Are Gay-Rights Laws Trampling on Freedom of Religion?

[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. 

[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.

[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.

[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.