WorldWatcher
Gold Member
Since your post is extensive, I will break it down into parts. Beginning with this one.
That analogy is flawed. None of these people are being told to violate their religious convictions. So therefore, I feel they should be obligated to serve anyone and everyone willing to pay for their services. What you speak of is blatant discrimination with no basis in reality. The couple in this bakery were torn apart for denying service to people who would have had them bake a cake for and deliver it to a gay couple and their wedding. On its face, they were being asked to break all the teachings of their faith they held dear.
As I made clear in my previous response, unless the person has a religious objection based on reality, then by law they should be required to accommodate anyone willing to pay for their service. The crux of this entire matter is their religious objection. It is a non sequitur to argue about race as it pertains to religion and public accommodation. I abhor racism, but I despise religious intolerance, conversely. And once again, these examples are flawed. God does not personally speak to one individual and command him or her to do his bidding, namely to discriminate against someone out of spite. One has to possess an explicit knowledge of the faith and of God himself to even attempt to render such a theory. I am a Christian myself, and the only things God has told me to do can be found in the bible, not in direct divinations from the Almighty himself.
I'm sorry, but God stopped giving direct divinations and signs in the days of the Old Testament. So to say God directly impels me or anyone else to do anything is wrong. I will maintain that as the crux of my argument, because I am actually a Christian, I would assume I'm not talking out of my rear end here. Talk about law all you wish, but I don't think God would ask me to discriminate against someone out of hatred, but for a legitimate reason.
11 The Pharisees came and began to question Jesus. To test him, they asked him for a sign from heaven. 12 He sighed deeply and said, “Why does this generation ask for a sign? Truly I tell you, no sign will be given to it.” 13 Then he left them, got back into the boat and crossed to the other side.
Mark 8:11-13
When it is evening, you say, ‘It will be fair weather, for the sky is red.’ 3 And in the morning, ‘It will be stormy today, for the sky is red and threatening.’ You know how to interpret the appearance of the sky, but you cannot interpret lthe signs of the times. 4 An evil and adulterous generation seeks for a sign, but no sign will be given to it except the sign of Jonah.” So he left them and departed.
Matthew 16:1-4
Wait a minute, you value the law so much, why do you ignore what the Constitution says about freedom of religion, association, and expression? And yes, the Constitution still matters.
By repealing Publiic Accommodation laws in general then ALL people can have their religious beliefs and convictionis protected. They will be able to act as they see fit in the conduct of private business.
However from the series of posts above, you have demonstrated that your position appears to be that only certain religious beliefs (or convictions) should be respected. That there is to be some kind of test and judgement on which claims of religiouos beliefs (or convictions) are valid.
If it's Christians discriminating against gays - well that OK because I agree with it.
If the owner of an Auto Repair shop claims religious beliefs (or convictions) that servicing the cars of black people - that's not good enough.
If the owner of an plumber claims religious beliefs (or convictions) that servicing the toilets of Jewish people is wrong - that's not good enough.
If a Muslim cab driver says the Koran doesn't allow him to drive a blind woman and her service dog - that's not good enough.
If a hotel owner claims religious beliefs (or convictions) in not renting to a room to someone from Ireland - that's not good enough.
If the owner of an Auto Repair shop claims religious beliefs (or convictions) that servicing the cars of black people - that's not good enough.
If the owner of an plumber claims religious beliefs (or convictions) that servicing the toilets of Jewish people is wrong - that's not good enough.
If a Muslim cab driver says the Koran doesn't allow him to drive a blind woman and her service dog - that's not good enough.
If a hotel owner claims religious beliefs (or convictions) in not renting to a room to someone from Ireland - that's not good enough.
****************************************************
What you've asked for is a "special privilege" for faith based discrimination against homosexuals while not arguing that a person should also be able to claim a faith based argument for any other type of discrimination the person attempts to justify based on a personal religious belief (or conviction). Your justification appears to be, we'll the others are invalid because the Bible says this or that. However if the law were to allow special privileges for discrimination against gays, then those same exemptions would have to be available to anyone claiming a religious belief (or conviction) to discriminate against anyone. And no the exemption would not need to be just on "Christian" beliefs, Christians are free to have personal religious beliefs (or convictions) about their own interpretation of the Bible and in fact there are other religious belifs (or convictions) not based on our Bible.
One of the arguments proposed by the Commonwealth of Virginia in the Loving case to justify upholding interracial Marriage bans was "Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix." That was a religious belief held by many people in the early part of the 20th century.
In Employment Division, Department of Human Resources of Oregon v. Smith the SCOTUS squarely addressed the idea with the following:
"We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940):
Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.
The Public Accommodation law which is the subject of this tread is an Oregon based law. The Constitution allows the Federal government to regulate Interstate Commerce and the 10th Amendment reserves to the States the powers not delegated to the Federal government. Therefore States have the inherent power to regulate instra-state commerce. Public Accommodation laws are laws written which are general in nature and which can be argued are valid for the state to regulate and such laws have been consistently upheld in the past going back to Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States.
If we want these laws changed, it is very unlikely to happen in the courts because (a) they are not targeted against religous persons, (b) they have general applicability and are otherwise valid, and (c) they fall within the purview of the State under the 10th Amendment to regulate commerce within their State. If we want these laws changed we need to get the legislature to repeal them because (while they may be seen as needful in the past), there is no longer the need for big government interference and and that the property rights of the private individual should be restored.
Loving v. Virginia
Employment Division v. Smith
Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States
>>>>
Last edited: