"Religious Liberty" ?

[icehorse]

I forced myself to watch the GOP debate, argh.

At one point Cruz stood up for “religious liberty”. While I’m not sure, I’m guessing he’s referring to situations in which a religious organization is taking exception to being forced to pay for coverages under Obama-care that it (the organization), doesn’t believe in. Things like contraception and abortions.

The Eternal Word TV Network (EWTN), is suing the government over this issue of “religious liberty”...

http://www.religiousliberties.org/faq.asp

Does the EWTN have a legal leg (or for that matter a moral leg), to stand on? (I hope not!)

 

[Deathbydefault]

No, they really don't.
But who knows...
This country is so overrun with theists that maybe the ones in the government think they deserve special privilege too.

 

[sun rise]

I have a simple test. If someone says he is in favor of religious liberty, does he or the group think it only applies to their religion? If they're willing to fight for equivalent accommodations for other religions then they're fighting for religious liberty. If they are fighting for special privileges for their own religion while denying others equivalent rights, they're in favor of theocracy.

 

[Deathbydefault]

Yes, it all amounts to the special pleading fallacy, I'm sure.

(Time to go a little off topic)
That should be mandatory in all schools. The teaching of logical fallacies.

 

[sun rise]

Yes, it all amounts to the special pleading fallacy, I'm sure.

(Time to go a little off topic)
That should be mandatory in all schools. The teaching of logical fallacies.

Indeed. I really agree with your comment about teaching logical fallacies.

 

[ether-ore]

I forced myself to watch the GOP debate, argh.

At one point Cruz stood up for “religious liberty”. While I’m not sure, I’m guessing he’s referring to situations in which a religious organization is taking exception to being forced to pay for coverages under Obama-care that it (the organization), doesn’t believe in. Things like contraception and abortions.

The Eternal Word TV Network (EWTN), is suing the government over this issue of “religious liberty”...

http://www.religiousliberties.org/faq.asp

Does the EWTN have a legal leg (or for that matter a moral leg), to stand on? (I hope not!)

The issue of religious liberty is about all religious denominations and religious individuals having the right not to violate their own belief systems. If a particular denomination owns and operates a hospital, they have the right not to have to perform abortions if that is against their belief system. The woman wanting an abortion can go some place else. There are plenty of other places available. If a particular individual believes that homosexuality is contrary to their set of beliefs, then they have a right not to associate with or do business with a homosexual for any reason if that is their choice. Again, there are plenty of other places a homosexual can go. There is no need for any religion or person to be forced to go contrary to their will in these matters.

 

[Augustus]

The issue of religious liberty is about all religious denominations and religious individuals having the right not to violate their own belief systems. If a particular denomination owns and operates a hospital, they have the right not to have to perform abortions if that is against their belief system. The woman wanting an abortion can go some place else. There are plenty of other places available. If a particular individual believes that homosexuality is contrary to their set of beliefs, then they have a right not to associate with or do business with a homosexual for any reason if that is their choice. Again, there are plenty of other places a homosexual can go. There is no need for any religion or person to be forced to go contrary to their will in these matters.

The first example is probably ok. If a privately owned hospital doesn't want to provide abortion services that's acceptable. Hospitals and other businesses can decide what services they provide or don't provide. Just like a sandwich shop doesn't have to sell meat if the owner is a vegetarian.

The second example is not acceptable though. Once you provide a service you have to provide it equally to all people. A sandwich shop can't decide that it doesn't want to sell its products to Muslims, black people, homosexuals, Christians, etc.

The first example is about the nature of your business the second is about legally sanctioned discrimination. It would be pretty easy to find a 'religious' reason to justify discrimination against anyone, wrong religion, wrong sect, difference in opinion on any aspect of any religious belief, 'sinner' etc. so that you would basically be saying that any business can discriminate against anyone it likes and use 'religion' as an excuse.

 

[Glaurung]

The first example is about the nature of your business the second is about legally sanctioned discrimination. It would be pretty easy to find a 'religious' reason to justify discrimination against anyone, wrong religion, wrong sect, difference in opinion on any aspect of any religious belief, 'sinner' etc. so that you would basically be saying that any business can discriminate against anyone it likes and use 'religion' as an excuse.

