business discrimination, nutjob Christians, and fabulous gays...

[roswellcoug]

so then it's more about money then wanting equal treatment.

It's about forcing people to accept them. You will be assimilated!

[tspoke]

I'm not trying to argue that 'being gay' is a choice.  if that's what you got from my post, then we need to start over.

 

The bold part is what I'm getting at - you seem to begin your post with the idea/assumption/moral decision that to deny a service or widget in the support of something like gay marraige is textbook discrimination.

 

Do I understand you properly?

 

In the event I do understand properly, then I hope to further illustrate my point here:

 

Scenario 1:

You two are gay so I won't rent to you.

Wrong because you can't deny a service - a life necessary service, what's more - because someone's gay.  I personally approve the ethics of this judgment.

 

Scenario 2:

I won't sell you this iphone because you are gay.

Wrong because you can't deny a product, even one that's not necessary, simply because you disagree with the guy's lifestyle or think it's morally wrong.  I personally approve the ethics of this judgment.

 

Scenario 3:

I decline to sell you a wedding cake because I disagree with gay marriage.

Admissible, because I feel that tacit participation in gay marriage is tantamount to endorsement and this is not something I'm willing to do.  I personally approve the ethics of this judgment.

The problem I see with this is scenario 2 and 3 are really the same thing. Or at least where do you draw the line between 2 and 3. You used ipone and a wedding cake but what about a birthday cake that a man buys for his sam sex partner. Or flowers that a woman buys for her wife on valentines day. Or a cake for an anniversary party for a same sex couple. Where do you draw that line.

[bluerules009]

My question is who the fuck cares if two ignorant racist liberal gay morons what to get married?

 

 

Seriously, who does it hurt?

[FSpoopypants]

The problem I see with this is scenario 2 and 3 are really the same thing. Or at least where do you draw the line between 2 and 3. You used ipone and a wedding cake but what about a birthday cake that a man buys for his sam sex partner. Or flowers that a woman buys for her wife on valentines day. Or a cake for an anniversary party for a same sex couple. Where do you draw that line.

 

In the cases of the florist and the baker, both owners sold to gay customers in the normal course of their business. They drew the line at the event (gay marriage). I can't speak for them, but if a gay person asked them to bake a cake or arrange flowers for his/her straight friend's wedding, I'm thinking the owners would have taken the order, and in turn, sold a wedding cake to a gay person. 

 

They just didn't want their name associated with an event they disagree with.

[Jwherb]

In the cases of the florist and the baker, both owners sold to gay customers in the normal course of their business. They drew the line at the event (gay marriage). I can't speak for them, but if a gay person asked them to bake a cake or arrange flowers for his/her straight friend's wedding, I'm thinking the owners would have taken the order, and in turn, sold a wedding cake to a gay person. 

 

They just didn't want their name associated with an event they disagree with.

 

As I understand it, that is the distinction. 

 

Adam and Steve come into your business wanting your services, you're free to deny them as you would anyone else, for a lot of reasons. 

Adam and Steve come into your business wanting your services, and you deny them services specifically because they are gay, and there is the problem. 

[renoskier]

In the cases of the florist and the baker, both owners sold to gay customers in the normal course of their business. They drew the line at the event (gay marriage). I can't speak for them, but if a gay person asked them to bake a cake or arrange flowers for his/her straight friend's wedding, I'm thinking the owners would have taken the order, and in turn, sold a wedding cake to a gay person. 

 

They just didn't want their name associated with an event they disagree with.

 

The recent cases have been about weddings and same sex marriage but where do you draw the line? What if the baker or florist made the same distinction for a house warming party based upon their religious beliefs that homosexuality is a sin and participating was an endorsement of the gay lifestyle?

[roswellcoug]

As I understand it, that is the distinction. 

 

Adam and Steve come into your business wanting your services, you're free to deny them as you would anyone else, for a lot of reasons. 

Adam and Steve come into your business wanting your services, and you deny them services specifically because they are gay, and there is the problem. 

What about when someone lives in a state that does not include gays as a protected class?

This has been the issue in the wedding cake and photographer cases -- a state law or the state constitution does not allow "discrimination" against gays in public accommodations.   

[trl87]

My question is who the fuck cares if two ignorant racist liberal gay morons what to get married?

 

 

Seriously, who does it hurt?

 

Eloquent as always. +++++ing hell. I did lol and feel similar, minus the ignorant racist liberal morons part. 

[FSpoopypants]

The recent cases have been about weddings and same sex marriage but where do you draw the line? What if the baker or florist made the same distinction for a house warming party based upon their religious beliefs that homosexuality is a sin and participating was an endorsement of the gay lifestyle?

 

Good question.

 

I guess it depends on who you ask. Personally, I think now, in 2015, business should have the right to refuse service, and deal with the consequences of those decisions. I like to think there are enough decent and tolerant people today that if blatant discrimination was visible, the business would suffer for it.

