Silly religious businesses opening legal issues due to faith

[tincanjam]

I know that they are legally allowed to discriminate against the shop owners. I am not at all discussing the current legality of the discrimination. You still have not told me why they should be allowed to commit this type of discrimination. If it is wrong to discriminate against people with regards to how they want to live or what they want to believe then the government should not be involved in either.
The clients want to see the shop owners punished for holding onto particular beliefs and convictions. The client is actually committing a form of discrimination that is more extreme than the one they endured. The shop holders were withholding an insignificant service while the clients are actively punishing and bullying the shop owners. They would have only had to go to a different flower shop; the shop owner is being sued for 2000 dollars. This is also making them a target of anyone else who would want to discriminate against them in this way. The shop owners could of course retreat to hiding their beliefs in the closet so to speak. Those who were recently asking for tolerance are now being intolerant. I find the hypocrisy of the whole situation to be very disturbing.

[fluffy]

I see your point but can't agree with it in this situation. I don't see the client's action as discriminatory at all, they are responding to being refused a service openly offered to the public but denied to them on the basis of their sexual orientation, an action clearly prohibited by the laws the store is subject to. In a legal sense the store doesn't have much of a case to support their actions. On moral grounds, does any religion have the right to allow their beliefs to restrict the choices of those outside their membership? Should my religious beliefs be allowed to affect the choices you make for your life? What happened to "live and let live"?

[cutter7]

I can understand the business owners point. she has no problem dealing with a gay person , she simply does not support gay events due to her religion.

It will be interesting how the courts rule on this... freedom of religion vs gay rights

[fluffy]

It will be interesting how the courts rule on this... freedom of religion vs gay rights

Yes, this will be worth following. It's going to be a matter of where the line gets drawn when you have a conflict between individual rights. I wonder if the fact that the store owner willingly did business with the customer previously will have any bearing?

[tincanjam]

… and I’m saying two wrongs don’t make a right. I am not arguing that what the store owner did was justified. Let’s consider each of the principles you expressed.
.”On moral grounds, does any religion have the right to allow their beliefs to restrict the choices of those outside their membership?”
I agree, morally the store should not have restricted the clients. What I am saying is this also applies to the clients they also should not force their beliefs upon the store owners.
“Should my religious beliefs be allowed to affect the choices you make for your life? What happened to "live and let live"?”
I agree with the principle, I simply don’t agree with the double standard. You are arbitrarily only applying it to one group while withholding it from another. The clients should also be expected to live and let live.
Make your case, be as persuasive as you can possibly be, but don’t say discrimination is wrong therefore you now have an excuse for discrimination. Dialogue is a positive response; counter discrimination is a hypocritical and negative response. I know you would like to use the law to force everyone to act in accordance with your beliefs but I would say, as much as possible, let’s discuss things and allow for disagreements. I am just hoping for a more tolerant society.

[cutter7]

I don't think the store owner is discriminating against the customer at all. She deals with the customer on a 1 on 1 basis and has done so for years.

This is not hate a person because they are gay, It's simply not supporting a gay event because her religion is against it.

Forcing a religious person to overlook their beliefs to support yours is just as wrong.

Surely there must be another flower store that supports gays and is willing to take their business.

[Bsuds]

I don't think they were asking for support, they just wanted to buy flowers. What's next? When your in business you won't last long if you pick and choose your customers.

[cutter7]

I don't think they were asking for support, they just wanted to buy flowers. What's next? When your in business you won't last long if you pick and choose your customers.

Its a gay event. she considers selling flowers to an event that goes against her beliefs wrong. pretty simple.

yes she will lose customers, there is no doubt about that.

[fluffy]

@tincanjam
I think the source of our difference is that I can't see the lawsuit as discrimination. It is a response to the (illegal) act of refusing service based on sexual orientation, not an attack on the religious beliefs of the store owners. That's an important distinction.

[tincanjam]

@fluffy
Yes, I think we are at an impasse but I appreciate the dialogue, and that you have taken the time to understand what I am trying to say. Please understand that while I feel fairly safe discussing this, I am someone who worries that someday the thought police will come after me for something. I tend to think outside the bounds of what I would call popular opinion. It is a little scary knowing that I live in a society where the people in power seem to be growing in their insistence that everyone complies with every aspect of their beliefs.

[fluffy]

Hehe, I tell ya, there are days when it feels like "popular opinion" is dictated by power-mongers and/or drama magnets. It's good to live in a country where we all have a voice, but there is wisdom in knowing when to keep it toned down. There most certainly are people out there who see the opinions of others as ammunition to be used against them.

[sooperphreek]

sounds like a salem witch hunt gayboy style. and the townspeeople are getting caught up in the hysteria of a mob mentality yet again. gotta love human nature.

[Sneaksuit]

It's political ideology vs religious ideology - both belief systems and both discriminate. The difference being ofcourse, that unlike the church, most of us assume the state's legitimacy and unquestioningly submit to state law because, generally speaking, people almost always believe the worldview they have adopted from their immediate environment as more or less correct, and so give the state real power to punish. However, because the state is less bound by myth and tradition, it must conform, to a certain extent, to the wants of the general populous, and therefore evolves much quicker than religious belief.

The state discriminates against many people including murderers, rapists, and child molesters, which most people support, but state law also catalyzes social evolution in areas of justice, such as the relatively recent changes in women's/civil rights and replacement of chattel slavery with economic slavery.

Tincanjam, is there a way to stop what the majority of people believe is injustice without discrimination?

[tincanjam]

You have made a good point sneak, one I was hoping no one would bring up lol. I think that the problem I am addressing has developed because we have added a new principle by which we are judging people. Murder, rape and so forth are actual acts that inflict harm on other people. The penalties that societies have imposed are based on the idea of punishing (discriminating against) people who commit these harmful acts. This makes sense to me; however we have now introduced a new principle by which we are judging people. Now discrimination itself is considered a crime and this leads to the inconsistencies that I was trying to expose. We are also dealing with omissions rather than commissions. There are omissions and acts of discrimination that actually cause harm but in this case nothing significant occurred. I wish I could say that I completely know what the solution is. It is a bit confusing but it has something to do with keeping the deciding principle revolving around harmful acts rather than the deciding principle revolving around discriminatory acts.

[fluffy]

The wider implications of this little case are nothing short of game changing. The moral fight going on here in essence, is religious freedom vs. gay rights, at least that's the way it will play out in the media. The legal fight as it sits now is does the store owner's right to religious freedom trump the consumer protection laws in place to prevent denial of service on the basis of sexual orientation. There's not really much at stake here other than the First Amendment to the Constitution. I wonder how much attention this case will attract if it ever gets to court?