Personally, I have no problem with privately owned businesses refusing service for any reason whatsoever. You're not entitled to someone's service, nor is anyone entitled to people's business. If a cakebaker refusing to do business with a gay couple is so outrageous then let the consumer vote with their feet.

No matter how you cut it, using the state to force people to do business against their conscious is authoritarian. I don't care if you think their conscious is informed by bigotry.

 

[LuisDantas]

The issue of religious liberty is about all religious denominations and religious individuals having the right not to violate their own belief systems.

To the extent that this is true, it is the religion's own duty to make that possible, and not in any capacity a political authority's.

Why? Because there is no way for a political representative to even attempt to take such a responsibility without also acquiring and using the power to arbitrate what "should" count as a religion and also what would be within or without the proper boundaries of any specific faith.

That would be both unnecessary, pointless and very ill-advised. Those matters are anything but trivial, and not at all a legitimate subject for politicians to decide.

If a particular denomination owns and operates a hospital, they have the right not to have to perform abortions if that is against their belief system.

They certainly do... if they decide to let go of the hospital and the duties that come with it.

If they don't, then they are subject to the same moral duties and the same laws as everyone else who owns and operates a hospital - or they should, at the very least.

The woman wanting an abortion can go some place else.

Except that there may not be a proper place in adequate range, and city management is not supposed to allow for violations of basic civil rights in order to protect religiously-motivated arbitrary privileges.

Hospitals are expected to fulfill their roles and the corresponding duties, not to seek loopholes to excuse them from those.

There are plenty of other places available.

Are you trying to argue that only hospitals that do not seek religious privilege should count? Don't you see the logical consequences of that claim?

If a particular individual believes that homosexuality is contrary to their set of beliefs, then they have a right not to associate with or do business with a homosexual for any reason if that is their choice. Again, there are plenty of other places a homosexual can go. There is no need for any religion or person to be forced to go contrary to their will in these matters.

Again, that would be no reason to create unfair, injustified and unworkable religions exceptions.

Instead, that would mean that said individual would better dissociate himself from roles that demand him not to discriminate.

 

[LuisDantas]

The first example is probably ok. If a privately owned hospital doesn't want to provide abortion services that's acceptable. Hospitals and other businesses can decide what services they provide or don't provide. Just like a sandwich shop doesn't have to sell meat if the owner is a vegetarian.

(...)

The first example is about the nature of your business the second is about legally sanctioned discrimination. It would be pretty easy to find a 'religious' reason to justify discrimination against anyone, wrong religion, wrong sect, difference in opinion on any aspect of any religious belief, 'sinner' etc. so that you would basically be saying that any business can discriminate against anyone it likes and use 'religion' as an excuse.

Personally, I have no problem with privately owned businesses refusing service for any reason whatsoever. You're not entitled to someone's service, nor is anyone entitled to people's business. If a cakebaker refusing to do business with a gay couple is so outrageous then let the consumer vote with their feet.

Don't hospitals need government-issued licenses to operate, though? Don't they have a number of duties that they must comply with in order to continue operating (fire safety, higiene parameters, emergency department attendance levels, in-house parking space, etc)? Don't they have to be ready to attend when there are disasters, and don't they have certain attending duties and privileges which must be monitored and licensed by the authorities (for instance, ambulances are not optional even in privately owned hospitals, and must be ready to operate in all weather conditions and operated by properly qualified drivers)?

 

[Augustus]

Personally, I have no problem with privately owned businesses refusing service for any reason whatsoever. You're not entitled to someone's service, nor is anyone entitled to people's business. If a cakebaker refusing to do business with a gay couple is so outrageous then let the consumer vote with their feet.

No matter how you cut it, using the state to force people to do business against their conscious is authoritarian. I don't care if you think their conscious is informed by bigotry.

So you think that it would be acceptable to operate a 'no blacks' policy? When someone is driving in remote areas, they need some petrol and stop at the only petrol pump for 100 miles and the owner says 'sorry, no blacks'. Is this something that should be allowed in a civilised country?

People know the laws and if their beliefs are so strong, don't go into business in an area that would force them to compromise their values. There are plenty of other professions they could choose.

 

[The Emperor of Mankind]

Personally, I have no problem with privately owned businesses refusing service for any reason whatsoever. You're not entitled to someone's service, nor is anyone entitled to people's business. If a cakebaker refusing to do business with a gay couple is so outrageous then let the consumer vote with their feet.

