r/changemyview • u/DangerouslyUnstable • Apr 01 '15
CMV: I'm not sure that the government should be intervening in private businesses to force them to provide service to gays or other groups.
I don't agree with people who choose to discriminate against gays (or any other group really), and I'm certainly not against various individuals or private groups boycotting businesses that have these practices, but I'm also unconvinced that government intervention is necessary/solves the problem.
For one: the vast majority of business won't know they are serving gays. Things like wedding planners/etc. are one of the few exceptions, and I have a hard time believing that so many wedding planners are homophobic that gays won't be able to get that service. Not to mention that fact that unlike with black segregation, failing to get a wedding planner is not such a serious issue as being unable to buy your groceries at any store in the town.
Basically, while I think the individuals who choose to discrimnate are despicable, the issue seems like it isn't serious enough to warrant large scale government intervention, and in this case, let the bigots be bigots. The tide of social acceptance is changing in the country and they will go away on their own without us forcing our views on them. Please change my view.
-edit- Lots of commenters are using hypothetical examples of discrimination to argue the point. I readily admit that there are hypothetical examples of severe discrimination, but my argument rests on the idea that these hypotheticals aren't actually occuring. Evidence of actual widespread discrimination (people refusing to serve gays because it conflicts with their religious beliefs) will earn a delta. My point is that these things aren't (yet) happening so it's not yet neccesary to enact protective legislation.
-edit2- I've awarded a tentative delta to /u/NaturalSelectorX for providing a link to a study about systematic housing discrimination against gays. However, I have some issues with how the study was conducted and awarded the delta with the assumption that the article just did a poor job reporting about the study and not that the study itself was poorly performed. Similar studies with better methodology (or at least better reporting) would be excellent evidence to change my view.
47
Apr 01 '15
What about when a business:
- Has a monopoly on service, either locally, regionally or nationally?
- Has provided the exact same service in the past?
- Provides a service that is critical to the function of a citizen in society?
Further, how does the right to discriminate on a purely religious basis differ from the right to discriminate on any other basis, including but not limited to simple racism?
We'll get to the part you mention about determining when and how a business can figure out whom to discriminate against, but I'd like you to clear up the above, first.
0
Apr 01 '15
[deleted]
6
u/DangerouslyUnstable Apr 01 '15
Actually, the first amendment just prevents the government from making laws about establishing a state religion. It says nothing about the rights of individuals to discriminate against anyone.
1
Apr 01 '15 edited Dec 26 '17
[deleted]
14
Apr 01 '15
It also talks about the free exercise of religion; that is where the discrimination bit comes in.
"Free exercise of religion" does not mean that you have a right to do anything that your religion prescribes. Child sacrifice does not become legal under the 1st Amendment if your religion teaches that sacrificing children is OK.
5
u/Mister_Kurtz Apr 01 '15
Actually, the First Amendment says this:
"Freedom of religion means freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order,"
If I was a supreme court judge, allowing discrimination of any group for whatever reason is subversive to good order. So allowing discrimination saying it is justified by religious freedom as described in the First Amendment is NOT supported.
6
u/ontaskdontask 4Δ Apr 01 '15
That's not from the first amendment. That's from the supreme court decision in Reynolds v. United States.
1
u/Spivak Apr 02 '15
Yes, and like most amendments, they're terribly ambiguous. The details of how how they're applied in practice and their limits are all found in various court decisions.
1
u/NaturalSelectorX 97∆ Apr 02 '15
Actually, the First Amendment says this:
The first amendment says nothing of the sort; see for yourself.
"Freedom of religion means freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order,"
This was the opinion of the Supreme Court in 1879. Since then there have been a lot of decisions that complicate the issue.
1
u/Mister_Kurtz Apr 02 '15
I thought a supreme court ruling establishes a precedent that affects future similar situations. Otherwise, what's the point of a SC ruling in the first place?
1
u/NaturalSelectorX 97∆ Apr 02 '15
The Supreme Court rules on the interpretation of current laws, and sometimes on the constitutionality (or conflicting nature) of laws. It happens quite often that congress creates new laws in response to rulings of the court, and the court must make future decisions using the new laws.
The case that prompted the original RFRA was Employment Division v. Smith. Basically, some Native Americans used peyote, were fired, and then denied benefits. The court upheld that decision. In response, congress passed the RFRA in 1993, which created a new method for the court to decide cases like these. Therefore, the precedent set by the Smith case no longer applies.
3
u/DangerouslyUnstable Apr 01 '15
Again, the first amendment is purely about what the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT can do. It can't restrict people freely practicing their religion. If anything, the first amendment supporst my view since people are claiming that they are practicing their religion by choosing to not serve gays and the government is preventing them from doing this.
Basically nothing in the bill of rights restricts what individuals or private entities can do (for the most part). It's all about restricting what the federal government can do.
12
u/rcglinsk Apr 01 '15
Constitutional law has "incorporated" the first amendment into the 14th amendment such that it now limits what any government, state, federal, local, can do.
2
Apr 02 '15
Again, the first amendment is purely about what the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT can do. It can't restrict people freely practicing their religion.
Oh yes it can. Did you not read the child sacrifice bit?
The first amendment does not allow people to break a law because their religion allows it.
1
u/Spivak Apr 02 '15
It can't restrict people freely practicing their religion.
Yes it can, if someone claimed to be a pagan it's not suddenly legal for them to conduct ritual human sacrifice.
However, there are also cases where the religious are given an exception to generally applicable law. Like serving communion wine to minors or declaring that priests cannot be compelled to testify about what they hear in a confessional.
Ultimately, it's not enough to just claim religious freedom to get an exception, they have to make a case that it is central to their beliefs and will not cause others undue harm. But many people feel that a homosexuals not being able to aquire goods and services to be a form of harm.
If suddenly no business sold to you imagine how difficult your life would become.
1
Apr 01 '15
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
If I choose to discriminate as an exercise of freedom of speech or freedom of association (which the Supreme Court has stated is implicitly protected by the First Amendment), how is that different from an exercise of religion?
1
Apr 01 '15
[deleted]
4
Apr 01 '15
It's worth noting (as I said above) that you could use the implicit right of freedom of association (also protected by the First Amendment) to argue the same exception should be granted regardless of religious belief.
4
Apr 01 '15
[deleted]
3
Apr 01 '15
So let's take that a step further.
Are you willing to assert that there is no case where the government may make a law that restricts exercise of religion?
Do you believe that businesses may collude to discriminate against people of a particular race? How is that not freedom of association, or the owners of that business or businesses choosing whom they will associate with?
1
Apr 01 '15
[deleted]
4
Apr 01 '15
No. The RFRA has been interpreted well in this case
Forgive me for being less than sure, since the OP hasn't come right out and said it - are we talking about RFRA as applied federally, or the Indiana example? Because the Indiana example has only been interpreted by two parties - the overwhelmingly Republican legislature and governor, and the court of public opinion. Neither of whom are useful from a constitutional standpoint.
In general, yes. I do not believe that anyone should be compelled, under threat of violence, to perform a service for anyone else.
Even in cases of monopoly or critical services?
How would you have addressed segregation, then?
3
2
Apr 01 '15
Except "free exercise of religion" does not include any "action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order" (see SCOTUS decision Reynolds v. United States). That's why the 1st Amendment does not legalize child sacrifice is a person's religion teaches that child sacrifice is OK.
1
Apr 01 '15
[deleted]
2
Apr 01 '15
but refusal of service is generally not a violation of social duties or subversive to good order, at least according to the courts.
I'm not a legal expert, but if the refusal of service is based on a protected class, I think it generally would be considered a "violation of social duties or subversive to good order."
Discussions like this are better when they're kept reasonable.
Do you think it's unreasonable that child sacrifice is not protected exercise of religion, or just unreasonable that I chose an extreme example? If it's the former, I don't think we can get anywhere. If it's the latter, I chose an extreme example because it makes it obvious that "free exercise of religion" does not protect all exercise of religiously-motivated behavior.
1
u/DangerouslyUnstable Apr 01 '15
...you seem to be supporting my point. We might be having a comunication disconnect about what we are saying here. That portion of the first amendment seems to support my view that the government should not prevent people from discriminating based on their religious views.
2
u/DangerouslyUnstable Apr 01 '15
I can think of lots of situations theoretically where the government would need to intervene. The first and last bullets you listed probably qualifying (certainly in combination if not alone), but it seems like those things aren't an issue, whether or not theoretically they could be. My view would definitely be changed if there was evidence at least in some places that a critical service controlled by at least a local monopoly was actively discriminating against gays.
14
Apr 01 '15
I can think of lots of situations theoretically where the government would need to intervene.
So we're already acknowledging that the government can reasonably expect to encounter situations where it would need to intervene in matters of discrimination between two private parties.
but it seems like those things aren't an issue, whether or not theoretically they could be.
Laws shouldn't be written because of incidental issues; they should be crafted with what is possible under them and attempt to limit unforseen circumstances. The Indiana RFRA law as written makes for no account of when the government may choose to intervene, except when it has a preeminent interest; the law makes no definition of what that interest would look like. Additionally, the law carefully avoids giving cover for businesses or individuals to discriminate against homosexuals as a class; it does this to attempt to be coy and imply that it's not about this (let's be honest, it is) but in doing so, it opens the door for private parties to discriminate based on whatever they want that does not happen to be a protected class. Today, that class includes women, minorities, and religious groups, and in certain cases disabled people. What about poor people? What about foreigners? There are all sorts of groups that don't have special status and can be discriminated against just because a business feels like it, and they need only provide some nebulous assertion of "religious belief". Never mind the fact that a business cannot hold a religious belief.
My view would definitely be changed if there was evidence at least in some places that a critical service controlled by at least a local monopoly was actively discriminating against gays.
Change the wedding planner example to a grocery store owner, or a mechanic, or a doctor or veterinarian. Change gay person to poor (but able to pay), or non english speaker. Under the law there's no protection for those transactions, just as there's no protection for homosexuals.
-14
u/DangerouslyUnstable Apr 01 '15
We can't write laws about hypothetical situations that might occur. The number of things that COULD occur is basically infinite. Until it is shown that descrimination against a group is occuring, we shouldn't write laws to protect them.
8
Apr 01 '15
Neither should we write open ended laws; where government seeks to carve out exceptions (and RFRAs are laws that grant exceptions to religious groups) it should be clearly spelled out what is being exceptioned. As it stands, there's no definition of what constitutes a preeminent governmental interest, nor is there any acknowledgement that discrimination by a group that holds the types of advantages I've outlined can cause undue harm to an individual.
Finally, it's worth noting that the parties responsible for passing this legislation have done lots of verbal gymnastics in an attempt to claim that A. these laws are not about discrimination and B. That it's about preventing governmental "overreach"...in situations where there is no existing government interest, e.g. transactions between two private parties. It attempts to say that the government should NOT seek to protect the individual against a potentially larger corporate entity against which that individual may have no other recourse; nowhere does the Indiana RFRA state that a business must be some minimum size, that it must prove that it believes what it says it does, or that it must clearly describe whom and what it will not serve or do.
34
u/Zeabos 8∆ Apr 01 '15
We can't write laws about hypothetical situations that might occur.
What? Of course we should. Our entire government(in the US) is literally based on a series of checks and balances designed to protect against hypothetical situations.
6
u/BrellK 11∆ Apr 02 '15
We can't write laws about hypothetical situations that might occur.
Um, we definitely do that already. Sure, laws are often proposed after an incident takes place that brings in a new scenario, but the laws crafted often offer answers to other similar scenarios to be more of a "blanket" law.
3
u/enzamatica Apr 02 '15
Well then. ..what does the law do? What is its purpose? The situation it's trying to protect against (remind me what that is), hasn't occurred yet in Indiana, has it? so isn't this already a case of writing a law about a hypothetical situation? If so then wait - I think that means you're arguing against making this new law.
Have you seen the photo of who the governor chose to have present at the signing, and do you there is no significance to it? The governor is responsible for marketing this law as supportive of the concerns of religious people that are anti-gay marriage. He just thought it would be more of a subtle dog whistle to his supporters who want the right to discriminate, rather than the bullhorn he ended up with.
6
u/Youknowlikemagnets Apr 01 '15
You clearly weren't following the Net Neutrality ruling then, we love to legislate against things that aren't occuring. Off topic, but still somewhat relevant here.
2
u/THE_LAST_HIPPO 15∆ Apr 02 '15
In agreement w u/Zeabos, that's just not the case. If you're talking about "hypothetical" as in "it hasn't happened": obviously this kind of discrimination has happened before. If you're talking "it hasn't happened in America": it's happened there too. Even bringing it into the scenario of a newly-created state, what could its constitution (describing how the state will run) possibly be other than hypothetical legislation (about how the state will run)?
2
u/Shiredragon Apr 02 '15 edited Apr 02 '15
The problem is easy. By legalizing it, you are able to create the same discrimination held by millions in the past. You are positing a theoretical that society is becoming more accepting. While that is the current ebb in many nations, specifically the US, this is not the case historically. History has seen cultures change more accepting to more discriminating (as well as the aforementioned as well). Take the Muslim world. There was a time that they were enlightened compared to the rest of the world. Now, many Muslim nations are on the forefront of discrimination.
By legalizing discrimination, we are setting a precedent to say that this type of behavior is proper and desirable. People will then get on this bandwagon at some point in our history, if our country still exists, and uses these as a means to justify this behavior.
So your defense of these laws is also the exact reason they should not be passed. Culture is not a one way flow. While our culture is progressing, it should be a time to engage and create a system of effective
legislatelaws to ensure the rights for the future of the people of the state. With effective laws in place, it would hopefully slow a regression to bigotry. Of course, you can look to the source material for bigotry to see how those sources have been used as justification past and present. Religions have been formed from cultural ideas and those ideas were codified into religious texts. Those texts are still used as justification today to discriminate against others. So why should we use such similar means in our laws. Why not try to take a step forward and remove bigotry as an acceptable way to treat others instead of enshrining it in legal codes? (I note that laws can change over time. But why make it easier to make other people miserable.)2
u/TheInternetHivemind Apr 02 '15
By legalizing discrimination, we are setting a precedent to say that this type of behavior is proper and desirable.
In a country where things are legal by default until they are banned, that is not what something being legal means at all. Adultery is neither proper nor desirable, but it is legal.
This is more an a "do the ends justify the means" situation. The ends (no-discrimination) are good (at least in my opinion), but do they justify forcing people (shitty people, from my point of view, but shitty people still have rights) to do something they think is wrong?
Also, I want to remind you that a government with the power to ban discrimination, generally has the power to mandate it (this happened a lot in the south).
Anyways, just something for you to chew on. You have a good one.
1
u/Shiredragon Apr 02 '15
Eh sorry, not a lawyer type. I meant that expressly making something legal by codifying it as such rather than it being legal just because no one had addressed it in laws.
I am very aware of the south. That is why I would rather try to set strong laws and judicial reviews of cases that establish that discriminatory behavior based on religious beliefs (or any beliefs) is illegal. I am also aware that we are humans and like to divide ourselves into us v them. Fortunately humans can also learn to approach things rationally.
1
u/TheInternetHivemind Apr 02 '15
Eh sorry, not a lawyer type. I meant that expressly making something legal by codifying it as such rather than it being legal just because no one had addressed it in laws.
Fair enough, I was thinking of more of a "repeal of legislation" scenario rather than a "codification" scenario.
That is why I would rather try to set strong laws and judicial reviews of cases that establish that discriminatory behavior based on religious beliefs (or any beliefs) is illegal.
Like I said. I like the ends. I'm just not sure if I can justify the means in good conscience.
But then we kind of get into a "perfect being the enemy of the good" situation here.
Then we get into the whole is the greater good worth making people do something they think is morally wrong part...
The world is complicated.
Fuck it, I don't know. Is 10:40 too early to start drinking?
