If Christians can refuse service to gay people, do we all get to do that? - Chicago Sun-Times
By: Chicago Sun-Times
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Are you a Christian? Then I'm sorry, I'm going to have to ask you to stop reading now and direct your attention elsewhere. The comics, maybe. Nothing personal, understand. It isn't that I believe you and your children are damned to burn in hell for all eternity. It's that my religion forbids addressing you, in my view. "These are the words that you shall speak to the sons of Israel," God tells Moses in Exodus, which obviously leaves Gentiles out.
Wait a second! "Sons"? Maybe women readers should move on too. Let me pray on that and get back to you.
"When did this happen?" you might ask. And I might ask, "What are you still doing here?" But OK, for argument's sake, while you are moving yourself down the pike, I was reminded by the Supreme Court's taking up another Colorado business unwilling to bow to the humiliation of providing services to people of whom they disapprove.
Ten years ago it was a Colorado baker who didn't want to create a cake for a gay wedding. Now it's a graphic designer floating the argument that she is a creative artist whose First Amendment rights are being infringed upon by the government, and its pesky insistence on treating all citizens equally.
Yes, there is an alternate view, that not only democracy, but also the basic capitalist system demands treating all paying customers the same — your cash is good, you buy a newspaper, you get to read every story in it.
But that is a fallacy, in that it chafes against my sincere religious belief.
Yes, some might argue sincere religious belief is not a justification for anything — sincere religious belief is also what prompts suicide bombers to detonate themselves in crowded markets.
But faith is on the march, the Supreme Court crowded with ideologues who have shown themselves all too willing to tear up the social fabric to scratch their religious itch, forcing millions of women to drive across the country to manage their gynecological business. The next step is to make the freedom of every American subject to the whim of whatever employee says "Yes, may I help you?" when you walk into their shop.
We've had a taste of that already. Of what happens when every pharmacy clerk gets to eyeball your prescription, weigh their own soul, and then decide if you get to get whatever medicine you're looking for today. When the kind of health insurance you can have while working a cash register depends, not on your needs, but the personal eschatology of the man — and it always seems to be a man — who owns the company.
If icing cakes and designing online platforms is artistic expression protected by the First Amendment, then so is writing a column or putting a design on the foamy surface of a cappuccino. Many belief systems to take into account.
And here's the odd thing. People who are in the dominant class, who demand the right to bar certain groups they don't want around, never seem to imagine it could flow the other way. Which is why I cast this column the way I did — to give those who might otherwise never know the chill of exclusion a sense of how it feels. It feels lousy. For the record, I welcome all readers, even those on whom satire is lost. I'm a fan of that quaint do-unto-others-as-you-would-have-done-unto-you golden rule that gets so easily cast aside. We are so varied a nation, how could life work any other way?
Let's find out. I've been too indulgent already, and still see readers who don't belong.. Scram. I understand it hurts. That's the point. What good is being pious if you can't use it as a pretext to abuse your inferiors?
Tags
Who is online
314 visitors
Great column.
Exactly, you never see Christians discriminated against:
They weren’t refused service because they were Christians. They were refused service because they actively lobby against gay rights and abortion rights. Even the president of the organization acknowledged that they were refused service because of politics, not religion.
But these same whiners have no problem discriminating against someone, not because of what they do, but because of who they are.
from her own website
A. That would tell most customers what they are dealing with and will attract one kind of customer while repelling others.
and Clearly against state law. Hence she lost locally and at the Appeals court.
B. I have designed several websites for businesses and found that it wasn't so much creative as technical use of the software. I could have cared less about who they were, who they loved or who they prayed to.
Cash talks and BS walks. I won't judge you and I expect the same in return.
So it is not OK to refuse someone service because of religious beliefs but it is OK to refuse service because of political beliefs. Cool.
religious beliefs and political beliefs are often very close and hard to tell apart
... and are both the result of the same phenomena: (near) blind trust of human authorities, indoctrination, habit, comfort, group-think, ...
Yes. Being an asshole is a choice. And if someone insists on being an asshole, other people are not required to do business with them.
It is always amusing when one side tries to justify why it is OK when they basically are doing the same thing the other side is doing. Please tell me where there is a law that says a person can be discriminated against because they are an asshole.
OK, so if you think about how our laws work, it’s a freedom that exists until the government says otherwise. We don’t have to wait for government to tell us we have the right to do something.
But arguably, the First Amendment affirms your right to associate with whomever you like, and the 13th Amendment prohibits involuntary servitude.
The are federal restrictions, of course. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits business from discriminating against people because of race, religion, sex, or nationality. Politics is not covered.
