Freedom of Religion in Business Anonymous 04/01/15 (Wed) 02:17:12 62f47c No. 5967
Ok /atheism/, lets have a discussion about religious freedom in business. Of course this relates primarily to the recent controversies where you have people being prosecuted for not baking wedding cakes for gay people etc. As a former Christian I want to point out a misunderstanding that I hear a lot of atheists voice when this kind of issue comes up.
Anonymous 04/01/15 (Wed) 02:49:43 bb1770 No. 5973
Fifty years ago a racist motel owner refused to let some traveling blacks stay at his hotel. His argument was that the motel was "of a purely local character," (meaning the interstate commerce clause shouldn't apply), and that it was his right. The supreme court struck it down using the interstate commerce clause anyway, broadening the power of the federal government while effectively preventing businesses from discriminating for such petty things. I see any challenge going the same direction, especially since the Supreme Court is pro-gay at the moment.
Anonymous 04/01/15 (Wed) 02:57:08 62f47c No. 5974
>>5973 You make a compelling point about people who are actually discriminatory to gays and how it could get way out of hand but I think you need to consider the other things I mentioned. Does a Muslim printer have the right to refuse to print Charlie Hebdo or Christian gospel tracts? If so why shouldn't Christians be able to deny selling cakes to support a homosexual marriage? If you think the business should be forced to serve in both cases then why?
Anonymous 04/01/15 (Wed) 02:59:43 6a85ac No. 5975
>>5967 Your property is not yours if you can't refuse to sell it. If some people want to be stupid and not sell wedding cakes to gays, let them. It's their cake that they made and we don't stop them from being stupid in other respects. Let the couple look for a cake somewhere else and anyone who doesn't refuse them will have an economic advantage over the christards because they'll have a wider market for their goods.
Anonymous 04/01/15 (Wed) 03:02:06 62f47c No. 5976
>>5975 This is my opinion exactly. Just more condensed.
Anonymous 04/01/15 (Wed) 03:25:29 6f05b1 No. 5979
I think that if a business owner does not want to do business with certain people, it's his right to do so. I would not like being told what to do with my business and I'm sure other people also don't like being told what to do with their products/business.
Anonymous 04/01/15 (Wed) 15:44:41 bb1770 No. 5991
Religion shouldn't give you the right to mistreat people. This is like being in Japan and being unable to find an apartment as a foreigner because they refuse to let one rent. There was no legitimate business interest for a law to protect their "religious freedom" to be intolerant.
For instance, 'The Federal Civil Rights Act guarantees all people the right to "full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." '
>>5974 Now about your example. A muslim probably could get away with refusing service already as long as he made up a different reason. Using the Muslim minority is still a horrible example since the Christian can easily find someone else to print it so let's change that. If a Christian can to the face of a Muslim he's going to refuse printing his gospels because condoning false Gods is against his religion, and every other Christian in a majority country does that, it creates a very hostile environment where the Muslim has to knock on countless doors for every single little thing he wants to do. The new law basically allows you to refuse to serve someone because you don't like their face, even if you have no legitimate business interest to refuse service (like the person is being a jerk and upsetting customers.). It has far too much potential for abuse in the hands of prejudiced Southerners, and at this point your right to be an asshole and a bigot should not outweigh the right of someone to be free from a culture of oppression by bigots.
We have laws to prevent certain low class people from becoming assholes. These people should automatically put their feelings aside and treat people with equality, even according to parts of their book, and ideally there shouldn't be a need for laws to protect the minority. But the majority always tends to supress the rights of the minority, moreso than the other way around. That's why the law says you have to have a legitimate business interest in refusing service.
I'm waiting for the major textbook publishers in Indiana that are run by fundies to refuse to print things that take evolution as fact.
Anonymous 04/01/15 (Wed) 16:52:08 23e299 No. 5992
http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2015/04/backlash-is-swift-and-furious-after-indiana-pizza-restaurant-owner-brags-about-no-gays-policy/ Imagine if restaurants refused to serve you, and not just for wedding catering. This pizza owner bragged he would refuse to cater at gay weddings or non christian ones.
