Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:I never said that religion could not be practiced outside home/church. So you are misapplying your 'logic'. I just don't see why one person's religious morals should trump anyone else's rights.

For the second time,

Enough.

You have said it may not be practiced in a business. That is outside home/church. I'm not misapplying anything. I'm reading what you've written.

Sorry, this is BS. Firstly, there are places other than 'home', 'church' and 'businesses'.

Secondly, I'm not saying people cannot practice their religions in their business - quite clearly a kosher deli does exactly that. What I am saying is that their religious morality is for them, not to be imposed on others. Run a Christian book shop if you like, preach on the streets (as long as what you preach and how is not causing a breach of the peace), I don't really care.

So still you are misrepresenting what I have written.

for the third and final time...

Enough.

freeman3 wrote:Some points

(1) While someone does not lose their right to practice religion outside the home and church when they go into the public arena their religion beliefs must be balanced against other interests (e.g non- discrimination)

Exactly.

(2) Since we are talking about private behavior, we are not talking about constitutional rights, but simply rules that prevent discrimination against certain groups. In other words, we are free to come up with rules that balance the freedom for someone to practice a business how they wish with the societal determination that is not fair to allow someone the freedom to deny business based on their membership in groups that society determines have importance (race, gender, color, ethnicity, sexual orientation, etc.)

Again, this is precisely the point - the reason for having protected groups is not for fun, but because those groups are often being discriminated against, unfairly.

(3) everyone is part of multiple groups, every time declined service the offended person could claim discrimination on the part of some group or another, so we have to be careful of which types of group we delineate for protection.

Indeed. And that's why the list is not very long, and does not change very often. It seems we are transitioning from a period when sexuality was not protected to a time when it is. I happen to think that is a reasonable position.

(4) In most cases we should allow people not to offer services they do not want as long as the denial is to everyone.

Indeed. So if you don't like abortions, don't provide them. If you don't want to sell food that is non-Kosher, don't sell it.

(5) The more the denial relates to a group rather than participation the less likely it would be upheld. A baker should not be allowed to deny selling cakes to gay people. Whether a baker can deny sellling cakes to a gay person because it is a participation in an activity prohibited by his religion is a closer call. In my opinion, if a baker sells cakes to gay people but refuses to sell a wedding cake to a gay couple because they sincerely believe their participation is prohibited by their religion, then I don't think they should have to do it. But what if they have employees who could do the cake who are not religious? What if they got out of the requirement to provide a wedding cake for a gay couple by simply not providing wedding cakes at all? We should not force people to violate their religion...but we can require that they, if they are going into the public arena to sell something, have to take reasonable alternatives that both avoid offending their religion and discriminating against suspect groups (sort of akin to the reasonable accomodation analysis with regard to the ADA).

It does need to be handled with some care. I see the recent attempts to write laws that 'promote religious freedom' as being blockheaded, as what they really do is try provide for an exemption to normal discrimination laws, while annoying a lot of people. Similarly, I don't think that people should deliberately seek out businesses that might not sell a wedding cake to a gay couple. But I doubt that is what happened in the two cases I've seen, it's more likely that they just went to a bakery and were refused, and then got annoyed about it. Which is understandable.

rickyp wrote:bbauska
I

f the market is reacting, I am all for it. Perhaps you are supporting nothing from the government since the "market of public pressure" is in effect? There is no need for gov't legislation because of the market taking care of the problem. I think we are in agreement once again.

So you are agreeing with me that the proposed law has been judged morally repugnant by the recent public and business outcry against law and as such its a good thing that it will not be signed into law.

I am agreeing that society and market forces took care of the suspected discrimination. Are you agreeing that there is not the need for legislation, or are you being one-sided again?

bbauska

I am agreeing that society and market forces took care of the suspected discrimination. Are you agreeing that there is not the need for legislation, or are you being one-sided again?

I'm being a smart ass I guess.You say that "market forces" should decide the matter of discrimination. And I'm pointing out that, that is exactly what happened.

