Are Gay-Rights Laws Trampling on Freedom of Religion?

[memphis]

Is it conducive to society to grant people outs from equality legislation? If society grows to consider homophobia or sexism or racism as morally repugnant, why enact laws to grant people an exemption from that understanding based on religious faith alone? I do not doubt the sincerity of the convictions of people who don’t wish to serve me based on their religious objections to me as a person, but nor do I doubt the sincerity of the convictions held by someone who doesn’t wish to serve me based on the fact that I am a Tory, or to assist a friend of mine because he is black. Some people sincerely and deeply hold the belief that black people are simply inferior regardless of what the law says or how society has moved on and find it a day to day struggle in their jobs, lives and in their community to act upon their own deeply held conscience. No one proposes legislation to assist them. Because of the curios of the Constitution perhaps if they formed a religion in which they could express their sincere convictions then they may be allowed that element of protection. Indeed, society should just simply form more religions based on everything from sexuality, to hair colour. Really morbidly obese people can form an Obese Church and get some tax exempt cheek room..

You know, it's posts like this that make me think you are not merely an atheist, but that you have an absolute contempt for religion.

But back to the topic: to reverse your original question, is it conducive to society to grant people ins via equality legislation? Except in the most egregious situations, I think not. Having a photographer refuse to do your wedding for whatever reason does not to me appear to be egregious enough to use the force of law to compel him to do that which he does not want to do.  Besides, why anyone would want their wedding photos done by someone who would have no reason to do his best is something I don't understand.

Its posts like this that make me think you don’t understand the use of humour (or perhaps even read what was written) to make a serious point The ‘serious hat’ version of what I said is this. Why is religious conscientious exemption held higher in law (and the answer to this is partly tradition) than philosophical conscientious exemption? For example, in Britain, Quakers could generally successfully argue for being exempt from the draft during the Great War, Quaker Socialists could argue on account of their Quakerism, but Socialists couldn’t on account of their socialism. Secondly why are these objections entirely subjective? If the vast majority of Christians and people of other faiths can operate in society without needing to utilise any faith based objection even if granted to them, why do other people of faith need them? Is it really their faith that motivates them or is it perhaps simply a personal objection that would have no legal traction unless it was wrapped up in religious rhetoric?

In short should homophobic, sexist or racist reactions ‘claimed’ by the person who espouses them as a facet of their manifestation of religious belief (even though other people who manifest that belief do not espouse those views) be classifiable in law as a ‘credible’ homophobic, sexist or racist act because the espouser appeals to religion?

There is a difference between a religious ritualistic requirement and a social response. There is no ritualistic requirement for a Christian to prohibit a gay person from utilising their services (or by permitting them, ceases to be able to ‘act Christian’ as a result)

^^^^^^^^^
Mr. Fleitch, you are my favorite.

[memphis]

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?

[memphis]

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?

It was needed in 1964 to secure the freedom of travel to all citizens.  But if you've checked a calendar lately, this isn't 1964.  While there no doubt would be some small scale return to discrimination in public accommodations if Title II were repealed, I doubt that it would be significant enough to impede the ability of anyone to find a hotel room or restaurant to serve them while traveling.  Even without a law prohibiting it, few businesses would care to be known for doing that, and they certainly would lose custom if they did, thus placing their owners at an economic disadvantage.  The only reason to keep Title II on the book is inertia.  It's not worth the effort it would take to repeal it, especially while other laws do need to remain on the books addressing other areas of discrimination.

Hopefully we'll also get to the point that Title VII of the CRA and the Fair Housing Act of 1968 are no longer needed, but regretfully, we're not there yet as a society.

However, access to a job or housing has far more repercussions to a person than access to a wedding photographer.

Do you think blacks in 1964 couldn't find restaurants or hotels? Under Jim Crow, they had their own parallel institutions. The point was not that they had no opportunities for services. The point was that they ought to have access to the same services as everybody else. And they still do in 2013, just as much as in 1964. I find your blatent suggestion that this long established legal right to public services ought not to apply today extremely distasteful, but that's fine. We're all allowed to our own opinions.

[memphis]

Do you think blacks in 1964 couldn't find restaurants or hotels? Under Jim Crow, they had their own parallel institutions. The point was not that they had no opportunities for services. The point was that they ought to have access to the same services as everybody else. And they still do in 2013, just as much as in 1964. I find your blatent suggestion that this long established legal right to public services ought not to apply today extremely distasteful, but that's fine. We're all allowed to our own opinions.

You missed my point. If Title II was repealed and no longer on the books, I believe we would not see a return to Jim Crow today.  The few establishments that might try it would be quickly left with a fraction of their former business as only die-hard racists who are willing to admit to their racism would frequent them.  America has changed since 1964.  Not as much as might be hoped for, but it has changed.  Ideally we should have as few laws as possible.  As repugnant as racists are, they still have rights, and impinging upon their freedom of association is not something to be done lightly.  The context of 1964 made it necessary to impinge upon their rights so as to support and uphold the freedom of non-racists to associate with people of any race. That's no longer the case.  That battle has been won, but there are still plenty of other battles to fight in the war against discrimination.

Most people also are not interested in murder, whether or not it is illegal. Should we not have laws against murder in the interest of having as few laws as possible?

[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.

[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!!!!!

[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.