good luck getting married in Virginia if you are an atheist

[tyr_13]

Ah, not as condemnable as I thought...

 

[uke2se]

I agree but it goes both ways. A gay person's right to cake ends where the baker's right to practice their religion begins.

Again, why do gay people (in the current cases) get to force bakers and photographers to work for them against their will?

They aren't forcing them. They are simply expecting the same service offered to everyone else. This is their right.

That sounds extreme...like we need more reasons to throw people in jail.

It's not extreme at all. It simply disallows bigots from perpetrating their bigotry through their businesses.

Private citizens are not required to be impartial, why should the businesses they own be different?

Because they are in a business.

Let me ask you this: would you think it's legally ok for a business to only serve whites? How about morally?

 

[uke2se]

Ah, not as condemnable as I thought...

Still very condemnable.

 

[Ziggurat]

They aren't forcing them. They are simply expecting the same service offered to everyone else. This is their right.

They can (and did) get the same service as everyone else. Just not from this one guy.

It's not extreme at all. It simply disallows bigots from perpetrating their bigotry through their businesses.

But this isn't even really a business. Nobody does it for a living. All you're really going to do by forcing marriage commissioners to service everyone is drive the religious ones out of the market. But since (again) this isn't even really a business, there's no reason to think that additional people will simply enter the market to fill the space. Why is that an improvement?

And are you going to force priests to marry satanists?

Let me ask you this: would you think it's legally ok for a business to only serve whites? How about morally?

Legally, I've got no problem with many small businesses refusing to serve people on the basis of race. I think it's morally reprehensible, but because that view is commonly shared, such a business will suffer in the marketplace on that basis. I see no need for the state to provide further remedy.

And if that view were not commonly shared by society, I can promise you that legal remedies would not be effective.

 

[PhantomWolf]

Right. And that is hugely problematic, IMHO. It might make us feel good in a "Those stupid Christians got what they deserve!" sense, but I see it as further erosion of the religious freedom that was guaranteed in the Constitution.

And if someone decided that it was against their religious principles to marry mixed race couples? What is the difference here?

 

[uke2se]

They can (and did) get the same service as everyone else. Just not from this one guy.

Exactly, because he discriminated against them.

But this isn't even really a business. Nobody does it for a living. All you're really going to do by forcing marriage commissioners to service everyone is drive the religious ones out of the market. But since (again) this isn't even really a business, there's no reason to think that additional people will simply enter the market to fill the space. Why is that an improvement?

It is a business because the guy renders a service in exchange for money. There's really no use denying that what he's doing is a business.

And are you going to force priests to marry satanists?

Religious institutions are to my knowledge exempt from this kind of thing. I don't think they count as businesses.

Legally, I've got no problem with many small businesses refusing to serve people on the basis of race. I think it's morally reprehensible, but because that view is commonly shared, such a business will suffer in the marketplace on that basis. I see no need for the state to provide further remedy.

Well, the need did arise, and it was made unlawful to discriminate based on race. Are you pining for the good old days of separate drinking fountains?

And if that view were not commonly shared by society, I can promise you that legal remedies would not be effective.

Well, it was kind of effective, even though there was lots of resistance.

 

[jhunter1163]

So the thread title should actually be "good luck getting married in certain rural backwaters of Virginia by one particular officiant if you are an atheist". I think that's too long though.

 

[uke2se]

So the thread title should actually be "good luck getting married in certain rural backwaters of Virginia by one particular officiant if you are an atheist". I think that's too long though.

Probably. I find that we have found a good discussion here, though. It is interesting to me that so many Americans have such a relaxed position on discrimination, as if it's not a big deal. I'm interested in exploring this further.

 

[PhantomWolf]

They can (and did) get the same service as everyone else. Just not from this one guy.

Then they didn't get the service everyone else did...

But this isn't even really a business. Nobody does it for a living. All you're really going to do by forcing marriage commissioners to service everyone is drive the religious ones out of the market. But since (again) this isn't even really a business, there's no reason to think that additional people will simply enter the market to fill the space. Why is that an improvement?

So a business that doesn't allow you to make a living isn't a business?

And are you going to force priests to marry satanists?

I think Priests should be allowed to marry whoever they like, but the Catholic Church demands they remain unmarried and celibate...

Legally, I've got no problem with many small businesses refusing to serve people on the basis of race. I think it's morally reprehensible, but because that view is commonly shared, such a business will suffer in the marketplace on that basis. I see no need for the state to provide further remedy.