Popular will is opposed to the kind of "legal" discrimination proposed by the Arizona law. And not just discrimination but discrimination justified by religious principle.

(IF SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO REFUSE SERVICE) What if the business says homosexuality violates its owners' religious beliefs - in that case do you think the business should or should not be allowed to refuse service to gays and lesbians?

81 % of Americans said "should not".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010 ... se_301.xml

The basic law that already exists, that should, and I think would end the law is the Constitution. Specifically the "equal protections clause". and as you can see from the above survey, the majority of Americans now believe the Constitution provides protection for same sex marriage....
Interesting how the interpretation of the Constitution has evolved huh? Increasingly more liberal with every year that passes....

rickyp wrote:bbauska

I am agreeing that society and market forces took care of the suspected discrimination. Are you agreeing that there is not the need for legislation, or are you being one-sided again?

I'm being a smart ass I guess.You say that "market forces" should decide the matter of discrimination. And I'm pointing out that, that is exactly what happened.

Popular will is opposed to the kind of "legal" discrimination proposed by the Arizona law. And not just discrimination but discrimination justified by religious principle.

(IF SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO REFUSE SERVICE) What if the business says homosexuality violates its owners' religious beliefs - in that case do you think the business should or should not be allowed to refuse service to gays and lesbians?

81 % of Americans said "should not".

http://www.washingtonpost.com/page/2010 ... se_301.xml

The basic law that already exists, that should, and I think would end the law is the Constitution. Specifically the "equal protections clause". and as you can see from the above survey, the majority of Americans now believe the Constitution provides protection for same sex marriage....
Interesting how the interpretation of the Constitution has evolved huh? Increasingly more liberal with every year that passes....

The Equal Protection Clause being used has exemptions, no?

A church not having to use it's facilities for a same-sex wedding, but use it's facilities for hetero weddings. Both are commercial ventures, no?

Also, nobody has commented about the discrimination being vented toward NM governor Martinez. Is that discrimination?

bbauska wrote:The Equal Protection Clause being used has exemptions, no?

Does it?

Fourteenth Amendment, section 1: "All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." Looks to me like all persons (not just citizens) are covered by the clause.

A church not having to use it's facilities for a same-sex wedding, but use it's facilities for hetero weddings. Both are commercial ventures, no?

No. A church is not usually a commercial venture, it is a religious body. If it is commercial, then it does not qualify as a religious body for the purposes of tax-exempt status. Yes, churches do charge to hold weddings, but that does not make them commercial ventures.

Also, nobody has commented about the discrimination being vented toward NM governor Martinez. Is that discrimination?

What 'group' is being discriminated against? It seems to be based purely on his political views, rather than on his identity as part of a group.

My comment on it is that it is not the same as a blanket bar on a group, as it's down to his actions as an individual.

Is it OK then for a hairdresser to not serve the person for her stance on gay marriage, but not OK for a baker to not serve a person for their stance on gay marriage?

Lest I "pollute" other threads with this question, what is the answer that must have been overlooked when asked before by me?

bbauska wrote:Is it OK then for a hairdresser to not serve the person for her stance on gay marriage, but not OK for a baker to not serve a person for their stance on gay marriage?

Here is the difference. It's not the 'stance' it's the actions:

Person A is imposing their stance on people through political power as the governor of a state. He is actively seeking to make the law treat homosexuals differently by denying them something that heterosexuals are entitled to, and in so doing acting against the group. Of which the hairdresser is a member.

Person B is following any laws that allow them to exercise their freedom to marry, which does not make a detriment to anyone else, and is not aimed at denying anything to any 'group', it's just that they want to get married, and have a cake to cut at the reception.

Lest I "pollute" other threads with this question, what is the answer that must have been overlooked when asked before by me?

huh? Not sure that you have overlooked an answer. Not sure why you needed to bring it up on a different thread when you could (as you have here) repeat it and ask for a response in the relevant place.

Now I have answered, you going to beat me over the head for not having done so earlier? Frankly, I didn't see it as a particularly great point, and it was really a quick question in response to DF posting the link (in between him posting direct accusations against me without basis).