Beyond that, this is the kind of thing where states usually make the laws. I would guess every state probably has some level of anti-discrimination law, but very few include politics. Even California, which prohibits virtually every other kind of discrimination, doesn’t have anything to say about political discrimination.
Sure. Dozens of countries criminalize homosexuality and it often has nothing to do with being Christian. In several Muslim countries, it earns one the death penalty.
Full list of countries where homosexuality is outlawed:
Afghanistan
Algeria
Antigua & Barbuda
Bangladesh
Barbados
Bhutan
Brunei
Burundi
Cameroon
Chad
Comoros
Cook Islands
Dominica
Egypt
Eritrea
Eswatini
Ethiopia
Gambia
Ghana
Grenada
Guinea
Guyana
Iran
Jamaica
Kenya
Kiribati
Kuwait
Lebanon
Liberia
Libya
Malawi
Malaysia
Maldives
Mauritania
Mauritius
Morocco
Myanmar
Namibia
Nigeria
Occupied Palestinian Territory (Gaza Strip)
Oman
Pakistan
Papua New Guinea
Qatar
Saint Kitts and Nevis
Saint Lucia
Saint Vincent and The Grenadines
Samoa
Saudi Arabia
Senegal
Sierra Leone
Singapore
Solomon Islands
Somalia
South Sudan
Sri Lanka
Sudan
Syria
Tanzania
Togo
Tonga
Tunisia
Turkmenistan
Tuvalu
Uganda
Uzbekistan
Yemen
Zambia
Zimbabwe
Oh good, the Discussion Police are here.
My comment - and this whole sub thread - has been about Discrimination and whether or not it was based on being Christian. My last reply was to a question about Christianity - not specifically Christian Americans.
But if you think I can't find discrimination in the USA, you'd be wrong. Here are 27 US states that have no protections for LGBTQ people in employment, housing, or public accommodations. :
Alabama
Alaska
Arizona
Arkansas
Florida
Georgia
Idaho
Indiana
Kansas
Kentucky
Louisiana
Michigan
Mississippi
Montana
Nebraska
North Carolina
North Dakota
Ohio
Oklahoma
Pennsylvania
South Carolina
Tennessee
Texas
West Virginia
Wyoming
Wisconsin and Utah have limited protections in employment or housing.
Is it because of Christianity? I don't know. I'm sure none of that overtly cite the Bible in their laws.
Meanwhile, we have (checks math) 21 states that do offer the protections I mentioned. Are there no Christians in government in those states? I bet there are.
The point is you don't have to be Christian to discriminate, and there are plenty of Christians who don't. I believe most people start from being assholes and then look for ways to justify other people terribly. Citing to Holy Scripture makes it harder to argue against the practice or change minds. The assholes of the world don't have to think too hard about their behavior because it's all supposedly ordered by God.
This is why I can make the slightly nuanced observation that the restaurant refused service based on politics and actions, but not on religion. More than that, we have direct evidence. The store volunteered that someone looked up the group on the internet and became aware of their lobbying activities, to which they object.
The restaurant already knew they were Christians and had ample opportunity to refuse service on that basis, but did not.
This is simple, if they want to refuse service to a gay couple because of their religion, they must also refuse service to everyone else that has traits against their religion.
No non-christians, no women (since they are not allowed to order for themselves), no man who has shaved his beard, nobody who has ever had a divorce, nobody who has ever eaten pork or shellfish, just to name a few.
That is a simple solution, a polygraph test at every place of business.
“This is simple, if they want to refuse service to a gay couple…”
…so be it. A case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
When they shutter their doors they may reconsider their exclusionary policies.
of their religion, they must also refuse service to everyone else that has traits against their religion.
So, for instance, the Metzger Bar and Grill that refused to serve a Christian group the other day can't serve any Christian customers whatsoever.
That's an interesting idea.
This is less interesting. So are you suggesting they stay consistent in their beliefs or in whatever insane set of criteria you want to pretend they should have?
You need 2 pieces of info to answer your question.
If both answers are "Yes", then you are correct.
No, but I am saying that they stay consistent in their beliefs based on their holy book (whichever one they use).
You cannot claim that refusal to service 1 group is based on your holy beliefs, when those same beliefs also condemn other groups that you do not refuse.
So how do you set rules when everybody has different interpretations of said book?
I'm all about the consistency, BTW, often to the annoyance of some of my evangelical Christian friends.
So you just believe in discriminating against religious people. You believe businesses should be free to discriminate (we don't want a Christian group having lunch) but not if they base their discrimination on their religious beliefs. Hatred is fine.