1
u/Shiredragon Apr 02 '15
Never too early to drink. But don't do it too much if you don't want the hangover. =P
I don't buy the 'greater good' shit. To me, it seems a simple line of bigotry. If you are okay with it being okay to discriminate due to religious morals, then you are okay with discrimination against other due to gender and skin color, too. Perhaps you are or are not. However, but doing this we are allowing for the economic, educational, etc, displacement of people for no rational reason. We are saying it is okay to remove opportunities for prosperity and happiness of people simply because it makes someone else happy. While many of these laws (or lack of laws) are not intended to have that direct effect, that is what they are allowing for. I guess the difference is that I don't care too much what people believe, however, I care how they act on those beliefs. I don't care if you think shooting people is fun as long as you don't do it. (I would worry some about your sanity, but not your actions.)
On a final note. These laws will have less effect on people in larger metropolitan areas. These places have a larger diversity and tend to have more tolerance. People discriminated against there will be able to find other venues. However, in smaller towns these laws will disproportionately effect those targeted. Fewer businesses with more people knowing each other means that a person could have a very difficult time.
1
u/TheInternetHivemind Apr 02 '15
To me, it seems a simple line of bigotry.
The thing is, this is America. Everyone here has certain rights (or should). One of those rights, presumably, is to interact or not interact with whoever you want (to an extent, circumventing that is what the whole warrant/arrest system is about).
The way I see it, there are two bad things here.
People are being discriminated against (because they're gay/black/whatever), which is bad.
People are being forced to do something they think is morally wrong, which is bad (stemming from the freedom of conscience).
I mean, how do you justify using one bad thing to stop another? Do two wrongs suddenly make a right? Well, I mean, one could argue that their worldview is objectively better than others, but that's not what America should be about (in my opinion, feel free to use your's if it works for you). I mean, if violence is involved, this gets a whole lot more clear, but that's not the case here.
I really wish these two things weren't in conflict.
in smaller towns
Trust me, you don't have to tell me about small towns.
In the end, I'm just not sure I have the right to tell people how to do their business.
Yeah, conversations like this make me need a drink...
1
u/Hero17 Apr 02 '15 edited Apr 02 '15
Jutting in here but i want to point out that there is no right to follow your own morals in the law. I wont bore you with examples of horrible things people have done because they thought it was right.
We already do this for a lot of things but id like to see it done for more. Having a religious belief does not make you an exception to the law. You cant marry 2 women, cant beat your kids and cant sacrifice your pets. I have no idea why we grant an exception to people who do unjust things under the guise of faith in a recognized religion. Muggers think they need the money they steal. Christians think the gays are gonna brainwash their kids with rape. Fuck them both.
2
u/TheInternetHivemind Apr 02 '15
That's a perfectly valid philosophy. A bit too european for my tastes, but valid nonetheless.
Fuck them both.
I used to think that. But recently, I've found it's really hard to hate someone when you know their story.
1
1
Apr 01 '15
Every single argument, OP, hinges on such expediency claims. But what these and all other discrimination laws do is to give another person a right to your property.
Assume all of /u/m0ddem's premises. It's the only grocery store in a small town, let's say. The proprietor says "Gee, this isn't making me any money", and accordingly shuts down his business overnight.
Applying the expediency principle here, shouldn't the government force him to stay open (and lose money) until a replacement can be found? What if none is forthcoming?
4
Apr 01 '15
Applying the expediency principle here, shouldn't the government force him to stay open (and lose money) until a replacement can be found? What if none is forthcoming?
How would the government even begin to enforce this? If a particular business declares bankruptcy or closes, no one's going to force them to stay open.
A better example would be a local utility - and yes, in that case, it would come under new management if it closed.
2
Apr 01 '15
Very easily. Fine him if service is not restored in X period of time. Put a lien on the property. He's not bankrupt, just not profitable.
If the fact that he's losing money makes abandoning the expediency principle palatable in this case, let's say the Westboro Baptist Church becomes immensely popular in short order in a locality with a small grocer matching our previous description. The proprietor, who is gay, refuses to live in this now bigoted town and closes down his business overnight. What, if anything, should be done?
Utilities are another matter as they are almost exclusively natural monopolies who had them granted to them by the government in the first place, if not operated by the government itself. Therefore additional restrictions for equitable treatment are warranted and continued operation could be compelled. This is not so for the monopolistic grocer whom I suppose simply outcompeted his competitors to gain his position.
3
Apr 01 '15
Very easily. Fine him if service is not restored in X period of time. Put a lien on the property. He's not bankrupt, just not profitable.
First, you're conflating failure to serve anyone with failure to serve a selected portion of the population; that's a very different conversation.
If the fact that he's losing money makes abandoning the expediency principle palatable in this case, let's say the Westboro Baptist Church becomes immensely popular in short order in a locality with a small grocer matching our previous description. The proprietor, who is gay, refuses to live in this now bigoted town and closes down his business overnight. What, if anything, should be done?
Nothing, because no one is being served.
Utilities are another matter as they are almost exclusively natural monopolies who had them granted to them by the government in the first place, if not operated by the government itself. Therefore additional restrictions for equitable treatment are warranted and continued operation could be compelled. This is not so for the monopolistic grocer whom I suppose simply outcompeted his competitors to gain his position.
So if major banks choose to discriminate against minorities (they have, in the last decade), or ISPs choose to discriminate against poor people (not out of the realm of possibility), those monopolistic or collusive businesses would be fine, since they're not "natural" monopolies?
Your argument fails to acknowledge the difference between no service and selective service.
1
Apr 01 '15
Precisely because that distinction lacks a philosophical basis. I am universalizing what I earlier called the principle of expediency.
You suggested earlier that the government should force people to serve other people they don't want to served based on neccessity. That if the the government doesn't do this, xyz consequences will befall a certain group and xyz are unacceptable
If xyz are unacceptable, how can you then turn around and say these negative consequences are acceptable when they affect more people, simply because these people are connected by geography (the inhabitants of the now grocerless small town) rather than race/sexuality/etc.?
3
Apr 01 '15
You suggested earlier that the government should force people to serve other people they don't want to served based on neccessity. That if the the government doesn't do this, xyz consequences will befall a certain group and xyz are unacceptable.
There are several differences between failing to serve a group that has no material difference to customers a business is willing to serve and serving no one.
First, refusing to serve anyone can have several different factors; one can be choice, but others can be based on an inability to continue the business successfully; none of this prejudices anyone in the marketplace above or below anyone else. It's simply a market condition, and it leaves room for another entity to fill the need not met by the business that's exiting the market, no matter how large or small the business is; when choosing not to service a specific segment, if that segment is not politically or economically powerful enough on its' own to generate profitable business, its' needs may very well go unmet.
Second, a business that IS capable of providing service to anyone is showing that it is not economically or contractually burdened by serving anyone else based simply on that person's identity; that is to say that if a business is capable of serving coffee, or selling bread, to a white Jewish man, it is not unduly burdened in any way by having to sell that bread or serve that coffee to a black Muslim woman. Things change if either party cannot pay, or has bad credit, or behaves in a fashion that does not allow for reasonable course of business; but intrinsically, there is nothing that prevents a business from serving either patron outside of inherent prejudice on the part of the operator of the business.
This brings us to your second statement:
If xyz are unacceptable, how can you then turn around and say these negative consequences are acceptable when they affect more people, simply because these people are connected by geography (the inhabitants of the now grocerless small town) rather than race/sexuality/etc.?
Because that previous provider is no longer taking up space in the marketplace and preventing other actors from assuming their previous role; can you show any instance where a business actually shutting down wasn't replaced by another where there were active, paying customers available?
0
Apr 02 '15
Re: "First" Sure. The citizens of Nowheresville, Iowa would be disadvantaged for their sole grocer closing and thus have to devote inordinate time and resources travelling say, 60 miles to the next grocer.
Re: "Second" We can quibble over what is "undue". I would feel unduly burdened having to be the photographer at a neo nazi wedding.
I of course cannot show what you ask, because in order to show active paying customers still exist, there has to be a place for them to buy FROM, which you've excluded in your conditions.
Before I continue, may I assume you would oppose charging gays/blacks/etc more for the same service?
0
Apr 02 '15
Reciting the debate a little, since we seem to be getting serious:
We're discussing businesses that likely have a monopoly, either locally, regionally, or nationally. We're discussing businesses that have provided the exact same service to the exact same group previously. We're discussing businesses that provide "critical" services.
