Where should there be "The right to refuse service"?

The big question is whether there should be anti-discrimination laws at all. If we grant that there should be, the extension to protect gays seems obviously right and just.Pervasive discrimination can amount to a "tyranny of the majority", and make life very unpleasant, unacceptably so, for minorities. If there is truly a threat of that, then it seems to me that anti-discrimination laws may well be less bad than the alternative. And even if those in the cities are adequately catered for, what about rural communities where there are fewer providers? The law has to be fair and it has to work - adding complications about alternative providers are a risk to both. That said, using the law to compel service is rarely a good option where there are adequate alternatives.To consider the hypothetical example cases, I don't believe that any law requires that a wedding cake be decorated exactly as the customer wishes, no matter what. Anti-discrimination laws only require equal service. If the baker can reasonably claim that they would not have provided an equivalent decoration to anyone then they have a case.For the photographer we have to ask if nudists are a protected group first, and to be honest the photographer would do a lot better arguing that his personal discomfort would hinder his work than expressing moral outrage.

quote:

---

you all insist on the rules of the hostile pagan society trumping anything Christians try to do, even to the point of telling us, as Mod did, that we are not even allowed to run a business at all ever, then you need to recognize that you are defending a tyrannical fascist form of government that deprives Christians of our rights while selectively defending the rights of a tiny minority against us. Apparently that is the kind of society many of you here want to have

---

Faith, lying really doesn't help your case.

So people who choose bigotry over obeying God aren't good Christians.Really I blame the right-wing politicians who have whipped up all sorts of hate and ill-feeling over the issue. Gay marriage should be pretty much a non-event for the majority. It has very little impact on anyone who isn't gay. Except for those that want to take advantage of the law to discriminate against gays. Makes you wonder what lies behind all the rhetoric, doesn't it ?

That wasn't the issue in at least one case, according to what I read. The bakers refused flat out to provide a cake for a gay wedding before even getting to the topic of decoration.Not that I expect Faith to actually care about the details of the cases,many more than she cared about the actual laws involved.

quote:

---

Does anyone see a distinction between secular marriage (marriage recognized by the state) and religious marriage (recognized by the church)

---

Yes, and I wish that they were made more distinct.

quote:

---

Should churches be forced to perform same-sex marriages and therefore sanction such marriages?

---

I'm not aware of anyone asking for this or any reason to think that it is at all likely to happen. I don't want it to happen. The churches (mosques, synagogues, temples) can decide their own rules, so long as they deal in purely religious matters.

quote:

---

Mod's point never made any sense to me and it still doesn't, and I've answered it already. Again, I'm never talking about denying service to any persons at all, wearing yarmulkes or not, only specifically denying a specific service

---

That's because you haven't read the court decisions. Acquainting yourself with the relevant facts is always a good idea.Also I must add that insisting that the service is "providing a wedding cake to a gay wedding" rather than simply "providing a wedding cake" is rather pushing things. But if the service is just "providing a wedding cake" there really doesn't seem any question that the baker is engaging in discrimination, is there ?Anyway, a gay getting married will naturally be having a gay wedding - in fact only gays will be having gay weddings, just like only Jews will be wearing yarmulkes. Therefore there is no nice clean divide between the service - or at least your idea of the service - and the person. Refusing to provide wedding cakes for gay weddings is discrimination against gays for being gay. Which isn't allowed.

quote:

---

The law is nuts if that's what it says.

---

It is entirely sensible to point out that there is no neat distinction between "having a gay wedding" and "being gay".It is entirely sensible for a law to avoid providing convenient loopholes that would make it difficult to enforce, or worse, effectively nullify it.That's why the segregationists weren't allowed to appeal to their belief that segregation was God's law when they wanted to discriminate against Blacks. Do you say that that was wrong ?

quote:

---

The Bible does not support discrimination against blacks, and as soon as the law went against it the claim was dropped because it was obviously bogus.

---

It wasn't obviously bogus to Buzsaw who appealed to the idea on this forum. Bob Jones University infamously had a ban on inter-racial dating up until the year 2000.But, more to the point, are you really asking the courts to judge the truth of religious belief ? To say that the segregationists beliefs are wrong and therefore invalid, no matter how deeply held that they might be ?One of the basic points underlying freedom of religion is that the law is to regulate behaviour not belief. To allow behaviour considered unacceptable because of some beliefs and not others seems to me to step over that line.

quote:

---

However the Bible does require that I refuse to do anything to acknowledge or validate a gay wedding and this isn't going to change no matter what the law says..

