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

[CPslograd]

Here is another old school reference for you guys.

"We reserve the right to refuse service "

Does that still have any legs?

 

Not if you have a storefront that is open to the public.

[DestinFlPackfan]

Not if you have a storefront that is open to the public.

But why?

EDIT: every casino in Reno and I would assume Vegas has the same thing posted on or around every entry door.

[Old_SD_Dude]

But why?

EDIT: every casino in Reno and I would assume Vegas has the same thing posted on or around every entry door.

I guess shoeless, shirtless people aren't a protected class.

[smltwnrckr]

Quick question: Should that baker be required by law, if he or she wants to remain in his or her trade, to bake the same cake or arrange the same flowers for a polygamous marriage if said marriage is against that baker's religious beliefs?

[roswellcoug]

Poor little Adolph can't even get a birthday cake with his name on it from ShopRite. Discrimination of the worst sort!

At least Walmart came through.

 

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/28269290/ns/us_news-weird_news/t/-year-old-hitler-cant-get-name-cake/ 

[AndroidAggie]

There are few isolated incidents which gave rise to the desire to pass legislation allowing for religious exemption of discrimination.  (PS - I don't really agree that it should be termed as such, but I'm trying to use words to make sure people who are diametrically opposed to me on this issue may understand me.)  These examples are by and large underscored by support of gay marriage or prop 8 and not as a result of 'get out you gay dude, we don't serve your kind!'  At least, this is a major assumption of mine.  If there is a preponderance of stories wherein LGBTQ folks have been given a raw deal simply because they are gay, I am willing to change my opinion based on the strength of these examples.)

 

In a similar vein, Brendan Eich shouldn't have lost his job and the lack of examples of real actual discrimination in the 6ish years which followed his monetary support of prop 8 demonstrate that he was guilty of disagreement and not mistreatment.  He gave money, privately, and stayed on at Mozilla - even being promoted - for an untrivial amount of time before it was discovered he had given money to Prop 8.  Not a single example of his mistreatment for being anti-gay was cited.  Just the act of donating money to Prop 8. 

The cake decorator and photographer have similarly been found guilty of disagreement.

 

Because of this - Eich and the lack of examples of non-gay marriage event (cake, photography, etc...) discrimination, I am loath to think there is a strong case for institutional discrimination against gays on the account of their sexual orientation.  Our society just doesn't seem primed to - pardon the pun - go that way.

Where the lgbtq community has been found to be the victim of discrimination due to housing, refusal of goods and services based on orientation, they have successfully (and rightly so imo) found recourse in the courts. Given the context of today, I find the parallel between today and Jim Crow laws of the past to be wanting. Especially under consideration of the black community's opposition to gay marriage.

I am frustrated that there is so much intraction. I am not looking for license to turn people away because I judge them. I'm looking for ways to protect what I feel is reasonable disagreement.  One of the cake decorators, I think the one in Oregon but I could be mistaken, even went so far as to say that she'd be willing to sell the gay couple any other product for any other reason - just not a wedding cake given her lack of support.

Ultimately I suppose religious folks are to blame. For years we've found ways to make sure real life followed our judgment. Slavery and Jim Crow were cited as biblical. Aids was almost ignored as being a gay cancer. If at any time we could have seen past our hubris for being in the right and reached out despite the disagreement, or seen the abhorrent error of supporting institutional racism and chattel slavery, there would be enough goodwill and understanding to find a compromise.

Unfortunately that is not reality.

 

(PS - I've edited this 2-3 times now as I struggle make sure I'm clear and cohesive and reasonable in my assumptions.  I apologize for any confusion that may have caused.  I give others patience and the benefit of the doubt when I attempt to understand their position - even respect it if I don't agree with it.  I expect the same for me.)

[AndroidAggie]

Quick question: Should that baker be required by law, if he or she wants to remain in his or her trade, to bake the same cake or arrange the same flowers for a polygamous marriage if said marriage is against that baker's religious beliefs?

 

I don't think I have a good answer, but the situation and the proposed law (which I agree with in principle, though perhaps not application - I haven't even read the damn thing) makes me feel compelled to defend uglier what-if's such as interracial marriage, or this one.

 

I'm honestly unsure of how handle the exercise where Person A states "There should be a law where thing happens!"

 

Person B: Here is a scenario that highlights some of the deficiencies that I see with your law.  Whether or not it is likely is up for debate.

 

Person A: Oh, I guess because you gave me that scenario, and because of the likelihood of it actually happening is so low, it tends to put at the fore one's mind the minority rather than the majority of the instances where I think my proposed law would solve some problems.

 

Person B: Well here's the thing, A, if we can't make sure to shield the minority we shouldn't pass the law at all.

 

Person A: Right, so...  What does that mean about the initial case of mine?  I mean, I see where you're coming from and I've acknowledged the unjust application in your unlikely scenario, and it's giving me pause in being so cavalier in passing my law, but what about the problems that we've already actually encountered that gave rise to the attempted passage of this law in the first place?  I mean, those things have actually happened.  Are we saying that there's no merit to one side?

 

...

