What is fuss fo RFRA really about?

[warpus]

Denying someone access to a service due to their sexual orientation is discrimination, no matter what the source of that discrimination may be.

 

[civman110]

Denying someone access to a service due to their sexual orientation is discrimination, no matter what the source of that discrimination may be.

Denying service because someone is gay is different than denying someone services because of religious beliefs.

You can't deny selling a gay person a car for example because there is no religious belief for that. Just as you can't deny selling a gay couple a birthday cake, however you could deny selling them a wedding cake if your religion doesn't believe in gay marriage.

People with religious beliefs aren't talking issue with people being gay. They have a problem with the government forcing their private business to provide services to gay weddings. There has been wedding photographers and people who rent out chapels sued and forced to provide these services, when normally they could deny anyone these services legally as long as it wasn't classified under discrimination by the government.

This law is simply taking a middle of the road stance between the anti-discrimination law and the freedom of religion law.

 

[warpus]

All I'm saying is that it is discrimination, whether you're discriminating based on a personal feeling, because you feel its icky, or because some religious text tells you to do it, or for whatever reason.

Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's not discrimination.

 

[Borachio]

But it’s important, because religion is at the core of people’s identity.

I want to roll my eyes in contempt and exasperation at this, but I can't find an emoticon which adequately reflect both.

But isn't religion, however defined, at the core of people's identity, in fact?

Or are you simply objecting to people using religion as an excuse to be homophobic? In which case I'd be inclined to agree.

 

[Sonereal]

Anybody who "supports small government" is a fool or doesn't understand much about how countries are ran. Sometimes a "small government" is good, sometimes it isn't. It fully depends on the context and the situation. In some cases you want more regulation, in some cases you want less. Anyone saying "We should always have more" or "we should always have less" doesn't know what they're talking about.

But yeah, having said that, I agree with you.

The goal of government should be to maximize the benefit it gives people with the least amount of cost. The benefits from this law are nil. The costs will be (are already really) high. That is why the my mayor (who is a Republican) is against the bill. Without getting into the nitty gritty of morality plays, from the standpoint of trying to promote actual business, this bill was a loser, especially for Indianapolis.

Private businesses are also allowed to refuse services for ANY reason except discrimination, however as of late the government has been forcing people to provide services that contradicts their religious beliefs. We have anti-discrimination laws, but we also have freedom of religion laws.

The business of America is business. If you can't run a business without filling it with your religious beliefs, to the point where you are turning away service for non-business related reasons, you should cut your losses and open a non-profit charity.

Denying service because someone is gay is different than denying someone services because of religious beliefs.

No it isn't.

You can't deny selling a gay person a car for example because there is no religious belief for that. Just as you can't deny selling a gay couple a birthday cake, however you could deny selling them a wedding cake if your religion doesn't believe in gay marriage.

And who decides what is and isn't a religious belief? Here in Indiana, right after the law was passed, the First Church of Cannabis opened. The SoS waved the church through, but this opens up at what point do we open churches just to get around laws we don't like.

Freedom of religion, when used as a shield for bigotry, is unacceptable.

People with religious beliefs aren't talking issue with people being gay. They have a problem with the government forcing their private business to provide services to gay weddings.

If the business can prove there is a compelling business reason why they should not service gay weddings, then they should. Again, the business of America is business, not the petty bigotry of people using religion to justify their homophobic business practices.

There has been wedding photographers and people who rent out chapels sued and forced to provide these services, when normally they could deny anyone these services legally as long as it wasn't classified under discrimination by the government.

And that's fine. If you are renting out a chapel as a business, you should show that there is a compelling business reason why you won't service a gay wedding. If you can't, then it is discriminatory.

For example, if I owned a bakery and the Klan comes in and asks me to make a KKKake, I could refuse to make the cake on legitimate business grounds. Namely, on the ground that I don't want to be known as the bakery that makes racially offensive cakes for the Klan.

On the other hand, if the member of the Klan walks into my bakery and just asks me to make a birthday, I shouldn't be able to refuse him service because I am personally opposed to who that person is.

 

[warpus]

The goal of government should be to maximize the benefit it gives people with the least amount of cost. The benefits from this law are nil. The costs will be (are already really) high. That is why the my mayor (who is a Republican) is against the bill. Without getting into the nitty gritty of morality plays, from the standpoint of trying to promote actual business, this bill was a loser, especially for Indianapolis.

Sure, it's just that saying "I support small government" is stupid.