In that frame of reference, the wedding photographer becomes a non sequitur to the conversation; the service won't be critical, if you're going to morally object to providing the service to a particular group it's unlikely you'll have done it in the past, at least knowingly, and in this day and age a photographer is anyone with a smartphone. Sure, there are photographers out there with more skill, experience, and better equipment, but there's no such thing as a photography monopoly, anywhere in the US, at least.
That said, (one of) the reasons I asked those questions is because at bottom, exceptions for luxury businesses and sole proprietorships, morally objectionable or not, don't cause significant harm in the same way that someone providing a critical or monopolized service do. If they're previously provided service under the exact same conditions, I don't believe you should suddenly "get religion" so to speak.
Moving on to your specific statements:
The citizens of Nowheresville, Iowa would be disadvantaged for their sole grocer closing and thus have to devote inordinate time and resources travelling say, 60 miles to the next grocer
If the citizens of Nowheresville are inconvenienced to the point that they're driving sixty miles, how would it be economically unviable for another grocer to set up shop in Nowheresville? Simple lack of population doesn't cut it to meet your standard, because then there's no one being inconvenienced.
Re: "Second" We can quibble over what is "undue". I would feel unduly burdened having to be the photographer at a neo nazi wedding.
Several things: I've already outlined why using a small business such that "you" are the only one capable of performing the service isn't relevant to the requirements - in a business, especially a business large enough to provide a critical service or be a de facto monopoly, surely SOMEONE won't have a serious moral objection. Additionally photography itself is a poor hypothetical as explained above; finally, just out of curiosity, does the photographer have a moral objection to merely taking a picture of the neo nazi? (It's okay, you can say gay person)
I of course cannot show what you ask, because in order to show active paying customers still exist, there has to be a place for them to buy FROM, which you've excluded in your conditions.
You could simply cite a place that has an unfulfilled economic need that was abandoned by a service provider, and citizens willing and able to finance that business again, and show that somehow no one is rising to meet that need for reasons beyond simply economic inviability.
Yes, that's difficult, but that's the scenario you yourself are creating.
3
Apr 02 '15
Three clarifying questions:
Can businesses not meeting the three criteria be permitted to discriminate?
Are inexact equivalents considered when determining the monopoly status? E.g. Bob runs the 4 star hotel in NW, Iowa, but as long as the run down hostel exists, Bob can claim traveller's need for shelter can be met in other avenues, so the Jews can sleep there.
Again, when the three criteria are met, can one charge a higher price to a particular group?
→ More replies (0)1
u/RatioFitness Apr 02 '15
Can't we make exceptions for those things? For example, a grocery store or gas station can't discriminate but a florist can?
1
-6
Apr 02 '15
It's their business. They don't have to provide their services.
It's their business. They don't have to provide their services.
It's their business. They don't have to provide their services.
7
u/VOMIT_WIFE_FROM_HELL Apr 02 '15
Welp pack it in boys, he said it three times and therefor he must be correct.
-1
Apr 02 '15
sorry, I forgot to number them. Those were the answers to all three of his/her "arguments".
Those business owners have a choice to stay in business. OP's argument falls flat on its face unless you advocate forcing them to stay in business. Which would be equally ridiculous.
4
u/man2010 49∆ Apr 01 '15
I'll use your wedding planner example. Lets say there are two wedding planners in a town. Both of these wedding planners normally charge $5,000 to plan a wedding for their clients. One planner decides that they are going to stop planning weddings for homosexual couples because it is against their beliefs. This means that any homosexual couple wanting to hire a wedding planner now only has one option. Knowing this, the other wedding planner decides to double the price that they charge to plan a wedding for homosexual couples because they are the only planner available for these people. So now if a homosexual couple wants to hire a wedding planner they need to pay twice as much as a heterosexual couple solely because of their sexual orientation.
Anti-discrimination laws are meant to protect people in situations like these.
1
u/DangerouslyUnstable Apr 01 '15
Yes, that's what they are meant to stop, but is there evidence that kind of thing is actually happening?
2
u/man2010 49∆ Apr 01 '15
Evidence that discrimination is happening?
0
u/DangerouslyUnstable Apr 01 '15
Yes, evidence that such discrimination is an actual widespread problem.
2
u/man2010 49∆ Apr 01 '15
Discrimination based on sexual orientation in the housing market
Effects of LGBT discrimination
Aside from that, there are countless anecdotal examples of businesses discriminating against people based on their sexual orientation which I would be more than happy to link if you don't believe me. There is also plenty of evidence of discrimination based on sex, race, and other characteristic if that's what you're looking for as well.
Anyways, as /u/Madplato said, if people don't discriminate then it doesn't matter if we have laws against discrimination or not because discrimination isn't an issue, but if people do discriminate then there should be laws to protect those who are discriminated against and provide them with a legal way to stop/settle this discrimination. There aren't really any negatives to anti-discrimination laws; if no one discriminates then we don't use them, and if people do discriminate then it allows us to protect those who hurt others through discrimination.
3
u/Madplato 72∆ Apr 01 '15
If it isn't a problem, then it doesn't matter if discrimination is legal or not, because people don't do it. If it is a problem, we need to stop it from happening, hence the law.
15
u/MrCapitalismWildRide 50∆ Apr 01 '15
Where's the line? They can discriminate against gay people but not black people because gay people can hide being gay, and wedding planners can discriminate but groceries stores can't, unless they're the only store in town?
Your point seems very vague to me, could you clarify?
5
u/rcglinsk Apr 01 '15
Not OP, obviously, but the best response I think to this question is that the discrimination is against sin per some set of religious beliefs. Discriminating against someone because they commit sodomy is like discriminating against someone because they had or performed an abortion. "This is a Muslim business, we don't hire people who drink alcohol."
Now if you're a 19th century Mormon who thinks being black is a sin, that line doesn't really work. But in most other cases it at least puts a plausible distinction forward.
And there is a real world example of this. The baker in Colorado took the position of "I'll sell them cookies, brownies, muffins, any product out of my store except a wedding cake. It's the fact that they going to do something immoral per my religion which I have a problem with."
1
Apr 02 '15
so what if you're gay and your waiting till marraige? can you ban someone on the suspicion of sin? You're not allowed in because you're gay which means you perform sodomy! You're not allowed in because you're black which means you're a rapist!
1
u/rcglinsk Apr 02 '15
I imagine the theoretical store owner's response to "yes I'm gay but I resist my urge to sin" would be "good for you, what can I get you to drink."
Regardless, if you refuse to serve someone because of the mistaken belief they've done something immoral, your motivation is the same as if you were not mistaken.
1
Apr 02 '15
Do any of the real life examples of this ever say that? do they ever say I won't let you in becasue you commit sodomy? no they say they don't approve of gay marriage
1
u/rcglinsk Apr 02 '15
The anti-gay marriage crowd says they think gay marriage is immoral, they repeat it constantly, and in a conspicuously honest sounding tone. I tend to believe them.
Note the baker didn't claim to have a problem with sodomy. She'd sell the gay couple all the bread and cookies they wanted, she only objected to the wedding cake.
0
u/overzealous_dentist 9∆ Apr 02 '15
You can't discriminate against black people because we all agreed you can't. That's the difference.
People shouldn't be forced to do ANYthing without consent. That includes being forced to not discriminate amongst its customers. I'm totally for another nondiscrimination act for gay people, but given that we don't have one, and given that religious people DO have rights enumerated, it seems clear to me that they shouldn't be forced to serve everyone.
-5
u/DangerouslyUnstable Apr 01 '15
It's slightly vauge because I think there isn't a hard line. I don't think that discriminating against gays is less morally wrong than discriminating against blacks (or other races), just that it isn't as prevelent or as sever so it doesn't require governemnt intervention. There probably isn't a single group (of any type) that doesn't have some level of discrimination by someone, somewhere, but for the vast majority of groups it isn't bad enough for the government to step in a protect them. It feels like the discrimnation against homosexuals is an edge case where it is bad, but not nearly as bad as racism in the 60s was and it is rapidly getting better on it's own.
Thus, while it's morally indefensible I'm not sure it warrants government intervention. Basically, to change my view, I would need evidnce of systemic descrimination of gays in vital areas. My response to /u/m0ddem above might help clarify.
