Are Gay-Rights Laws Trampling on Freedom of Religion?

[memphis]

Yes, I think Civil Rights Laws are still critical. After the initial shock, I think there would be a great deal of demand for No Blacks accomodations, particularly in "private clubs" in Downtown Entertainment districts. We'll just have to agree to disagree. I also don't understand why you think Civil Rights Laws were needed for blacks back in the 60s but are not needed for gays today when we have the gay discrimination cases right in front of us.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Those private clubs are already allowed under Title II as it exists today.

[MyRescueKittehRocks]

No moreso than anti-gay laws. My denomination has gay marriage,  and I strongly believe that being against 100% full equality is a sin.

Being against marriage equality is the right thing based on the whole of scripture. These gay rights laws are an undue infringement on religious freedom.

[memphis]

No moreso than anti-gay laws. My denomination has gay marriage,  and I strongly believe that being against 100% full equality is a sin.

Being against marriage equality is the right thing based on the whole of scripture. These gay rights laws are an undue infringement on religious freedom.

Do you eat pork that has been inspected by the USDA, which is funded by my tax dollars? OMGZ!!!!!1 UR hurting my religous freedomz!!!!!

[afleitch]

No moreso than anti-gay laws. My denomination has gay marriage,  and I strongly believe that being against 100% full equality is a sin.

Being against marriage equality is the right thing based on the whole of scripture. These gay rights laws are an undue infringement on religious freedom.

They'll be wanting the vote next. Hurumph.

[memphis]

Those private clubs are already allowed under Title II as it exists today.

It's a lot more complicated than that. Bob's restaurant can't just call itself a private club, charge a nominal membership fee, and start ignoring Civil Rights Laws. If you're in the business of serving the public, you generally don't qualify for this exemption.

[All Along The Watchtower]

No moreso than anti-gay laws. My denomination has gay marriage,  and I strongly believe that being against 100% full equality is a sin.

Being against marriage equality is the right thing based on the whole of scripture. These gay rights laws are an undue infringement on religious freedom.

My religion says that your religion is unfounded and absurd.


But that's beside the point. Your particular version of right-wing political idiocy, justified by religion in your mind, is antithetical to democratic values in a society that supposedly prides itself on equality of opportunity.

[publicunofficial]

Love to search for 4 year old discussions that I can revive with my bad opinions.

[Kamala]

Love to search for 4 year old discussions that I can revive with my bad opinions.

The world's sh[inks]iest necromancer.

[pbrower2a]

No moreso than anti-gay laws. My denomination has gay marriage,  and I strongly believe that being against 100% full equality is a sin.

Being against marriage equality is the right thing based on the whole of scripture. These gay rights laws are an undue infringement on religious freedom.

1. The strictures against  homosexuality are opposition to temple prostitution in pagan religions.

2. The bloodthirsty passages in Leviticus are no longer valid. Jews who accept Kashrut laws in food preparation and consumption often tolerate homosexuality.

3. Jesus demands that we love our neighbor. That includes gays and lesbians.

4. As an adult you have no obligation to participate in a same-sex marriage or visit a house in which the adults are in a same-sex marriage, or to allow a same-sex couple to visit your household.

5. Same-sex rights create a safer world for us all against violent homophobia to which we are all at risk. They do not give anyone the right to mess with children.   

[Idaho Conservative]