 

Here's where I lose Person B's thinking.  In the context and framework of gay marriage, businesses, and trying to avoid the mistakes of the past, the merit of the case of the objector to gay marriage is lost.  Or ignored.  Or outright dismissed, as in what Boise fan's post argued.  Seeing as how that was my original intent, to determine whether or not the objector even has merit or legal ground upon which to pass the law, I believe I've gotten my answer: If you don't want to be caught giving wedding goods and services to gay couples, don't be in the business that offers those goods and services.

 

ETA: Perhaps Person B would come back with "uh, yeah, it DID happen - it was called the 1950s.  try being black in those days and go up against the white establishment and get back to me"

 

I admit that outside of saying - as I've tried to say all along - that this ain't the 50s anymore, I don't really have a good answer for that.  I'd like to think that nothing in my opinions, notions, nor practices could conceivably be construed as perpetuating a system where gay men and women are denied access to fundamental rights.  I personally was of the opinion that the government ought to relinquish any role of marriage, withdrawing the allowance of faith actors to function as state officials as such, and separate the two.

[roswellcoug]

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...

And who makes the decision about what groups are protected classes?

Congress? Why haven't Congresses over the years (controlled by both parties at one time or another) acted to include gays as a protected class for civil rights purposes?

If not Congress, the courts? We're in this religious freedom mess on the state level partly because the US Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that the federal RFRA only applies to the federal government and not the states.  

[Jackrabbit]

Same question.

Right now, the courts are saying gay issues are more important than religious issues, there is no difference.  Govt can not/should not hold one over the other.  The religious are required to be more tolerant than gays. 

 

Again, anyone looking for govt to force life to be fair are idiots.  This creates protected and entitled classes and that by definition is unfair.

[AndroidAggie]

the more i think about this the more confused i get

 

all these crazy and unlikely scenarios are paraded before me - by my own mind in some instances - and i'm left with the uncomfortable feeling that i'm in favor of legislation that unjustly, unethically, and immorally impinges upon someone's right to live and have the same access as others to goods and services.

 

at the same time, i can certainly understand not wanting to tacitly participate in events i morally oppose.

 

but what the hell is the cake baker supposed to do - verify that each and every one of their cakes is used in a manner they find pleasing?  how exhausting.  and virtually impossible to pull off, i might add.  there's no shortage of posters on here who find my mormon faith to be anti-christian.  there's even a few atheists who think religious thinking altogether is poisonous to society.  what if one of those groups sold bicycles, and i wanted to buy a bicycle in order to go out on my mission and they go "nuh uh.  i'm not selling you one of my bikes so you can and sell your claptrap hokum to unsuspecting masses.  find a new bike dealer." ?

 

what if indeed.

 

if i had to pick which one was more important to me, i suppose i'd have to pick the way things are now: protection for everyone.  i'd rather see a world where the gay couple can sue to get a cake made for them than deal with a world where interracial marriages are shunned, mormons can't buy bikes to go on missions, or any other (un)likely scenario that we can conjure up.

 

what if indeed.

[roswellcoug]

at the same time, i can certainly understand not wanting to tacitly participate in events i morally oppose.

 

but what the hell is the cake baker supposed to do - verify that each and every one of their cakes is used in a manner they find pleasing?  how exhausting.  and virtually impossible to pull off, i might add.  there's no shortage of posters on here who find my mormon faith to be anti-christian.  there's even a few atheists who think religious thinking altogether is poisonous to society.  what if one of those groups sold bicycles, and i wanted to buy a bicycle in order to go out on my mission and they go "nuh uh.  i'm not selling you one of my bikes so you can and sell your claptrap hokum to unsuspecting masses.  find a new bike dealer." ?

 

what if indeed.

 

if i had to pick which one was more important to me, i suppose i'd have to pick the way things are now: protection for everyone.  i'd rather see a world where the gay couple can sue to get a cake made for them than deal with a world where interracial marriages are shunned, mormons can't buy bikes to go on missions, or any other (un)likely scenario that we can conjure up.

 

what if indeed.

Discriminating against someone because of religion, interracial marriage, etc. is already prohibited on a state and federal level. So all these hypothetical religion and race examples don't really advance the discussion.

I and family members have been discriminated against because of our religion, but the last thing on our minds was to sue or bring a complaint. Education and example are the best medicines. 

As for Indiana, one's sexual orientation does not put one in a protected class there. Even repealing the current religion protection law, people could still legally discriminate against gays there. So now there is an uproar over protecting one's religious beliefs in doing what can now be done legally anyway. The whole thing is an uninformed media frenzy with an agenda.     

[happycamper]

LOL I get the hirsute reference but the rest escapes me.

It was supposed to be barechested freedom... not the first time I've not checked swype when I really should have. 

[THEUniversityofNevada]

I heard an Indiana law professor speak on a radio program this morning that I thought had a good point. To paraphrase, he said, societal attitudes towards gay and gender identity have probably advanced to the point in recent years that most gay couples wanting to buy flowers for their wedding would be able to find another florist if the religious florist down the street did not want to provide flowers for their wedding. He went on to say, that's where he leaned (and I do as well). However, we went on to say that the other side of that argument is that to allow that type of discrimination (his words), is to foster an atomosphere that says "That's ok."