Person A is the hairdresser
Person B is the baker.

Are you saying the hairdresser is allowed to withhold services to a person because the person is part of the political power?

The governor (who is a woman, btw. You said he?) What law has the Governor of NM passed? NONE? The hairdresser is denying service in response to a personal stance.
[url]
http://www.santafenewmexican.com/news/l ... b1989.html[/url]

Is nobody allowed to have different opinions than the gay society? Has the same-sex crowd gotten that intolerant?

Brad, people should be able to decide who to do business with unless their decision is based on discriminating against certain groups that society has determined to have particular importance (race, gender, religious, etc) so, yes the gay hairdresser can decide not to cut the governor's hair because he is not discriminating against a protected group. Whether he should do that is a different question. If you are trying to argue that there is a double standard, there isn't one. A baker cannot refuse to bake a cake for someone who is gay because that is discrimination; the governor is being denied services not because of her membership in a protected group but because of her political views.

The baker serves gays. Being gay is not the issue.

It is the issue of gay marriage. Same as the hairdresser.

bbauska - no....

Person A is the Governor of New Mexico. Sorry I got her gender wrong. She may not have enacted law, but she has made clear what she would do as governor.

Person B is in a gay couple about to marry / enter civil union.

Danivon - no. You are smarter than this.

Two people are providing a service.
Person A is the hairdresser
Person B is the baker

The Governor is NOT providing a discriminating service. If she is, please show me where. I have not been able to find it (and I have looked!). She has an opinion, but we all allowed to have opinions.

Which person is discriminating? I can see how you would think B is. I can even agree that they would be (and I have said so!). Nobody has said that the hairdresser is wrong for his discrimination.

That is why I said it is a double standard. A gay man can refuse service to a person for their view on gay marriage and nobody bats an eye. A hetero baker refuses services to a person for their view on gay marriage, and the world erupts.

I think the point is that all of the protected classes (with the exception of religion I suppose, at least to some extent) are things that are beyond the control of the people in that class. You can't simply choose your race, gender, age, sexuality etc. Even in the case of religion the majority of adherents don't choose their faith, they're born into it. There's a qualitative difference here between these things and political opinions. Rightly or wrongly, but I think rightly, society tends to judge one form of discrimination as being much worse than the other.

A gay hairdresser who refuses to provide services to a politician who is known to favour restricting the rights of gay people is obviously carrying out an act of discrimination. To discriminate is merely to choose after all, we all do it hundreds of times every day. The point is that those forms of discrimination which society looks down upon are more where somebody discriminates solely on the basis of some characteristic that is beyond the control of the victim and which has nothing to do with his character or the choices he's made.

The line has to be drawn somewhere, and it will inevitably be a little fuzzy and unsatisfactory in some cases. My problem with your approach Brad is that you seem to be saying that there should be complete freedom for anybody to discriminate for any reason. This may seem 'fair' to you, and you may not personally partake in any discrimination yourself (and even refuse to give your business to those who do), but it's a blank cheque given to those who are less decent than yourself to return to the bad old days that successive pieces of civil rights legislation were intended to move us away from.

Nice analysis, Sass.

Brad, the baker is technically able to discriminate against a person who is gay because of their views on gay marriage as long as that is the real reason. But when a person's status is connected to their political views it becomes pretty difficult to figure out the real reason. Can a baker refuse service to a black person because the black person believes in equality? Can a business refuse to do business with a woman because the woman believes in equality of the sexes? In the example of the baker we have to assess whether the discrimination is due to a difference in political beliefs (allowed) or based on sexual orientation (not allowed). And one common sense factor to be used in making this assessment is whether there is a history of discrimination against gay people (answer: yes)
I think we believe the gay hairdresser when he says that he is refusing service because of the governor's political beliefs and not because the governor is a woman. With regard to the baker, because of the history of discrimination against gay people and the fact that the status of the gay person and his purportedly unacceptable political views are closely connected, we are probably not going to accept the claim of the baker that he is not discriminating. I don't think that is unfair.