Depends which gay rights laws.  Laws allowing gay people to have sex, serve in the military, adopt children, and marry don't infringe on religious liberty because they don't force you to do anything.  You can disagree with gay rights, but it doesn't infringe on your liberty.  The issue where you can see a conflict is with discrimination law.  For example, should a Christian baker be able to refuse a wedding cake for a gay wedding?  In reality this is not a clash between gay rights and religious liberty but it is a clash between anti-discrimination laws and religious liberty.  The concept of forcing private individuals to provide their labor in an equal manner vs. the right of people to live out their faith in their daily life when they are not doing harm unto others (I don't consider refusing association or a transaction to be harming someone).  I have somewhat of a different outlook on this issue that conservatives do.  Conservatives try to pass Religious Freedom laws that in theory allow refusal to gays for religious reasons only.  Ok, that is a start, but my view is that the party being refused and the reason for refusal don't matter.  A private business should not be require to provide their services to anyone, period.  The reason for refusal shouldn't HAVE TO BE religious and gays aren't the only class that should be able to be legally refused service.  The only area I see a reason where the government would compel service is if it is a large, incorporated business that is the only or one of the few proprietors of a service.  An example of this is a phone company, electric company, water company, gas company ect.  Also, a mega-corporation like Wal-Mart should not be able to deny service for any reason.  However, it is very unlikely a large corporation would engage in discriminatory practices because it would hurt their bottom line and literally, the reason for a corporation to exist is to make a profit that goes to their shareholders.  I believe in freedom and consistency, and I just hate the idea of the government compelling you to serve someone when you don't want to, simple as that. 

[MasterJedi]

Depends which gay rights laws.  Laws allowing gay people to have sex, serve in the military, adopt children, and marry don't infringe on religious liberty because they don't force you to do anything.  You can disagree with gay rights, but it doesn't infringe on your liberty.  The issue where you can see a conflict is with discrimination law.  For example, should a Christian baker be able to refuse a wedding cake for a gay wedding?  In reality this is not a clash between gay rights and religious liberty but it is a clash between anti-discrimination laws and religious liberty.  The concept of forcing private individuals to provide their labor in an equal manner vs. the right of people to live out their faith in their daily life when they are not doing harm unto others (I don't consider refusing association or a transaction to be harming someone).  I have somewhat of a different outlook on this issue that conservatives do.  Conservatives try to pass Religious Freedom laws that in theory allow refusal to gays for religious reasons only.  Ok, that is a start, but my view is that the party being refused and the reason for refusal don't matter.  A private business should not be require to provide their services to anyone, period.  The reason for refusal shouldn't HAVE TO BE religious and gays aren't the only class that should be able to be legally refused service.  The only area I see a reason where the government would compel service is if it is a large, incorporated business that is the only or one of the few proprietors of a service.  An example of this is a phone company, electric company, water company, gas company ect.  Also, a mega-corporation like Wal-Mart should not be able to deny service for any reason.  However, it is very unlikely a large corporation would engage in discriminatory practices because it would hurt their bottom line and literally, the reason for a corporation to exist is to make a profit that goes to their shareholders.  I believe in freedom and consistency, and I just hate the idea of the government compelling you to serve someone when you don't want to, simple as that. 

Why don't you just admit you are for discrimination? You try and make it seem like you don't but then you say "anyone should be able to discriminate unless they're a large corporation". Besides, nobody is making anyone violate their religious beliefs when it comes to themselves, but when you open a business or take a job you are required to follow the law of the land, which is separate from the church. Don't like it? Go do something else, but you can't discriminate against someone because you don't believe they should have rights, no matter how small you are.

[Kingpoleon]

Why is religious conscientious exemption held higher in law (and the answer to this is partly tradition) than philosophical conscientious exemption?

As you said, tradition.  Yet where you seem to take the position that religion should be leveled with other philosophies by denying the use of a religious reason to engage in discrimination, I take the complete opposite tack.  To me it doesn't matter why that photographer we've been using as an example wants to be an idiot and not shoot gay weddings. When rights conflict, there is a need to choose which takes precedence, but I see no compelling reason in this case to force him to provide that service so as to facilitate a right to be married.  To me it's not freedom of religion that rights laws trample but freedom of association.  Freedom of religion is but a specific case of freedom of association. I grant the OP posed the question in terms of that specific case, but the right that is trampled is the more generic one.