No matter how you cut it, using the state to force people to do business against their conscious is authoritarian. I don't care if you think their conscious is informed by bigotry.

Except that by creating a private business you have to agree to operate under business laws - one of which is that you can't discriminate in the provision of goods & services without good reason based on one or more of certain protected characteristics which include: sexual orientation & gender identity, age, disability, gender, marital status, religious affiliation etc.

Neither the 'private' aspect nor your religious beliefs give you licence to do whatever the **** you want and the law (as well as other peoples' civil rights) be damned.

 

[Glaurung]

Don't hospitals need government-issued licenses to operate, though?

Sure, but there's a difference between meeting safety and operational standards, and being forced to facilitate the demands of individuals against your personal convictions. If you want to run a restaurant, I have no problem with the state enforcing hygiene standards. I do have a problem with the idea that the state can come in and demand that a devout Christian restaurant owner provide catering to a gay wedding reception, Satanist convention, or what else have you.

The fact that some people will have their feelings hurt doesn't cut it as justification. If a fundamentalist Protestant baker refuses to do business with Catholics, that may suck for me but I can get bread from somewhere else.

So you think that it would be acceptable to operate a 'no blacks' policy?

Such a person would be a douche, but yes. I'd hope that a person refusing to serve people on the sole basis of race would lose all business. It's ultimately the consumer who decides what is and is not acceptable. Let the court of public opinion run its course, not get the state to clamp down on those you dislike.

When someone is driving in remote areas, they need some petrol and stop at the only petrol pump for 100 miles and the owner says 'sorry, no blacks'. Is this something that should be allowed in a civilised country?

The one exception I could accept are life and death situations. If refusing service would result in tangible harm to someone then I could see the state stepping in because I do believe we owe each other a basic duty of care. You can't act in such a way that would reasonably result in harm to another. Simply having your feelings hurt (even justifiably) doesn't cut it.

 

[LuisDantas]

Sure, but there's a difference between meeting safety and operational standards, and being forced to facilitate the demands of individuals against your personal convictions. If you want to run a restaurant, I have no problem with the state enforcing hygiene standards. I do have a problem with the idea that the state can come in and demand that a devout Christian restaurant owner provide catering to a gay wedding reception, Satanist convention, or what else have you.

The fact that some people will have their feelings hurt doesn't cut it as justification. If a fundamentalist Protestant baker refuses to do business with Catholics, that may suck for me but I can get bread from somewhere else.

I am no specialist, but I don't think the parallel holds.

 

[Augustus]

Don't hospitals need government-issued licenses to operate, though? Don't they have a number of duties that they must comply with in order to continue operating (fire safety, higiene parameters, emergency department attendance levels, in-house parking space, etc)? Don't they have to be ready to attend when there are disasters, and don't they have certain attending duties and privileges which must be monitored and licensed by the authorities (for instance, ambulances are not optional even in privately owned hospitals, and must be ready to operate in all weather conditions and operated by properly qualified drivers)?

This really depends on the country you live in. Not all hospitals provide all services though. People are frequently referred to other hospitals for certain types of treatment as they are not available in the hospital where you are. A maternity hospital doesn't offer A & E facilities after all.

If the law of the land says that hospitals should do A, B and C then that's what hospitals have to do. If you don't like it, don't open a hospital. But if the law of the land doesn't state any of this then it is simply a business choosing what services it actually provides.

Publicly funded hospitals should not get this choice however as they are a public service and facilities should be based on need rather than preference.

 

[Augustus]

Such a person would be a douche, but yes. I'd hope that a person refusing to serve people on the sole basis of race would lose all business. It's ultimately the consumer who decides what is and is not acceptable. Let the court of public opinion run its course, not get the state to clamp down on those you dislike.


The one exception I could accept is life and death situations. If refusing service would result in tangible harm to someone then I could see the state stepping in because I do believe we owe each other a basic duty of care. You can't act in such a way that would reasonably result in harm to another. Simply having your feelings hurt (even justifiably) doesn't cut it.

Allowing discrimination does cause tangible harm though. It results in less access to jobs, facilities, education, healthcare and opportunity in general for minorities. It isn't about having their 'feelings hurt', it is about all aspects of their lives. If this isn't a tangible harm then I don't know what is.

