Freedom from Discrimination versus Freedom of Religion

[lilithu]

The lawsuits have resulted from states and communities that have banned discrimination based on sexual orientation. Those laws have created a clash between the right to be free from discrimination and the right to freedom of religion, religious groups said, with faith losing. They point to what they say are ominous recent examples:

• A Christian photographer was forced by the New Mexico Civil Rights Commission to pay $6,637 in attorney's costs after she refused to photograph a gay couple's commitment ceremony.
• A psychologist in Georgia was fired after she declined for religious reasons to counsel a lesbian about her relationship.
• Christian fertility doctors in California who refused to artificially inseminate a lesbian patient were barred by the state Supreme Court from invoking their religious beliefs in refusing treatment.
• A Christian student group was not recognized at a University of California law school because it denies membership to anyone practicing sex outside of traditional marriage.

Faith groups losing gay rights fights - Washington Post- msnbc.com

Frankly, I'm a bit disturbed by this. So... we're saying that you can practice your (admittedly discriminatory) religion inside the church. The church won't be forced to perform same-sex marriages if it doesn't want to. But outside, in the everyday world in which we live....

I mean, for certain things like housing, food, emergency assistance and medical care there should be no room for discrimination whatsoever. No one should ever have to wonder whether the firemen will decline to help them when their house is on fire.

But a wedding photographer? Couldn't the couple have just found a different one? Why would you want a person who thinks you're a sinner photographing your wedding anyway? The same with the counselor.

Otoh, I was against letting pharmacists refuse to hand out the morning after pill based on their religious beliefs. My reasoning was that it would add significant hardship to those seeking the pill. And who cares if the pharmacist handing you the prescription disapproves or not?

Are these similar situations? Are they different?

 

[Storm]

I don't think we have enough information, and tbh I'm wary of fear-mongering. To use the example of the wedding photographer, did she accept then breach a contract? If so, she should pay.

 

[Smoke]

The lawsuits have resulted from states and communities that have banned discrimination based on sexual orientation. Those laws have created a clash between the right to be free from discrimination and the right to freedom of religion, religious groups said, with faith losing.

Yeah, sorry. If your faith tells you that you can't be gay, nobody is interfering with that. If your faith tells you that you have to discriminate against gay people, then your faith is losing. I couldn't care less. Faith is not an adequate excuse for every kind of bad behavior.

Frankly, I'm a bit disturbed by this. So... we're saying that you can practice your (admittedly discriminatory) religion inside the church. The church won't be forced to perform same-sex marriages if it doesn't want to. But outside, in the everyday world in which we live....

I mean, for certain things like housing, food, emergency assistance and medical care there should be no room for discrimination whatsoever. No one should ever have to wonder whether the firemen will decline to help them when their house is on fire.

But a wedding photographer? Couldn't the couple have just found a different one? Why would you want a person who thinks you're a sinner photographing your wedding anyway? The same with the counselor.

Oh, I agree about hiring that photographer; there's no way I would have done business with her. And I wouldn't have wanted that counselor, either. But couldn't African-Americans have just found different lunch counters to eat at? Couldn't a white student who wanted to date a black student have just dropped out of Bob Jones University? Racism was part of people's faith, too. Preachers railed against equal treatment for African-Americans just as they do against equal treatment for gay people. Do you think it's wrong for the government to say you can't enforce segregation if you're serving the public or receiving a tax exemption? If I operate a restaurant, should I be allowed to refuse to serve African-Americans? If I'm a fertility specialist, should I be allowed to refuse to treat a patient because I disapprove of her interracial marriage? If I'm a counselor who feels that my religious convictions prohibit me from counseling a person who is in an interracial relationship, do I still have a right to my job?

Otoh, I was against letting pharmacists refuse to hand out the morning after pill based on their religious beliefs. My reasoning was that it would add significant hardship to those seeking the pill. And who cares if the pharmacist handing you the prescription disapproves or not?

Are these similar situations? Are they different?

They're different only in that the pharmacist is discriminating against straight people who use contraception, while the others are discriminating against gay people.

Frankly, if religious convictions have such weight, you ought to sympathize more with the pharmacist, since -- by providing contraceptives -- she's actually facilitating the behavior her religion forbids. The photographer is doing no such thing. She just chooses not to do business with those people.

