|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: How far to accommodate religious belief?
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Earlier in 2014 there was a situation at a university where a student said he would not be attending a required student project group because his religion (not specified, but we can probably guess) forbids him from being with women in public. The Canadian university told the professor to accommodate, but the prof decided not to, and the student attended. It raised the question of how far to accommodate.
I heard a radio program yesterday where additional questions in this direction were posed. Like a pharmacist who might not want to dispense the "morning after pill" because of belief about abortion, a photographer who refused to do wedding photos for a same sex marriage, a doctor who refuses to dispense birth control pills with patients, students who wish to avoid lectures about evolution. On some of these in Canada, there has been attempts to accommodate the beliefs, and on others, not.
I am coming down on the side that if anyone offers any services or products to the public they mustn't have their religious beliefs impose on others. That religion has no place in some discussions or undertakings, like biology classes or medical consultations offices. I was persuaded because of the argument put forward that it is all discrimination and therefore not appropriate.
Is it okay to have your or anyone's religious belief be a reason to refuse to provide a service or product? Where might the limits be? Why would a limit be okay in some situations but not in another?
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
It is a purer and easier discussion when you talk about something simpler, like baked goods. Is it OK, if you believe that gay marriage is sinful, to bake a wedding cake for a gay couple?
This one is relatively easier. Plenty of people attending birthday parties are sinners as well; do you have to assess the morality of all your customers? And then there is the flip side, that customers have a choice too. I might well refuse to patronize a baker who discriminates against my friends and neighbors, and if enough people feel that way your business goes belly up.
Universities, more difficult. If the student knew about the requirements of the class, he should've made this decision before ever signing up.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
Why should we treat 'religious' beliefs differently from other beliefs?
What if I have a firm belief that coal miners are destroying the planet? Can I refuse to allow them to purchase units in my ethical investment trust?
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
I think in university, it depends on the purpose of the class and the assignment. If there is another way to achieve the same learning outcome, then I think that accommodation should be made, even if it means some extra work for the prof.
But if the assignment is integral to the stated purpose of the class, then the student bears the responsibility for having signed up for a class he reasonably should have realized would entail that conflict. e.g. if the class was "contemporary women's studies" or some such thing, and the assignment was to interview, say, a woman. It would be like an Orthodox Jew signing up for a course in culinary school entitled, "cooking with bacon".
[ 08. October 2014, 00:05: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
And then there was that charmer the other day, the very conservative Jew who did not want to sit on an airplane next to one of those eewy women.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
There is a difference between people who perform essential services, like medical or pharmaceutical workers (or police or firemen) and people who, say, sell party favors. We may have a bit of difficulty deciding who is who, but the group providing essential services presumably do not get to choose to withhold their professional services for ideological reasons. Or so ISTM.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
There is a difference between people who perform essential services, like medical or pharmaceutical workers (or police or firemen) and people who, say, sell party favors. We may have a bit of difficulty deciding who is who, but the group providing essential services presumably do not get to choose to withhold their professional services for ideological reasons. Or so ISTM.
--Tom Clune
I'm not sure you can even draw that line. In the American South under Jim Crow it wasn't just essential services that were denied or limited for African Americans. They also were denied service at restaurants, hotels, all sorts of other private businesses that are non-essential. But the sheer volume of the exclusion was such that it effectively limited the free movement and particularly ability to engage in commerce of Southern African Americans, which is why it ultimately was outlawed under the Civil Rights Act. I see a very similar dynamic at play with, for example, professional bakers or photographers who refuse to provide services for gay weddings.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
Thank you, cliffdweller. I was getting all tangled trying to say what you just said very neatly.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm not sure you can even draw that line. In the American South under Jim Crow it wasn't just essential services that were denied or limited for African Americans. They also were denied service at restaurants, hotels, all sorts of other private businesses that are non-essential. But the sheer volume of the exclusion was such that it effectively limited the free movement and particularly ability to engage in commerce of Southern African Americans, which is why it ultimately was outlawed under the Civil Rights Act. I see a very similar dynamic at play with, for example, professional bakers or photographers who refuse to provide services for gay weddings.
If it were to be so widespread that normal life were inhibited, as was the case in the Jim Crow South, you would have a point. But I am far from convinced that there is a comparable situation with same-sex discrimination any more. Perhaps there is a mass issue in some parts of the country, but for the most part it does not seem to be the case. One should be as concerned about the freedoms of people that we don't share views with as we are for those whose views we find congenial. There is really something a tad off about needlessly foisting your views on someone else in the name of freedom -- there needs to be a pretty compelling reason to force others to tow your line. Or so ISTM.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
no prophet: Earlier in 2014 there was a situation at a university where a student said he would not be attending a required student project group because his religion (not specified, but we can probably guess) forbids him from being with women in public.
