Are Gay-Rights Laws Trampling on Freedom of Religion?

[America Needs R'hllor]

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

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

I am certain all the Republican posters in this thread would be just fine with a doctor or banker who, because of their own beliefs, refused services to Republicans. Right?

[Dr. Arch]

I am certain all the Republican posters in this thread would be just fine with a doctor or banker who, because of their own beliefs, refused services to Republicans. Right?

I've been warning that it was possible that they could be going for this after the whole cake thing. Yes, it is a slippery slope fallacy in a vacuum, but we can already see that the more leeway they're allowed, the more services they will attempt to refuse.

Just stop trying to mask it behind some form of rationalization. People will keep finding excuses to keep impinging on people's basic dignities based on their immutable characteristics--shameful.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

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.

I'm not aware of any of these gay-wedding cake cases involving a refusal to sell non-custom cakes.  Indeed, in some of these, the bakers in question were explicitly willing to sell the couple an uncustomized cake they could decorate themselves.

[KingSweden]

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.

I'm not aware of any of these gay-wedding cake cases involving a refusal to sell non-custom cakes.  Indeed, in some of these, the bakers in question were explicitly willing to sell the couple an uncustomized cake they could decorate themselves.

My understanding is that civil rights laws distinguish between a point-of-sale refusal of service and refusing to enter an agreement to provide a future service, which that distinction you described would cover

[dead0man]

I am certain all the Republican posters in this thread would be just fine with a doctor or banker who, because of their own beliefs, refused services to Republicans. Right?

I've been warning that it was possible that they could be going for this after the whole cake thing. Yes, it is a slippery slope fallacy in a vacuum, but we can already see that the more leeway they're allowed, the more services they will attempt to refuse.

Just stop trying to mask it behind some form of rationalization. People will keep finding excuses to keep impinging on people's basic dignities based on their immutable characteristics--shameful.

Wait, I was under the impression you CAN discriminate against someone for their political beliefs....am I wrong?  From wiki-

Under Federal law, employers generally cannot discriminate against employees on the basis of:

Race
Sex
Pregnancy
Religion
National origin
Disability (physical or mental)
Age (for workers over 40)
Military service or affiliation
Bankruptcy or bad debts
Genetic information
Citizenship status (for citizens, permanent residents, temporary residents, refugees, and asylees)

[vanguard96]

I am certain all the Republican posters in this thread would be just fine with a doctor or banker who, because of their own beliefs, refused services to Republicans. Right?

I've been warning that it was possible that they could be going for this after the whole cake thing. Yes, it is a slippery slope fallacy in a vacuum, but we can already see that the more leeway they're allowed, the more services they will attempt to refuse.

Just stop trying to mask it behind some form of rationalization. People will keep finding excuses to keep impinging on people's basic dignities based on their immutable characteristics--shameful.

Wait, I was under the impression you CAN discriminate against someone for their political beliefs....am I wrong?  From wiki-

Under Federal law, employers generally cannot discriminate against employees on the basis of:

Race
Sex
Pregnancy
Religion
National origin
Disability (physical or mental)
Age (for workers over 40)
Military service or affiliation
Bankruptcy or bad debts
Genetic information
Citizenship status (for citizens, permanent residents, temporary residents, refugees, and asylees)

I heard recently about pro-life protesters tried to get some coffee in a shop not knowing the owner was gay. They were refused service. I am not against that at all. And it served them right.

The issue is what level of discrimination is OK? What level of free association and segregation is OK? What kind of punishments are OK?

Generally, I think the individual and the market itself should be the decider.

If someone is willing in today's society to openly refuse service to LGBT customers, or Muslims for instance they may receive quite a public backlash and this would be justified in many cases. I don't think it is good, though to have the additional added coercion of local, state, or federal government threatening to fine or even jail someone. Using the government to enforce morality whether conservative or progressive in stance is a position I am generally against.

It's why I am steadfastly against the European and now Quebec burqa/niqab bans even though I personally disagree with the sentiment behind it. It is why I support Australian style laws on prostitution and the Portugal-style laws on hard drugs even though I think both prostitution and hard drug use are morally & physically bad choices for an individual - like in my own family or group of friends to choose to do these activities.

I am against fraud and libel. If an activist-minded agency decided to start slandering private groups that they decided were exclusionary to force the removal of their funding options through PayPal or access to webhosting it is definitely within the right of the organization or person to defend themselves legally from such a smear attack. Also, it makes sense like it was with the black community during Jim Crow, for groups to simultaneously work on creating separate institutions and means to operate outside the mainstream's field of vision so that they are insulated from soft censorship from state and/or private actors.

[Idaho Conservative]

As for a doctor refusing service, he should be able to refuse on what basis he wants, unless of course it is something like a lifesaving surgery, in which hospitals can't refuse for any reason, let alone discriminatory reasons.  Also, it would be very unlikely someone would be refused for political affiliation because usually it isn't obvious by looking, unless you have a MAGA hat or live in a place like Mississippi where race and political affiliation are extremely correlated.  

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

As for that comment, I don't actually think passing religious freedom laws is the best way to protect religious freedom.  How about instead of passing more laws, just repeal the law that infringes on religious liberty.  what a novel idea.  Instead of creating special religious exemptions for hobby Lobby, just repeal the contraception mandate and let the free market dictate what health plans cover.  Instead of passing a law saying bakers CAN refuse gay wedding cakes, just repeal the law that says they CAN'T.  With RFRA bills, these cases still go to court, but if the anti discrimination laws were repealed or reduced in scope, this wouldn't even be an issue and we could spend our time debating more important issues than gay wedding cakes.  Imagine that!  Also, SCOTUS should reinstate the Sherbert Test which would make RFRAs completely unnecessary.  I agree the government shouldn't treat people different based on characteristics, inherent or not, but I don't think the special classes you belong to should justify denying others property rights.  At the end of the day, this gay wedding cake case isn't about religious freedom or gay marriage, it is about the right to own what you produce and not be forced into commerce by the government.