 

[Autodidact]

Here's some info on the New Mexico incident:

Willock, in the midst of planning her wedding to her girlfriend, sent the photography company an e-mail request to shoot the commitment ceremony. Elaine Huguenin, who owns the company with her husband, replied: "We do not photograph same-sex weddings. But thanks for checking out our site! Have a great day!"

(NPR)

I think they present interesting conflicts in the public sphere. Here's a comparison that may help. If you belong to the Church of Jesus Christ, Christian, and your religious beliefs include that Jews are evil, and you own a barbershop in Idaho, should you be permitted to discriminate against Jewish customers?

If your church rents out a building to anyone who wants to use it for parties, Bar Mitzvahs and weddings, and an interracial couple wants to rent it to get married, should you be able to bar them from renting it, because you don't believe in interracial marriage?

If you're a devout Christian who actually follows the Bible and therefore opposes divorce, and you're say a fertility doctor, should you be able to refuse medical treatment to women who are divorced and remarried?

It does seem like the core idea of these cases is that if you enter the public sphere, you have to abide by anti-discrimination laws, regardless of your personal religious beliefs.

 

[Father Heathen]

If you think homosexuality is a wrong, then don't have sex with someone of the same gender. If you think gay marriage is wrong, then don't marry someone of the same gender. People need to learn to worry about their own damn selves and not try to impose their personal beliefs upon others. I don't agree with Christianity, but I would still serve Christian customers. I guess that makes me the better person.

 

[Storm]

Here's some info on the New Mexico incident:
Willock, in the midst of planning her wedding to her girlfriend, sent the photography company an e-mail request to shoot the commitment ceremony. Elaine Huguenin, who owns the company with her husband, replied: "We do not photograph same-sex weddings. But thanks for checking out our site! Have a great day!"
(NPR)

Ah, thanks. Well, then, I have to say I'm not sure how I feel about that.

I think they present interesting conflicts in the public sphere. Here's a comparison that may help. If you belong to the Church of Jesus Christ, Christian, and your religious beliefs include that Jews are evil, and you own a barbershop in Idaho, should you be permitted to discriminate against Jewish customers?

If your church rents out a building to anyone who wants to use it for parties, Bar Mitzvahs and weddings, and an interracial couple wants to rent it to get married, should you be able to bar them from renting it, because you don't believe in interracial marriage?

If you're a devout Christian who actually follows the Bible and therefore opposes divorce, and you're say a fertility doctor, should you be able to refuse medical treatment to women who are divorced and remarried?

It does seem like the core idea of these cases is that if you enter the public sphere, you have to abide by anti-discrimination laws, regardless of your personal religious beliefs.

I can see both sides of the issue. I guess the question for me is, are lawsuits really how we want to go about gaining acceptance? I think they make us look petty, which isn't helpful, yet I can't think of a better way, either.

 

[Smoke]

I don't agree with Christianity, but I would still serve Christian customers. I guess that makes me the better person.

Yes, it does. That hurdle wasn't really very high, though.

At my job, we often get clients who say, "I want a white girl to do my hair" or "I want a black girl to do my hair." When I say often, I mean it happens at least once just about every day. As the supervisor, I say, "I'm sorry, but we don't assign stylists on that basis." if you don't like the race of the stylist you get, too bad. Sometimes the client will try to face you down, but I don't argue, I don't get mad, and I don't give in. We are not going to treat our students differently based on race just because a client thinks we should, and it's not open for discussion.

One lady did earn my respect. She was very persistent, and went to great lengths to try to convince me she wasn't a racist. I told her I was sure she wasn't, but whether she was a racist or not had no bearing on our policies. Then I turned away and went about my business. A few minutes later, she asked, "So, what are we going to do?"

I said, "If you want your hair done here, that's the girl who's going to do it. If you don't want her to do your hair, you're going to have to go somewhere else."

So she took the stylist I gave her, but she was mad about it. After she got her hair done, she came up to me and said, "I'm a big enough person to admit when I'm wrong, and I was wrong. You were right. She did a beautiful job."

I really did appreciate her saying so.

I do sympathize with the woman who was the supervisor when I first started working there, though. A client would say, "I want a [fill in the blank] girl to do my hair," and she'd say, "Get the hell out."

The client would say, "What?"

"You heard me," she'd say. "Get the hell out of this school." She meant it, too.

Her way was easier and more fun, but I think my way is better.