 

[Berzerker]

You can't deny selling a gay person a car for example because there is no religious belief for that.

Are there religious beliefs advocating the execution of gays? But you gotta sell them a car first?

 

[civman110]

The business of America is business. If you can't run a business without filling it with your religious beliefs, to the point where you are turning away service for non-business related reasons, you should cut your losses and open a non-profit charity.

So you can fill it with your political beliefs, but not religious ones? Hahaha.

No it isn't.

It is totally different. If someone would serve a gay person a birthday cake, but not a wedding cake they obviously have an issue with gay marriage and not gay people.

That's a big difference.

And who decides what is and isn't a religious belief?

A court.

Freedom of religion, when used as a shield for bigotry, is unacceptable.

That's an awfully big blanket statement.

If you run a pastry shop and will serve gays for EVERYTHING else except a wedding cake. You're not a bigot, you just have religious beliefs.

If the business can prove there is a compelling business reason why they should not service gay weddings, then they should. Again, the business of America is business, not the petty bigotry of people using religion to justify their homophobic business practices.

But, we can force private business to do what we want based on political beliefs instead? Hypocritical much?

And that's fine. If you are renting out a chapel as a business, you should show that there is a compelling business reason why you won't service a gay wedding. If you can't, then it is discriminatory.

False.

Religious freedom, which is a protected right.

For example, if I owned a bakery and the Klan comes in and asks me to make a KKKake, I could refuse to make the cake on legitimate business grounds. Namely, on the ground that I don't want to be known as the bakery that makes racially offensive cakes for the Klan.

False.

The Klan isn't a recognized religious group. It's defined as a hate group by the US government.

On the other hand, if the member of the Klan walks into my bakery and just asks me to make a birthday, I shouldn't be able to refuse him service because I am personally opposed to who that person is.

False.

You can legally refuse services if you are running a private business.

 

[warpus]

If you run a pastry shop and will serve gays for EVERYTHING else except a wedding cake. You're not a bigot, you just have religious beliefs.

You seem to not understand that it is possible to have bigoted religious beliefs, such as "no wedding cakes for gays" or "no apple pies for Mexicans".

 

[useless]

I'm going to enjoy the satanists that will be lobbying for abortion, and how a lack of coverage violates their religious beliefs, in fact im pretty sure satanists are ironically, hoping for more such legislation.

Republicans; literally giving more power to satanists.

 

[Borachio]

You can legally refuse services if you are running a private business.

That's always been my understanding, too. If I'm running a shop selling stuff, don't I have the right to refuse to serve anyone at all? For absolutely no reason?

But these kinds of discussions usually seem to be predicated on the fact that you can't.

I think you can, but you just can't refuse to serve someone on the basis of their religion, race, or sexual orientation. Just refuse to serve them and keep quiet.

 

[civman110]

You seem to not understand that it is possible to have bigoted religious beliefs, such as "no wedding cakes for gays" or "no apple pies for Mexicans".

The fact that you do not see any difference between these two examples just demonstrates your lack of understanding.

I'm going to enjoy the satanists that will be lobbying for abortion, and how a lack of coverage violates their religious beliefs, in fact im pretty sure satanists are ironically, hoping for more such legislation.

Republicans; literally giving more power to satanists.

You'll be waiting for a long time then because you don't have a right to medical coverage.

But you can always keep lobbying for your satanist cause I guess... it's pretty sick that you would find enjoyment in a situation like that.

 

[warpus]

The fact that you do not see any difference between these two examples just demonstrates your lack of understanding.

They are both examples of discrimination.

And seriously, if selling cakes to gays is such a huge moral quandary for you, maybe you shouldn't be opening a shop that sells cakes.

 

[civman110]

That's always been my understanding, too. If I'm running a shop selling stuff, don't I have the right to refuse to serve anyone at all? For absolutely no reason?

But these kinds of discussions usually seem to be predicated on the fact that you can't.

I think you can, but you just can't refuse to serve someone on the basis of their religion, race, or sexual orientation. Just refuse to serve them and keep quiet.

Exactly.

And the government is classifying not wanting to provide gays with wedding services under discrimination, when in fact that should be protected under religious freedom.

 

[Sonereal]

So you can fill it with your political beliefs, but not religious ones? Hahaha.

[searching for relevance

no return]

It is totally different. If someone would serve a gay person a birthday cake, but not a wedding cake they obviously have an issue with gay marriage and not gay people.

That's a big difference.

