Same sex marriage (to live, teaching, businesses)

[rogead]

Originally Posted by tvdxer

For supporters to same-sex marriage to be able to understand the moral conundrum some bakers, event planners, photographers, etc. are put in, imagine the baker (or event planner, etc.) being forced by the law to bake a cake or plan an event for a racist organization or the local NAMBLA chapter. It's not the fact that the clients are racist or pedophiles; it's that the event they are baking the cake or planning is what they see as completely immoral.

Racists and members of NAMBLA are not members of a legally-protected demographic group, nor are organizations which might represent those individuals.

Homosexuals are individual human beings who are legally protected against discriminatory behavior. Using your logic, I, as a baker and non-believer (in a religious context), should be allowed to refuse service to anyone who is planning to use a product purchased from me in a religious ceremony.

That might play well with dogmatic conservative libertarians; but in a more reasonable sense, someone who provides a public accommodation should be legally required--and is legally required-- to abstain from discriminating against protected classes of customers.

[tvdxer]

Originally Posted by rogead

Racists and members of NAMBLA are not members of a legally-protected demographic group, nor are organizations which might represent those individuals.

Homosexuals are individual human beings who are legally protected against discriminatory behavior. Using your logic, I, as a baker and non-believer (in a religious context), should be allowed to refuse service to anyone who is planning to use a product purchased from me in a religious ceremony.

That might play well with dogmatic conservative libertarians; but in a more reasonable sense, someone who provides a public accommodation should be legally required--and is legally required-- to abstain from discriminating against protected classes of customers.

Yes, I agree the law should let you - you might see a lack of business from religious organizations, but so be it.

And I find "protected classes of customers" to be a bit weak - exactly which "classes" should be "legally protected", and what is the basis of their protection? Or is it just arbitrary?

[rogead]

Originally Posted by tvdxer

Yes, I agree the law should let you - you might see a lack of business from religious organizations, but so be it.

And I find "protected classes of customers" to be a bit weak - exactly which "classes" should be "legally protected", and what is the basis of their protection? Or is it just arbitrary?

http://mn.gov/mdhr/yourrights/PDF/01aboutMDHR_ENG.pdf

Protected classes covered by the Minnesota Human Rights Act

 Race
 Color
 Creed
 Religion
 National origin
 Sex
 Marital status
 Familial status
 Disability
 Public assistance
 Age
 Sexual orientation
 Local human rights commission activity

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by rogead

http://mn.gov/mdhr/yourrights/PDF/01aboutMDHR_ENG.pdf

Protected classes covered by the Minnesota Human Rights Act

 Race
 Color
 Creed
 Religion
 National origin
 Sex
 Marital status
 Familial status
 Disability
 Public assistance
 Age
 Sexual orientation
 Local human rights commission activity

Local human rights commission activity? Seems like this list just keeps getting longer and longer. Everybody wants to be a victim.

[rogead]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

Local human rights commission activity? Seems like this list just keeps getting longer and longer. Everybody wants to be a victim.

Do you believe it should be legal to discriminate against someone because they're on a local human rights commission?

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by rogead

Do you believe it should be legal to discriminate against someone because they're on a local human rights commission?

I don't know what a local human rights commission is, and living in southwest Minneapolis i am usually pretty up to date on the latest trends in victimology, but I suppose since it seems to be ok to discriminate against the baker for his religious beliefs then it would be ok to discriminate against whatever that is.

[rogead]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

I don't know what a local human rights commission is, and living in southwest Minneapolis i am usually pretty up to date on the latest trends in victimology, but I suppose since it seems to be ok to discriminate against the baker for his religious beliefs then it would be ok to discriminate against whatever that is.

It has nothing to do with "victimology". A local human (or civil) rights commission is a group of citizens that assess human rights complaints in regards to whether or not an alleged act of discrimination violates a city's ordinances (or state or federal laws). Here's a link to the Minneapolis Commission on Civil Rights:

Commission on Civil Rights - City of Minneapolis

As far as discrimination based upon membership on a civil rights commission, it's generally not an issue in large cities with diverse populations. It can be a significant issue in smaller and highly-homogenous communities. Historically, this was a massive issue in the rural South of The United States--still is to some extent. However, I can't imagine why anyone would feel it to be acceptable in any instance.

