belief that it's OK to discriminate against others will not affect anyone else. These people chose to go into business performing weddings, baking wedding cakes, taking wedding photographs, etc. knowing that it's illegal to disciminate against protected groups of our population. If they don't like it, get out of the business. Don't argue that *your* reason for the discimination is acceptable, because it's not. Not ever.

GloriaInTX's picture
Offline
Last seen: 1 week 5 days ago
Joined: 07/29/08
Posts: 4230

"Spacers" wrote:

No one forced these people to go into SERVICE professions. They could work on a manufacturing line, be an accountant in a big corporation, dig ditches, develop smart phone apps, do construction, there are all kinds of jobs to be done where your personal belief that it's OK to discriminate against others will not affect anyone else. These people chose to go into business performing weddings, baking wedding cakes, taking wedding photographs, etc. knowing that it's illegal to disciminate against protected groups of our population. If they don't like it, get out of the business. Don't argue that *your* reason for the discimination is acceptable, because it's not. Not ever.

But that is discrimination against a conservative Christian to say that they can't have a business in the service industry unless they agree to do something that is against their religious beliefs. Religious discrimination all the way.

KimPossible's picture
Offline
Last seen: 3 days 6 hours ago
Joined: 05/24/06
Posts: 3475

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

The thing is that the same type of argument could apply to all these things, because they aren't really discriminating against the person. If a gay person goes into a bakery and orders a birthday cake and is not refused service, but then orders a wedding cake and told they don't do gay wedding cakes

THere is no such thing as a gay wedding cake. A cake is the same, the ceremony is not part of the cake.

Spacers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

The thing is that the same type of argument could apply to all these things, because they aren't really discriminating against the person. If a gay person goes into a bakery and orders a birthday cake and is not refused service, but then orders a wedding cake and told they don't do gay wedding cakes ... why is that discrimination? If a photographer will photograph any other event for a gay person except for a wedding ... why is that discrimination? They are not discriminating against the person, they are just refusing to do something that is against their religious beliefs. If a straight person orders a gay wedding cake and they say no is that discrimination? After all do you really think that a business asks someone if they are gay or straight before they order something? Is there some magical way to tell that someone is gay? That is another reason that I don't see how this can be compared to race or gender discrimination. It is pretty obvious at least most of the time what race you are or your gender... but unless someone offers up the information there is no way to tell if you are gay.

First of all, there is no such thing as "a gay wedding cake." There are cakes, and there are wedding cakes, and there are gay people who order cakes and gay people who order wedding cakes. And there are plenty of ways for a baker who *wants* to know if he's being asked to make "a gay wedding cake" to find out. When the couple shows up for a tasting, you can usually tell. On the order form, if they fill out the names of the bride & groom as "Johnny & Jack," that might indicate something. Or maybe the baker notices a rainbow flag sticker on the car and asks what it stands for. Maybe the address given is smack in the middle of the Castro or Polk Gulch.

Spacers's picture
Offline
Last seen: 10 months 3 weeks ago
Joined: 12/29/03
Posts: 4104

"GloriaInTX" wrote:

But that is discrimination against a conservative Christian to say that they can't have a business in the service industry unless they agree to do something that is against their religious beliefs. Religious discrimination all the way.

Your religious beliefs to not trump other people's civil rights. Period. Not in this country.

Pages