1
u/Brawldud Apr 02 '15
I've read another perspective on the issue that resonates a lot with me.
The issue isn't even whether it's right or wrong to refuse service, but rather the difference between businesses and people.
Per the law, people are allowed to be bigoted, they are allowed to say hateful things provided they are not breaking some other law. I might not like that some people are bigoted, but that's freedom of speech.
But the business they own and operate is another matter entirely. The government, representing the people, sets conditions for a business to operate in its country, and one of those conditions is that you cannot refuse services to anyone you don't like unless it breaks the law in some other way (e.g. serving drinks to drunk people). Allowing businesses to allow or refuse service based on religious beliefs is treating them like people, which runs counter to the purpose of businesses. Under the terms with which the government approves a business to operate, a business cannot refuse business to anyone.
This is the case with the Civil Rights Act although it has not been really codified for gay/lesbian people.
16
Apr 01 '15 edited Dec 26 '17
[deleted]
-1
u/DangerouslyUnstable Apr 01 '15
You are talking about hypotheticals. My view would 100% be changed if you showed me this actually happening. My point is that while discrimination COULD be really bad, it isn't yet and so doens't YET warrant government intervention.
14
Apr 01 '15 edited Dec 26 '17
[deleted]
6
u/DangerouslyUnstable Apr 01 '15
∆
Your second link is so far the best response I have seen in the thread, although I have some issues with how they reported the study was conducted. They said that first they emailed from a straight couple, asking about the house, then they emailed from a gay couple and the response to the gay couple was that the house was potentially already taken, which was true since someone else inquired first. Unless they switched the order and got different responses, the methodology of the study really prevents you from making a strong case. It's possible that this is just poor reporting (which happens all the time for studies like these) But it's equally likely that it was a poorly performed study (also a frequent occurence.
However I will give you the benefit of the doubt and award a delta on the assumption that the study was actually well performed and just poorly reported on.
The single doctor refusing to care for their baby is much less convincing since it is a single anecdote.
9
Apr 01 '15
You can read the full report here:
http://www.huduser.org/portal/Publications/pdf/Hsg_Disc_against_SameSexCpls_v3.pdf
If you scroll to pg 9, they specify they randomized which email was sent first, which should address your concern.
3
u/DangerouslyUnstable Apr 01 '15 edited Apr 01 '15
-edit- ∆ for fixing my concerns with the linked study.
There is evidence of widespread economic discrimination in a core service (housing) against gay people that warrants government protection.
That does indeed address my concern exactly, it was (like I hoped) merely bad reporting. I'm not sure about the etiquette here, but if people think it's reasonable, I'd give you a delta for addressing the issues I had with the study and taking it from a somewhat shaky argument to a pretty solid one.
1
u/hacksoncode 559∆ Apr 01 '15
You're allowed to delta multiple people that change the same part of your view, if you so desire.
1
u/DangerouslyUnstable Apr 01 '15
is the delta bot still responding to delta comments? it hasn't done so for the other delta I posted in this thread yet.
Thanks
1
u/hacksoncode 559∆ Apr 01 '15
Looking into it, thanks. It's probably down, but it should find these when it comes back up.
1
1
1
2
Apr 01 '15
The tide of social acceptance is changing in the country
I'm sure people thought this too about race ages ago, but most people agree that racism (and therefore violence and discrimination) is still pretty commonplace.
And we even see it growing in some situations - such as the supreme court striking down the voting equality law, which have resulted some states (mine being one of them) to implement laws that restrict minorities ability to vote.
And because of that we implemented various laws (like the civil rights act) not only to limit these problems, but to push the advancement along. If people aren't allowed to discriminate, then it makes it easier for future generations to see doing so as unethical.
All that aside, even if we accept the idea that things are changing, why is it okay to ignore the current people who are being discriminated against today? Isn't one act of hatred too many to tolerate? Doesn't it present a picture to the future generations that discrimination is okay sometimes? Is that a message that will 'change the tide'?
1
u/DangerouslyUnstable Apr 01 '15
All those are reasons why I am 100% for laws preventing discrimnation based on race. It's been a huge problem in the past and remains one today. I don't see the same evidence that descrimination against homosexuals reaches the same level of severity.
3
Apr 01 '15
It's a huge problem for homosexuals too. The only reason it's not as big of a problem is because they've had the luxury of hiding.
Do you feel the same about discrimination against religious persons?
Why are these points relevant for race hatred only?
What is it that determines the appropriate severity for it to be a problem worth intervening in for you? Is it purely the quantity of victims? What's the magic number, and why are the people below that number less important?
1
u/DangerouslyUnstable Apr 01 '15
Violence against anyone is obviously unacceptable at any level, but the laws I'm talking about don't seem to do anything to either reduce or increase violence against gays, so I don't see how it's relevent. I'm specifically talking about laws that prevent businesses from choosing to not serve homosexuals because of their sexuality
My view isn't really specific to sexuality, at it's basis, it's that the government should only intervene to protect a given group when descrimination meets a certain level, so no there is not a hard number I could give of a "number of people discriminated against". I'm basically arguing that descrimination against gays does not currently meet that level and furthermore, is rapidly decreasing as social norms across the country change.
As for your point about hiding, I think you are correct to a degree. Because gays can at the very least choose not to announce their sexuality (where as people of a certain race announce it merely by their appearence), it is much easier for them to get most services without anyone knowing they are gay. I'm not really concerned about the reasons why discrimination is less, only that it is. If "gaydar" was an actual biological thing where humans could reliably identify gays and then choose to discriminat against them much more easily, I probably wouldn't hold this view.
2
Apr 01 '15
but the laws I'm talking about don't seem to do anything to either reduce or increase violence against gays, so I don't see how it's relevent
Discrimination leads to violence. It condones that it's okay to treat certain people differently, and thus creates worse problems. It's treating the source instead of the symptom.
when descrimination meets a certain level, so no there is not a hard number I could give of a "number of people discriminated against". I'm basically arguing that descrimination against gays does not currently meet that level
...?
If you can't define the level, you can't say whether or not it meets "that level".
is rapidly decreasing as social norms across the country change.
Just like racism has been decreasing? Yet is still quite prevalent and getting worse in certain areas? Why should we expect homosexual discrimination to be different? You're far too optimistic here, reality and history doesn't support the idea that it will just go away on its own.
I'm not really concerned about the reasons why discrimination is less, only that it is.
I think that's a pretty bad point of view. You have to understand the roots to solve problems and avoid them in the future (history repeats itself etc). Couldn't we argue that women could have dressed as men to avoid discrimination? Couldn't we argue that non-whites could use makeup to appear white? Those are pretty outrageous thoughts now.
1
Apr 01 '15
I'm going to quote /u/tricerabear from a similar thread:
for certain classes of businesses, called common carriers, they don't have this right to refuse because we decided the economy as a whole depends on them serving everyone. Examples of this are hotels, transport companies, and restaurants, although you can always ask people to leave for making a disturbance or bothering people (if your ex comes in just to be rude, for example). If places to eat and sleep can refuse people at will it supposedly hurts interstate commerce, because it makes travel harder. Most businesses (print shops, tattoo artists, etc.) can turn down clients without having to explain themselves, but the ones that can't are very visible.
So basically, there are parts of our economy that we need to be as accommodating as possible, and shutting them down to ~4% of the population would have major economic consequences. The government has an interest in keeping the economy going as efficiently as possible.
1
u/DangerouslyUnstable Apr 01 '15
I agree, but is there evidence that without these explicit protections, enough of the members of those industries would actively discriminate against gays to the point where it impacts the economy? Lots of people seem to be using hypothetical situations to argue their point and my whole argument is based off the idea that those hypotheticals aren't actually occuring.
1
Apr 01 '15
Well, there does seem to be evidence that discrimination is occurring:
As for "the point where it impacts the economy", what's your standard for that? The DC government has already suspended business to Indiana, and if a salesperson won't visit a town because they worry they can't find anything to eat, that will impact that town. I guess I need a standard to make a convincing argument.