So you're against the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

No he's not but you've just proven you're against the first amendment by comparing freedom of religion to segregation. What's so bad about freedom of religion which includes the church's right to not accept gay marriage?  Does this mean you're against freedom of speech as protected by our first amendment too? You must oppose it because you're sure against people speaking from religious grounds to support where they stand.

If my religion says I can't serve black or interracial couples, do you apply the same logic?

[MasterJedi]

Why is religious conscientious exemption held higher in law (and the answer to this is partly tradition) than philosophical conscientious exemption?

As you said, tradition.  Yet where you seem to take the position that religion should be leveled with other philosophies by denying the use of a religious reason to engage in discrimination, I take the complete opposite tack.  To me it doesn't matter why that photographer we've been using as an example wants to be an idiot and not shoot gay weddings. When rights conflict, there is a need to choose which takes precedence, but I see no compelling reason in this case to force him to provide that service so as to facilitate a right to be married.  To me it's not freedom of religion that rights laws trample but freedom of association.  Freedom of religion is but a specific case of freedom of association. I grant the OP posed the question in terms of that specific case, but the right that is trampled is the more generic one.

So you're against the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

No he's not but you've just proven you're against the first amendment by comparing freedom of religion to segregation. What's so bad about freedom of religion which includes the church's right to not accept gay marriage?  Does this mean you're against freedom of speech as protected by our first amendment too? You must oppose it because you're sure against people speaking from religious grounds to support where they stand.

If my religion says I can't serve black or interracial couples, do you apply the same logic?

He says yes, but only if you own a small business, not a corporation.

[Idaho Conservative]

Depends which gay rights laws.  Laws allowing gay people to have sex, serve in the military, adopt children, and marry don't infringe on religious liberty because they don't force you to do anything.  You can disagree with gay rights, but it doesn't infringe on your liberty.  The issue where you can see a conflict is with discrimination law.  For example, should a Christian baker be able to refuse a wedding cake for a gay wedding?  In reality this is not a clash between gay rights and religious liberty but it is a clash between anti-discrimination laws and religious liberty.  The concept of forcing private individuals to provide their labor in an equal manner vs. the right of people to live out their faith in their daily life when they are not doing harm unto others (I don't consider refusing association or a transaction to be harming someone).  I have somewhat of a different outlook on this issue that conservatives do.  Conservatives try to pass Religious Freedom laws that in theory allow refusal to gays for religious reasons only.  Ok, that is a start, but my view is that the party being refused and the reason for refusal don't matter.  A private business should not be require to provide their services to anyone, period.  The reason for refusal shouldn't HAVE TO BE religious and gays aren't the only class that should be able to be legally refused service.  The only area I see a reason where the government would compel service is if it is a large, incorporated business that is the only or one of the few proprietors of a service.  An example of this is a phone company, electric company, water company, gas company ect.  Also, a mega-corporation like Wal-Mart should not be able to deny service for any reason.  However, it is very unlikely a large corporation would engage in discriminatory practices because it would hurt their bottom line and literally, the reason for a corporation to exist is to make a profit that goes to their shareholders.  I believe in freedom and consistency, and I just hate the idea of the government compelling you to serve someone when you don't want to, simple as that. 

Why don't you just admit you are for discrimination? You try and make it seem like you don't but then you say "anyone should be able to discriminate unless they're a large corporation". Besides, nobody is making anyone violate their religious beliefs when it comes to themselves, but when you open a business or take a job you are required to follow the law of the land, which is separate from the church. Don't like it? Go do something else, but you can't discriminate against someone because you don't believe they should have rights, no matter how small you are.

I won't admit I am for something that I am not for.  Being for the right to refuse service is not being for discrimination.  Is being against alcohol prohibition being pro alcohol? Is saying the government shouldn't be involved in peoples sex lives mean being pro fornication, adultery, and homosexuality?  Of course not.  Just because you think the government shouldn't be involved in something does not mean you are for it.  Being pro-discrimination would be favoring laws that forced businesses and government entities to discriminate, like Jim Crow Laws.

