Comments on: That Arizona religious-liberty bill

By: Boblipton

Boblipton — Mon, 03 Mar 2014 12:55:53 +0000

I don’t disagree, Gitarcarver. No matter how you figure it, it’s a freaking mess.

Density, old duck, the same thing happened with at least one of the wedding photographer cases — or was it a wedding cake baker?

Bob

By: DensityDuck

DensityDuck — Mon, 03 Mar 2014 07:23:35 +0000

The issue at hand is that the business owner declared that homosexuality was the specific reason why they didn’t want to do business with that couple.

If they’d just said “sorry, we’re booked up that day” and said nothing else, ever, then this never would have happened. You can certainly bring a cou

By: gitarcarver

gitarcarver — Sun, 02 Mar 2014 23:21:23 +0000

Bob,

Respectfully, if one says “you cannot act on your religious beliefs in business,” but allows non-religious beliefs to be acceptable, isn’t that a different burden on religions or religious people? Why should the basis of a deeply held belief matter?

Also (and this is not directed at you,) I struggle with the idea that business owners have different requirements placed on them from their employees.

For example, assume for a moment that printing company is owned by a homosexual individual. As luck would have it, all of his printers / type setters are homosexuals as well. In walks the folks from the Westboro Baptist Church who want flyers and placards printed for one of their protests.

If the owner says “take a hike,” is his refusal protected? After all, he is acting on a secular held belief against a religious group? Does he have the right to refuse the “church” because he disagrees with their beliefs?

If he cannot refuse, he goes to his employees and says “print these.” By law, they can refuse as the material is against their moral code and the owner cannot force people to act against their moral code.

Now we are left with the idea that only the owner can print the material.

Why should this owner be forced to act in a manner that employees can refuse and in a manner that is against his conscience? And if he is not forced because his beliefs are not based on religion, why should his business have a different standard of operation from that of a business owned by a religious person?

By: HFB

HFB — Sun, 02 Mar 2014 14:41:29 +0000

I’m conflicted…after all, it’s just meant to follow the Federal law…but what impact would this have on society?

I know it’s not the best (since we know where that will lead), but I think anyone has the right to refuse service to anyone.

In this day and age of instant media, people discriminating against others for race, sex, etc. will risk ruin…except for places where many in that area feel the same. And there’s the rub…some places could get away with real discrimination.

Not wanting to be part of a religious ceremony due to your own religious beliefs seems to qualify…if only just barely.

By: Boblipton

Boblipton — Sat, 01 Mar 2014 12:10:55 +0000

I agree that if I hire someone, it is decent and kind of me to try to accommodate his issues. However, by enlarging the protected class from people who seek religious accommodation to “deeply held beliefs”, you simply enlarge the protected class and we likely wind up with an awkward, litigated monstrosity like the ADA.

Bob

By: Walter Olson

Walter Olson — Sat, 01 Mar 2014 02:57:40 +0000

Perhaps it was inartful for me to have used the term “religious accommodation.” I see a case for trying to accommodate scruples arising from other types of deeply held belief as well, such as the committed ethical vegetarian who requests a meatless option in the public employee cafeteria, or the convinced pacifist who comes to that position without being a member of a peace church.

By: Boblipton

Boblipton — Sat, 01 Mar 2014 02:21:53 +0000

I fear, Walter, that your stating it is a different matter does not convince me. Why should Mennonites get accommodation but not some group that lacks standing? Is this not the government deciding what is and is not a legal religion? Is that not, in some way, an establishment of certain religions and not others? If not, then why? If being a Christian means holding to the Bible in some sense, then does not “render unto Caesar” mean anything? If someone does not give away all his possessions to follow Christ, doesn’t that mean that he (or she) is not a Christian? In that case, why should there be accommodation?

Bob

By: Walter Olson

Walter Olson — Sat, 01 Mar 2014 00:40:26 +0000

On most of the laws at issue here the consciences of Christians are split, some pointing toward approval, others disapproval. And of course lawmakers’ job is not to enact the tenets of Christianity or any other religion, let alone its sectarian sub-divisions, into law. Religious accommodation — finding a way for Mennonites not to bear military arms, Quakers not to swear oaths, and people with scruples about someone else’s wedding not to have to participate in it — is a different matter.

By: Malcolm

Malcolm — Fri, 28 Feb 2014 20:35:14 +0000

If we’re acknowledging that a rule can be breached by people of strong religious conviction, why does it need to be a rule at all?
That was exactly the point I made in my last two sentences. The fact that a law conflicst with the Christian conscience is proof that the law is immoral. If the lawmakers had had their own consciences intact, they would have recognized it while it was still in the draft stage.

By: gitarcarver

gitarcarver — Fri, 28 Feb 2014 20:28:47 +0000

My little town of 10,000 residents has a community center which the town rents to groups. As part of the city code, the city cannot rent the community center to a religious group – either a church or a group with a religious message. When I questioned this code, the city attorney said the city had the “absolute right to rent or not rent to whomever it wanted.”

I then contacted the Liberty Counsel and spoke to them. Initially they said there was a case and they would look into it. After a week or so, an attorney called me back and said that not only could the city rent to whomever it wanted and in doing so discriminate against whomever they wanted, there was Florida law and Florida case law to support the city’s actions.

I have always wondered why governments (at least in Florida) are allowed to “discriminate” on religion / moral viewpoints, but businesses cannot.