Fighting Back!

[fm93]

Ignoring the last of your comment for now, what would it take, in your view, to establish their business as "private"?

Well, according to this article,

The decision said Liberty Ridge qualifies as a public accommodation because it regularly collects fees for space, facilities, services and meals, so it cannot be considered “distinctly private.”

So...I guess it'd be considered private if it didn't regularly collect fees for those aspects? I didn't say I personally agreed with the decision; I was just pointing out that since it's already been made, the logic that not allowing same-sex marriage ceremonies counts as discrimination is valid. If you want to argue against the court, you have to do so regarding their public-private decision, not the ruling of discrimination.

[fm93]

Of course it is discrimination, you are denying these people of faith the right to run their business according to their religious beliefs.

No I'm not. They have every right to run their business according to their religious beliefs as long as their business is PRIVATE--which, according to the courts, it isn't.

Since when do you lose your Constitutional rights because you open a business? What Constitutional does principle does this follow?

If you open a PUBLIC business, you are constitutionally forbidden to discriminate against people based on certain standards, and in the state of New York, one of those standards happens to be sexual orientation. This shouldn't be hard to understand.

[seer]

Well, according to this article,

The decision said Liberty Ridge qualifies as a public accommodation because it regularly collects fees for space, facilities, services and meals, so it cannot be considered “distinctly private.”

So...I guess it'd be considered private if it didn't regularly collect fees for those aspects? I didn't say I personally agreed with the decision; I was just pointing out that since it's already been made, the logic that not allowing same-sex marriage ceremonies counts as discrimination is valid. If you want to argue against the court, you have to do so regarding their public-private decision, not the ruling of discrimination.

The farm case represents the most recent legal challenge to private businesses that provide services for weddings but refuse service to same-sex couples.

Last year, the New Mexico Supreme Court ruled that a Christian photographer could not refuse to shoot gay wedding ceremonies. Even though at the time the state did not officially recognize gay marriage, the court ruled that declining to photograph a gay wedding was similar to declining to work at an interracial wedding.

Thirteenth Amendment:

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

Talk about involuntary servitude...

[seer]

No I'm not. They have every right to run their business according to their religious beliefs as long as their business is PRIVATE--which, according to the courts, it isn't.

Really, show me any Constitutional principle that distinguishes between private and public business. And why you should lose your rights just because your business is public.

If you open a PUBLIC business, you are constitutionally forbidden to discriminate against people based on certain standards, and in the state of New York, one of those standards happens to be sexual orientation. This shouldn't be hard to understand.

Really - show me that in the US Constitution - please link the actual Article.

[Cow Poke]

Well, according to this article,

The decision said Liberty Ridge qualifies as a public accommodation because it regularly collects fees for space, facilities, services and meals, so it cannot be considered “distinctly private.”

So...I guess it'd be considered private if it didn't regularly collect fees for those aspects?

But I asked you what would make it "private"? If it was a private club, requiring membership, would that, in your judgment, allow them to be selective?

I didn't say I personally agreed with the decision; I was just pointing out that since it's already been made, the logic that not allowing same-sex marriage ceremonies counts as discrimination is valid.

So, a "decision being made" is what justifies "discrimination"? What if it's a wrong decision. What if it's subsequently overturned?

If you want to argue against the court, you have to do so regarding their public-private decision, not the ruling of discrimination.

Which is what I focused on --- what, in your opinion, would establish it as "private"?

[seer]

Which is what I focused on --- what, in your opinion, would establish it as "private"?

That is a good question. My Church is a private organization but we often rent out our large hall. Does that now make us a "public" business. Do we now have to rent out our hall to homosexual functions?

[Cow Poke]

That is a good question. My Church is a private organization but we often rent out our large hall. Does that now make us a "public" business. Do we now have to rent out our hall to homosexual functions?

According to the logic SP is defending, while saying he's not defending it, yes.

[fm93]

Really, show me any Constitutional principle that distinguishes between private and public business.

It's not directly from the constitution, but you've heard of the Civil Rights Act, correct? Title II, Sec. 201a says "All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation." Meanwhile, Title II, Sec. 201e says "The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection."
http://www.ourdocuments.gov/doc.php?...age=transcript

So there you go. Legislation that explicitly distinguishes between private and public. The CRA itself doesn't explicitly mention sexual orientation, but the state level does protect that characteristic.

And why you should lose your rights just because your business is public.

You're not.

[fm93]

But I asked you what would make it "private"? If it was a private club, requiring membership, would that, in your judgment, allow them to be selective?