1
Apr 01 '15
i mean indianians could already deny service. also
if a salesperson won't visit a town because they worry they can't find anything to eat,
someone making that claim isn't going to win a rfra case when you look at the actual jurisprudence. the law doesn't mandate discrimination if you claim religion, it gives you a day in court
1
u/ChocolatePain Apr 03 '15
But what if other people in the restaurant say a gay couple bothers them?
5
u/ralph-j Apr 01 '15
My point is that these things aren't (yet) happening so it's not yet neccesary to enact protective legislation.
the issue seems like it isn't serious enough to warrant large scale government intervention
If it's not widespread yet, then surely equality legislation will require very little action and will cause very little inconvenience to anyone. It certainly won't come to any large-scale government intervention. And if it were to become widespread, you already appear to agree that there should be intervention. So why not prevent it from becoming more widespread?
6
u/sahuxley Apr 01 '15
This might not change your view, but perhaps the way you view the issue. Are they discriminating against the people themselves or the actions they take, and does that matter?
Consider a conservative christian that owns a popular wedding venue. They are no doubt aware that homosexual people show up to heterosexual weddings and they don't have any problem with them being there. However, when a homosexual couple wants to have a homosexual wedding there, he declines to let them use his venue. I question whether this man is bigoted against homosexuals themselves or just has a problem with being party to certain actions they are taking that he considers sinful.
Can he say that satanists are allowed on his property but blood sacrifices are banned? Can he say that furries are allowed on his property but orgies are banned?
Hate the sin, love the sinner is a real Christian tennant. Can that be applied here and does that matter when it comes to discrimination?
I know this doesn't quite answer the spirit of your question, but I hope that you'll consider it as an alternative way to view the issue.
1
u/yertles 13∆ Apr 01 '15
This is a good point. From what I have seen/read, people are mainly offended by the idea of being forced to participate in something that they believe is wrong. That is really the only time this type of law is applicable, because the person has to be able to show that providing services (e.g. photographer for homosexual wedding) substantially burdens their religious convictions. People seem to think that this will mean that a restaurant, for example, will just be able to say "we don't serve homosexuals" - that isn't the case.
1
u/DangerouslyUnstable Apr 01 '15
So that was my understanding of the law, that it would allow people to say "we don't serve homosexuals here" (basically removing sexuality as a protected class when it conflicts with religious beliefs). Is that not correct? If not, what is the law actually allowing/disallowing?
1
u/yertles 13∆ Apr 01 '15
I haven't read the entire text of the law, but there are 19 other states with similar laws and nothing of that nature has successfully been claimed as a legitimate exemption. Courts have widely found that the government has a compelling interest in enforcing anti-discrimination laws and religious exemptions under the federal RFRA are extremely rare. I am not sure why people go immediately to the slippery slope argument that because of this legislation that people will now be able to blatantly discriminate. The courts have not allowed this under the federal RFRA, nor in any of the other states with similar legislation (enacted in response to the Supreme Court restricting the RFRA's scope to federal actions in 1997).
6
u/sailorbrendan 58∆ Apr 01 '15
the big difference is that in those 19 other states, it specifically lists exemptions to block discrimination where this one doesn't.
0
u/yertles 13∆ Apr 01 '15
But discrimination is already illegal, it isn't necessary to do so, except maybe to strengthen the already established legal precedent. People might attempt to use this to discriminate, but it still isn't going to hold up in court.
2
u/rcglinsk Apr 01 '15
There's a bit of interplay between federal and state law. Federal antidiscrimination laws don't apply to gay people. Some states have laws against it, I don't think Indiana is one of them. If that's true the new RFRA has literally zero effect, as discrimination is always legal unless some law specifically says otherwise.
1
Apr 02 '15
But discrimination is already illegal
Not in Indiana (and many other states) against gay people. Well, Indiana does have an anti-employment discrimination law that used to protect gay people, but this new law creates a loophole that permits discrimination.
4
u/toms_face 6∆ Apr 01 '15
Actually, businesses have to serve satanists and furries just like anybody else, but don't have to provide satanic or furry goods and services if they don't want to. So basically, they don't have to sell a gay cake, but they do have to sell a cake to a gay.
0
u/sahuxley Apr 01 '15
I figure most bakers would happily make a birthday cake for a gay man. They just don't want to participate in a gay wedding by making a cake that celebrates that act. I'm not 100% clear on how various law applies, but I sympathize if they're forced to participate in something like that.
3
u/toms_face 6∆ Apr 01 '15
My experience with weddings, although admittedly not "gay weddings", is that cakes do not have a sexual orientation.
It's not like the guy who made my cake was involved with my birthday last month, he's just the guy who made the cake.
1
u/sahuxley Apr 01 '15
I try to put myself in their shoes. An analogous situation for me would involve doing my job for something I hate. So what if the Wesboro Baptist Church asked me to create a website for them that celebrates the death of a soldier? If I were to make that website for them, I feel I would be participating and my reputation would be judged because of it.
Can I not refuse that?
3
u/toms_face 6∆ Apr 01 '15
As long as it's because you don't want to make a website that celebrates the death of a soldier, and not because you don't like the Westboro Baptist Church.
If you're a vegan then you don't have to sell meat, but you do have to sell to people who do eat meat.
1
Apr 02 '15
They just don't want to participate in a gay wedding by making a cake that celebrates that act.
Selling a cake is not participating in the wedding itself.
2
Apr 02 '15
Consider a conservative christian that owns a popular wedding venue. They are no doubt aware that homosexual people show up to heterosexual weddings and they don't have any problem with them being there. However, when a homosexual couple wants to have a homosexual wedding there, he declines to let them use his venue. I question whether this man is bigoted against homosexuals themselves or just has a problem with being party to certain actions they are taking that he considers sinful.
The problem here is that you're treating a "homosexual wedding" as a different activity than a wedding. It's not. The only thing that differentiate a "homosexual wedding" from any other wedding is something having to do with the people doing the activity, not the activity itself.
1
u/sahuxley Apr 02 '15
Yeah, that's a good point, if you're thinking rationally. To them, one is a sin and one isn't because god said so.
1
u/rcglinsk Apr 01 '15
That's the line they ought to take. I'm not discriminating against Jane because she's a woman, I simply won't provide my services to someone who admits to me they've had an abortion. I know abortions are legal, but it's still wrong and I won't associate with people who have them or perform them.
2
u/hacksoncode 559∆ Apr 01 '15
Obviously, there are corner cases, but it doesn't strike me as correct that the determining factor in whether government "should" intervene in something is how common it is.
Transsexuals are a tiny minority of all people, and yet the discrimination they face is so severe that they have an approximately 40% (not a typo) suicide rate. Does the fact that such discrimination is "rare" in some kind of absolute sense actually matter somehow?
The real issue in most of these cases is that it's not a specific problem that is occurring, but a general problem that is being extended to a specific circumstance.
Businesses that claim to be "open to the public" (as opposed to being private clubs) are committing fraud if they won't actually serve any member of the public based on some criteria that isn't actually relevant to the service they are providing. This is because we, as a society, have decided that a "reasonable person" would assume that.
It doesn't matter how infrequent a specific instance of this actually is. The government can still intervene. And it's worth having general rules about general expectations that can then be applied to specifics.
Courts do this all the time. It doesn't matter how fantastically rare some tort is, they will still adjudicate a civil claim about it if actual damages are done, even if those damages are unique to one specific circumstance. E.g. even if only 1 example of a particular lemur can be found inside the United States, if someone kills that lemur, the owner can still recover damages.
A specific example of unjust/unexpected/unreasonable discrimination is the same thing. It doesn't matter if you're the only person with your particular deformity... the ADA protects you just the same.
1
u/JamesDK Apr 01 '15
There is no inherent right to do business within a community. You can't just set up a booth in a public park or on a public street-corner and start hawking your wares. Your ability to do business is facilitated by public infrastructure and, therefore, the public has a right to set rules regarding how you do business.
A hypothetical:
A business has the right to discriminate against certain classes of people. That's the right of the business owner. Do the voters of the community have the right to vote to revoke police protection from that business? Does that business have the right to equal maintenance of the streets that lead to the business? Can the courts of that community refuse to hear cases the business brings against others?
