What would these same religions say about renting a home to gays, or hiring them, or educating them?

A favorite video (6min 15sec) about the modern conflicts with religion.

What would these same religions say about renting a home to gays, or hiring them, or educating them? -- Crid [CridComment at gmail] at June 6, 2012 9:27 PM

Per the Fair Housing Laws, no you can't discriminate in renting. The Equal Employment Opportunity act says not to discriminate on orientation.

But how can you tell the difference between gay partners and the The Odd Couple when renting a place out? Realistically, the only FHA rules that are allowed is an Adult Retirement community discriminating from allowing people to move in/ live with children.

You literally can be a convicted pedophile with an apartment building and cannot stop a family with four children from moving in.

As far as education -- do you realize how liberal most colleges are? A college student made a comment on SiriusXM the other night saying that professors are claing "Tea Partiers want to repeal the 13th and 14th."

Granted its hearsay, but I can believe it.

As Jim pointed out there are laws against discrimination in hiring and housing, not in providing private services for hire.

Personally I dont think there should be laws against discrimination, if a company refuses to hire and promote minoritesd or women, work somewhere else, start your own businiess and compete, marry the CEO and use your T&A to change policy via the bedroom.

Private business should be just that.

But I do agree the irony is palatable. Though I cant decide which is more ironic

The very governemnt denying civil service to gays punishing a private vendor for doing the same thing.

Or the gay couple turning to the very governemtn that is currently discriminating agaisnt them on a civil rights level for help on a civil rights lawsuit

This live-and-let-live approach works in areas where gays, blacks, women, etc., have other options. In some areas, for example, giving pharmacists the right to deny birth control to women and girls effectively makes birth control impossible to get. It also provides more educational and economic opportunity to selected classes than others. It depends on more inclusive-thinking customers to protest and sway the business through economic means, but most people aren't going to put that much effort into it if they themselves are getting served just fine.

In the case of wedding photography, the couple probably could have found another photographer without too much trouble. I don't know why this couple would want a photographer who so clearly disdained them. Enjoy your crappy photos.

Let's take the question out of the highly-charged context of gay rights.

First, lets find something we might agree on (I'm NOT equating gay marriage with this, it's just an example)...

If I was asked to photograph (assuming I could take a photo without the camera blowing up) the euthanasia of a healthy puppy, I would say "no." If it matters, it would be because I wouldn't want to witness it (I'd have nightmares for months).

If I was employed (I'm not) and my employer said, "go take that photo," I would be within my rights to decline... but would have to accept the consequences (including reprimand, demotion, and possible termination from employment). The employer pays for my time, skills, and use of them. If I'm not willing to provide them, I'm in breach of my part of the deal. Although, if I was hired to be a juggler, I might argue that it's not part of my job description...

The exception to this might be if I was employed by the military, because they have rules about following orders, etc. that you agree to when you sign up (but nobody forces you to sign up). Sort of like agreeing to abide by the driving laws when you get a license.

So, if somebody finds something objectionable, a free society should, in my opinion, allow them to refrain from going/doing/seeing/participating in it... even if it's something silly like taking pictures of autumn leaves. What, fall leaves remind you of your ex and make you want to puke? Well, go be employed somewhere where they don't take landscape photos!

That is not to say there aren't consequences for these actions. If I refuse to associate with left-handed people, others are free to shun me as a jerk or a handist or whatever.

However, if we are NOT in a free society, then somebody has rights over us and we are NOT solely in charge of our bodies. This would include the right to force us to sit in the smoking section, serve alcohol on Sundays (or not), have kids (or not), paint our houses purple, only wear orange, or grow our hair long.

A totally free society with no rules would be anarchy, and I do not propose that as a good solution. I think the thing is freedoms have to be limited as LITTLE as possible. Say, no murder, theft, etc. as a good start. Sure, you can have "purple houses" rules, but that should be something you buy into (like a homeowner's association) the same as saying "I'll work for you if you pay me," it has to be something you can choose NOT to do. (I don't count it as "not having a choice" if the other choice is considered yucky, like not have a job - it's still a choice)

Personally, I think the photographer should be allowed to decline, and the couple should be allowed to make that action known to their friends and family. This has no coercion, nobody is forced to do anything they feel immoral, and it lets people make their own choices going forward. If you get bad service at a restaurant, you'll tell people, right? Same thing goes here.

To be clear, this doesn't work for all situations (as noted by others with things like housing or doctors). Those areas are governed by regulations. What we ought to ask, as a society, is which regulations hamper freedom, and which help it. Which are geared at keeping society from being jerkish and which are aimed at keeping individuals from being jerks in the privacy of their own homes, lives, and choices? (you can't regulate a person to be nice, after all)

Also, how does forcing somebody to do something they find immoral, bad, or abhorrent lead to a more tolerant society? How does that improve us as a people? I would argue it breeds bitterness and resentment, and probably makes matters worse.