It doesn't matter which book, if the want to claim religious freedom to reject certain peoples, it is up to them to show that they have always acted under their religious doctrine and not just using it as an excuse for discriminating against one particular person or group.
The christian bible, for example, shows over and over that it considers divorce as one of the worst things for christians to abide. Yet these people have no problems servicing previously divorced people. That shows that they are NOT excluding gay people due to their religious beliefs since they ARE NOT excluding divorced people.
Are you really unable to read my fairly simple comments, or are you just pretending to be that ignorant?
In situations like this you should probably give her the benefit of the doubt and presume that she is not pretending...
My bad. I forget who I was talking to. I gave you too much credit and thought you might actually have some principles behind your argument other than pure partisan expedience.
u should probably give her the benefit of the doubt and presume that she is not pretending.
Is that the best you can do? Imply I am as woman as some sort of insult?
Sad.
Me thinks you're right....
Do you say me thinks in real life or just here?
Depends on the mood I'm in and who I am talking to.
That wasn't the question. The question is how you handle different interpretations of the same text.
I think there will be a lot of work to do in defining "discriminating".
It actually clearly states that all sins are equal. Which does reinforce your point that the reaction to homosexuality is remarkably inconsistent with the reaction to things like coveting or greed.
Again, I think we'll need to be precise about the verbiage. The Colorado baker guy probably will sell a gay person a bagel, but just not make a cake celebrating their wedding. But I doubt he's making a lot of "celebrate my divorce" cakes, either.
Again, it doesn't matter, it all depends on which book they claim to be following. They should be held to the standards of the book they claim to be following.
discrimination
noun
dis·crim·i·na·tion
Meriam Webster has already done it for you.
And yet it mentions certain sins way more often than others. But like you said, they are all equal so they should be treating all sinners the same. Correct???
Bullshit answer.
He may not make "divorce" cakes, but he probably makes a crap load of wedding cakes for people who have been married, then divorced, previously.
I was curious to the most mentioned sin the Bible. I googled. The answer I found so far surprised me, but I don't know why since the god of the Bible is a jealous God (in addition to being angry and vengeful and destructive).
I don't remember ever hearing a sermon on the Sovereign LORD making fathers eat their children and children eat their fathers.
One thing is clear- God (Yahweh/YHWH) bans ALL art - paintings, sculpture and jewelry, but because we actually live in a commercial country instead of a Christian country, the longest and most mentioned commandment will continue to be ignored.
And a sin, that is NOT mentioned in the BIG TEN, is given the utmost importance to be used as a political football by erotophobes.
No one can be compelled by government to act in an activity or create something that conflicts with religious beliefs.
Untrue. The government can compel people to refrain from religious practices that are against the law. So if you are off to kill your sister in an honor killing, better not be in the USA because it will compel you to act in a manner that conflicts with your religious belief (i.e. it will compel you to not kill her).
Like this?
I am actually getting sick and tired of everyone and everything bringing lawsuits about anything possible.
It is getting ridiculous at this point.
Agreed.
I get substandard service somewhere and I simply take my business elsewhere.
People need to pull the corn cobs out of their butts and just relax.
I actually don't believe in kicking out a group, even if they are against what you stand for.
As long as there is no confrontation or hostility, who am I to say no.
Money is money.
What gets me is this woman wasn't in business yet and they all still went ahead with the lawsuit...
A little farther, she is actually going to the court saying I am going to open a business yet in order for me to do so, I want the right to openly discriminate against certain people.
This lawsuit should have been thrown out a long time ago yet here it is at the SC...
Shaking my head...
Yep - there is no standing in the case. She is arguing that she could hypothetically be forced to do something in the future. Even if the conservative justices want to expand on Hobby Lobby or Hurley v. Irish this shouldn't be the vehicle. Conservative lawyers went case shopping and picked a stinker.
It sure would be nice if god would just step out of the shadows and straighten everything out once and for all. Don’t hold your breath.
You need someone to make your life absolutely perfect?
Sounds boring.
That’s what you got from my comment? On the contrary, it would probably be even greater chaos, since all the disillusioned religionists wouldn’t accept a version a god that doesn’t fit their narrative - even when it’s staring them in the face.
I “got” what you wrote, which was wishing for God to straighten things out for you.
Self determination can be a bitch can’t it? /s
I guess you only wish for things that result in “absolute perfection” then?
Nah, I’m not the one asking God to straighten everything out.
That would be you.
That makes exactly as much sense as asking Santa Claus to straighten everything out. It’s incredible that you haven’t figured that out yet.
Lol ..... you said it. Now you’re trying to worm your way out of it via sophomoric, thinly veiled insults.
I find that amusing .....
yeah, where has he been hiding all this time?