Anonymous 04/02/15 (Thu) 00:49:03 132abf No. 6019
>>5992 To play devil's advocate, I would simply say go to a different pizza place.
It's his business; he has the right to lose money. I don't see any indication that every pizza place or every restaurant will take advantage of the law.
Anonymous 04/02/15 (Thu) 02:23:51 bb1770 No. 6021
>>6019 But the cost will go up for those that have to pay more to find a pizza place that will serve them. It's a case of supply and demand, and gays will be forced to pay more for some things because there will be fewer people who will serve them. Those that do will discover they can charge more. That's not fair for the consumer.
Anonymous 04/02/15 (Thu) 04:09:38 bb1770 No. 6022
Southerners still haven't accepted that the principle of "separate but equal" creates inequality and doesn't work.
Anonymous 04/03/15 (Fri) 15:58:31 028f2e No. 6057
>>6022 Which is why men's restrooms and women's restrooms must be abolished. It is impossible to have separate facilities providing an equivalent standard of service.
Anonymous 04/03/15 (Fri) 16:07:18 bb1770 No. 6058
>>6057 Women are numerous and are not really discriminated against. Many are white and have influence, and won't let you trample on their rights to better service. Blacks and gays were marginalized with few allies to speak up for them in these Southern states.
Anonymous 04/03/15 (Fri) 16:08:47 9b50f9 No. 6059
>>5967 You could open an halal butcher shop, but you still couldn't refuse to sell hamburger to non-Muslims. A Christian bakery doesn't have to sell cakes with penises drawn on them, but they shouldn't be allowed to refuse to sell a reasonable cake to gay people. More importantly, the inane scripture of a religion do not determine if they get to discriminate, because it could be any number of nutty things (and Christianity is quite nutty!)
Anonymous 04/03/15 (Fri) 16:14:24 028f2e No. 6060
>>6058 >Women are numerous and are not really discriminated against So you're saying that "separate =/= equal" is not an absolute constant, and that blanketly sneering at an entire regional folk about "not accepting the principle" is
ad hominem bullshit?
Anonymous 04/09/15 (Thu) 00:41:54 28db2e No. 6361
>>5974 Yes, they have the right to refuse service. And as such, someone else will supply that service and destroy their business that they refuse to perform.
This is a good thing. If christfags want to refuse business, let them go out of business. To me, money is money. I would never discriminate on any basis, as long as I get my payment.
Anonymous 04/09/15 (Thu) 04:01:47 8a4d66 No. 6364
>>6058 So the solution is to get alongside the marginalised people and advocate for/support them. Not force racist pricks to sell shit to nig nogs.
Even though what racists do is disgusting its worth letting them decide who to sell to for the purpose of protecting private business and freedom of association.
Start social campaigns to boycott these places, engage and reason with racist business owners and direct marginalised people to more accepting places. Take back SOCIETIES responsibility for looking after other members instead of running to big daddy government every time you get pushed on the swings.
Anonymous 04/09/15 (Thu) 17:49:51 28db2e No. 6373
>>6364 That is a good point. let the free market decide.
Anonymous 04/10/15 (Fri) 00:55:33 2132ec No. 6396
>>6373 Do you think it's right for gays to pay more for a marriag ceremony simply because they're born gay in the south?
Anonymous 04/10/15 (Fri) 01:16:12 28db2e No. 6397
>>6396 It doesn't matter what I think is right or wrong. if the gay community is so bothered by this. They can easily band together to start a gay wedding business and change the market forever.
Again. let the free market decide. the free market isn't only comprised of christfags.
Anonymous 04/10/15 (Fri) 10:00:26 cca0b4 No. 6427
This is going to be an interesting legal argument.
Anonymous 04/10/15 (Fri) 10:07:55 cca0b4 No. 6428
>>6373 The free market might not provide a moral result.. Go visit /pol/. There are apparently a lot of people who would go out of their way to support a "Whites Only" business.
