Should religious freedom protect you from penalties in a court of law?

But slaughtering animals is legal as is using them in a ceremony. But my point is why should your sensibilities be protected but other people's not protected in regards to ideological/religious ceremonies. There also is the question of freedom of speech - meaning freedom to speak. If a photographer is required to attend a religious ritual or gay ritual, and who is leading it says "everyone bow your head for a moment to ask for a blessing upon this couple" - - - is that photographer required to go along with that silence, which has been declared to be everyone's including his view and blessing? Or does s/he have the free speech right to shout out "hell no I won't silently ask for them to be blessed!" ?

Wedding officiants generally require no license if they have a clergy position, even from just the Internet Metaphysical Church that only requires you sign up. They charge a fee and advertise their services publicly. Most used to say outright they would not do SSM and only some are flexible on the words of their ceremonies and vows, others are not. From what I am told, most now are afraid of litigation and will just say they are not available for an SSM. Others will do SSM ceremonies and they are easy to find. In reality, some really are ministers in mind so have their standards and beliefs they will not break. Others are just in it for the $$ and would marry a man to a dog if it legal to do.

 

I think it's fine for the minister to refuse. I take the position that churches and ministers can and do refuse all sorts of weddings for various reasons. Those are organizations that are registered as religious organizations with the state. Should that be the case for an LLC or for profit corporation? No, not in my opinion. They aren't selling religion, they're selling flowers or cakes. If every business had the rights, privileges and rules of a church, then they shouldn't have to pay taxes either. My point is that businesses should not be regulated to the same standards as churches, they are not the same.

Question, let's say we all agree that businesses should not have to serve gay people if they don't want to, how do you prove it's because of their religion? Couldn't a shop owner simply claim they won't serve someone because they think they are gay ad that's against their religion? When really they are just black, or disabled, or female etc? How does the unserved client prove they aren't gay in order to purchase the merchandise? A lot of a assumptions would be made, and proving I'm a lesbian is no easier than someone proving they are a Christian. What if they aren't religious at all, they just don't like gay people? I simply don't see how this could be monitored. Seems like it either has to be illegal to discriminate against LGBT customers, or legal to. This 'only for religious reasons' exemption would be impossible to prove.

 

For now, but what they are really doing is creating a cause of action for the federal courts to expand civil rights legislation to increase scrutiny and effectively bypass the legislature and make gays a legally protected class.

 

The first amendment states that they must not be.

 

So where is your campaign against all the laws protecting people from discrimination because of their religion? It’s still illegal for someone to refuse to provide cakes for specifically Christian weddings if they don’t want to support that practice.

 

a little honesty is always a good thing, do you agree Joe?

I understand that you support the suppression of the 1st Amendment when the people who benefit are in line with your agenda.

Right now the pendulum has swung to being anti-Constitution be it the POTUS and his executive orders to ignore laws and the SCOTUS basically rewriting the Constitution. You will find that in short order, the pendulum shall swing back to the middle where the Constitution is again the law of the land and these things that you like will be struck down.

With your support of the gay lifestyle, abortion and other things it's apparent that you are not Christian.

I fully support your right to refuse to decorate a cake with a crucifix

 

The Constitution only applies to government. We’re talking about private businesses. It’s the exact same public accommodation laws that prevent them from discriminating on grounds of gender and sexuality that also prevent them from discriminating on grounds of (the customer’s) religion.

I don’t believe there is such a thing as the gay lifestyle and I recognise abortion as a complex issue that is worthy of more than simplistic binary politics. As it happens I’m not a Christian but I fail to see why that matters. I’m not homosexual either. I don’t want anyone to be discriminated against on any spurious grounds regardless of whether they belief the same things as me or not. That’s pretty much the whole point.

But were I running a cake-making business, that refusal could well be illegal on the same grounds as refusing the make a wedding cake for a same-sex wedding would be and since I’m not religious, the kind of special exemptions that triggered this thread in the first place wouldn’t apply to be (which, in the US, is where the Constitution might actually come in to play).

On the basis of your equating choice of faith with choice of sexuality (albeit flawed on both counts), how can you argue that the two should be treated differently?

 

The short answer is NO.

 

This will shock some here I support religious freedom laws as long as they apply equally to ALL religious beliefs its fine this means the government taking no position to decide the acceptability of said religious claim if a woman runs a temple and offers sexual services from priestesses and priests for a donation it should have the same rights than a Roman Catholic convent or a Mormon Temple or Jewish Synagogue or a Muslim Temple. I as a Universal Life Church minister ordained in a minute should be as ordained as the aged religious scholar with many advanced degrees. But that's not the case is it the government decides an acceptable religion from an acceptable one so unless equal it should be unconstitutional.

 

What government agency doesn't recognize the Universal Life Church?

