Religious Freedom and Liberty: A Trojan Horse?

[bobhikes]

A broad, religious liberty/religious freedom exemption from anti-discrimination laws would render the latter essentially unenforceable. Consider these examples:

For example, Orthodox Jews do not believe women should wear pants. So could a woman be fired for wearing pants to work in a business owned by Orthodox Jews?

And according to the church website, Mormon leaders believe women "should be wives and mothers above all else", and should resist what they call "insidious propaganda" including independence. Would that mean a Mormon-owned business could refuse to hire women at all, because they shouldn't be working? The Catholic church condemns birth control. Could a Catholic-owned business fire a woman if she was found to be using contraception?

Equally scary are hard-line Muslim views of women. Females are not to go out without a male relative, and must be covered head to toe at all times. Could a Muslim-owned business refuse to serve any woman without a headscarf, or one not accompanied by a male?

Should religious adherents be given a special pass from complying with the law? And what makes their situation different from someone without religious views, but with deeply held, sincere moral beliefs opposed to particular laws?

I think the easiest way around this is to allow it as long as it is spell out in all their advertisements. If they advertise in the News Paper it has to include the exemptions. The front of the store has to spell out the exemptions. The radio and TV have to announce their exemptions. The interior of the store has to spell out the exemptions. All in a readable or understandable format(for TV and Radio). This way the public has the right to decide if they want to shop there.

I think you will find most of these stores except in certain communities will go out of business.

 

[Revoltingest]

But that isn't compelled speech, because it is simply a business service. Put another way, no one is forcing the commercial provider to endorse any particular message by baking a wedding cake or taking photographs. If you were to endorse the "compelled speech" rationale in those cases, you end up absolving the providers of providing services to, for example, black customers, interracial customers, etc. Because any service can be read as an "endorsement" or "compelled speech."

I understand your reasoning, but I'll cut fundies & other speech averse people more slack.
It seems the best balance of rights & dignities.
So if you came to me requesting a cake which said "God hates ****!",
I'd make you a wonderful cake, but sans message.
Btw, this example is strictly hypothetical. (I don't bake cakes.)

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But that isn't compelled speech, because it is simply a business service. Put another way, no one is forcing the commercial provider to endorse any particular message by baking a wedding cake or taking photographs. If you were to endorse the "compelled speech" rationale in those cases, you end up absolving the providers of providing services to, for example, black customers, interracial customers, etc. Because any service can be read as an "endorsement" or "compelled speech."

Where's the dividing line between "simply a business service" and artistic expression for commission?

Also, something else to keep in mind (at least when we're talking about services broadly, not necessarily cake decorating): in licensed professions, there's a quid-pro-quo. The government has limited who can practicethat profession and therefore increased scarcity for the service and thereby how much the licensed professional can charge. Because of this, it's fair game that the government asks more of licensed professionals than is asked of the general public, whether this means an engineer's responsibility to safeguard public safety or a taxi driver's responsibility to carry higher levels of insurance than a normal driver. A duty to conduct one's business in a non-discriminatory way is, IMO, a reasonable demand in these cases.

... but it doesn't necessarily translate into restrictions on people in general; only those who get special benefits would have special obligations.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I understand your reasoning, but I'll cut fundies & other speech averse people more slack.
It seems the best balance of rights & dignities.
So if you came to me requesting a cake which said "God hates ****!",
I'd make you a wonderful cake, but sans message.
Btw, this example is strictly hypothetical. (I don't bake cakes.)

Right. Expression for pay is still expression.

I think there's a clear dividing line: what a business chooses to sell versus who it chooses to sell to.

It's normal for a business to limit their services to only a set range... even if there are closely-related services that the business could choose to offer but didn't. Just as, for instance, Mystic shouldn't need to justify herself if she chooses not to offer Flamenco lessons, You shouldn't need to justify yourself if you choose not to sell anti-gay cakes.

... which is different from refusing to sell a cake to an anti-gay person.

 

[Curious George]

I understand your reasoning, but I'll cut fundies & other speech averse people more slack.
It seems the best balance of rights & dignities.
So if you came to me requesting a cake which said "God hates ****!",
I'd make you a wonderful cake, but sans message.
Btw, this example is strictly hypothetical. (I don't bake cakes.)

Pretty sure most businesses can get around writing messages on cakes that includes speech in matters which they do not approve by simply making policies that do not discriminate. If you don't want to write two male names, you could make a policy stating you only write last names. If you don't want to write a message about "gay" you could have a policy that you do not write any messages concerning sexuality...hopefully you get the picture. But if you are going to advertise custom messages then no one can say that you are being compelled to speak, you are merely a medium for which the speech is passing. You should not have a right to filter based on discrimination.