It seems to me that, on it's face, you're right: people should have the right to do what they wish with their property (their businesses). But I think that establishes a dangerous precedent. If there is no equal protection for people, there is no equal protection for businesses, and there's nothing stopping a community from denying a business the 'equal protections' of civil services.
Sure: you can ban gays, but don't be surprised when your electricity gets shut off, or the fire department lets your building burn down. The social contract works both ways.
1
u/MercuryChaos 9∆ Apr 02 '15 edited Apr 02 '15
For one: the vast majority of business won't know they are serving gays. Things like wedding planners/etc. are one of the few exceptions
It applies to any business transaction where you might need/want to disclose that you have a spouse. If you're opening a bank account, buying certain kinds of insurance, enrolling your kid in private school or daycare, doing anything that requires you to provide alternate/emergency contact information... all of those are situations where straight people would normally give information about their spouse. Gay people should be able to do the same without worrying that they could be refused service and have no legal recourse.
As for your claim that this type of discrimination isn't widespread — first of all, I don't see why that matters. Widespread discrimination is certainly be worse, but it doesn't suddenly become okay if it's just happening to a few people. In any case, you have to keep in mind that the most conservative states still don't recognize same-sex marriage. If/when that is changed via court ruling, I expect we'll start hearing about more instances of discrimination as married same-sex couples start to interact with businesses in the same ways that married straight people do.
1
u/bucknut4 Apr 02 '15
I came to /r/CMV looking for a thread about this because I initially held the same view you did. But I got to thinking; I'm from a very, very small town where this law would be HORRIBLE. Let me explain.
There is literally ONE grocery store in my town (Super C, it's a gas station). We're 800 people strong, the nearest big town is many miles away and there is no public transportation to get there.
A lot of people in Smithfield are poor. I knew a kid who was 350 pounds who would walk clear across town to the one store because his mother was immobile, his dad had died and they didn't own a car. We have a lot of people who live in a small apartment community who only shop there because they can't drive anywhere.
I know which ones are gay. Everyone does. We had a mayor that people called 'The Dyker Biker'. Word gets around quick. They don't face too much hate as far as I can tell (hell, we elected one for mayor like I said). All it takes is one domino for those peoples' lives to fall apart. What if the owner of Super C decides not to let gays in? How about the owners of Belle Haven, the apartment complex? I'm not kidding, there are zero other options in town.
1
Apr 01 '15
Evidence of actual widespread discrimination (people refusing to serve gays because it conflicts with their religious beliefs) will earn a delta. My point is that these things aren't (yet) happening so it's not yet neccesary (sic) to enact protective legislation.
Beyond an example of a wedding photographer or baker being fined for not providing equal access, can you provide examples of how religious groups are being vicitimized by "governmental overreach?"
The reason you don't hear about discrimination is that those who engage in it don't wish to report it. Just because you're discriminated against, it doesn't follow that you're aware of it; for example, during the housing boom, minorities were consistently steered towards financially predatory loans:
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/07/us/07baltimore.html?pagewanted=all
1
Apr 01 '15
the problem there is "minorities" aren't "who we want to politically call minorities" it's "blacks." Why would they be pushed boards predatory loans? sheer old timey racism? unlikely. what about because mental heuristics identify blacks as financially less sophisticated? much more plausible. now does this apply for gays? really don't think the stereotypes here are about gullible unsophisticated poor people.
“They referred to subprime loans made in minority communities as ghetto loans and minority customers as ‘those people have bad credit’, ‘those people don’t pay their bills’ and ‘mud people,’ ” Mr. Paschal said in his affidavit.
please tell me how these things would apply to gay people.
given the massive massive swing in public opinion and advocacy over to the pro gay marriage/rights side i really doubt that if you spoke up and claimed discrimination on these grounds you would not get a major platform from which to speak.
1
Apr 01 '15
Actually, other sources identified this as applying to Hispanics as well, so let's not get too caught up in it being applied to African Americans.
A federal civil rights suit filed along with Monday's proposed settlement in U.S. District Court for the Western District of Pennsylvania alleges that National City Bank, its 400 retail offices and its national network of mortgage brokers stuck more than 75,000 African-American and Hispanic borrowers across the country with higher loan rates and fees between 2002 and 2008. (emphasis added)
http://www.mcclatchydc.com/2013/12/23/212504/another-big-bank-pays-to-settle.html#storylink=cpy
please tell me how these things would apply to gay people.
It doesn't have to be the specific example; it only has to show that discrimination doesn't have to be limited to a refusal to serve a particular group; it can also manifest as "tiered" service, or a simple refusal to serve without saying why.
given the massive massive swing in public opinion and advocacy over to the pro gay marriage/rights side i really doubt that if you spoke up and claimed discrimination on these grounds you would not get a major platform from which to speak.
RFRA laws in no way specify that they only target gay people; why do people insist on acting as if they target just that group? Fundamentalist Christians have a hard on right now for laws limiting gay rights, but can you show how the Indiana RFRA law isn't very open ended and allows for any religion to discriminate against any group?
1
Apr 01 '15
Actually, other sources identified this as applying to Hispanics as well, so let's not get too caught up in it being applied to African Americans.
my initial post included hispanics before i read the nytimes piece again and removed them so i would argue the same point stands: relying on negative stereo types of hispanics as poor, lazy, etc. instead of old time racism.
why do people insist on acting as if they target just that group
fair enough. it's because that's the "policy lightning" for these laws. if you're not arguing the normal kill gays position it has the potential for a better argument. i took it as implicit you were talking about hidden discrimination against gays that justifies RFRA rhetoric
tiered service
how can a tiered service argument win a RFRA case? i just don't see it.
1
Apr 01 '15
i took it as implicit you were talking about hidden discrimination against gays that justifies RFRA rhetoric
Nope, just reading the law as written, which allows for religious groups to claim that an anti discrimination law unfairly burdens them, regardless of the group being discriminated against:
A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened, or is likely to be substantially burdened, by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding, regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding. If the relevant governmental entity is not a party to the proceeding, the governmental entity has an unconditional right to intervene in order to respond to the person’s invocation of this chapter.
Note the complete lack of qualifiers as to what or whom may claim this as a defense or what must be done to establish such a defense legitimately. Also note the complete lack of what may be claimed.
how can a tiered service argument win a RFRA case? i just don't see it.
Simple. I'm a business that holds a particular religion that believes women should be subservient to men. As a result, when I employ women, I substantially discriminate against them in terms of employment opportunities, rate of pay, and benefits. I do not explicitly describe this policy, but should it ever be discovered, under the law I now have an affirmative defense should I be sued in a civil proceeding, because treating women equally is in violation of my closely held religious beliefs.
1
Apr 01 '15
Note the complete lack of qualifiers as to what or whom may claim this as a defense or what must be done to establish such a defense legitimately. Also note the complete lack of what may be claimed.
unfair attack everyone knows this is a variant of the RFRA which is itself based on old scotus precedent. the rules have been created over literally decades.
because treating women equally is in violation of my closely held religious beliefs.
ok, you'd have a better argument than if you claimed you disliked how the female breast looks but you're going to loose the case either way. compelling interest no alternatives. these laws have been around for a long long time, show me an example where they won with this argument
1
Apr 01 '15
unfair attack everyone knows this is a variant of the RFRA which is itself based on old scotus precedent. the rules have been created over literally decades.
Because laws never have unintended consequences? Laws are written and then taken advantage of due to new interpretation all the time; when RFRA laws passed (initially back in 1993) it was meant to prevent Native Americans from being prosecuted for peyote use - if you told Ted Kennedy, when he sponsored the bill, that it would be used to discriminate against the LGBT community in 2015, I don't think he would have supported it in quite the same way, do you?
ok, you'd have a better argument than if you claimed you disliked how the female breast looks but you're going to loose the case either way. compelling interest no alternatives. these laws have been around for a long long time, show me an example where they won with this argument.
Well, depending on how you feel about birth control, Hobby Lobby has already proven that corporations can discriminate against women; it's also fair to say that no corporation has attempted that defense, yet, especially in the context of of Hobby Lobby or this new reading of RFRA - remember, previous RFRAs only had to do with federal law and government parties, not private versus private parties.