A last question (please discuss)... would it be objectionable to make the wedding couple attend an anti-gay event, and if so, does that (and in what way) differ from making an anti-gay person work at - and thus attend - a gay event?

My conclusion is we should all go read about the star-bellied sneetches.

I might understand the court ruling, while not agreeing.

As an individual, the photographer could refuse service. But as a company providing goods/services to the general public, even though companies/corporations are often legally treated as "persons" service could not be withheld.

In cases like this, where a single individual (or family) has sole ownership, seems like straining at gnats. But: a phatmacist working for a company like like CVS may refuse to sell The Pill, but since the company does offer them their employee does not have the right to both refuse a sale and retain employment.

Head. bang. on. desk.

This kind of fuckery isn't just a disgusting violation of someones rights. It is actively pushing back against giving gay folks the right to marry.

It gives people like my father and grandfather one more arrow in their quiver. They can point to this ruling and say "See, we won't be able to ignore it. We'll be forced to participate and condone even though we are rabidly against it. If it gets legalized then it will only be a matter of time before they force our churches to start performing the weddings!" Gay rights activists need to know this kind of nonsense hits the fundies and conservatives right in their biggest fear button.

Hmmmm, although I might be able to use this in the "This is exactly why the government shouldn't be allowed to legislate morality," arguments with them. (That's a lie. I don't even bother arguing with them any more.)

This is trickier than it immediately appears. There is a conflict between ideals and reality. A photographer can choose his gigs.

However, the only pharmacist in a small town cannot have the right to refuse service to people because they are black, gay or using contraceptives. People have the right to necessities (food, medicine, gas, shelter) and monopolies (or near monopolies) must provide them regardless of their personal views. I am not sure how to write laws like this.

What the only pharmacist in a small town does in that case, Curtis... is leave.

Businesses that get to the point where regulations become too onerous, and they quit or move all the time.

"I don't know why this couple would want a photographer who so clearly disdained them." MonicaP

Do you actually NOT know? Because it's much more fun to bludgeon a small business owner with a law, to force them to your will than go someplace else.

Also, now that the court has ruled this way, there is more precedence to overturn the NM law about marriage, it's all about leverage.

Oh and? From the ruling: "The [New Mexico Human Rights Act] regulates Elane Photography’s conduct in its commercial business, not its speech or right to express its own views about same-sex relationships."

Hear that? this commercial business is a HUMAN RIGHT.

This from Volokh:
"It seems to me that the First Amendment secures the translator’s right to refuse the commission, and to choose not to create pro-Scientology propaganda, even if the creative process simply involves translating text from one language to another (and even if the translator’s identity will never be known by third parties, and even though the translator could avoid the compulsion by giving up his livelihood). Likewise, the First Amendment secures a photographer’s right to refuse the photographer an event that she views as immoral, and to choose not to create creative expression that is meant to celebrate that event and to depict it as beautiful, even if the creative process simply involves recording (and staging) images from life into photographs."

Interestingly Crid, this isn't about The Religion, it's about The Individual. If I DON'T like a person, I don't have to take their picture, no matter how much money they have, and that is what these things teach... don't suggest that you don't want to do something for someone for a specific reason at all.

Just say that you don't like them as a person.

It's still legal to not like individuals, right?

So I as a straight person am allowed to go to a gay bar. What if I want to invite some of my friends who are also straight. What if I get enough people and frequent enough to change the bars customer demographic. Owner may not like it, but I am spending money.

I disagree with this anti-discrimination service. Many services and business should be able to refuse. Of course which services are essential and can not be refused.

So when did bars and photographers become essential services/business?

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/03/tagblogsfindlawcom2012-freeenterprise-idUS86097970820120603

I have heard of other bars and clubs that have refused straight people. One in Australia actually got government permission to discriminate.

I went to a number of Tea Pary events in 2009, Jim P., and I never heard any talk about repealing the 13th and 14th Amendments. On the other hand, there are people on this forum I belong to, Free Republic, who regret the 14th Amendment, but I'm not one of them.

The 13th and 14th Amendments were meant to ban slavery and indentured servitude, and ensure that former slaves had the same rights as the rest of us. They are way to important to our country to repeal, and anybody in the Tea Party who advocates their repeal (if one or more even exist) should be promptly ejected from the movement with a catapult.

Curtis:
People have the right to necessities
- - - - - - - - - - -
No they don't.
This is leftie double-talk recasting entitlements or handouts as "rights". My guess is you voted for Nobama if you think "health care is a right".

The most important rights are NEGATIVE - the right to not be coerced in thought or action.

They are not about getting goods - or goodies.

Especially not by forcing others - pharmacists, photographers, whoever - to provide them.

This ruling states that people have a right to your work, i.e., a right to your time and energy.

Ban David,

First of all, I abhor Obama.