 

[Revoltingest]

Pretty sure most businesses can get around writing messages on cakes that includes speech in matters which they do not approve by simply making policies that do not discriminate. If you don't want to write two male names, you could make a policy stating you only write last names. If you don't want to write a message about "gay" you could have a policy that you do not write any messages concerning sexuality...hopefully you get the picture. But if you are going to advertise custom messages then no one can say that you are being compelled to speak, you are merely a medium for which the speech is passing. You should not have a right to filter based on discrimination.

One must be careful that one's policies don't arouse the ire of the state.
Without explicitness in the law, dang near anything can be called "discrimination".
Some things which have actually been prohibited at one time here for real estate licensees......
- Using discriminatory language in listings, eg, "family room", "great view", "walk in closet"
- Photocopying driver licenses (because then we'd have a record of the tenant's race)
In the last one, I copied them anyway because it was necessary to let staff verify that someone lacking ID is who they say they are.
This comes up when someone loses a wallet & keys, & needs access to the rental unit.

Anyway, fair housing lawsuits are dangerous things, & one can't always know what will trigger one.
Moverover, many tenants make a living suing their landlords with bogus suits, figuring they'll be paid to settle.
Been there & done that.
When the law isn't clear & well crafted, injustices are rampant.

 

[Revoltingest]

Here are some interesting quandaries regarding discrimination....
http://www.blackpeoplemeet.com/?sid...pLMrsTlLJtJ5Cmr69Q-pQVlUiSWN02lrdXRoCmCvw_wcB
JDate - Meet Jewish singles in your area for dating and romance @ JDate.com - the most popular online Jewish dating community.

 

[Nakosis]

A broad, religious liberty/religious freedom exemption from anti-discrimination laws would render the latter essentially unenforceable. Consider these examples:

For example, Orthodox Jews do not believe women should wear pants. So could a woman be fired for wearing pants to work in a business owned by Orthodox Jews?

And according to the church website, Mormon leaders believe women "should be wives and mothers above all else", and should resist what they call "insidious propaganda" including independence. Would that mean a Mormon-owned business could refuse to hire women at all, because they shouldn't be working? The Catholic church condemns birth control. Could a Catholic-owned business fire a woman if she was found to be using contraception?

Equally scary are hard-line Muslim views of women. Females are not to go out without a male relative, and must be covered head to toe at all times. Could a Muslim-owned business refuse to serve any woman without a headscarf, or one not accompanied by a male?

Should religious adherents be given a special pass from complying with the law? And what makes their situation different from someone without religious views, but with deeply held, sincere moral beliefs opposed to particular laws?

According to our laws you can't treat women different than men. So none of your examples can be allowed.

Religions, like any other business has to work within the law. However the law has to treat everyone equal too and can't pass laws which discriminate against a particular religion.

 

[Aquitaine]

A broad, religious liberty/religious freedom exemption from anti-discrimination laws would render the latter essentially unenforceable. Consider these examples:

For example, Orthodox Jews do not believe women should wear pants. So could a woman be fired for wearing pants to work in a business owned by Orthodox Jews?

And according to the church website, Mormon leaders believe women "should be wives and mothers above all else", and should resist what they call "insidious propaganda" including independence. Would that mean a Mormon-owned business could refuse to hire women at all, because they shouldn't be working? The Catholic church condemns birth control. Could a Catholic-owned business fire a woman if she was found to be using contraception?

Equally scary are hard-line Muslim views of women. Females are not to go out without a male relative, and must be covered head to toe at all times. Could a Muslim-owned business refuse to serve any woman without a headscarf, or one not accompanied by a male?

Should religious adherents be given a special pass from complying with the law? And what makes their situation different from someone without religious views, but with deeply held, sincere moral beliefs opposed to particular laws?

No, the religious get enough special treatment as it is, one rule for all is what's needed.

 

[gsa]

According to our laws you can't treat women different than men. So none of your examples can be allowed.

Religions, like any other business has to work within the law. However the law has to treat everyone equal too and can't pass laws which discriminate against a particular religion.

The proposed religious freedom/religious liberty amendments would change the usual application of anti-discrimination laws, though; while I agree that current law would prohibit those examples, the proposals are to change current law.

 

[Nakosis]

The proposed religious freedom/religious liberty amendments would change the usual application of anti-discrimination laws, though; while I agree that current law would prohibit those examples, the proposals are to change current law.

Really? I don't think I could agree with that. I also don't think such laws would be constitutional. They'd have to revise the Constitution. Is that what they are trying to do? Revise the US Constitution? Good luck trying to ratify it.

 

[Marisa]

Where's the dividing line between "simply a business service" and artistic expression for commission?

