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.
This is a great question. I honestly don't know the answer. The facilitation -- does it have to be professional or can it be personal, no less helping the event take place, but as an extension of non-business practice. I have no idea, but it is less likely to rise to the level of a court case.
Then in the meanwhile, if no one makes these decisions, we will be a constant legal loggerheads.
You are taking the position that the flaw lies in the religious obligation, itself. That is certainly one way around the legal impasse. But it is a way most likely to encounter resistance from any theist. Saying "I respect your right to express you religion, but your religion is wrong, so change it so that your expression is in line with modern society" is probably not going to work.
And please, remember, this isn't about my feelings, beliefs or practices. This is about the fact that, as it stands right now, we have laws on the books that protect both parties at the potential expense of the other. Would it make sense to say to the same sex couple that they need to change who they are to accommodate the baker? If not, why would it make sense to tell the baker to change who he is? If the answer is at all related to your personal beliefs about religion, then it won't be persuasive to anyone not of that position.
You are unnecessarily complicating the issue. It regards COMMERCE which is the supply of goods and services to the public. IF you are ONLY supplying goods and services to your religious constituency and NOT the general public, the discrimination laws are not invoked. It is the commercial interface that contains the discrimination constraints. Avoid public commerce and there should be no problem.
The problem may be arising in what someone defines as "participating' in an event.
"You" sell someone something and once it leaves your shop, you have no participation,obligation to, control and should have no interest in what happens afterwards.
The Jew you may sell non-kosher food to may be buying it for someone else...or even their dog.
And, more probably, these days. 'they' don't even adhere to kosher.
Do you have a check list before selling to be sure?
Do you grill them as to their intentions or reasons?
But the fact that the Jewish legal experts have to work on the applicability of the law in various cases doesn't change that the laws exist. It just gets tougher and tougher to do the job.
Quote:
Originally Posted by old_cold
That rabid anti-gay fundie grocer that sells sausage believes 'he' cannot contribute to the moral laxity of a fellow Christian cannot possible know his intention is maybe (forgive the bluntness) to stick it up an other-than-the-mouth orifice of his or her 'sex mate'.
Be concerned about what you do or don't do in your personal life and let others worry about the ramifications of what they do.
But if the Jew is concerned about his own life and his soul (if one believes such things) then the ramifications of what he does direct impact his personal status.
You are unnecessarily complicating the issue. It regards COMMERCE which is the supply of goods and services to the public. IF you are ONLY supplying goods and services to your religious constituency and NOT the general public, the discrimination laws are not invoked. It is the commercial interface that contains the discrimination constraints. Avoid public commerce and there should be no problem.
Avoid public commerce? I'm not exactly sure how any business can do that and still be a business. But regardless, the case I referenced in the original post gives a different way to resolve the problem, It just creates other problems. I'm not the one complicating anything. This is the US legal system talking.
But if the Jew is concerned about his own life and his soul (if one believes such things) then the ramifications of what he does direct impact his personal status.
Quote:
Originally Posted by rosends
Avoid public commerce? I'm not exactly sure how any business can do that and still be a business. But regardless, the case I referenced in the original post gives a different way to resolve the problem, It just creates other problems. I'm not the one complicating anything. This is the US legal system talking.
It seems the Jew has to decide whether or not his religious status is more important than his desire to engage in public commerce, period. Being in business is a privilege subject to secular laws. IF you cannot obey the secular laws, you cannot be in business. You are free to engage in religious "business" that is strictly restricted to your religious group.
It seems the Jew has to decide whether or not his religious status is more important than his desire to engage in public commerce, period. Being in business is a privilege subject to secular laws. IF you cannot obey the secular laws, you cannot be in business. You are free to engage in religious "business" that is strictly restricted to your religious group.
I've used this argument on him several times. Apparently religious convictions are so important that it's OK to discriminate against other people using it as a basis but not so important that someone should be willing to forego the almighty dollar to protect them.
It seems the Jew has to decide whether or not his religious status is more important than his desire to engage in public commerce, period. Being in business is a privilege subject to secular laws. IF you cannot obey the secular laws, you cannot be in business. You are free to engage in religious "business" that is strictly restricted to your religious group.
But why is the protection of religious expression any less a secular law that has to be obeyed? This isn't about religious vs. secular law, but about 2 secular laws at odds.
Avoid public commerce? I'm not exactly sure how any business can do that and still be a business. But regardless, the case I referenced in the original post gives a different way to resolve the problem, It just creates other problems. I'm not the one complicating anything. This is the US legal system talking.
Most developed countries have anti discrimination laws similar to those of the US A. Without those laws you would still have No Jews Allowed signs on stores, beaches and golf clubs. Is that a better system in your mind? Any store keeper that refuses to sell a product to me but will sell that exact product to my wife or her brother based solely on our religions is a bigot. Or at least is determined to discriminate. Either way, it is wrong both legally and in my opinion morally.
Do we allow businesses to disregard environmental, health or safety laws based on the religion of the store keeper?
But why is the protection of religious expression any less a secular law that has to be obeyed? This isn't about religious vs. secular law, but about 2 secular laws at odds.
If you have 2 laws that seek to eliminate discrimination intersect then it seems to me not discriminating would be the logical choice.
Most developed countries have anti discrimination laws similar to those of the US A. Without those laws you would still have No Jews Allowed signs on stores, beaches and golf clubs. Is that a better system in your mind?
Well, not that this has anything to do with what is in my mind, but a system that ensures that no one will be discriminated against is going to have built in problems. So what's the solution to that? I haven't the slightest idea, but we don't make progress until we crystalize the problems.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
Any store keeper that refuses to sell a product to me but will sell that exact product to my wife or her brother based solely on our religions is a bigot. Or at least is determined to discriminate.
Very true.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
Either way, it is wrong both legally and in my opinion morally.
Did you look at the case I linked to in the original post? It seems to say that while you may have an opinion about the morality, the law has a different position.
Quote:
Originally Posted by badlander
Do we allow businesses to disregard environmental, health or safety laws based on the religion of the store keeper?
No idea. But wouldn't the precedent set by the linked to case indicate that such a thing could happen?
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.