 

[Storm]

Just curious, when someone requests a stylist based on race, do you deliberately give them another? (I would.)

 

[Smoke]

Just curious, when someone requests a stylist based on race, do you deliberately give them another? (I would.)

No, I don't. I give them the stylist I would have given them otherwise. However, I had a receptionist once who did, and the receptionist is often the one who makes the assignments. If they asked for a black girl, they were certain to get a white girl, and vice versa. To me, that's also treating the students differently based on race, even if it does make a point.

 

[Storm]

Yeah, I see your point.

 

[Trey of Diamonds]

When it comes to businesses it gets really fuzzy. If you were to walk into a Barnes and Nobel and asked for a book on Islam and they said, “I’m a Christian and I refuse to carry non-Christian books in my store”, it would be wrong and they should have their butts sued off.

But on the other hand, if you walk into a Christian book store and ask for the same book on Islam and they say “Sorry but we are a Christian book store and only carry books pertaining to Christianity”, you can’t complain. I support a businesses right to specialize.

In the case of the photographer, if the business was advertised as a Christian wedding service that only catered to weddings that met a certain criteria and those criteria were made known up front, well then I would support that. They have the right to specialize. But you can’t accept a contract and then decide at the last minute that the client isn’t to your liking which is what it sounds like in the OP.

 

[lilithu]

Racism was part of people's faith, too. Preachers railed against equal treatment for African-Americans just as they do against equal treatment for gay people. Do you think it's wrong for the government to say you can't enforce segregation if you're serving the public or receiving a tax exemption?

I agree with the policy about prohibiting discrimination if you're serving the public or receiving a tax exemption. But that's not what's happening here, as far as I can tell. If you asked me if a private photographer who's religion prohibits inter-racial marriage should be forced to photograph inter-racial couples, I would say no. If you asked me whether a private therapist who's who's religion teaches white racial supremacy should be forced to counsel a person of color, I would say no. If you asked me whether a private fertility doctor who's who's religion teaches white racial supremacy should be forced to provide fertility treatments to a person of color, I would say no. The fourth case is more iffy because that's a public school.

If I operate a restaurant, should I be allowed to refuse to serve African-Americans? If I'm a fertility specialist, should I be allowed to refuse to treat a patient because I disapprove of her interracial marriage? If I'm a counselor who feels that my religious convictions prohibit me from counseling a person who is in an interracial relationship, do I still have a right to my job?

In my opinion, yes to all three questions, as long as you are in private practice. If it's your own private business, and you are not providing an essential service like housing, food, and/or medical and emergency care, you should be legally allowed to practice your religious values. Of course, other people are legally allowed to boycott your establishment.

Frankly, I am disappointed that you seem to be assuming that I hadn't already considered the racial analogies before posting the thread.

They're different only in that the pharmacist is discriminating against straight people who use contraception, while the others are discriminating against gay people.

Yeah, I knew that would be your response MB. That, and the not caring about these people's religious freedoms. Understandable. But from my point of view, I care about both.

 

[lilithu]

It does seem like the core idea of these cases is that if you enter the public sphere, you have to abide by anti-discrimination laws, regardless of your personal religious beliefs.

I think we all are in agreement on that. The real question is where the "public sphere" begins.

This is the conversation that I wanted to have, so thanks.

 

[lilithu]

People need to learn to worry about their own damn selves and not try to impose their personal beliefs upon others.

If you believe that everyone should be treated equally and you force someone to treat group X the same as they would treat group Y even tho they themselves do not believe they are the same, aren't you imposing your personal beliefs upon that person?

I believe that the principles espoused by the Klan, the Westboro Baptist Church, and neo-Nazis are repugnant. But, like the ACLU, I support their right to freedom of expression. They have the legal right to hold their rallies, even tho those rallies are going to be hurtful to a lot of people. (And people, of course, have the right to counter-demonstrate. Or better yet, laugh at them.) So then, if someone is against same-sex couples, why do they not have the right to refuse to do business with them? We're not talking about Christians trying to prevent the legalization of same-sex marriages here (tho they may do that in a different context). We're talking about people who are running their own private practice and want to choose their clients based on their (admittedly archaic) values.