 

I am a straight white male (the worst kind of person out there, or so I'm told). When it comes down to it, if a business owner doesn't want my business for any reason, I will never do business there again. I will go somewhere I'm welcome. I won't yelp them, and I sure as hell won't sue them. They're not worth my time or energy at that point. It's their business and their choice. If they refuse enough people, it'll eventually catch up to them.

[THEUniversityofNevada]

What about when someone lives in a state that does not include gays as a protected class?

This has been the issue in the wedding cake and photographer cases -- a state law or the state constitution does not allow "discrimination" against gays in public accommodations.   

 

Unfortunately for Indiana, this has been part of the reason for the firestorm. 1. Indiana doesn't have sexual orientation as a protected class statute. 2. The Indiana RFRA law differs from the federal and many of the previous state laws in that it mentions businesses, not just individuals. 3. Many of the Indiana law's supporters and framers specificially said it WOULD allow bakers, florists, photographers, etc. to refuse to provide service to LGBT individuals.

 

Part of me thinks we should just let the marketplace sort this out. If Indiana's version of the law stands unchanged and wedding service providers are able to deny service to gays and transgender couples, competitors are going to use that against businesses that invoke their religious conscience. Depending on how the community at large feels about that, those businesses will either thrive or fail. There's already a "This Business Serves Everyone" sticker campaign spreading in Indiana. Why not create a "This Business Operates According to Scripture" sticker?

[CPslograd]

There are going to be bigots and there are going to be scheisters, on both sides of the issue.

 

You are aware of the irony in your post I assume?

[THEUniversityofNevada]

You are aware of the irony in your post I assume?

 

I misspelled shyster.

[roswellcoug]

Unfortunately for Indiana, this has been part of the reason for the firestorm. 1. Indiana doesn't have sexual orientation as a protected class statute. 2. The Indiana RFRA law differs from the federal and many of the previous state laws in that it mentions businesses, not just individuals. 3. Many of the Indiana law's supporters and framers specificially said it WOULD allow bakers, florists, photographers, etc. to refuse to provide service to LGBT individuals.

 

Part of me thinks we should just let the marketplace sort this out. If Indiana's version of the law stands unchanged and wedding service providers are able to deny service to gays and transgender couples, competitors are going to use that against businesses that invoke their religious conscience. Depending on how the community at large feels about that, those businesses will either thrive or fail. There's already a "This Business Serves Everyone" sticker campaign spreading in Indiana. Why not create a "This Business Operates According to Scripture" sticker?

I think this should be left to the states (and the market).

If Indiana through its legislators wants to allow religious conviction as a defense to a claim of discrimination against a group not specifically protected, let them.

Just like it's OK for New Mexico and Colorado through their legislators to make the religious person serve a class of people the states have voted to protect.

I know the US Supreme Court declined to take up the New Mexico photographer case, but interestingly the photographer did not claim protection for her religious beliefs.

A case will make it to the Supremes eventually. Will be fascinating now that the Hobby Lobby case has been decided. 

[CPslograd]

I misspelled shyster.

 

Lol.  That was good.

[Jwherb]

What about when someone lives in a state that does not include gays as a protected class?

This has been the issue in the wedding cake and photographer cases -- a state law or the state constitution does not allow "discrimination" against gays in public accommodations.   

 

Likely they try to make the argument at a circuit or federal level, then. 

[Jwherb]

It's an issue because, as we've already found out, you can't and shouldn't leave civil rights issues up to the states.  

 

(Idaho discriminates against women and Jews - come live here if you like that; leave if you don't)

(Wyoming hates Hispanics and Scots, but California loves them; however, California hates Christians and white males)

 

It seems like we're starting to get into the territory of what exactly should count as a protected class.  Sex, race, gender?  Okay.  Religion?  Why not.  Sexual orientation, age, height, weight?  Trickier, according to some...

[THEUniversityofNevada]

It's an issue because, as we've already found out, you can't and shouldn't leave civil rights issues up to the states.  

 

(Idaho discriminates against women and Jews - come live here if you like that; leave if you don't)

(Wyoming hates Hispanics and Scots, but California loves them; however, California hates Christians and white males)

 

It seems like we're starting to get into the territory of what exactly should count as a protected class.  Sex, race, gender?  Okay.  Religion?  Why not.  Sexual orientation, age, height, weight?  Trickier, according to some...

 

Disneyland and other theme parks discriminate against height challenged people on a daily basis. I'm on board with that. As a tall, I can't abide shorts.

[Billings]

One pharmacy in a small town.  Women cannot buy birth control there as they won't sell it due to religious freedom?  

 

 

One county clerk in a small county won't give a gay marriage license?  Couple must drive miles to another county courthouse?  right or wrong?

 

So many questions.

 

I thought the constitution not only provides us with freedom of religion it also provides us with freedom from religion.  

[AndroidAggie]

We all pick the examples that best highlight our case, billings.

[HR_Poke]

I thought the constitution not only provides us with freedom of religion it also provides us with freedom from religion.

where does it say freedom from religion? Does that mean I have the freedom from your speech or the freedom from your right to assembly?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.