Religious Discrimination by the Republican State of Arizona?

The lack of specific religious “protection” (meaning exemption) from general laws isn’t any kind of attack. These laws have absolutely nothing to do with religion. It’s just like laws against plural marriage, cannabis use or carrying swords which can impact people with other religious beliefs. The intent of the laws are to address general issues and policies, any religious objections are unintended consequences.

The problem is that the Frist Amendment has never been interpreted to grant the special exemptions to general laws a tiny minority of religious people are demanding for themselves. They’re free to argue all they want, it won’t make them any less wrong.

It would be interesting though I doubt it would be allowed to get to court and even if it did, I doubt it would receive the same support from the religious campaigners.

I think it’d also be interesting to see a case involving a religious business owner refusing to bake a cake for a (different) religious wedding. Would the evangelist Christians support a Muslim fighting for their right to discriminate against Christian marriage?

He wasn’t cleared of wrongdoing, the court ruled against the procedures used to prosecute him. That was, ironically, based on his religion so a non-religious defendant could well have lost the case.

 

they can not refuse service based on race or gender.... that is discrimination, are you saying businesses open to the public like gas station should be able to deny customers based on race or gender?

 

so tell us, why do you think they discriminate against these customers?

 

Because they don't want to participate in a gay wedding by creating art for it.

 

I thought that you were literally saying ANYONE. You didn't originally specify "based on race or gender."

 

I'm not saying that the intent of the laws were to attack religious people, but when gay marriage was introduced, state governments should have put in religious protections, knowing full well that religious people in the wedding services industry could be exposed. And I'm not talking about an exemption. I'm talking about making it clear in the law that discrimination on the basis of the event that the service is for, is recognised as acceptable. This would not mean that religious people would be allowed to start refusing services because someone is gay.

Actually, you're right, there probably is no advantage. Its just that the only people who are involved in these sort of cases are Christians, because they're religious majority and secular people don't tend to care about providing a service to a gay wedding. I've certainly never heard of a secular case.

Why would you doubt that?

Well probably not, because it wouldn't be a religious case. That would be a job for libertarian campaigners. That would be more appropriate.

Hard to know. I know that I would! I would certainly be questioning the stupid Christian couple who made it a legal case.

You must be referring to the attacks on Jack's beliefs by one or more members of the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. Jack's religious beliefs gave him a distinct advantage, because it meant that there was something that is constitutionally recognised that could be attacked. Now, if a secular person was subject to attacks because of their worldview just as Jack was, then they might have a case. This is what I'm getting at when I talk about equal protection under the law proscribed in the Equal Protection Clause. It would be unfair if a religious person's worldview was taken more seriously than a secular person's worldview.

 

You’re assuming discrimination on the “basis of the event” should be or was intended to be acceptable. If the only difference between two weddings is the sexual orientation and gender of the couples involved, how can treating those events differently be anything other than discrimination? I don’t believe that’s even the argument, it is that religious people (i.e. Christians) should be permitted to discriminate on that basis.

The majority of religious people don’t care either, certainly not enough to go to this extent and I’m sure some non-religious people do, through more likely as part of a more blatant anti-homosexuality angle. In either case, we’re still talking about a tiny minority of people so trying to spin it as a religious or Christian thing either way is dishonest.

Because it wouldn’t have the political support from Christian politicians (or the fakes seeking Christian votes) to be seen to testing it in court.

Exactly my point. The religious campaigners don’t want equal rights, they want active bias in favour of them. They’d probably want an outright theocracy if they could get it.

Yes, and that was the sole basis for his winning his case. He wasn’t cleared of wrongdoing so that ruling is irrelevant as precedent.

 

How can the sexual orientation be known?

Including that they should be able to adopt a 'no gays allowed' policy?

Don't you think that these Christian business owners are coming from a purely "anti-homosexuality angle?"

How is it dishonest? Aren't you saying that religious people are the only ones who do it? If so, how could it not be a religious thing?

Are you under the impression that politicians in the US are in control of what cases are heard in court?

So because they wouldn't campaign because they're not sufficiently emotionally connected enough to a secular case, this means that they "don't want equal rights?" Surely you can't be serious.

You didn't bother with an argument against my point about equal protection under the law. Again, if a secular person was subject to attacks because of their worldview just as Jack was, then they might have a case. This is what I'm getting at when I talk about equal protection under the law proscribed in the Equal Protection Clause. It would be unfair if a religious person's worldview was taken more seriously than a secular person's worldview.

 

It doesn’t need to be known, only presumed.

I’m sure some argue for that and many would be content to make use of it if it was allowed.

I’m sure some are with varying specifics. I think some of the high-profile cases, especially when they’re pushed in the media and dragged all the way to the higher courts, might be more about a general push for Christian accommodations than just about homosexuality alone. It's just one of the few areas they can still get some mainstream support.

I think you missed the point. These cases are commonly presented as attacks on Christianity when many Christians don’t necessarily agree with them. It's mostly Christians doing it but they don't represent Christianity by a long stretch.

