Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I don't think people should get a free pass just because their beliefs are religious. That trivializes other people's sincerely held beliefs. If it's a person's belief then it shouldn't matter where it comes from.
Generally, they don't. In Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. (1968) the United States Supreme Court rejected that notion.
Maurice Bessenger was an ardent segregationist who owned a chain of barbecue restaurants in South Carolina. He refused to serve blacks inside (they could purchase food but weren't allowed to 'mix with whites'). Bessenger cited religious beliefs as behind his actions*.
[*Whether or not you agree with Bessenger's interpretation of scripture is irrelevant. American jurisprudence has the sense not to take a position on what this or that religious document says, and it would be quite foolish to try and place that authority in the hands of a court. Instead, it accepts a person's claimed religious belief if it appears sincere, and with Bessenger that was the case.]
He lost. The Supreme Court held that his religious beliefs do not legally justify his refusing to provide a service to blacks that he would provide to whites.
Of course, a lot of people just can't bring themselves around to the idea that anti-gay discrimination is really as unjust as other types of discrimination. Thus, they can rationalize tolerating it where they would never tolerate other forms of discrimination. And this plays right into the hands of the crowd that tries and pit one disenfranchised group against another (usually by pretending to be concerned for the group that has suffered 'real' or 'legitimate' discrimination - supposedly, as opposed to the other group). And sadly, some courts have gotten into this game of "Well, they're just gays, so it's not the same".
If you choose to subscribe to a set of Jewish religious laws, then you don't generally push them aside and promote some other nebulous concept instead. We don't consider our beliefs to be a "nothing" out of which we make a big deal. The beliefs and rules are the beliefs and rules.
Thank you for responding to my original question (from the link above):
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rachel NewYork
This is the thing about the whole religious baker dilemma that I don't understand. How does baking a cake make someone "a part of" someone else's beliefs about marriage?
I mean, I can understand if the religious baker is asked to put a cake topper on his creation that depicts two grooms or two brides. I can also understand if the religious baker is expected to personally deliver his creation to the wedding reception.
But merely being asked to bake a cake? How does that violate his religious beliefs? Especially considering that he has probably already baked cakes for any number of heterosexual adulterers.
Am I missing something?
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosends
I posted a few links a page or 3 ago -- being part of a seudat mitzvah is, itself, a mitzvah, making the role of preparing food a religious obligation and therefore, function. Additionally, if you look at the rules regarding being involved in inappropriate marriages, you will see that there is a concept called chanufa (false flattery) -- appearing to condone that which should not be condoned. The question of the "marriage" of two people of the same gender (there is a reason I put it in quotes -- it isn't to denigrate nut because of the technical and common use of the word and the confusion both cause) is in many ways similar to an inter-marriage. Here is a page with discussion of the issues related to both (though prompted by a question about the latter) https://judaism.stackexchange.com/qu...age-attendance
Nevertheless, I personally don't believe that it's the business of Jews to concern ourselves with the "appropriateness" of non-Jewish weddings.
If you choose to subscribe to a set of Jewish religious laws, then you don't generally push them aside and promote some other nebulous concept instead. We don't consider our beliefs to be a "nothing" out of which we make a big deal. The beliefs and rules are the beliefs and rules.
Thanks again, but I'm not sure this is the source of my confusion or question...
Of course we all have the freedom to subscribe to whatever beliefs or laws we choose, and that's all fine and well far as I'm concerned, until those beliefs impose ON OTHERS in unnecessary negative ways. Ultimately there are many "pinch points" when it comes to enjoying these freedoms as already touched upon, but where is the line we all must draw?
For me, if you can live your life according to whatever your beliefs without imposing those beliefs on others who don't share those beliefs (and/or in accordance to the law that trumps those beliefs for all of us as a society), then fine. "No harm. No foul."
If however, your beliefs and actions cause unnecessary pain or hardship to others. The line that should not be crossed has been crossed. That you happen to feel strongly about your beliefs does not make it necessary to cause pain or hardship (embarrassment, descrimination, etc.) to others.
Again, just because a racist may feel strongly about why he is a racist does not excuse the harm he wants to impose on others who are of a different skin color (or religious belief or gender or sexual persuasion). Refusing to let them eat at their restaurant for example. Would it be any more right for a Muslim shoe maker to refuse to make a pair of shoes for a Jewish person simply because they don't share the same religious beliefs? Maybe no big deal. Other shoe makers of course, but what about right vs wrong? Simply treating others the way we want them to treat us?
How I see it anyway, and why we have courts of law that must decide these contentious issues for us. NMP (as I often tell my wife). "Not my problem," but sometimes I truly wish I had become a lawyer or judge with the job that truly makes this my problem. No doubt the Religious Right would probably not always be happy with me...
Actually, these problems are problems for all of us when we consider the broader implications and ramifications related to what kind of society we want to live in, promote. One that protects all of us from wrong-doing and unnecessary hardship to the extent possible.
