Doctor Fate wrote:Yes, but the Boy Scouts do not permit leaders to be homosexual. Thus, Disney has announced they are no longer going to support the BSA, beginning in 2015.
I think he has ever right to not serve the Boy Scouts. He is offended by their behavior and therefore has the right to decline their business.
...
It may be a matter of conscience. The government has no business compelling him/her to take the business.
So, again, if someone dislikes black people, should they be able to refuse selling to them? No. Clearly there is a line somewhere, and the question is where we draw it.
Should a Muslim be forced to photograph a Bar Mitzvah held during his Mosque's worship service?
They don't hold Bar Mitvzahs in Mosques, and they are not forced to. No more than a church would, or that either would be forced to hold Friday prayers, or a Sikh ritual.
Interesting. I suppose your reading of what I wrote is possible, but it's not logical. I meant if a Bar Mitzvah were being held on a Friday at a time that would cause the Muslim to miss attending services, should he be compelled to take the business?
I get you now.
That again is different - it's not discrimination on the basis of who the customer is, it's a vendor choosing what services to offer
and when. An Orthodox Jew will not work on Shabat. Some Christians will not work on a Sunday. I think that is fair enough - I don't work on weekends, and my employer does not open for business on a Sunday. A customer may try and go to a bank branch to pay a cheque in on a Sunday morning (or 3am any day), but they can't expect it to be open for business. A vendor can usually choose their hours if they want, and if that loses them business, that is down to that choice, not them refusing particular groups of people.
Now, should a Muslim photographer refuse business to Jews simply because they are Jews? I would say no. Wouldn't you?
Yes.
I assume that means "yes, I would also say 'no'". Correct?
Should a Kosher deli be forced to make me a ham and cheese sandwich?
No. But it should not refuse to sell a pastrami on rye to a gentile. This is the same as the abortion argument - the service is what is being withheld, regardless of the customer. Kosher delis sell kosher food only.
Sure, but I bring my own ham and cheese. I just like their sandwiches and want them to make one of my own design.
Can you do this in any other deli? Nope. Generally a food outlet will sell food that it procures itself, and not allow customers to bring their own stuff for them to deal with. There are food safety issues anyway with handling food with unknown provenance, and for a kosher/halal deli just having ham in contact with their utensils can affect the kosher/halal status.
If someone wants to, they could buy a kosher cheese sandwich, take it outside and then put some ham in it.
If it was not a kosher deli, but a place that only sold hotdogs, should they be forced to let someone come in with their own ingredients and use those instead? Nope.
So they won't sell non-Kosher food. But they won't sell non-kosher food to Jews or Gentiles alike, and similarly should sell kosher food to Jews and Gentiles alike.
The government should compel them to sell non-Kosher food!
No, of course they should not. No more than the government should force a butcher to sell vegetables or a vegetarian outlet to sell meat products. You are still confusing "the service" with "the customer". A vegetarian store does not sell meat. But it can still sell to meat eaters (after all, we eat vegetables too). A butcher may mainly sell meat, but my local one also sells eggs and bread. Their choice as to what they sell, and they don't bar vegetarians from being customers. Seems fine to me. If vegetarians object to using them, that is their choice too. Just as if someone objects to the methods used in kosher slaughter they might choose to avoid a kosher deli, that is fine.
This is not about making people sell things they don't want to. It's about stopping them from barring custom from people that they disagree with. You and bbauska seem relentless in your desire to misunderstand that basic distinction.
How involved should the government be in deciding when a business owner should be compelled to accept business? On what basis?
I think the 1964 Civil Rights Act has some precedence here.
I'm not familiar with the religious overtones of it. How would the CRA negate First Amendment protections?
It does not, as that has already had 50 years to test. But it does cover religion. Here is the beginning of Title II:
Civil Rights Act, 1964 wrote:All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (b) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.
(my bolding so you can see the 'religion' part) -
Civil Rights Act.
I think that is a very clear precedent for certain types of service supplier. It can therefore be extended to other kinds of service supplier, potentially. It may also be extended to other types of discrimination, potentially.
NB: there is nothing in the Bible that would permit or promote segregation or racial discrimination as practiced in the US during that era.
So you say. The Bible was often used to justify both slavery and segregation in that era. see here -
Liberty Education Forum page - the first few sections cover slavery and segregation and how some Christians (in particular the SBC) used bible verses and arguments from the Gospel to justify them. These biblical interpretations may be wrong (in your opinion) but when it comes down to it, that is not the issue - it's what they believe that makes their religious position, not what you think they should believe.
So let's be clear - Christianity (and your particular interpretation of it may not be the same as every other
soi disant Christian's) is not the only religion in town. If you allow religious 'values' to be used to discriminate, then you have to allow them all.
27 Feb 2014, 9:44 pm 