[Tintrlvr]

Why is religious conscientious exemption held higher in law (and the answer to this is partly tradition) than philosophical conscientious exemption?

As you said, tradition.  Yet where you seem to take the position that religion should be leveled with other philosophies by denying the use of a religious reason to engage in discrimination, I take the complete opposite tack.  To me it doesn't matter why that photographer we've been using as an example wants to be an idiot and not shoot gay weddings. When rights conflict, there is a need to choose which takes precedence, but I see no compelling reason in this case to force him to provide that service so as to facilitate a right to be married.  To me it's not freedom of religion that rights laws trample but freedom of association.  Freedom of religion is but a specific case of freedom of association. I grant the OP posed the question in terms of that specific case, but the right that is trampled is the more generic one.

So you're against the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

No he's not but you've just proven you're against the first amendment by comparing freedom of religion to segregation. What's so bad about freedom of religion which includes the church's right to not accept gay marriage?  Does this mean you're against freedom of speech as protected by our first amendment too? You must oppose it because you're sure against people speaking from religious grounds to support where they stand.

If my religion says I can't serve black or interracial couples, do you apply the same logic?

Which, by the way, was an argument many people made in the 1960s and 70s and even into the 80s - that God himself disapproved of mixing of the races (citing various vague Biblical references along with Biblical endorsements of slavery and related), and that their Christian beliefs prevented them from serving black people alongside white, or of catering to mixed-race couples.

[Roronoa D. Law]

Why is religious conscientious exemption held higher in law (and the answer to this is partly tradition) than philosophical conscientious exemption?

As you said, tradition.  Yet where you seem to take the position that religion should be leveled with other philosophies by denying the use of a religious reason to engage in discrimination, I take the complete opposite tack.  To me it doesn't matter why that photographer we've been using as an example wants to be an idiot and not shoot gay weddings. When rights conflict, there is a need to choose which takes precedence, but I see no compelling reason in this case to force him to provide that service so as to facilitate a right to be married.  To me it's not freedom of religion that rights laws trample but freedom of association.  Freedom of religion is but a specific case of freedom of association. I grant the OP posed the question in terms of that specific case, but the right that is trampled is the more generic one.

So you're against the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

No he's not but you've just proven you're against the first amendment by comparing freedom of religion to segregation. What's so bad about freedom of religion which includes the church's right to not accept gay marriage?  Does this mean you're against freedom of speech as protected by our first amendment too? You must oppose it because you're sure against people speaking from religious grounds to support where they stand.

If my religion says I can't serve black or interracial couples, do you apply the same logic?

Which, by the way, was an argument many people made in the 1960s and 70s and even into the 80s - that God himself disapproved of mixing of the races (citing various vague Biblical references along with Biblical endorsements of slavery and related), and that their Christian beliefs prevented them from serving black people alongside white, or of catering to mixed-race couples.

And when people religious or personal view infringe upon one constitutional rights then it is unconstitutional. Loving v. Virginia was decided on constitutionality not what the Bible says. We can't allow someone personal view to dictate law that what separates us from a theocracy.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

This article seems to be all about the New Mexico photographer example where the court ruled had to photograph a gay wedding (a result with which I disagree because that does go too far in intruding on private religious beliefs). Hopefully SCOTUS in due course will make clear that beyond selling stuff over the counter, who is not obligated to get enmeshed in a gay wedding ceremony vis a vis having to offer one's personal services at the affair itself. Muon2 and I spent some time chatting about this example, when he was faced with a potential vote on SSM in Illinois (before it all went away).

Such would set a precedent for refusing to serve an interfaith or interracial marriage.

So far as I know, Westboro Baptist Church, the infamous gay-baiters who use the Bible as a pretext for opposing homosexuality in any form, has not had its capacity to condemn homosexuality curtailed.

Indeed.

I have no problem with a church refusing to marry a gay couple for religious reasons.  But as a business owner, you do not have the right to deny someone a service on the basis of their sexuality.