 

[lilithu]

At my job, we often get clients who say, "I want a white girl to do my hair" or "I want a black girl to do my hair." When I say often, I mean it happens at least once just about every day. As the supervisor, I say, "I'm sorry, but we don't assign stylists on that basis." if you don't like the race of the stylist you get, too bad. Sometimes the client will try to face you down, but I don't argue, I don't get mad, and I don't give in. We are not going to treat our students differently based on race just because a client thinks we should, and it's not open for discussion.

I could totally see someone making that request for non-racist reasons. I know black women who complain that white stylists do not know how to handle black hair. And I recently had a black stylist who said that she was unaccustomed to Asian hair because it was so straight.

(I was unconcerned, however, because 1) I don't really care that much about how haircuts turn out so as long as you don't leave gaping bald spots; and 2) I get my haircut at a school, so there is an instructor there to oversee the student, and one of the things they are learning there is how to handle different textures of hair.)

I agree with your not giving in (assuming that you are confident that all your stylists know how to handle different textures of hair), but I see no reason to get mad about the request. It isn't automatically racist to recognize that there are differences.

 

[Seven]

Freedom from Discrimination versus Freedom of Religion

It's a tricky situation alright. They inevitably seem to clash, so one's gotta give. In situations like this I prefer the path that minimizes the suffering of all involved. For this reason I think freedom from discrimination trumps freedom of religion.

 

[lilithu]

It's a tricky situation alright. They inevitably seem to clash, so one's gotta give. In situations like this I prefer the path that minimizes the suffering of all involved.

As do I.

For this reason I think freedom from discrimination trumps freedom of religion.

How so? Take the example of the conservative Christian photographer and the lesbian couple. The photographer says, "We don't work with same-sex couples." Obviously the couple has been discriminated against. Obviously, that would hurt. But they could find another photographer. Now, in steps the law and says to the photographer "You have to work with same-sex couples even tho you think it's a sin." That puts the photographer in the position where she has to interact with this couple even tho she believes that doing so is enabling sinful behavior. And she has no choice in the matter. Is it that you don't think that there is suffering there? Or that her suffering is less than theirs? In either case, why do you think that?

 

[Autodidact]

I think we all are in agreement on that. The real question is where the "public sphere" begins.

This is the conversation that I wanted to have, so thanks.

For most laws, the public sphere includes any business that serves the public. What is excluded are private clubs and churches. Under your scenario above, you would have been against the anti-discrimination laws that outlawed segregation in restaurants, hotels and bars in the south.

 

[Autodidact]

If you believe that everyone should be treated equally and you force someone to treat group X the same as they would treat group Y even tho they themselves do not believe they are the same, aren't you imposing your personal beliefs upon that person?

I believe that the principles espoused by the Klan, the Westboro Baptist Church, and neo-Nazis are repugnant. But, like the ACLU, I support their right to freedom of expression. They have the legal right to hold their rallies, even tho those rallies are going to be hurtful to a lot of people. (And people, of course, have the right to counter-demonstrate. Or better yet, laugh at them.) So then, if someone is against same-sex couples, why do they not have the right to refuse to do business with them? We're not talking about Christians trying to prevent the legalization of same-sex marriages here (tho they may do that in a different context). We're talking about people who are running their own private practice and want to choose their clients based on their (admittedly archaic) values.

You're advocating a pretty radical change in our laws. Under your proposal, doctors would be allowed not to treat Black patients. This is illegal right now. Why does your objection wait until Gay people are protected? It seems like you should have been speaking out against Civil Rights laws for 50 years now.

 

[Seven]

As do I.


How so? Take the example of the conservative Christian photographer and the lesbian couple. The photographer says, "We don't work with same-sex couples." Obviously the couple has been discriminated against. Obviously, that would hurt. But they could find another photographer. Now, in steps the law and says to the photographer "You have to work with same-sex couples even tho you think it's a sin." That puts the photographer in the position where she has to interact with this couple even tho she believes that doing so is enabling sinful behavior. And she has no choice in the matter. Is it that you don't think that there is suffering there? Or that her suffering is less than theirs? In either case, why do you think that?

I understand the suffering experienced by the religious side, I've experienced myself, coming from an extremely religious background.

But the fact of the matter is, people aren't born religious. If you choose a faith and choose to raise your children accordingly, then you have to accept the consequences. If your faith prevents you from showing tolerance, then your going to have a hard time in modern society, and that's just the way it is.

The gay person, on the other hand, has about as much control over their orientation as a black person has over their skin color.