Walking the line between religious freedom and the right to discriminate or oppress

[One Brow]

http://www.deepsouthvoice.com/index...sissippi-wedding-venue-manager-says-on-video/

Related ideas:
Can an employer force employees to buy birth control out-of-pocket?
What if the wedding is homosexual/transgender?
Is there a difference between renting a hall and being a more active particpant (such as a photagrapher)?

 

[JazzGal]

There are few easy answers, but using religious freedom as an excuse to discriminate is what is wrong with religion. Apparently the "love one another" idea doesn't mean much.

 

[Stoked]

There are few easy answers, but using religious freedom as an excuse to discriminate is what is wrong with religion. Apparently the "love one another" idea doesn't mean much.

Love one another doesn’t mean participation or even condoning a lifestyle or actions.

Brother is a druggie. I love him. I don’t give him money and I don’t let him in my place unsupervised.

But overall yes, the religious right has done a spectacularly terrible job of demonstrating Christ’s love for one another. This is something I’ve experienced first hand.

@One Brow

Yes, there is a difference between renting a hall and a more active participation such as photography. Times, effort and the like.

I think employees should opt into birth control as part of a health plan they want. But I think the typical company payments should still apply. I think health insurance companies need to offer a more buffet type setting. Where people can pick and choose.

I think churches and other overt religious entities shouldn’t have to allow marriages to anyone they don’t want to. For private companies it’s far stickier. I just don’t know.

There is a line to be sure.

 

[One Brow]

Yes, there is a difference between renting a hall and a more active participation such as photography. Times, effort and the like.

So, it should be legal for a photographer to refuse an assignment to an interracial wedding?

I think employees should opt into birth control as part of a health plan they want. But I think the typical company payments should still apply. I think health insurance companies need to offer a more buffet type setting. Where people can pick and choose.

I think churches and other overt religious entities shouldn’t have to allow marriages to anyone they don’t want to. For private companies it’s far stickier. I just don’t know.

There is a line to be sure.

We all agree there's a line, but no one seems to be sure on how to draw it.

 

[Jazzmix]

First of all I find the discribed situation pathetic and disgusting.
Now if we discuss it I think it all comes to the freedom of expression. I dont know how US law treats expressing the racist views. Is it prohibited or is it contained in the famous "freedom of speech"? Can you publicly state that "white man shouldn't be allowed to marry black woman?" Because to me that's what those people express by refusing to rent their venue for the wedding or doing whatever kind of service for the occasion.
I believe what should be certainly clear is that if you work for the state institution you have to comply with the state law and not refuse to do something based on your religious conviction. So let's say if it's allowed to have gay marriages in some state and you are official who performs state ceremonies than you do it for everyone and not say "but I am religious I will only marry straight couples". You don't like it - change the job, not other way around. But I don't see why private company should force you to choose some health plan which is against your beliefs.

 

[Stoked]

First of all I find the discribed situation pathetic and disgusting.
Now if we discuss it I think it all comes to the freedom of expression. I dont know how US law treats expressing the racist views. Is it prohibited or is it contained in the famous "freedom of speech"? Can you publicly state that "white man shouldn't be allowed to marry black woman?" Because to me that's what those people express by refusing to rent their venue for the wedding or doing whatever kind of service for the occasion.
I believe what should be certainly clear is that if you work for the state institution you have to comply with the state law and not refuse to do something based on your religious conviction. So let's say if it's allowed to have gay marriages in some state and you are official who performs state ceremonies than you do it for everyone and not say "but I am religious I will only marry straight couples". You don't like it - change the job, not other way around. But I don't see why private company should force you to choose some health plan which is against your beliefs.

Yes, you can state that exact phrase legally.

Agreed on working for a branch of government.

 

[JazzGal]

Love one another doesn’t mean participation or even condoning a lifestyle or actions.

Brother is a druggie. I love him. I don’t give him money and I don’t let him in my place unsupervised.

But overall yes, the religious right has done a spectacularly terrible job of demonstrating Christ’s love for one another. This is something I’ve experienced first hand.

My post was a terrible generalization that doesn't do justice to the many, many religious people who are wonderful, loving, accepting people. Blame it on a bad physical therapy session and too much pain today. But still, stereotyping of any sort is not what I want to project out into the world. So I apologize.

It is frustrating when people use their religion to spread hate.

As far as birth control coverage is concerned, I personally believe that it should be covered by all plans - especially companies like Hobby Lobby. They should not be able to force their beliefs onto their employees. Church-owned services have a legitimate argument, I suppose, but I still believe that it should be an individual decision and not one that makes family planning more difficult for their employees.

While in a perfect world all legal relationships and marriages would be treated equally, I realize that it will take time (although the time limit of adjustment about mixed marriages should be long past). But all wedding services are not equal. Those that have a more involved relationship with the couple, like wedding planners and photographers, should have a right to decide whether they do not want to work with that couple, including for reasons that have nothing to do with orientation. These are not services that are "open to the public" in the same way that a bakery or floral shop is. Stores that provide services with less personal involvement with the couple, like flowers and cakes, should have less leeway. I can't decide where wedding venues fall, though.

It frustrates me that these same people who use religious freedom arguments against the LGBT community will gladly serve adulterers, sex offenders, child abusers, perhaps even murderers, without any hesitation because the supposed "sin" is not as visible. So who are they to judge? Do they make all customers fill out a worthiness application?