Indirectly, the media, politicians and public opinion have much more influence than they should in high profile cases. That isn't just a US thing.

If you’re campaigning for equal rights, any relevant case that comes up should be of equal value. If you’re campaigning for religious accommodations, you will have a different viewpoint. I’m not saying they don’t have the right to campaign for religious accommodations, I just think they should be honest about it.

In the US they don’t though. Your constitution specifically identifies religious belief as a special case and even after some case law includes forms of atheism within that, general personal opinion independent of any generic world view is not treated the same. Again, I’m not necessarily saying it should be, only that we need to be honest about the religious (effectively mainstream Christian) preference ingrained within US law and US society. These cases aren’t pushing for equal treatment, they’re pushing to maintain that preference in their favour.

 

What if it was two heterosexual guys getting married?

How do you know that? Have you heard Christians coming out and condemning these actions?

Religious freedom campaigners are religious freedom campaigners, not equal rights campaigners.

Be honest about it by doing or saying what?

MY Constitution?

Don't you think that it SHOULD be? Surely you don't think that religious people should have more protection do you?

Well if a secular baker took up the case and argued it based on the Equal Protection Clause, after a religious baker won their case, it WOULD be pushing for equal treatment. This may be something that @xwsmithx and @kazenatsu can shed some light on.

 

I mentioned gender discrimination as well for a reason. The specifics would obviously depend on the wording or the laws in question.

Of course. The majority of Americans identify as Christian and they seem pretty split on this issue (like most issues).

Admitting that they’re fighting to maintain an advantage in their favour rather than claiming they’re being persecuted.

I’ve actually no objection to some reasonable concessions – accounting for religious holidays for employees, accommodating religious dress and symbols where practical and the like. I just draw a line at exceptions to general laws that have been written for good reason.

That’s kind of my point too. We either have anti-discrimination laws that apply equally to all businesses or we don’t have them at all (including the ones prohibiting discrimination on grounds of gender, race and, of course, religion).

 

So a business which serves both males and females every single day, but refuses to participate in two heterosexual men's sham wedding, MIGHT be discriminating on the basis of gender? Surely you can't be serious.

Split, but nowhere near 50/50? You seem to be saying that the majority of people that identify as Christian condemn businesses owners refusing services to same sex weddings.

When have they ever said that they want ''an advantage?"

Are you saying that non-Christian religious people in the West should get time off for their religious holidays?

Who is saying that anti-discrimination laws shouldn't apply equally to all businesses?

 

I haven't been following the argument.

Something that I think is important to bear in mind was pointed out by one of my Constitutional Law professors in law school: Whenever you're talking about "rights" or "equal rights", there's no clear demarcation of what constitutes a "right" on one side that isn't also an opposite "right" on the other side. To "grant" one person a "right" means necessarily taking a "right" away from someone else. To take a subtle example, if we grant one person the "right" to moon passing motorists, we take away the "right" of passing motorists not to see some random guy's butt. To take one of the most extreme examples, if we grant the right to freedom from slavery, we take away the right to own slaves. So the idea that you can defend some choice of law on the claim of "equal rights" is bogus in and of itself.

This is a really subtle point even my law professors and fellow law students didn't get, but try it out for yourself: Homosexuals already had "equal rights" to get married, they just couldn't marry each other. And lots of homosexuals did get married, to people of the opposite sex, for various reasons.

 

Deadly serious. If you treat people differently on the basis of their gender, you are discriminating by definition. It's a really simple principle.

No, the majority don't really seem to care either way. My point remains that the objectors can't legitimately claim to be speaking on behalf of Christians or present the law as being an attack on Christianity.

They haven't, that's the point. They claim to be fighting for equal treatment when in reality they're fighting for special treatment. I was saying that they should be honest about that.

Not automatically but reasonable accommodation is a valid principle. I'm a secularist at heart.

The people who are saying their business shouldn't have to obey anti-discrimination laws because of their religious beliefs. How much clearer could their position be?

 

If they serve both males and females every single day of the week, then how in the hell are they treating people differently on the basis of their gender? You're making zero sense now Joe.

So you have said that you have heard Christians coming out and condemning these actions. Are you just assuming that they're Christians or mostly Christians based on the fact that "the majority of Americans identify as Christian?"

So they've actually come out and said that they're "fighting for equal treatment?"

No, they don't even ADMIT that they are discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation! That is the point! If they wanted to get an exemption from the law so that they could adopt a policy whereby they refused to serve gay people, then you would have a point!

 

My point was really focusing on whether or not a secular baker who refuses to bake weddings cakes for same sex weddings, would be able to fight it in court as easily as a religious baker who has the First Amendment on their side. My point is, that a secular person should have no less rights as a religious person and indeed, this appears to be what the Equal Protection Clause achieves. Lets say that a court clears a religious baker of any wrong doing in refusing to bake cakes for same sex weddings and the decision is based on Free Exercise of religion grounds. Then a secular baker who refuses to bake cakes for same sex weddings takes his case to the same court. The court finds him guilty. Would this be Constitutional? And could the baker appeal on the basis of the Equal Protection Clause, using the religious baker's case as precedent?