Also, something else to keep in mind (at least when we're talking about services broadly, not necessarily cake decorating): in licensed professions, there's a quid-pro-quo. The government has limited who can practicethat profession and therefore increased scarcity for the service and thereby how much the licensed professional can charge. Because of this, it's fair game that the government asks more of licensed professionals than is asked of the general public, whether this means an engineer's responsibility to safeguard public safety or a taxi driver's responsibility to carry higher levels of insurance than a normal driver. A duty to conduct one's business in a non-discriminatory way is, IMO, a reasonable demand in these cases.

... but it doesn't necessarily translate into restrictions on people in general; only those who get special benefits would have special obligations.

Sometimes it's easier to find the dividing line than others. A baker can bake all kinds of cakes without ever writing anything on them. If I were a religious bigot bake shop owner, I'd be jumping at the chance to sell folks two sets of cake toppers and bags of icing and decorating tips, blissfully ignorant of what they intend to do with them. A florist can sell the crap out of flowers without ever needing to attend one of those nasty gay weddings.

When you're talking something like cosmetology, it's murkier to some. I don't know a lot of people who go to get their hair done, sit in the stylists chair, and say "my head is your canvas, create dahling. Create!" Nope, they say "no more than 1 inch off, please". There's arguably no artistic expression going on there. And therefore those folks ought not have the right to turn anyone away because something about the client is offensive to the stylist.

 

[Curious George]

One must be careful that one's policies don't arouse the ire of the state.
Without explicitness in the law, dang near anything can be called "discrimination".
Some things which have actually been prohibited at one time here for real estate licensees......
- Using discriminatory language in listings, eg, "family room", "great view", "walk in closet"
- Photocopying driver licenses (because then we'd have a record of the tenant's race)
In the last one, I copied them anyway because it was necessary to let staff verify that someone lacking ID is who they say they are.
This comes up when someone loses a wallet & keys, & needs access to the rental unit.

Anyway, fair housing lawsuits are dangerous things, & one can't always know what will trigger one.
Moverover, many tenants make a living suing their landlords with bogus suits, figuring they'll be paid to settle.
Been there & done that.
When the law isn't clear & well crafted, injustices are rampant.

Fair housing is a bit tricky, if one is going to be a landlord, best to be well versed in landlord-tenant law also one should have a lawyer help set up and advise. Many slum lords never set out to be such, but do to lack of proper financing and awareness they find themselves in just that situation. That people cry discrimination when none is to be found is very apparent in the housing world. I would expect any landlord to be aware of this when they get into the business and take necessary precautions.

But just as the story of the person complaining they were evicted because they were x--while failing to mention that they haven't paid rent in three months, have carpets covered in feces, throw late night parties that disturb other residents, and have been storing garbage in the walls because they are too lazy to take the trash into dumpsters that are provided for them--is common, so too is the landlord that doesn't want families, doesn't want minorities, and thinks that all tenants should be grateful for the substandard housing they get, and despite payment of rent feels that they own the place and should be able to dictate whatever rules they may without those damned government people getting involved.

The laws are there for good reason, if one wishes to make money off providing housing, then such a person should most definitely stay up to date on housing requirements.

But far too many think of housing as a passive investment: money comes without work, without maintenance, without regard to legalities, and without any planning.

 

[Katzpur]

No, it serves as a barometer of what kind of objections exist, and how many people may make them. After all, official stances help shape individual objections. It just isn't the end of the inquiry.

Then if there is a more current "official stance," then one that is more than 40 years old is worthless.

 

[Revoltingest]

Fair housing is a bit tricky, if one is going to be a landlord, best to be well versed in landlord-tenant law also one should have a lawyer help set up and advise. Many slum lords never set out to be such, but do to lack of proper financing and awareness they find themselves in just that situation. That people cry discrimination when none is to be found is very apparent in the housing world. I would expect any landlord to be aware of this when they get into the business and take necessary precautions.

Taking good precautions is certainly necessary, but that still leaves big risks in place.
Our legal system no sanctions against bringers of frivolous suits, capricious ignorant juries, & often conflicting & unclear laws.

But just as the story of the person complaining they were evicted because they were x--while failing to mention that they haven't paid rent in three months, have carpets covered in feces, throw late night parties that disturb other residents, and have been storing garbage in the walls because they are too lazy to take the trash into dumpsters that are provided for them--is common, so too is the landlord that doesn't want families, doesn't want minorities, and thinks that all tenants should be grateful for the substandard housing they get, and despite payment of rent feels that they own the place and should be able to dictate whatever rules they may without those damned government people getting involved.
The laws are there for good reason, if one wishes to make money off providing housing, then such a person should most definitely stay up to date on housing requirements.
But far too many think of housing as a passive investment: money comes without work, without maintenance, without regard to legalities, and without any planning.