Of course we all have the freedom to subscribe to whatever beliefs or laws we choose, and that's all fine and well far as I'm concerned, until those beliefs impose ON OTHERS in unnecessary negative ways.
But doesn't that then demand that I compromise my beliefs because someone else decides that the imposition is unnecessary? And what if the imposition is voluntary -- the customer walks into the store to hire the artist. The customer could go somewhere else. The "discrimination" is not because of a lack of choice and the artist's religion imposing itself, but because the customer chooses to put himself in that position. If the artist's religious identity is manifested through his work, then asking him to compromise his practice to accommodate a voluntary customer (as opposed, maybe, to a government office which has a monopoly over the service) ends up imposing on the artist. Why is that imposition any less problematic?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LearnMe
(and/or in accordance to the law that trumps those beliefs for all of us as a society), then fine.
And that is the essence of the problem that I see -- the law ensures that neither side is imposed upon even though, necessarily, one has to be. Two mutually exclusive positions in law will inevitably and repeatedly cause conflict. The flaw is in the existence of the law, or at least one of the laws. Either religion and religious practice/expression is protected, or the rights of non-discrimination of ANY individual are protected. The question these days isn't the theoretical one of "wouldn't it be bad if?" but the practical one of "how do you reconcile the fact that the law, as written, already allows discrimination?"
Generally, they don't. In Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises, Inc. (1968) the United States Supreme Court rejected that notion.
Maurice Bessenger was an ardent segregationist who owned a chain of barbecue restaurants in South Carolina. He refused to serve blacks inside (they could purchase food but weren't allowed to 'mix with whites'). Bessenger cited religious beliefs as behind his actions*.
[*Whether or not you agree with Bessenger's interpretation of scripture is irrelevant. American jurisprudence has the sense not to take a position on what this or that religious document says, and it would be quite foolish to try and place that authority in the hands of a court. Instead, it accepts a person's claimed religious belief if it appears sincere, and with Bessenger that was the case.]
He lost. The Supreme Court held that his religious beliefs do not legally justify his refusing to provide a service to blacks that he would provide to whites.
Of course, a lot of people just can't bring themselves around to the idea that anti-gay discrimination is really as unjust as other types of discrimination. Thus, they can rationalize tolerating it where they would never tolerate other forms of discrimination. And this plays right into the hands of the crowd that tries and pit one disenfranchised group against another (usually by pretending to be concerned for the group that has suffered 'real' or 'legitimate' discrimination - supposedly, as opposed to the other group). And sadly, some courts have gotten into this game of "Well, they're just gays, so it's not the same".
Thanks for the info. I didn't know any of that. That was the year I was born. It just shows how far we've come in a relatively short amount of time.
That other example of using religious beliefs to avoid the military got me thinking about the term "conscientious objector". How where those people treated for their sincerely held beliefs.
But doesn't that then demand that I compromise my beliefs because someone else decides that the imposition is unnecessary? And what if the imposition is voluntary -- the customer walks into the store to hire the artist. The customer could go somewhere else. The "discrimination" is not because of a lack of choice and the artist's religion imposing itself, but because the customer chooses to put himself in that position. If the artist's religious identity is manifested through his work, then asking him to compromise his practice to accommodate a voluntary customer (as opposed, maybe, to a government office which has a monopoly over the service) ends up imposing on the artist. Why is that imposition any less problematic?
And that is the essence of the problem that I see -- the law ensures that neither side is imposed upon even though, necessarily, one has to be. Two mutually exclusive positions in law will inevitably and repeatedly cause conflict. The flaw is in the existence of the law, or at least one of the laws. Either religion and religious practice/expression is protected, or the rights of non-discrimination of ANY individual are protected. The question these days isn't the theoretical one of "wouldn't it be bad if?" but the practical one of "how do you reconcile the fact that the law, as written, already allows discrimination?"
You could not open a business that you feel would put yourself in a compromising position. For instance, the baker could stop selling wedding cakes.
You could not open a business that you feel would put yourself in a compromising position. For instance, the baker could stop selling wedding cakes.
Yes, he could. But it is within his rights to pursue a living. If I go into a shoe store, I can't force the proprietor to make me a cake. The burden (at least in the case I started with) is not on the artist to do whatever anybody wants or else not make a living.
Yes, he could. But it is within his rights to pursue a living. If I go into a shoe store, I can't force the proprietor to make me a cake. The burden (at least in the case I started with) is not on the artist to do whatever anybody wants or else not make a living.
Then it becomes about the right to pursue the living you want without being asked to compromise your beliefs freedom and not religious freedom.
Yes, he could. But it is within his rights to pursue a living. If I go into a shoe store, I can't force the proprietor to make me a cake. The burden (at least in the case I started with) is not on the artist to do whatever anybody wants or else not make a living.
Why would anyone expect a shoe store proprietor to be in the baking business? And we're basically talking about business here – not art.
Any so-called "artist" who produces art-on-demand for the casual customer strolling into his store – or who is even dependent upon government subsidies – isn't much of an artist, if you ask me.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
