Should a business be able to deny service to a customer if the request conflicts with the owner’s religious beliefs? (federal, Oregon)
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.
If the baker refused to bake a cake with a naked lady on it to anyone asking for it, that's not discrimination.
but that leads down a path... the issue is the bakers religious belief. If the baker believes the act is one that leads the baker to participate in the act of sin, then decides to refuse service, this has far reaching implications.
What does "participation" mean? this is the question.
Its not a fine. Its a civil debt. Its not owed to the State, its owed to the aggrieved party(s). Your mugging analogy suggests a complete lack of understanding of how the legal system works. If the defendant doesn't pay, the plaintiffs can chase them for their assets, levy bank accounts, garnish wages, foreclose on real property, but they have no right to resort to violence or imprisonment.
If the plaintiffs sent "men with guns" as you suggest in your scenario, the plaintiffs would be committing a crime (for which they could be imprisoned) and would be subject to civil damages payable to the defendant.
I think you've watched too many mob movies.
I get that it's not always that straightforward, but at the most basic level, if you don't back up a law with the threat of force, it's pointless. You can say "you owe a debt to the aggrieved party", but what will that do? I'd just say...nah.
I get that it's not always that straightforward, but at the most basic level, if you don't back up a law with the threat of force, it's pointless. You can say "you owe a debt to the aggrieved party", but what will that do? I'd just say...nah.
Actually, you can. You just have to deal with the repercussions of owing a debt. Credit score damage, bank levies, investigators tracking you, you cannot sell your real property without paying it off, etc. But, in theory, yes you could just say "nah". It happens all the time. There are a lot of judgment-proof people out there in this very position.
Exactly. Which is what businesses refusing to serve African Americans back in the Jim Crow era didn't get - black citizens had to pay taxes like anyone else in the community that benefited racist business owners yet they couldn't have the opportunity to patronize or make use of their services.
Yes, the same premise applies to this religious test.
Should a business be able to deny service to a customer if the request conflicts with the owner’s religious beliefs?
Here's the problem: snowflake bakers get all offended when a gay couple want a cake.
There is no conflict with beliefs. It's a cake.
Selling a cake for money doesn't endorse the wedding or conflict with the baker's beliefs. It's a cake.
Just take the money and bake the cake.
It's a business transaction, not a life-changing alteration of beliefs.
Jeez.
Actually, you can. You just have to deal with the repercussions of owing a debt. Credit score damage, bank levies, investigators tracking you, you cannot sell your real property without paying it off, etc. But, in theory, yes you could just say "nah". It happens all the time. There are a lot of judgment-proof people out there in this very position.
Alright, so no direct violence if they can seize my money or assets without my being able to defend against them. I won't get into the entire philosophy of property, but your property is an extension of your self-ownership, which essentially makes theft or fraud an attack on you...not directly, but there's a philosophical argument that theft is violence. Either way, I guess you're correct that men with guns won't be sent.
Not to overcomplicate things, but I would add that I would consider that theft and the person would have the right to take back their money or assets, and that would likely turn violent. Not saying they necessarily should try it, but I wouldn't consider them the bad guy.
Yeah it's funny that anyone should think that by threatening business owners with violence if they dont serve everyone, that discrimination has been eliminated and prejudices abolished.
Who said anything about violence? Can you explain? Thanks!
its not a fine. Its a civil debt. Its not owed to the state, its owed to the aggrieved party(s). Your mugging analogy suggests a complete lack of understanding of how the legal system works. If the defendant doesn't pay, the plaintiffs can chase them for their assets, levy bank accounts, garnish wages, foreclose on real property, but they have no right to resort to violence or imprisonment.
If the plaintiffs sent "men with guns" as you suggest in your scenario, the plaintiffs would be committing a crime (for which they could be imprisoned) and would be subject to civil damages payable to the defendant.
I think you've watched too many mob movies.
Agree!
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.