 

I have two questions concerning how those same civil rights laws may impact people who are not baking cakes.

1. If I employ Jack Smith and he announces he is engaged to marry Joe Anderson and he is saving for his wedding and honeymoon, and I do not want to 'participate' in any way in the marriage, do I have a right to fire him to prevent my money from involving me directly in this wedding through his wage?
2. If I am an apartment owner, and my faith recognizes homosexuality as an 'abomination' and I have spiritual concerns about knowingly offering sanctuary and shelter to the 'sinful act' for profit, may I evict Steve when he tells me he brings male lovers into an apartment that I own and rent to him? What if he changes his story after he gets the notice, and I still see men staying the night. I cannot shake this feeling of overwhelming religiously based guilt that I am still facilitating this sin for profit, can the state oblige me to continue his rental contract and participate in this homosexual act, by providing him space and privacy and shelter while he commits sodomy in exchange for money? My pastor says that by knowingly receiving material gain, I too am committing a sin.

Can I post a sign saying that my religious convictions demand that I not rent to people who I suspect engage in homosexual sex on the premises?

If neither Jack nor Steve ever label themselves specifically as 'gay' or homosexual in direct discussions with me, do I get to fire and evict as I please and claim that there is no discrimination based on sexual orientation if I was not notified of their orientation?

Inferences based on my conduct when hearing about homosexual acts or same sex marriage ,can not be drawn to mean I have a problem with gays at all.

 

Would you consider that to be a firing on the basis of sexual orientation? I wouldn't.

What if it is not during a lease contract, but just on a week to week basis and the landlord says that the tenant is not allowed guests any more? If the landlord immediately moves to eviction even if the tenant said that they will stop having guests, then I agree that this would be in violation of the anti-discrimination laws, as it is clear that the landlord knows the sexual orientation and means that the very orientation of the tenant is the reason for eviction. VERY different to wedding services cases.

 

These people are 1) losers and 2) are fake Christians who are brainwashed by scum bucket religious leaders.

anyhow -

Are gay folks not part of "God's beauty" ?

 

How are they "fake Christians?"

Absolutely, but their weddings are not.

 

No lets not change it to a week to week. No reason to. This is an apartment complex with 25 units. There is no history of this owner showing any interest in anyone's 'overnight' visitors prior to this revelation by this tenant in the last 5 years he has owned the building. He does not appear to give a rats ass what the other 24 tenants do or who they invite for overnights or why. Two months ago he heard his pastor give a sermon on homosexuality and this topic troubles him. He walks up to apartment A6b, and talks to Steve about his overnight visitors because his 'overnight male visitors' , are causing him to feel 'uncomfortable' accepting that rent check. Can the state require him to continue that rental agreement pending a for-cause eviction because he is discriminating in how he treats the tenant in A6b because he has homosexual relationships on the premises Or can he evict Steve because his choice in sex partners does not meet with Pastor Smiths approval, and they might be having fun in a unit that Steve plops down 1100 each month for , with an expectation that he gets have as many overnights with as few restrictions as anyone else who pays 1100 a month..

 

The reason that I changed it is so that it removes the contract/tenancy law legal argument. If the active lease doesn't say that tenants are not allowed visitors, and then the landlord tries to stop a tenant from having male lover visitors, then the tenant has a legal case separate to an anti-discrimination case.

I would say that the State can, but I think that a 'no visitor' rule could be introduced. Do you?

 

It depends if the 'visitor rule' is gender specific,, applied to only some of the 25 units, , or designed to wean out homosexual conduct. I do not believe the constitution protects religious people from feelings of conflict, guilt, or compromise, or discomfort or moral disquiet in the face of laws or rules drawn for a secular purpose. I don't care if they feel religiously compromised or troubled by renting or employing gays or providing cakes to a same sex wedding. It is ludicrous to say they are 'participating'.

If you don't want to facilitate or participate in homosexuality, stay out of the bedroom when gay people are having sex. And if a gay couple want you to participate in their wedding , they will get you an invitation like everyone else!

 

How are weddings of two gay people not part of "God's beauty" ?

They are fake Christians because they do not understand - nor follow - the teachings of Christ. "Judge not lest you be Judged" "Love neighbor as self" "Do unto others as you would have done to you/ Treat others as you would be treated" "Let ye who is without sin cast the first rock" .... and so on.

 

Because they want the "right" to violate anti-discrimination laws that secular business owners do not have.

Aside from overtime rules, people are not entitled to any religious holidays off. You think an ICU Nurse can just say, "Sorry, boss, tomorrow's xmas, I'm not coming in..."? Further, I think religious holidays in schools, etc, only exist because it's such a long standing tradition from a time where people were more superstitious about religion (xtianity, specifically) from centuries ago. If we didn't already have them, I don't think you'd be able to get them approved today.

Sounds like you are, to me.