Private Businesses owners should be allowed to refuse service for religious reasons.

Image

The Arizona bill is a hot topic (duh). This might bring out some heat against me. So be it. It’s not like that’s ever stopped me before

I support the idea that private business owners should be allowed to refuse to personally participate in a gay wedding if it violates his/her religious scruples.

Private business owners who’ve been involved in this kind of controversy before have refused specifically because it has to do with a gay wedding, not because they hate gay people (as some people have insinuated or have been led to believe).

Do you really think that someone would refuse to serve someone simply because he/she was gay? Even if someone truly was hateful, it is incredibly doubtful he/she would pass up the chance for business with someone. Money is money, no matter who spends it.

People should not be expected to drop their personal ethics at the door of their place of employment. The First Amendment was passed precisely to keep us free from that kind of unconscionable request.

I can’t force a Jewish deli to provide me with non kosher meat. I can’t force a gay sign company to print me “Homosexual sex is a sin” banners (I’d probably be sued just for making the request). I can’t force a Muslim caterer to serve pork. I can’t force a pro-choice business to buy ad space on my website. I can’t force a Baptist sculptor to carve me a statue of the Virgin Mary (source).”

Private business owners should be allowed to deny service if they desire. If you do not agree that someone should deny service to gay people, let the market forces work against him/her. Suggesting that government should mandate a person to provide service for something to which he/she is ethically opposed is tyranny, even if you believe it is benevolent.

Advertisements

6 Comments

Filed under Uncategorized

6 responses to “Private Businesses owners should be allowed to refuse service for religious reasons.

  1. The thing is, it doesn’t violate religious principles. The cake maker does not “participate” in a gay wedding, or even the celebration of it.

    Why do you give all your power to the mythical “gay activist”, seeking to catch out Principled Christians? This is silliness. “We would like a cake, for 5 July”. “That will be $X, please.” End of participation. You don’t even need to put a wee plastic figure of two women on top, they can do that for themselves.

    • And who are you to say if it does or does not violate religious principles?

      You may have your beliefs about what people should do for a gay wedding. But you do not get to push your version of morality on someone by making them participate.

      Those who argue against the Arizona bill are essentially saying that gay rights trump religious rights. If that is the case, the Constitution is meaningless.

      • I am a Christian, who has lived as well as studied Christianity. That’s who.

        You don’t participate!!

        How much hatred do you need to say that because you offer a service to a gay couple you are “participating” in their wedding? How putrid do you imagine these human beings to be, that their stink so offends you that you cannot be even that close to them? You give them a tasting, and they agree to buy. How could the most insanely homophobic god imaginable object in any way to your action? This has nothing to do with religion.

        Have you read the Arizona bill? Any nutcase could say anything was his “religious belief”- he would not need to show it was “mainstream”, and then his opponent would need to show that “The least restrictive means of furthering [a] compelling governmental interest.” Speeding charge for driving quickly to church- yes, you say I should have set off earlier, but the roads were clear and I believe it more important to get to worship on time than to obey your rule”. Not compelling, as no-one was harmed.

  2. Many of your comments are very incoherent, and therefore I will try my best.

    I have in fact read the Arizona bill. Interestingly, it says nothing about homosexuality at all.

    It is not hatred to refuse to participate in a same-sex wedding. A few months ago in Colorado, a Christian baker refused to do such. He specifically said he’s be happy to sell the gay couple a birthday cake, cookies, brownies, etc, but he didn’t do same-sex weddings.

    I am a Christian, and I would never provide professional service to a same-sex wedding. That is my constitutional right as guaranteed by the First Amendment. Freedom of religion does NOT mean dropping your religious scruples at the door of your private business place.

    It is not hatred, as you and so many others like you have pointed out. Forcing someone to do someone is tyranny.

    A gay couple has hundreds if not thousands of other bakers, photographers, etc, who will participate in their wedding. But a person who is ethically opposed has the right to refuse to.

    Do you think an orthodox Jew should be forced to provide beef for my family barbeque?

  3. Well, if you are happy with kosher beef, then yes.

    The difference between the baker and the kosher butcher is that the baker is providing one service, but refusing to provide it to particular customers. This is not like a butcher providing one service to all, and refusing to provide a different service. I hope you see that the two are not comparable.

    So, the Act. You have read it, you say, so you will have seen that indeed Arizonans could have refused to obey not only laws about discrimination against LGBT folks, but also any law they liked, if they claimed it was against their (non-mainstream) religious belief. They wanted to be able to discriminate against gay people, as you do, but they sought power to ignore any law. Part of the value of law is the certainty it gives. Any law could have been challenged in Arizona, as with my speeding example. Do you think it was a good Bill?

    In what way does the baker “participate” in the gay wedding? None at all. He provides a service to the couple. The couple “participate” in their wedding.

    • You may not feel as if a baker is “participating,” but it’s not your call to make. You cannot dictate to people how they should feel about being a part of something. You do not get a say in their interpretation of it.

      You are essentially saying a person should be mandated to do what you feel like he should do. That is un-American. Freedom means allowing people to do certain things to which we do not agree.

      I do not like profanity, violence, or sexual content in movies, yet I would never try to ban it in the name of a greater social good.

      The Constitution was made to safeguard against this tyranny.

      It is not your call to say whether or not someone is participating. If a photographer does not want to take pictures of an LGBT wedding, it is not your place, or the government’s, to force that to happen.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s