 

Another facet Of this disscusion is dietary, Orthodox Jews follow strict laws of Kosher, so they don't buy cakes or food from non approved Orthodox bakeries etc, or have ceremonies performed by Muslims and other non Jews not Ultra Orthodox, are you going to prosecute / persecute them for refusing food services or religous services prepared by or offered by Muslims ? you can't !

There is a difference between a public supermarket and a service based business, you can't expect a non Kosher supermarket to carry Kosher products for a tiny minority of customers, however a Kosher market can't refuse Muslim or Gay customers, see ?

 

There are some deviding lines sadly, private property vs public property, a restaurant cannot refuse service to a minority, you can in your private home refuse to entertain anyone for any reason, bigoted ? yes, legal yes.

Run into a restaurant demanding a gay birthday or wedding cake ? the Police can ask you to leave, special menu orders are optional in public restaurants as far as I am aware.

 

Well said!!

 

Yeah, it would. For example... people don't follow the rules of the road for nothing. Millions of people (though not all) who would do 'otherwise', are deterred from certain behaviors, due to the consequences promised by laws and the enforcement of the same.

Also, there need to be laws/penalties against certain behaviors and actions, so that people might have proper legal recourse or redress of grievances in certain circumstances.

That is why laws matter; they define/support our very freedoms and liberties as Americans.

 

Laws do not prevent all ills in society, that is why you have Law Enforcement and Courts etc, some people including mentally ill people do not follows laws or societal convention.

 

True but like the previous poster said, laws are only partially about prevention but mostly about justice. Without laws we cannot punish or seek justice.

 

Should discriminatory homosexual laws cleverly disguised as "anti-discrimination" attacking and taking away the basic human and civil rights of heterosexuals be violated?

 

No, and no such laws exist. So don't worry about it.

 

Yet it is illegal to refuse to provide service to a Christian- for being a Christian in every state- or to provide a cake for a Christian celebration- such as an Easter cake.

But in most states- it is perfectly legal for a Christian to refuse to serve a homosexual, or to provide a cake for a wedding for two homosexuals.

In a few states though- Christians are required to abide by the same laws that require homosexuals to serve them.

 

There are no such laws except maybe inside your head.

Take for instance Oregon's public accommodation law

Except as provided in subsection (2) of this section, all persons within the jurisdiction of this state are entitled to the full and equal accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of any place of public accommodation, without any distinction, discrimination or restriction on account of race, color, religion, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, marital status or age if the individual is 18 years of age or older.

How exactly are you imagining that this takes away the basic human rights of heterosexuals?

 

Seems like we have cafeteria constitutionalist in this thread.

So let's just pick this all apart and see what bits are being tossed out.

The very first sentence restricts the power of congress to respect the establishment of a religion. Either on a federal state or local lever establishing a state religion is forbidden. Thus any law protecting classes from discrimination does not violate that clause.

The next phrase "...or prohibiting the free exercise (of religion) thereof..." Is often construed to mean that people can do whatever they want as long as they claim it's religious exercise. And thus isn't the case. There are limits to liberty. The right of anybody to swing their fist stops at somebody else's nose. So the right to free exercise ends at the freedoms of others. This is how the equal rights act was inacted during the civil rights movement. Black people were denied the right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness by what people defended as a religious expression.

It wasn't unconstitutional to restrict the right to religious expression in this case.

Often times with these debaters they will argue against this by saying, "Black people are a race and homosexuals are not." Which isn't an argument against anything.

The argument is that religious expression has been limited with regards to discrimination. Regardless of whether it's race or not.

 

You ate missing the meaning of the first amendment.

Free expression off religion has already been limited. It was limited during the civil rights movement.

Before you blert out something about homosexuality not being a race or some other horse manure that has nothing to do with the argument, read post number 46.

This form of religious expression has already been limited. It doesn't matter if you are doing it based on age, race, religion, ethnicity, sexual orientation, or sex. The precedent has been set. It's only a matter of application.

 

Well said !

 

I'm a lesbian and I am grateful to have the right to be married. With that being said I believe equal rights should apply to everyone. I'm appalled by prejudice and most Christian belief in general. However as someone who knows how it feels to not have my beliefs and lifestyle respected, I respect other people's rights. Including the right to hate me or my lifestyle. I don't agree that religious people should be forced to change their beliefs or the rules of a 2000 yr old religion to appease the gay community. There are plenty of churches who are willing we should seek them out. In a perfect world we wouldn't need laws to make us respect each others boundaries. I'm grateful for the progression of rights for gays, but I'm not willing to violate the rights of others.

 

As a fellow lesbian I couldn't agree more, in the business of religion. However in the world of private and public business I disagree. Employers shouldn't be able to fire me because I'm gay, insurance companies shouldn't be able to deny me coverage because I'm gay, and restaurants shouldn't be able to refuse service because I'm gay. I'm totally with you on the religious beliefs thing. You can't make churches do weddings, or ordain gay people or suddenly say they're ok with it. It's their right to believe and practice what they want at church, but when that bleeds into the corporate world I think some scary precedents are set.