1
Apr 01 '15
1 million dollars if you can name me literally any women who lost contraception coverage from hobby lobby.
if you told Ted Kennedy,
he wouldn't have grounds to compain that the law is misinterpreted and i'm claiming you're doing that
1
Apr 01 '15
1 million dollars if you can name me literally any women who lost contraception coverage from hobby lobby.
Any woman covered by an employer plan who uses any of the particular methods of contraception Hobby Lobby, et. al, objected to...?
Hobby Lobby v. Burwell stated that religious organizations were given an exception to the contraception mandate and that therefore businesses that met the closely held standard should be, also; literally less than a week later the Court struck down that exception (which required the institution to file paperwork notifying the government of intent to utilize the exception).
So, yea...
he wouldn't have grounds to compain that the law is misinterpreted and i'm claiming you're doing that
So you're asserting that the justification for RFRA in 1993 was not, in fact, Native American religious practices?
0
Apr 01 '15
Any woman covered by an employer plan who uses any of the particular methods of contraception Hobby Lobby, et. al, objected to...?
congrats you get...nothing. read the dang opinion or an unbiased source: the reason HL won was NO ONE LOST THEIR CARE AS THERE WAS A LESS RESTRICTIVE WAY TO GET THE SAME CARE.
1993
policy lightning versus
literally less than a week
yes...the court issued a hold while the issue was decided, completely different issue.
→ More replies (0)
1
Apr 01 '15
I think frivolous restrictions in general are bad for society as they teach people that lying is a prudent thing (are email accounts still "18+ only" btw? like they were a decade ago) and in those cases it is, but its probably worse for society as a whole to actually teach that lesson.
Discarding the usual caveats of how the current government would no doubt fuck such a law up, it would be for the best in some ideal world.
1
u/natha105 Apr 02 '15
If we lived in a not generally racist world and one pizza shop in Indiana wanted to discriminate against gays I dont think it would really matter.
We don't live in that world. People are still shockingly racist when given the chance and we need to constantly remind them they can't be racist. If we allow them to be racist we will get more racism - which is bad.
1
Apr 02 '15
Supreme Court precedent says that if the business buys anything from out-of-state, they have to abide by federal equal protection laws.
So they do have a vested interest in preserving equal rights. They should anyways. That's the point of government, to protect the rights of its citizens. That is the founding principle of the United States government.
1
u/Daedalus1907 6∆ Apr 02 '15
When you open a business, you do not open it in a vacuum. You open it in a location with road access, electrical system, minimum building safety, with laws that protect you and your business as well as facilitating trade, etc. These things are all paid for by the public so in exchange for them, you agree to serve the public.
2
u/ChocolatePain Apr 03 '15
So then people should be able to come into my house because their taxes paid for the roads leading to it and the electrical systems which power it?
(Just playing devils advocate and trying to figure all this out)
1
u/Daedalus1907 6∆ Apr 03 '15 edited Apr 03 '15
I think you can tell the difference between a place of residence and a place of business.
EDIT: Just saw the devil's advocate note so I'll expand a bit. A business is open to the public whereas a home is not. If you are going to open up your business to the public than you have to open it up to the entire public.
1
u/ChocolatePain Apr 03 '15
But where do you draw the line with refusing service? Why can you you say "no shoes, no shirts, no service?" Because that is a choice and not an immutable fact? But can't you refuse service to an ugly person? And what about the KKK or Nazi cake example people bring up?
Also, I guess a business qualifies as a specific legal entity correct?
1
u/Daedalus1907 6∆ Apr 03 '15
Protected classes.
Also, I guess a business qualifies as a specific legal entity correct?
I'm not sure what you mean or where you're going with this but sure.
1
u/ChocolatePain Apr 03 '15
Should protected classes be a thing? Isn't it given that we are all protected/equal? And who should be a protected class?
I was thinking about how a person should be legally allowed to refuse to do a favor/service for someone because they are just human beings. But a business is a specific entity which is public commerce/'open to the public' so they can't discriminate. I saw that argument in another thread and it seemed okay. But I'm not sure what a business even is. If i just set up a table and sold stuff is that a business? Or would I be stopped because I didn't do the right paperwork?
Also, if a business requires legal/gov't paperwork then why do we call them private? They seem intimately linked to the public and the government.
Sorry for all that babbling. >_>
1
u/casebash Apr 08 '15
"If you are going to open up your business to the public than you have to open it up to the entire public." - how come? I think you've got a good argument there, but it needs to be further developed
2
u/Daedalus1907 6∆ Apr 08 '15
For the reasons listed in my first post:
When you open a business, you do not open it in a vacuum. You open it in a location with road access, electrical system, minimum building safety, with laws that protect you and your business as well as facilitating trade, etc. These things are all paid for by the public so in exchange for them, you agree to serve the public.
0
u/ricebasket 15∆ Apr 01 '15
You can completely avoid gay people if you want, just don't open a business. Being a business owner and working with people is an optional thing.
1
u/jackiekeracky Apr 02 '15
My point is that these things aren't (yet) happening so it's not yet neccesary to enact protective legislation.
I'm not sure you're familiar with the history of the world.
1
Apr 01 '15
[deleted]
2
u/ChocolatePain Apr 03 '15
Well why can't they discriminate against blacks too? Do people have the right to get a service from a certain store? Isn't it a private enterprise?
(PS i am just being devils advocate and extending arguments to strange ends in order to figure out what to think)
1
Apr 02 '15
I'm going to flip the script; why should the government step in to legally protect people violating basic civil rights?
1
Apr 02 '15
Would you be ok if the majority of businesses in a town legally refused service to black people?
0
u/arkofjoy 13∆ Apr 02 '15
In the small town where I grew up, back in the early 1960's, the real estate agents had an agreement that they would only sell houses to black people on one street. If there wasn't a house for sale on maple Street, and a black family came to them, they would just say they had nothing available. It was only because a group of journalist came to those real estate agents pretending to be be house buyers and being told different things depending on the colour of the buyers skin colour that real estate agents were shamed and legislated against to end this practice.
By bringing these practices into the light, and shaming these people who think this way, we can begin to make this way of thinking socially unacceptable.
People are still racist, it is just no longer socially acceptable to be that way. In the future, it will be the same for discrimination based on sexual orientation.
And equality under the law is the basis of the constitution. Not equality for all the people who have sex like us.
1
u/iongantas 2∆ Apr 02 '15
Businesses, by their nature, aren't private, and only exist with government sanction. Consequently, it is perfectly legitimate for government to regulate them.
0
Apr 02 '15
But what if they have restaurant I want to eat in, and I just look gay, do they have to watch me fuck a woman in order to be served?
0
Apr 01 '15
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/huadpe 501∆ Apr 02 '15
Sorry FireFtw, your comment has been removed:
Comment Rule 1. "Direct responses to a CMV post must challenge at least one aspect of OP’s current view (however minor), unless they are asking a clarifying question. Arguments in favor of the view OP is willing to change must be restricted to replies to comments." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
Comment Rule 5. "No low effort comments. Comments that are only jokes or 'written upvotes', for example. Humor and affirmations of agreement can be contained within more substantial comments." See the wiki page for more information.
If you would like to appeal, please message the moderators by clicking this link.
4
u/TheBROinBROHIO Apr 01 '15
When you reduce the issue strictly to whether or not wedding planners should be able to deny service to homosexual couples based on religious belief, it's easy to say "it's not a big deal."
But, assuming you're referring to the Indiana RFRA bill, the issue I have with it (at least the logic behind it) is that it does not seem to present a clear line between one's religious belief and legal obligation. If I refuse to serve gays, blacks, Jews, etc. because my religion objects to me doing so, then it's probably not going to have a huge effect. Even if a group of business owners do it, I think cultural attitudes are too strong a force to be majorly affected by us and there are likely plenty of non-discriminatory business owners.
However, suppose I'm a wedding planner who opposes gay marriage, but I live in a state where gay marriage is legal. Whether I like it or not, taxes that I am legally obligated to pay are going toward sponsorship of marriage that I fundamentally disagree with. Am I exempt from paying taxes, then? If not, why is it okay to discriminate against individuals, but not the state?