Anonymous 04/10/15 (Fri) 18:31:33 056c22 No. 6447
>>6373 >the free market >deciding lol
Anonymous 04/10/15 (Fri) 19:42:05 28db2e No. 6448
>>6428 And then Blacks will get angry and start their own blacks only business and make profit. How is this a problem? People are still going to get the business.
>>6447 It does.
Anonymous 04/14/15 (Tue) 11:45:02 2fd620 No. 6730
>>6428 I'd rather they be able to run their whites only business and be subject to public criticism. Then I wouldn't accidentally support a closet racist because he is forced to sell to people he hates.
Anonymous 04/14/15 (Tue) 13:40:02 bb1770 No. 6742
>>6448 It's nice living in a state where the law isn't trying to hold down blacks or gays, or keep either in a cycle of poverty. You should move to a city out west to learn better laws.
Anonymous 04/15/15 (Wed) 08:18:34 52d5fd No. 6792
>>6448 >>6428 Would be an interesting social experiment to see this happen in a state. I wonder if it would rekindle old racism, or maybe even help create it. I could see a company by black people only serving black people, not out of racism but as a "how does it make you feel" kind of retaliation and white people re-retaliate, leading to pointless, infinite retaliations and younger generations learn to be racist and segregated with a pent up hatred they don't know why they have but learned from their parents.
Anonymous 04/15/15 (Wed) 19:31:12 d07906 No. 6800
I'm fucking far from a free market Libertarian, but it seems to me like not selling cakes to gay couples is a problem the free market could easily fix. Just go buy cakes from a company that will sell them to gay couples. If one doesn't exist, demand should prompt one to take up business, but it's hard to imagine that no cake shops would sell a cake to some gays. The ones that sell cakes to gays will do better because they get more business from gays and from people who hear about the other cake shops and avoid the bigots. I don't see why the law needs to get involved in this. It's not like gays are ubiquitously disallowed from eating in the same section in restaurants or something.
Anonymous 04/15/15 (Wed) 19:57:50 bb1770 No. 6803
>>6800 Because gays are a minority. You don't seriously think gays alone have the power to significantly impact the way businesses behave? Their numbers are much smaller than blacks in the Southern states. You need a larger group of people to support their rights, particularly in that state, but we are talking about mustering support in the Bible Belt.
It'd be like being refused service because you' were a Jew. What are you gonna do? Pull out a phonebook and search until you find a business with a Jewish name and drive fifty or a hundred miles to find a photographer? Then drive fifty miles the other way to find a Jew who is willing to bake a cake for a fellow Jesus killer? The law is terrible on it's face.
Anonymous 04/15/15 (Wed) 22:03:42 d07906 No. 6808
>>6803 You make good points. I was forgetting how small the gay population is in that region.
Anonymous 04/15/15 (Wed) 22:51:46 cac3dd No. 6816
>>6803 In the absolute worst case scenario, you could just
not get a cake. Maybe even make your own? Unthinkable I know, but its better than putting a gun to someone's head for not making one for you.
Anonymous 04/16/15 (Thu) 00:06:42 252e39 No. 6818
Better for who? The minority or the majority? It is a cake and how many gays are you likely to encounter? Laws should exist to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority. When you weigh the cost to each party, the benefit to the minority of equal protection should clearly outweigh the benefit to the majority of the right to outright prejudice here. I would also rather that a minority has the right to piss of the majority than be forced to conform for nonsensical reasons. It makes for a more diverse society. Libertarianism is an ideal, not an absolute right.
Anonymous 04/16/15 (Thu) 00:18:07 252e39 No. 6819
>>6818 I should have said liberty is an ideal we balance against other interests, not libertarianism.
This case seems to be a case of balancing the rights of a minority vs the rights of a majority. Ideally everyone would talk, learn to understand eachieve other, and form a consensus but that will not happen. The courts will have to drag the south kicking and screaming to do what more educated judges decide is the best way to run a country.
Anonymous 05/24/15 (Sun) 07:29:32 3ef134 No. 7995
>>5975
When it comes to emergency services, refusing treatment for any stupid religious reason is wrong too.
At least we don't have to worry about this with the jews. I always know my money is good there.