 

[Glaurung]

Allowing discrimination does cause tangible harm though. It results in less access to jobs, facilities, education, healthcare and opportunity in general for minorities. It isn't about having their 'feelings hurt', it is about all aspects of their lives. If this isn't a tangible harm then I don't know what is.

Don't get me wrong, refusing to do business with someone because they are gay is morally repugnant. But this is not what is happening most of the time. It's gay people going out of their way not simply to do business with known Christians (service which they were never denied) but to make demands that no devout Christian can oblige in good conscience. This is deliberate. It's not about service, it's about using the state to force people to act against their convictions for the sake of a political agenda.

And it cuts both ways. If I go to China town and a proprietor refuses to sell me lunch simply because I'm not asian, I'd be annoyed but all it would mean to me is someone else getting my money. Not cry and bring in the state simply because one guy refuses to facilitate me.

 

[Deathbydefault]

I do believe that small businesses have the right to refuse whomever they so please, so long as they are not government employed.
I agree that the religious shouldn't be forced to adhere to those who are against their religion.
However, the line has to be drawn somewhere.

I do not think a doctor has the right to not preform something that is in their job description, due to beliefs.
If they couldn't handle the job then they should choose their careers more wisely.
Likewise, corporations and government, namely military, facilities should not have the right to turn away people strictly on moral grounds.

There are many examples; but, the point is that smaller businesses should reserve the right to serve whom they please.
Larger businesses should remain within the secular and socially acceptable standards whilst hiring and preforming.
They should do so because they are for the benefit of society, not for a certain set of beliefs.

 

[ether-ore]

The first example is probably ok. If a privately owned hospital doesn't want to provide abortion services that's acceptable. Hospitals and other businesses can decide what services they provide or don't provide. Just like a sandwich shop doesn't have to sell meat if the owner is a vegetarian.

The second example is not acceptable though. Once you provide a service you have to provide it equally to all people. A sandwich shop can't decide that it doesn't want to sell its products to Muslims, black people, homosexuals, Christians, etc.

The first example is about the nature of your business the second is about legally sanctioned discrimination. It would be pretty easy to find a 'religious' reason to justify discrimination against anyone, wrong religion, wrong sect, difference in opinion on any aspect of any religious belief, 'sinner' etc. so that you would basically be saying that any business can discriminate against anyone it likes and use 'religion' as an excuse.

You misrepresent what you refer to as the second example. It isn't an issue of refusing service across the board. It's about being asked to endorse something. Let us use the examples of those instances that have already in reality happened.

If a homosexual asks a photographer to take his or her picture and their homosexuality was never mentioned, then I see no problem. I think the photographer in question would have most likely taken their picture. But if they announce their homosexuality, making it an issue in the business transaction where the proprietor is being implicitly required to "endorse" a lifestyle he disagrees with (for whatever reason) by taking pictures of a same sex ceremony, I think he is within his rights to refuse because he is then being forced to violate his conscience.

In the second example; a baker will not likely refuse to bake a cake for anyone coming into their bakery, including homosexuals as long as no endorsement of the homosexual lifestyle is being made apparent. But as soon as the homosexuals want to try and force the objecting baker to violate their conscience by endorsing their lifestyle by baking a same sex wedding cake; then the conditions have changed and that conscientiously objecting baker has the right not to bake such an endorsement.

I have no doubt but that you may not see it that way, but I believe there are plenty of businesses out there that will accommodate the homosexual community. The only reason I can see for deliberately seeking out businesses that do not is to cause them problems and spitefully put them out of business if they can.

One other thing. You tried to group homosexuals with blacks, Muslims... etc. Being black isn't a lifestyle and Muslims do not accept homosexuality either.

 

[Glaurung]

But as soon as the homosexuals want to try and force the objecting baker to violate their conscience by endorsing their lifestyle by baking a same sex wedding cake; then the conditions have changed and that conscientiously objecting baker has the right not to bake such an endorsement.

If it were really that big of a deal, and they had to get the cake from that particular barker, why could they not have just bought the cake and done the frosting themselves? From what I understand, the gay couple were never denied service, they were denied a particular request.

I may live in Australia, so I don't know the US situation well, but I think the idea that Christian proprietors are arbitrarily refusing service to certain groups on any significant scale is largely a myth. (The odd case here and there is nothing to get hysterical about). It's all really about politics and ideology, bringing "the dissenters" into line with the liberal social program.