---

Maybe you should point us to the place where the Bible says that, then. It's very odd that you haven't, and have even pointed to a place which says you should obey the secular law instead. If you're correct.

quote:

---

Taq, I don't need to prove this to you, the fact that Christians are standing against gay marriage in this way ought to be sufficient proof that we read the Bible as requiring this of us.

---

You could say the same for the segregationists. But you don't have any problem with the law when it stops them discriminating. The issues were the same. If your arguments don't work for them - and you implicitly admit that they don't - then they don't work for you either.And, of course, you haven't come up with anywhere that the Bible requires this of you. You HAVE come up with verses that require you to obey the law. You aren't following the Bible, you are disobeying it.

quote:

---

Again, I don't need to prove anything to anyone here. I'm with those Christians who know what God's will is and intend to obey it no matter what the law says and no matter what any of you think.

---

Sure. And you don't have to hurl false accusations all over the place, claim to be following the Bible when it isn't true or appeal to obvious double standards.But if you want to justify your position - and you clearly do - then it is up to you to offer real justifications.

quote:

---

I've already referred to the pertinent scriptures and they don't persuade the mentality at EvC which is set on depriving Christians of our religious freedoms

---

And here we go again with the lies and slander. Faith, your scriptures don't convince us because they don't come close to addressing the issue. Scriptures which come closer to addressing the issue disagree with you. And there's no attempt to deprive you of religious freedom. In fact it's "Christians" like you who are the main enemies of religious freedom in the U.S. Even you object to it.

quote:

---

Therefore, as I keep emphasizing. if the mentality here prevails in the legal system, which it apparently does, then you have taken away our religious freedom

---

And again, this is a lie. There is no direct attack on religious freedom. You can believe as you wish, worship as you wish. The ban on polygamy could be considered a far worse attack on religious freedom, given Mormon beliefs - since renounced by the mainline LDS Church, but not by at least some of the offshoots.

quote:

---

I call that a fascist mentality. We may protest as best we can but if the mindset is against us we'll just have to take the punishment because we are not going to give up our Biblical understanding.

---

But it is not fascist. As I've pointed out it is very like what happened with the segregationists - like you, right wing Christians who claimed that their position was Biblical, and were subjected to the same laws. But you don't protest about that. Your idea of "religious freedom" is wholly selfish, and that is one of the reasons why it is transparently not produced by any real commitment to justice or morality.

quote:

---

As I understand it the Bill of Rights grants freedom of religion without any demand that the state or anyone outside the religion has to have the religion's beliefs justified to them, a demand which would nullify the whole concept of freedoms which are meant to protect different points of view that people disagree about.

---

I am glad that you understand that. But you miss the implication that simply appealing to religious conviction cannot in itself be sufficient to allow you an exemption to a purely secular law. And that is why the law is NOT a threat to religious freedom, and why your demand that your belief should be deferred to while others are not IS.

quote:

---

I'll say it again: Segregation is not supported by the Bible and that is why the whole issue just disappeared when it was legally disallowed. But the Bible is clear that gay marriage is a violation of God's law and therefore laws that forbid us from refusing to honor gay marriage will not change our minds and we'll have to take the punishment.

---

The segregationists disagreed. And unless you want the court to judge religious matters - a bigger threat to religious freedom than anything which is happening now - that is where it stops. Their argument is the same as yours. Unless you want the courts to decide what the Bible says, the precedent is already set - and accepted by you.

quote:

---

Whatever you say, Paul, the tyranny of the state is on your side this time and Christians, true Christians, historically Biblical Christians, the sort that used to be prevalent in western culture, will just have to suffer from your refusal to recognize our just claim to religious freedom.

---

And again you show an inability to even comprehend the idea of justice. Which is why if your views prevailed we WOULD have tyranny.

quote:

---

As I said, your mindset is going to prevail in this fascistic society and we will have to take the consequences. There is really nothing more to say about it.

---

There's nothing more to say because I'm right and you know it. You can't answer my points because you don't care about justice, you only want the law to come to the conclusions you want without any concern for how they get there. And that is contrary to the very idea of law.And that is why your views lead to injustice and tyranny.