While on a purely logical and theoretical basis, I totally agree, based on the practical side, and the stories I have repeatedly seen, I'd say that the US is still in the primordial ooze when it comes to the evolution of race relations and treatment of minorities be it by race, sexual preference, or religious belief (or lack there of), so no, it'd be a really bad idea.

And if that view were not commonly shared by society, I can promise you that legal remedies would not be effective.

Actually often the law will work even if a majority of people disagree. Sometimes you have to change the law to protect the minority and allow the attitudes to change as the old stuck in their ways crowd die.

 

[Ziggurat]

Religious institutions are to my knowledge exempt from this kind of thing. I don't think they count as businesses.

On what basis? Why should a "religious institution" be exempted when an individual with strong religious beliefs is not? You're drawing distinctions which have no constitutional basis.

Well, the need did arise, and it was made unlawful to discriminate based on race. Are you pining for the good old days of separate drinking fountains?

It's funny that people complaining about the mere possibility of fringe private racial discrimination generally point to how evil state-mandated discrimination was.

Well, it was kind of effective, even though there was lots of resistance.

There was a lot of resistance, but that resistance came from a minority of people. State opposition to racial discrimination only arose because there was majority opposition to it.

 

[marplots]

So a business that doesn't allow you to make a living isn't a business?

Nope, it's Amway.

 

[uke2se]

On what basis? Why should a "religious institution" be exempted when an individual with strong religious beliefs is not? You're drawing distinctions which have no constitutional basis.

You can take it up with the courts. I would be in favor of your "no exemption for religious institutions" or "brand religious institutions as businesses" proposal. If that were to pass, I would say that a priest would have to marry two satanists.

It's funny that people complaining about the mere possibility of fringe private racial discrimination generally point to how evil state-mandated discrimination was.

We aren't talking about a mere possibility. We are talking about a clear cut case.

There was a lot of resistance, but that resistance came from a minority of people. State opposition to racial discrimination only arose because there was majority opposition to it.

You'll have to give me some numbers. I never take anything you say for granted.

Then again, we could stay on topic, and you can explain to me why private discrimination is ok. Because, from the case with the religious photographers and the gay wedding, it's kind of clear that the courts disagree with you.

 

[xjx388]

They aren't forcing them. They are simply expecting the same service offered to everyone else. This is their right.

Which amounts to forcing the minister/baker/photographer to perform labor for the atheist/gay couple.

Another example: A gay couple's friend of a friend (FOF) is a remarkable baker who has made cakes for many people but doesn't own a business; it's a hobby. The gay couple ask the FOF for a cake and the FOF refuses to bake it because of their religious beliefs. Should this bigoted FOF be forced to bake the cake?

If not, what changes when the FOF does it as a business?

It's not extreme at all. It simply disallows bigots from perpetrating their bigotry through their businesses.

If disallowing the perpetuation of bigotry is the goal, why not just outlaw bigotry? Make it illegal to teach your children bigoted ideas.

Because they are in a business.

What changes?

Let me ask you this: would you think it's legally ok for a business to only serve whites?

It is not legally ok to serve only whites. But if we struck down the anti-discrimination laws as it applied to private businesses I wouldn't have a big problem with it. I think the law masks the racial (and homophobic) problems we have. In order to root it out, it needs to be exposed. So let the bigots discriminate; I think they will be surprised by the backlash. This isn't the Jim Crow/Segregation era.

How about morally?

It is immoral to refuse to serve other-than-white people.

 

[uke2se]

Which amounts to forcing the minister/baker/photographer to perform labor for the atheist/gay couple.

Nope, the court appointed officiant/baker/photographer can chose not to service people that he finds icky or contrary to his religion. The consequence of that choice is that he will lose his business. He's still free to make that choice though. And as Ziggurat has informed us that you can't make a living as a court appointed officiant anyway, this guy wouldn't lose anything. The photographer and the baker would, but I'm sure that's a small price to pay to be able to discriminate against other people.

Another example: A gay couple's friend of a friend (FOF) is a remarkable baker who has made cakes for many people but doesn't own a business; it's a hobby. The gay couple ask the FOF for a cake and the FOF refuses to bake it because of their religious beliefs. Should this bigoted FOF be forced to bake the cake?

Not legally, no, because the "FOF" is not a business.

If not, what changes when the FOF does it as a business?

Money.

If disallowing the perpetuation of bigotry is the goal, why not just outlaw bigotry? Make it illegal to teach your children bigoted ideas.