This is no different than refusing to seat blacks at your lunch counter, or muslim cab drivers in Minneapolis refusing to transport customers who have alcohol in their luggage.

Everyone knows my position on religious freedom, but that extends to the absolute extremes.  I have no problem with a Muslim cab driver doing that.  Religious freedoms must be protected to the absolute extremes, even if it inconveniences others (i.e. a Mormon/Muslim/Adventist cashier not being willing to ring up alcohol or a Jewish/Muslim cashier not being willing to ring up pork).  Maybe the business could work out an alternate arrangement that minimizes inconvienence, but no one should ever have to choose between their job and their religion.  Freedom of religion is not freedom from religion, and the state should actively encourage citizens to have a religion (out of Evangelical Christianity, devout Catholicism, Mormonism, Orthodox Christianity, Orthodox/Hasidic Judaism, and non-radical but devout Islam- maybe there are one or two more that I am not familiar with that would do the same social good).  For cultural and societal reasons, we should have a vested interest in virtually everyone practicing one of those religions.  Other religions and secularism should not be illegal, but they should be highly discouraged verbally by our leaders.

Now, I would encourage everyone to convert to Christianity as a matter of faith, but for societal benefit, any faithful Abrahamic religion provides a solid moral code, and it is more important (not spiritually, but for stopping our moral decay) that people have a religion than which religion.

[Kamala]

Freedom of religion is not freedom from religion, and the state should actively encourage citizens to have a religion (out of Evangelical Christianity, devout Catholicism, Mormonism, Orthodox Christianity, Orthodox/Hasidic Judaism, and Islam- maybe there are one or two more that I am not familiar with that would do the same social good).  For cultural and societal reasons, we should have a vested interest in virtually everyone practicing one of those religions.  Other religions and secularism should not be illegal, but they should be highly discouraged verbally by our leaders.

Now, I would encourage everyone to convert to Christianity as a matter of faith, but for societal benefit, any faithful Abrahamic religion provides a solid moral code, and it is more important (not spiritually, but for stopping our moral decay) that people have a religion than which religion.

What a terrifying society that flies in the face of the Constitution.

[100% pro-life no matter what]

Freedom of religion is not freedom from religion, and the state should actively encourage citizens to have a religion (out of Evangelical Christianity, devout Catholicism, Mormonism, Orthodox Christianity, Orthodox/Hasidic Judaism, and Islam- maybe there are one or two more that I am not familiar with that would do the same social good).  For cultural and societal reasons, we should have a vested interest in virtually everyone practicing one of those religions.  Other religions and secularism should not be illegal, but they should be highly discouraged verbally by our leaders.

Now, I would encourage everyone to convert to Christianity as a matter of faith, but for societal benefit, any faithful Abrahamic religion provides a solid moral code, and it is more important (not spiritually, but for stopping our moral decay) that people have a religion than which religion.

What a terrifying society that flies in the face of the Constitution.

Separation of church and state isn't in the Constitution, only that we won't establish a state religion or require people to practice something/ban them from practicing something else.  And, I made it very clear in my post that I would oppose that.

[Virginiá]

Freedom of religion is not freedom from religion, and the state should actively encourage citizens to have a religion (out of Evangelical Christianity, devout Catholicism, Mormonism, Orthodox Christianity, Orthodox/Hasidic Judaism, and Islam- maybe there are one or two more that I am not familiar with that would do the same social good).  For cultural and societal reasons, we should have a vested interest in virtually everyone practicing one of those religions.  Other religions and secularism should not be illegal, but they should be highly discouraged verbally by our leaders.

Now, I would encourage everyone to convert to Christianity as a matter of faith, but for societal benefit, any faithful Abrahamic religion provides a solid moral code, and it is more important (not spiritually, but for stopping our moral decay) that people have a religion than which religion.

What a terrifying society that flies in the face of the Constitution.