One must not lump all landlords together, letting the bad apples justify injustices to the innocent ones.
The same is true of tenants.

 

[gsa]

Then if there is a more current "official stance," then one that is more than 40 years old is worthless.

Oh I don't know; it has been more than 120 years since the LDS officially rejected "plural marriage" and there are still plenty of Mormons (or Mormon fundamentalists as you prefer) who reject that "official stance" in favor of the old principle.

 

[Katzpur]

Oh I don't know; it has been more than 120 years since the LDS officially rejected "plural marriage" and there are still plenty of Mormons (or Mormon fundamentalists as you prefer) who reject that "official stance" in favor of the old principle.

Yeah, that's why they're not part of our Church at all. I wonder if 120 years after Martin Luther posted his 95 thesis, people were thinking of Lutherans as "Catholic fundamentalists" or if they had finally come to the realization that Lutherans were an entirely separate group. What do you think?

 

[MysticSang'ha]

Sometimes it's easier to find the dividing line than others. A baker can bake all kinds of cakes without ever writing anything on them. If I were a religious bigot bake shop owner, I'd be jumping at the chance to sell folks two sets of cake toppers and bags of icing and decorating tips, blissfully ignorant of what they intend to do with them. A florist can sell the crap out of flowers without ever needing to attend one of those nasty gay weddings.

When you're talking something like cosmetology, it's murkier to some. I don't know a lot of people who go to get their hair done, sit in the stylists chair, and say "my head is your canvas, create dahling. Create!" Nope, they say "no more than 1 inch off, please". There's arguably no artistic expression going on there. And therefore those folks ought not have the right to turn anyone away because something about the client is offensive to the stylist.

All true.

I know owners are told all the time how we have the right to refuse service. Yes, I do. If someone doesn't meet the dress code, they aren't allowed to come to class. If someone arrives too late to class, they aren't allowed to participate. We do have our standards of conduct that we all abide by, but those are for everyone regardless of age, ability, race, sex, religion, and orientation.

I just scratch my head at those who would want to refuse service because a client belongs to a religion they don't like, or are white supremacist, or who is gay, or who thinks stage dancing is the work of the devil. Haven't these business owners known what it's like to hustle when overhead is high in investments or expensive heating bills in February, and when revenue is low? I've known owners who want to target wealthy classes and all, but then shoot themselves in the foot when they pre-judge a client based on the shoes they're wearing and discovered that client was ready and willing to pay up front in cash for the length of a contract or for the large purchase product.

I mean, it's like everybody gets advice for parenting when they have a baby. You know, the debates on cloth diapers, or breastfeeding to weaning to bottle-feeding, or co-sleeping or letting baby cry it out....stuff like that? I think the debate on whether or not to refuse service based on religious convictions is about at the level of telling new parents how to raise a kid with "Okay, remember to feed the baby and don't let it starve...oh and whatever you do, don't drop-kick the baby in the head."

It's like such remedial advice to not discriminate your patrons as a business owner.

 

[gsa]

Yeah, that's why they're not part of our Church at all. I wonder if 120 years after Martin Luther posted his 95 thesis, people were thinking of Lutherans as "Catholic fundamentalists" or if they had finally come to the realization that Lutherans were an entirely separate group. What do you think?

I don't know, but it does seem strange that the LDS church wants to deprive Mormon fundamentalists of the term "Mormon" while insisting that their version of religion be deemed "Christian." Back to the topic at hand: Certain churches have teachings and practices, whether official or at the popular level that give us some indication of what kind of exemptions we are likely to encounter, as a practical matter.

 

[Curious George]

Taking good precautions is certainly necessary, but that still leaves big risks in place.
Our legal system no sanctions against bringers of frivolous suits, capricious ignorant juries, & often conflicting & unclear laws.

One must not lump all landlords together, letting the bad apples justify injustices to the innocent ones.
The same is true of tenants.

No, I certainly would not lump all landlords together, but the extra risks you talk of are justified.

I understand as a businessman you would love to lower risk and increase return. Would that we can all do such. But our personal interest of lowering risk and increasing investment is trumped by national and state concerns of health and safety, and also balanced against tenants rights. I am not going to pretend that even if you crossed you "t"s and dotted your......lower case "j"s that everything will be hunky-dorey. There is risk in business. And when one decides to take on a business they also take on that risk. You think you got it bad, try starting an insurance, oil, or tobacco company. I don't know that there is a more vilified group in civil law. Bottom line the liability comes with the territory. It is absolutely necessary to have this liability, we have seen what happens without it. And, if you did go up against a tenant and lose, it is possible that you were in the right, however, it is also possible you screwed up.