My phrasing was poor. I did not mean that you have the right to have medicine provided to you but that you have the right to purchase medicine and food with your own money. If your doctor prescribes medicine, you should be able to purchase it at your local pharmacy regardless of your race, sexual preference or sex.

If is not a right, then a majority can effectively ban certain group from living in their town. This type of discrimination was an major issue 40 years ago. Civil right legislation was a necessity because people are flawed.

I'm curious Curtis... by what right do you presume to force me to sell you things, if I don't want to?

Providing any service is providing labor, whether it be manual or otherwise.

To force someone to provide a service they would choose not to, is the definition of forced labor.

And how can you call yourself a free citizen, if you can be compelled to commit to forced labor, regardless of your own wishes?

I don't like the photographer in this story, but I like forced labor more.

EDIT: That should have read: DISLIKE FORCED LABOR MORE.

"If is not a right, then a majority can effectively ban certain group from living in their town."

I don't see how this is a bad thing in and of itself. A lot of beliefs are going to be like oil and water with other beliefs. Forcing people who hold opposing views to live near each other might mellow them out, or it might ignite a fuse.

If Texas wants to be conservative and California liberal, great! Let people live where they fit or adapt to the mores of their locality. We are not all the same, nor should we be made to feel we ought to be. I don't like islam, so I'll never live in the middle east. Fair enough.

As a person who cares about and tries to defend civil liberties, I'm also very much not for forcing private businesses to serve customers when it goes against their religious beliefs.

But it doesn't have to be something against their religious beliefs, right? From what I recall, you're in favor of private businesses being able to refuse service to anyone for any reason.

My feeling is that businesses should be able to refuse service to anyone, or refuse service to no one (based on who they are, not what they're doing.) If a person who has a photography business can refuse service to blacks (or Hispanics or women or Jews or Muslims) then that person should be free to refuse service to gays & lesbians (and anyone else) as well. However, if they cannot legally refuse service to blacks, etc., then they shouldn't be able to legally refuse service to gays & lesbians.

> this isn't about The Religion, it's about
> The Individual.

First of all, Swissy, you were right about that other thing a couple of months ago, and I was wrong. I don't remember what it was, but I got all peckerheaded when you didn't deserve it. Apologies.

Second of all, you're right THIS time, too. I don't think religion makes people all twitchy about the gays... Naive people will be that way all on their own, and hungrier churches will exploit that twitchiness, just as the better beliefs will try to remove it.

But I think Amy isn't showing her true colors here: There are a LOT of times when people are forced by law to sell things (and rent things etc.) to people they don't want as customers, and Amy is pleased with the result.

I used to feel very strongly that pharmacists shouldn't be compelled to sell morning-after contraception if they felt abortion (or apparent abortifacient use) was murder... I assumed that was the kind of backbone we wanted religion to give to people.

Reynolds changed mind completely with one blog post:

80% of Americans think that pharmacists ought to have to fill prescriptions for contraceptives even if they’re personally opposed to birth control.

Of course, this only matters because pharmacists enjoy a government-created monopoly on the dispensing of prescription drugs. Just take that away, and the problem disappears, too. In the meantime, like others who enjoy government monopolies, they are forced to make some concessions to public convenience. That doesn’t strike me as an overwhelming imposition, but if the pharmacy profession feels otherwise, I’ll be the first to support a move to eliminate its privileged position.

Second, my mind was changed in about as long as it took to read those words the first time. Like, click.

Since then, I've never felt that rhetoric is a waste of time. As Hitchens said, you never make the same argument twice. You always judge your own effort by the response, changing words and emphasis each time you make your case. That's how you grow stronger... Even if foolish and timid people think you're stuck, or think you're not listening.

Robert, SwissArmyD and Momof4,

Perhaps, I am not making self clear. I agree with you in principle. In an ideal world, you should be able to choose your customers.

However, sometimes principles and reality have major conflicts. For example, the 2nd amendment guarantees the right to bear arms. However, we do not let people own Stinger missiles or atom bombs. We go against our principles because the cost is so high.

IMO, in the civil rights era, the cost of allowing shopkeepers to discriminate was too high to allow it to keep occurring. Am I wrong to sacrifice my principles for pragmatic reasons? Perhaps but it clearly was beneficial to the country.

We are past those issues on race. It is likely that we are past on religion and sexuality. I am not sure and think we should examine it closely before we make a hard and fast rule that, IMO, had clear exception in the past.

If you disagree with me, do not repeat your principles which I agree with. Explain why they override the costs.

I wonder....

If they had a sign like ones you sometimes still see, "We reserve the right to refuse service" would the judge have ruled differently?

Going back to my example - what if the photographer was to be hired for some event and then learned that something icky (like kicking puppies) was going to happen and THEN said, "I don't want to do this, please find another photographer." Would THAT be any different in the judge's eyes? Should it be?