If you try to separate the institution from the people it becomes silly though. If I walked into a bakery owned my a gay man and asked him to make a wedding cake, I would find it silly if he told me he would not because he doesn't believe in straight marriages.

There's no legitimate business need to discriminate between a straight marriage and gay marriage in most cases.

A court.

But what is the point of that? Again, it is a waste of taxpayer dollars to do this just to make a few people itching for reasons to keep gays out of their businesses happy.

That's an awfully big blanket statement.

It is an awfully true statement too.

If you run a pastry shop and will serve gays for EVERYTHING else except a wedding cake. You're not a bigot, you just have religious beliefs.

Your beliefs should have no bearing on how you run a business in America. You should have to prove compelling business need for business practices.

But, we can force private business to do what we want based on political beliefs instead? Hypocritical much?

If the political belief maximizes the public good, then yes. There is more public good from the idea that all businesses will serve all people than a belief that says some stores won't serve some people for nebulous reasons under the facade of "religious freedom", which apparently means the reduction of another individual's economic and social freedom.

False.

Religious freedom, which is a protected right.

One person's freedom ends where another person's begins. If you begin infringing on the economic and political freedom of another individual, and the overall infringement outweighs the benefit, then no, it isn't a right. I do not have a religious right to murder my sister, for example, if she commits adultery. I'm sure I can find a religion that would allow me to do so, but my freedom to do so would infringe on her right to you know, live.

If I run a business which hires more than fifteen employees, I am not suddenly relieved of my legal obligation to meet EEOC requirements because of some ill conceived religious freedom argument nonsense.

The Klan isn't a recognized religious group. It's defined as a hate group by the US government.

The US government does not a publish a list of hate groups. If it does, please find me where it does.

False.

You can legally refuse services if you are running a private business.

No, you can't.

In the future, considering doing research. You're continually embarrassing yourself when you try to make legal arguments that aren't there, when your position is devoid of any moral authority, as well as any actual business sense.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

That's always been my understanding, too. If I'm running a shop selling stuff, don't I have the right to refuse to serve anyone at all? For absolutely no reason?

But these kinds of discussions usually seem to be predicated on the fact that you can't.

I think you can, but you just can't refuse to serve someone on the basis of their religion, race, or sexual orientation. Just refuse to serve them and keep quiet.

Many people are familiar with the phrase "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone". These words are often found posted in business establishments such as restaurants, retail stores, cinemas, and other places. While businesses have some degree of control over who they provide services and products for, they must still abide by federal, state, and local laws when denying service to a customer.

For instance, businesses still need to abide by constitutional laws such as equal protection and anti-discrimination laws. Thus, a business generally can’t refuse service based on a person’s race, religion, sex, or other "protected characteristics".
- See more at: http://www.legalmatch.com/law-libra...ness-refuse-service.html#sthash.zr6w184M.dpuf

Bottom line, if you refuse service it actually can't be for "absolutely no reason", because if you are accused of the reason being some reason that is illegal you may well be found guilty if you can't decisively point to an alternative. For example in my business I always refused service to cops. If a black cop or a gay cop accused me of illegal discrimination I could and would point to a real, and legal, reason for refusing service that would provide plenty of reasonable doubt about the accusation.

 

[civman110]

They are both examples of discrimination.

And seriously, if selling cakes to gays is such a huge moral quandary for you, maybe you shouldn't be opening a shop that sells cakes.

If it's such an issue for gays perhaps they should shop at a different bakery rather than seek out small business owners with deeply held religious views and try to shut down their business when they have no problem serving gay people in the other 99.99% of scenarios.

 

[Borachio]

Well, why can't I say I just don't like them? Or that I find them intimidating? Or a host of any reasons which have nothing to do with race, religion, or sexual orientation.

 

[JollyRoger]

Denying service because someone is gay is different than denying someone services because of religious beliefs.

If you have such strong religious beliefs, should you not be in a business that causes you to discriminate based on religion? Should you perhaps sell cars instead of cakes?

What about an insurance salesman? Should he be able to deny selling a policy to a gay bar? Would it matter if he owned his insurance business or was merely an employee there? Could a mere employee at a catering business refuse to cater certain events based on religious beliefs, but the employer would not be able to fire him?

 

[Sonereal]

If it's such an issue for gays perhaps they should shop at a different bakery rather than seek out small business owners with deeply held religious views and try to shut down their businesses when they have no problem serving gay people in the other 99.99% of situations.

If you are a baker whose deeply held religious beliefs compels you to not give equal service to all customers, then you should go out of business.