I don't have too many specific criteria for determining whether something ought to be classified as public or private. The court's apparent criterion that they regularly collect fees makes some sense to me, but the fact that the Giffords reside there also seems like a good reason to classify it as private.

So, a "decision being made" is what justifies "discrimination"? What if it's a wrong decision. What if it's subsequently overturned?

If it's overturned, then I'll support their personal freedom to discriminate, even though I personally don't think they ought to.

[fm93]

At the end of the day, I don't care about the legal arguments and petty details. My religion is important to me, and I will continue to regard as hostile any attempt to compel members of my faith to actively engage in activities which they believe they are inconsistent with God's law.

I'd agree if Christians were being forced to abort their fetuses or publicly blaspheme or engage in same-sex marriages, but in this case, the Giffords are simply being asked to rent their facilities to host a wedding ceremony. They're not being forced to officiate it or participate in it or even attend it.

The way I see it, the government has previously prohibited certain actions in the name of religious expression. Now, they're effectively mandating action which conflicts with the individuals' religious expression and I believe that's going too far. (No need to offer the semantic argument, i.e. "no, they're just prohibiting discrimination, which is just restriction of an activity". I understand it, but still disagree.)

Should a hypothetical Muslim hotel owner be allowed to forbid Christians from renting rooms, on the basis of his religious beliefs that Christians are infidels?

[myth]

I'd agree if Christians were being forced to abort their fetuses or publicly blaspheme or engage in same-sex marriages, but in this case, the Giffords are simply being asked to rent their facilities to host a wedding ceremony. They're not being forced to officiate it or participate in it or even attend it.


Should a hypothetical Muslim hotel owner be allowed to forbid Christians from renting rooms, on the basis of his religious beliefs that Christians are infidels?

The government is trying to force them to host the wedding, though. And the justification for doing so is so loose that it's not a huge jump to imagine, a few years from now, pastors being sued for refusing to officiate at same-sex weddings. After all, pastors are usually paid a small fee for the services in a wedding. Does that mean they're acting as a 'public' business? It's a dangerous and slippery slope.

And the answer to your last question is no. Just like a Christian waitress should not refuse to serve a same-sex couple at a restaurant. The difference (I believe) is that the acts in question (wedding versus eating food) are different. One has cultural and religious significance, the other does not. As a Christian, I do not feel that I should discriminate against people. Where you and I do not see eye-to-eye, though, is that you believe the Giffords were discriminating against the same-sex couple. I believe the Giffords were simply refusing to facilitate an activity that they believe is sin.

It is one thing to serve food to a sinner. It is entirely another thing to help them commit their sin.

[myth]

A lot of times, when I see stories like these, I think of the controversies over slavery, where the Bible was used to justify the practice. I always wonder if we infringed on the right to religious freedom then. Don't get me wrong. .. I believe the slavery was wrong. But I still wonder what we should do if we were to be consistent in our insistence on religious freedom? Apologize and recompense those who lost despite their right to believe it was Biblical?

The Bible has been used throughout history to justify a lot of things which most Christians would regard as atrocious. But that's a whole other discussion. You do raise an interesting point, though.

[Jedidiah]

Should a hypothetical Muslim hotel owner be allowed to forbid Christians from renting rooms, on the basis of his religious beliefs that Christians are infidels?

I would not knowingly rent a room from any one who would not allow Christians. I do not see why atheists would want to go where they are not wanted. Of course the main purpose is to cause trouble for the Christian business.

[myth]

I would not knowingly rent a room from any one who would not allow Christians. I do not see why atheists would want to go where they are not wanted. Of course the main purpose is to cause trouble for the Christian business.

Indeed. What normal person records their phone conversations? I wouldn't be surprised to learn that the same-sex couple in the Giffords case knew of the owners' faith, and specifically requested their venue to make an issue out of it.

[fm93]

The government is trying to force them to host the wedding, though. And the justification for doing so is so loose that it's not a huge jump to imagine, a few years from now, pastors being sued for refusing to officiate at same-sex weddings. After all, pastors are usually paid a small fee for the services in a wedding. Does that mean they're acting as a 'public' business? It's a dangerous and slippery slope.

I doubt it. Religious organizations are supposed to be exempt.

As a Christian, I do not feel that I should discriminate against people. Where you and I do not see eye-to-eye, though, is that you believe the Giffords were discriminating against the same-sex couple. I believe the Giffords were simply refusing to facilitate an activity that they believe is sin.

Actually, I believe both.

It is one thing to serve food to a sinner. It is entirely another thing to help them commit their sin.

And it is yet another thing to seemingly identify a person entirely by her (possible) sin.