 

Like I said, I'm of the mind that it's not an issue we are going to successfully legislate. It's at an intractable crossroads of civil rights and religious liberty. Better to let the market decide, but judging from the public and business reaction to the Indiana law, I don't think the outcome would be much better for religious conservatives business owners who invoked the law to refuse service. They might win in court but the negative publicity would drive them out of business, unless they did business in an extremely religiously conservative community.

 

the more i think about this the more confused i get

 

all these crazy and unlikely scenarios are paraded before me - by my own mind in some instances - and i'm left with the uncomfortable feeling that i'm in favor of legislation that unjustly, unethically, and immorally impinges upon someone's right to live and have the same access as others to goods and services.

 

at the same time, i can certainly understand not wanting to tacitly participate in events i morally oppose.

 

but what the hell is the cake baker supposed to do - verify that each and every one of their cakes is used in a manner they find pleasing?  how exhausting.  and virtually impossible to pull off, i might add.  there's no shortage of posters on here who find my mormon faith to be anti-christian.  there's even a few atheists who think religious thinking altogether is poisonous to society.  what if one of those groups sold bicycles, and i wanted to buy a bicycle in order to go out on my mission and they go "nuh uh.  i'm not selling you one of my bikes so you can and sell your claptrap hokum to unsuspecting masses.  find a new bike dealer." ?

 

what if indeed.

 

if i had to pick which one was more important to me, i suppose i'd have to pick the way things are now: protection for everyone.  i'd rather see a world where the gay couple can sue to get a cake made for them than deal with a world where interracial marriages are shunned, mormons can't buy bikes to go on missions, or any other (un)likely scenario that we can conjure up.

 

what if indeed.

[jackmormon]

Bigotry didn't hurt business a bit in the deep south pre Civil Rights Act.

[THEUniversityofNevada]

Like I said, unless a company is doing business in a deeply religiously conservative region. Even Arkansas' governor Asa Hutchinson recognizes the generational tide has turned. His own son urged him to veto Arkansas' version of the RFRA.

[Jwherb]

 

Where the lgbtq community has been found to be the victim of discrimination due to housing, refusal of goods and services based on orientation, they have successfully (and rightly so imo) found recourse in the courts. Given the context of today, I find the parallel between today and Jim Crow laws of the past to be wanting. Especially under consideration of the black community's opposition to gay marriage.

 

 

This isn't always true.  For example, in the state of Idaho, there is no anti-discrimination language in the state civil rights statute for LGBT.  Unless you can somehow make it a circuit/federal issue, or else you're lucky enough to live in one of the few communities that do protect LGBT, you're not protected in Idaho, and the courts have no basis for deciding in their favor. 

[Jwherb]

And who makes the decision about what groups are protected classes?

Congress? Why haven't Congresses over the years (controlled by both parties at one time or another) acted to include gays as a protected class for civil rights purposes?

If not Congress, the courts? We're in this religious freedom mess on the state level partly because the US Supreme Court ruled in 1997 that the federal RFRA only applies to the federal government and not the states.  

 

Well, it would be the government, whether you're talking about a local, state, or national government.  Businesses could also write policy as to protected classes, and many do, but that doesn't provide the sort of baseline protection against discrimination that people seem to want when talking about race, religion, sex, creed, etc.

 

Congress, whether state or national, hasn't acted to include gays as a protected class for long, complicated cultural reasons.  For a litany of reasons, many people are so far behind in understanding identity issues.  It really wasn't that long ago that black people weren't really considered fully human, and women, blacks, and others didn't share the same rights, respect, and apparent value as, say, a white male.  Socio-cultural values and views tend to change slowly; LGBT issues are the latest chapter in this pretty pathetic story.

 

So, in short, Congress hasn't acted because they haven't been compelled by their electorate and/or by their own reasons and values.  Which is NOT how we should base civil rights matters, but truth be told, it is really the only vehicle we have, beside the courts.

 

Which goes to your last point:  the courts.  Despite what you may read, the courts can't dictate policy out of thin air.  Their decisions must come from some combination of existing statute, law, rule, the Constitution, and their own philosophy on jurisprudence.  Admittedly they've been fairly bound on this issue, whether because of federalism in general (Baker v. Nelson), because of laws Congress has passed (RFRA, DOMA, et al), the difficulty of balancing a number of competing interests and laws, and/or because of their own difficulties with the topic.  Change takes a long time, however, and I think you'll see a pretty monumental decision be made on gay marriage later this year. 

[Old_SD_Dude]

If I owned a retail business I would prefer not to serve people who bring in their dogs. But at least in SD it's becoming so freaking prevalent I probably would have to serve them to stay in business.

[FSpoopypants]

If I owned a retail business I would prefer not to serve people who bring in their dogs. But at least in SD it's becoming so freaking prevalent I probably would have to serve them to stay in business.

 

Bigot! Dogs should be a protected class.

[Old_SD_Dude]

Bigot! Dogs should be a protected class.

It's their owners I want to discriminate against.