How would a baker be the subject of religious discrimination by being told that he/she isn't allowed to discriminate against someone in the provision of a public accommodation? The fact that a baker is personally offended by the sex/religion/race/etc. of a customer, doesn't absolve that baker from the legal requirement to provide equal accommodation. The baker is still free to discriminate against individuals in his/her personal life.

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by rogead

It has nothing to do with "victimology". A local human (or civil) rights commission is a group of citizens that assess human rights complaints in regards to whether or not an alleged act of discrimination violates a city's ordinances (or state or federal laws). Here's a link to the Minneapolis Commission on Civil Rights:

Commission on Civil Rights - City of Minneapolis

As far as discrimination based upon membership on a civil rights commission, it's generally not an issue in large cities with diverse populations. It can be a significant issue in smaller and highly-homogenous communities. Historically, this was a massive issue in the rural South of The United States--still is to some extent. However, I can't imagine why anyone would feel it to be acceptable in any instance.

How would a baker be the subject of religious discrimination by being told that he/she isn't allowed to discriminate against someone in the provision of a public accommodation? The fact that a baker is personally offended by the sex/religion/race/etc. of a customer, doesn't absolve that baker from the legal requirement to provide equal accommodation. The baker is still free to discriminate against individuals in his/her personal life.

The way I see it, the bakery's not being allowed to follow his religious beliefs. You're saying he can so long as he only does so privately, but that's really not different than telling a gay person it's ok to be gay, but stay in the closet and don't come out at work. At one time, the protected classes were race, religion, sex, and national origin. As more groups have been added it's only natural that their rights will conflict with the trendiest protected class winning out.

[Globe199]

Originally Posted by Glenfield

The way I see it, the bakery's not being allowed to follow his religious beliefs. You're saying he can so long as he only does so privately, but that's really not different than telling a gay person it's ok to be gay, but stay in the closet and don't come out at work. At one time, the protected classes were race, religion, sex, and national origin. As more groups have been added it's only natural that their rights will conflict with the trendiest protected class winning out.

But when you do business with the public, your religious beliefs take a back seat. It would be illegal for this bakery to refuse business with black people on account of their race. Gays and gay rights aren't going away, condescending remarks notwithstanding. It isn't "trendy."

[Glenfield]

Originally Posted by Globe199

But when you do business with the public, your religious beliefs take a back seat. It would be illegal for this bakery to refuse business with black people on account of their race. Gays and gay rights aren't going away, condescending remarks notwithstanding. It isn't "trendy."

Exactly. Under the law, you are correct. That's why the law is conflicted. It permits discrimination against the baker for following his religious convictions. This is not to argue whether X or Y is right or appropriate or commendable, but surely you will agree that there is a conflict between the the rights of the gay person and the baker who has religious convictions. I am merely suggesting that accomodating the rights of the gay wedding party necessarily means discrimination against the religious baker, just as accomodating the rights of the religious baker means discrimination against the gay wedding party. No matter how you cut it, somebody is going to have their "rights" curtailed in these situations.

There was a similar conflict a while back in Chinatown in New York. Chinese culture calls for animals to be killed very shortly before they are eaten. As a result, Chinese restaurants kept large numbers of live animals on hand. Animal rights activists felt this was inappropriate and cruel to the animals. Without endorsing either position, one should be able to see that the rights of the animals to not be caged within a store or restaurant, and the cultural rights of the Chinese involved were in conflict.

This is not an argument for or against gay marriage, but an observation that at a certain point, the rights of protected classes may come into conflict. Certainly you can be fair minded enough to agree with me on that point. Or do you argue that when the rights of one protected class conflict with those of another, then the rights of that class cease to exist. If so, how do you determine which protected class trumps the other(s)?