Pretty ripe for abuse too. Amazing how religion is now being widely weaponized to enable discriminatory business practices. I don't even get the issue here. It's not like as part of the business transaction, they are required to perform sodomy or get gay married. They just don't "approve" and they are trying to use religion as an excuse.

[Idaho Conservative]

This article seems to be all about the New Mexico photographer example where the court ruled had to photograph a gay wedding (a result with which I disagree because that does go too far in intruding on private religious beliefs). Hopefully SCOTUS in due course will make clear that beyond selling stuff over the counter, who is not obligated to get enmeshed in a gay wedding ceremony vis a vis having to offer one's personal services at the affair itself. Muon2 and I spent some time chatting about this example, when he was faced with a potential vote on SSM in Illinois (before it all went away).

Such would set a precedent for refusing to serve an interfaith or interracial marriage.

So far as I know, Westboro Baptist Church, the infamous gay-baiters who use the Bible as a pretext for opposing homosexuality in any form, has not had its capacity to condemn homosexuality curtailed.

Indeed.

I have no problem with a church refusing to marry a gay couple for religious reasons.  But as a business owner, you do not have the right to deny someone a service on the basis of their sexuality.

This is no different than refusing to seat blacks at your lunch counter, or muslim cab drivers in Minneapolis refusing to transport customers who have alcohol in their luggage.

Everyone knows my position on religious freedom, but that extends to the absolute extremes.  I have no problem with a Muslim cab driver doing that.  Religious freedoms must be protected to the absolute extremes, even if it inconveniences others (i.e. a Mormon/Muslim/Adventist cashier not being willing to ring up alcohol or a Jewish/Muslim cashier not being willing to ring up pork).  Maybe the business could work out an alternate arrangement that minimizes inconvienence, but no one should ever have to choose between their job and their religion.  Freedom of religion is not freedom from religion, and the state should actively encourage citizens to have a religion (out of Evangelical Christianity, devout Catholicism, Mormonism, Orthodox Christianity, Orthodox/Hasidic Judaism, and non-radical but devout Islam- maybe there are one or two more that I am not familiar with that would do the same social good).  For cultural and societal reasons, we should have a vested interest in virtually everyone practicing one of those religions.  Other religions and secularism should not be illegal, but they should be highly discouraged verbally by our leaders.

Now, I would encourage everyone to convert to Christianity as a matter of faith, but for societal benefit, any faithful Abrahamic religion provides a solid moral code, and it is more important (not spiritually, but for stopping our moral decay) that people have a religion than which religion.

I agree with most of what you said, but to me this isn't just an issue of religious freedom, it is an issue of private property rights.  The government shouldn't force you to provide a service to someone, no matter if the reason for refusal is religious or not.  If the anti-discrimination laws didn't exist in the first place, there would be no need for religious freedom laws like the one in Indiana.  In Colorado, where the Masterpiece Cake Shop case is from, a RFRA isn't the solution, repealing the Colorado Anti discrimination Act is the solution and the cake case never would have entered the courtroom.  Or even better SCOTUS should strike down CADA as unconstitutional. 

If the Muslim clerk didn't want to sell alcohol, of course the government shouldn't step in but, the employer would have the right to fire him.  On these religious freedom issues, I just look to the path of least government involvement and that always works out in favor of freedom.

[Idaho Conservative]

Hopefully the supreme court will rule in favor of freedom.

[Person Man]

I understand that the business owner would be upset if they had to make a custom cake or cater the wedding. That level of participation would be a reasonable thing that there should be proections against. Basically any direct affirmation of support unique to the marriage. Does that translate to a cake that isn't custom made or custom made to directly acknowledge a gay wedding? I don't think it does. At that point, you are going from a spiritual requirement in your life to discriminating against other people.

[afleitch]

Personally I think 'freedom to believe in random supernatural sh!t to justify x' laws trample on everyone else with inherent characteristics.