When Is It Right To Refuse Service To Someone?

[PureX]

If case by case then these are arbitrary due to lack of laws. Reasonable is subjective as it is case by case.

The reason that we have courts of law is because laws have to be interpreted, and applied to the specific circumstances. ALL LAW is "subjective" in that it's all subject to litigation.

Alternatively they do not wish to take part in something they are against.

Then they should not be in the business of selling custom wedding cakes to the general public; or they should be selling them through a private club/co-op. It's really that simple.

Also freedom of association. Class standards have been acceptable in lot of business and has been used to judge people for all of human history. Pricing, dress codes, location, menu, etc. Business have a sorts of methods to filter out subjective choices by the owner and managed.

Everyone's freedom must be infringed for people to live together in a cohesive society. The ideal is to infringe everyone's freedom equally, and minimally. But infringed we all must be. We can't do whatever we want to whomever we want whenever we want and why-ever we want. Society cannot function that way. Commerce cannot function that way.

I just question if restrictions on religion in business is still required over the market and customers in an era of instant reviews and social bandwagon tactics. At least in the First World.

There is no restriction of a religious business that is not being applied to every other kind of business. If you open a business to the public, you have to treat the public fairly. If you don't want to treat the public fairly, for religious or any other reasons, you have to open your business as a private club or co-op. But even then, you can't break the laws that protect people from each other.

I don't see why this is so difficult for people to understand.

I also don't see why Christians feel such an urgent need to refuse service to other people for religious reasons. If I sell someone a gun, and they use it kill themselves (a serious sin), I am not responsible for that sin because I sold them the gun. If I sell someone a cake, and they use it to celebrate a gay marriage, I am not responsible for their having gotten married. So there is no logical reason why Christians should be averse to selling anyone a gun or a wedding cake. The sins of others are not their sins, and they are not being held accountable for them. So they have no religious basis upon which to mistreat any "sinners", in any way.

I do, however, believe that a lot of religious Christians have become a bit addicted to the idea of their own superior righteousness, and they want to exercise that feeling of superiority by condemning sinners, and by doing it openly, so that everyone will see how righteous they think they are. And I strongly suspect this is the real motive behind their refusal to sell wedding cakes to homosexuals.

 

[jonathan180iq]

I'm a government employee. There's a big difference between my personal and professional life.
When people have had problems with "me" in the past, it's usually been about something else entirely that's simply been misunderstood by them...

It's easy to form opinions about things and people when your only interaction with them comes from opinion pieces on the TV, slanted newspaper articles, or the cloud of your cultural influence. Why should we base our real-world interactions with people on a synthetic understanding of them?

Remember the vitriol that Trump would spew about Obama's place of birth? That stupid crap went on for years. Trump had very strong opinions about him and spoke with an air of authority that he didn't actually have. The two men had never once met or spoken to each other until he visited the White House after the election. After their actual face-to-face meeting and conversations, Trump's tone was very different.

You can't change people's minds if you don't engage them in real and personal conversation. I prefer serving my enemies with respect, kindness, and class. There's no other way to reach them than to invite them inside your world.

 

[Shad]

The reason that we have courts of law is because laws have to be interpreted, and applied to the specific circumstances. ALL LAW is "subjective" in that it's all subject to litigation.

You pointed out there was a lack of laws in some cases so there is no interpretation at play

Then they should not be in the business of selling custom wedding cakes to the general public; or they should be selling them through a private club/co-op. It's really that simple.

But if they used a class standard it is completely acceptable. Hah

Everyone's freedom must be infringed for people to live together in a cohesive society. The ideal is to infringe everyone's freedom equally, and minimally.

I see no infringement of rights equally especially for example the Colorado Commission claimed artist express rights in 3 cases but not in a 4th when the person was religious.

Commerce cannot function that way.

As I said I question if many protection rights are still required for business.

There is no restriction of a religious business that is not being applied to every other kind of business. If you open a business to the public, you have to treat the public fairly. If you don't want to treat the public fairly, for religious or any other reasons, you have to open your business as a private club or co-op. But even then, you can't break the laws that protect people from each other.

Membership based organizations have been grilled for excluding groups from membership. Former Boy Scouts for example. So forgive me when I disregard people talking about law when it is not applied in any balanced way.

I don't see why this is so difficult for people to understand.

I understand the laws. I question if those laws are still required in all situations.

I also don't see why Christians feel such an urgent need to refuse service to other people for religious reasons. If I sell someone a gun, and they use it kill themselves (a serious sin), I am not responsible for that sin because I sold them the gun.

One is directly taking part in something their religious interpretation is against, same-sex marriage. They become part of the event by providing a specific service for it. Your gun example is nonsense as you are not selling a gun with knownledge it will be used in a crime. One could be charged as an accomplice if they know the plan.

If I sell someone a cake, and they use it to celebrate a gay marriage, I am not responsible for their having gotten married.

People do not hide their intentions when it comes to buying a wedding cake. Its not some random cake people buy that could be used for any purpose.

So there is no logical reason why Christians should be averse to selling anyone a gun or a wedding cake. The sins of others are not their sins, and they are not being held accountable for them. So they have no religious basis upon which to mistreat any "sinners", in any way.

Read Paul's view regarding being party to sin.

I do, however, believe that a lot of religious Christians have become a bit addicted to the idea of their own superior righteousness, and they want to exercise that feeling of superiority by condemning sinners, and by doing it openly, so that everyone will see how righteous they think they are. And I strongly suspect this is the real motive behind their refusal to sell wedding cakes to homosexuals.

Most religions and their followers do this. However that is a generalized view so may not be applicable to every case.

 

[YeshuaRedeemed]

How Christian of you, headdesk.

 

[Falvlun]

Morally, I make a distinction between citizens and elected (or administration) officials. I think it’s hard to justify refusing service to someone who votes differently than you.

But I think you can justify refusing service to someone who is publically working in an official capacity for something antithetical to your beliefs. As a public servant you relinquish some privacy and can become a figurehead. You are also directly involved in whatever I’m finding reprehensible.