Because that would violate the first amendment.

What changes?

Money.

It is not legally ok to serve only whites.

Correct. And it's not legally ok to not serve atheists either. Thread over?

But if we struck down the anti-discrimination laws as it applied to private businesses I wouldn't have a big problem with it.

I'm betting most thinking people would.

I think the law masks the racial (and homophobic) problems we have.

Ah, that's an interesting argument. We should remove all laws prohibiting discrimination because that would show us who would discriminate.

There's a problem, though. Once we know, we can't do anything about it. The free market ain't going to magically fix this.

In order to root it out, it needs to be exposed.

I'd say we are exposing it piece by piece, this thread being a fine example.

So let the bigots discriminate; I think they will be surprised by the backlash.

I doubt that. The thing about minorities is that they are... well... in the minority. Thus their market share is smaller than the majority. For the minority to have to be reliant on the kindness of the majority is quite a bad idea. In fact, we know from history that it doesn't work.

This isn't the Jim Crow/Segregation era.It is immoral to refuse to serve other-than-white people.

Do you believe racism is dead?

ETA: Also, how many Christians do you think believe it's not immoral to refuse service to gays?

 

[Loss Leader]

This just isn't a story. It would be interesting to determine if he was acting under color of government, but my guess would be a firm and resounding no.

 

[uke2se]

This just isn't a story. It would be interesting to determine if he was acting under color of government, but my guess would be a firm and resounding no.

That it isn't considered a story is a story in of itself.

 

[xjx388]

They don't have to. They are not forced. They are only compelled to if they want to stay in that business.

How is that different?

If you want to be a part of one of the largest economies in the free world you have to follow a few rules. Non-discrimination for publicly offered services is one of them. There are others. Do we need to go over all of them?

All I'm saying is that the rules shouldn't unduly burden civil rights. Emotionally, I'm right there with all of you. But rationally, I can't get there. Christians have a Constitutional right to practice their religion. The rules should not abridge that right.

 

[Darth Rotor]

My sister's an atheist.
She got married in Virginia.
What is the problem people are having, really?

Travis, no need to troll. The antics of this nitwit are entertainment enough.

 

[marplots]

Another example: A gay couple's friend of a friend (FOF) is a remarkable baker who has made cakes for many people but doesn't own a business; it's a hobby. The gay couple ask the FOF for a cake and the FOF refuses to bake it because of their religious beliefs. Should this bigoted FOF be forced to bake the cake?

If not, what changes when the FOF does it as a business?

Businesses are regulated. Private behavior is not (at least not on this dimension). You might as well ask why someone who makes the switch suddenly has to get a business license or health inspection certificate. And the answer is the same - running a business is a regulated activity.

 

[Ziggurat]

We aren't talking about a mere possibility. We are talking about a clear cut case.

It's imaginary that allowing the discrimination that this fellow engaged in will lead to some horrible outcome. The clear-cut results of this case is that some couple got offended (and by their own admission, they were offended by his manner, not his actual refusal itself), but were able to get married by someone else with no problem. I don't consider the offense that they took to be of great importance.

You'll have to give me some numbers. I never take anything you say for granted.

Look up the numbers yourself, if you're convinced it was ever otherwise.

Then again, we could stay on topic, and you can explain to me why private discrimination is ok.

That's not the issue. The issue is whether we should use the coercive power of the state to prevent the forms of discrimination that YOU find unacceptable (because I promise you, there are forms of discrimination that you would find acceptable). It's not that I think every form of discrimination is OK, it's that I don't think the state is the solution to every problem. Some things are bad but the state should still not try to prohibit them. And I really don't think that this specific problem is serious enough to merit state intervention to solve.

Because, from the case with the religious photographers and the gay wedding, it's kind of clear that the courts disagree with you.

First off, you're confused about the role of the courts. The courts do not rule on what the law should be. They rule on what the law IS. I have spoken about what I think the law should be. Any conflict is therefore not between me and the courts, but between me and the legislature. Second, the courts have not ruled in this case. There is no government sanction against this man for his discrimination. You may imagine that the case you refer to is relevant precedent here, but your opinion is clearly not informed by any expertise in the matter.

At the end of the day, it seems like you distrust society but trust government. Perhaps where you live, society is sufficiently debased so that it is not, in fact, worthy of trust, but needs the constant paternal control of the state to keep its baser instincts in check. But I do not feel likewise about the society in which I live.