My position usually is to be rather accomodating, but I think I draw the line when someone refuses to communicate with large swaths of society because of his/her beliefs.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
I'm not sure you can even draw that line. In the American South under Jim Crow it wasn't just essential services that were denied or limited for African Americans. They also were denied service at restaurants, hotels, all sorts of other private businesses that are non-essential. But the sheer volume of the exclusion was such that it effectively limited the free movement and particularly ability to engage in commerce of Southern African Americans, which is why it ultimately was outlawed under the Civil Rights Act. I see a very similar dynamic at play with, for example, professional bakers or photographers who refuse to provide services for gay weddings.
If it were to be so widespread that normal life were inhibited, as was the case in the Jim Crow South, you would have a point. But I am far from convinced that there is a comparable situation with same-sex discrimination any more. Perhaps there is a mass issue in some parts of the country, but for the most part it does not seem to be the case. One should be as concerned about the freedoms of people that we don't share views with as we are for those whose views we find congenial. There is really something a tad off about needlessly foisting your views on someone else in the name of freedom -- there needs to be a pretty compelling reason to force others to tow your line. Or so ISTM.
--Tom Clune
I imagine you're right about the availability of services in big urban areas-- NYC, LA, San Francisco. But when you're talking about rural areas, particularly in the Bible belt, I think you're going to find discrimination against gay weddings to be far more widespread-- possibly to the point that "normal life is inhibited". Which, again, is much like the situation in Jim Crow era South. Certainly African Americans could "simply" go north to find a restaurant meal or stay at a hotel. But the point was, that's not simple. They shouldn't have to leave the state in order to engage in the regular functions of society and engage in commerce. And the same is true for GLBT persons. If they want to have a big-city destination wedding that's great, but it should be a choice-- not a necessity because no one in their own community is willing to provide services.
[ 08. October 2014, 00:46: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
If it were to be so widespread that normal life were inhibited, as was the case in the Jim Crow South, you would have a point. But I am far from convinced that there is a comparable situation with same-sex discrimination any more. Perhaps there is a mass issue in some parts of the country, but for the most part it does not seem to be the case. One should be as concerned about the freedoms of people that we don't share views with as we are for those whose views we find congenial. There is really something a tad off about needlessly foisting your views on someone else in the name of freedom -- there needs to be a pretty compelling reason to force others to tow your line. Or so ISTM.
Works both ways, doesn't it? Do bakers, photographers, etc. have a "compelling reason" to force couples to comply with their view of what is an acceptable marriage?
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
It was a sociology class! The student is taking a sociology class and did not wish to interact with half the freaking population of the planet. The mind boggles.
Though, to be fair, he did enroll in an online course to avoid the conflict.
After the professor outlined his reasoning for denying the request, the student acquiesced, expressed willingness to accommodate and thanked the professor for the way he handled the incident.
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
If it were to be so widespread that normal life were inhibited, as was the case in the Jim Crow South, you would have a point. But I am far from convinced that there is a comparable situation with same-sex discrimination any more.
It may not be at the same level, but that does not mean there is no comparison at all. Never knowing where and when an exclusion might occur is not as bad as knowing that you will be excluded everywhere. However, if can wear on a person and it can feel like death from a thousand paper-cuts.
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
There is really something a tad off about needlessly foisting your views on someone else in the name of freedom -- there needs to be a pretty compelling reason to force others to tow your line. Or so ISTM.
--Tom Clune
It is, or should be, a two-way street.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
But if the assignment is integral to the stated purpose of the class, then the student bears the responsibility for having signed up for a class he reasonably should have realized would entail that conflict. e.g. if the class was "contemporary women's studies" or some such thing, and the assignment was to interview, say, a woman. It would be like an Orthodox Jew signing up for a course in culinary school entitled, "cooking with bacon".
True. And then we come to the question of whether the student chose to sign up for the individual course. If "contemporary women's studies" was a compulsory course for Engineering students, one might ask whether there was an alternative way of achieving the university's aims.
On the other hand, the student in question presumably sits in lecture theatres containing women, attends lectures given by women, and interacts with women on a regular basis - women who are university officials, shop assistants, catering staff, police officers, bus drivers, bankers, or anything else. You can't live in our society and avoid half the population - it just doesn't work.
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Works both ways, doesn't it? Do bakers, photographers, etc. have a "compelling reason" to force couples to comply with their view of what is an acceptable marriage?
No, For me {or, presumably, the state) to demand that you run your (nonessential) business a particular way is vastly more invasive than for me to say that I disapprove of how you run your business, and so will not participate in it. The baker or photographer are not forcing the potential client to change how they live -- they're just not willing to be a part of it. For the burden to be comparable, the state would have to require the gay couple to hire a bigoted photographer for their wedding, whether they wanted to or not.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Earlier in 2014 there was a situation at a university where a student said he would not be attending a required student project group because his religion (not specified, but we can probably guess) forbids him from being with women in public. The Canadian university told the professor to accommodate, but the prof decided not to, and the student attended. It raised the question of how far to accommodate.
What constitutes an "accommodation" in this case? Forming a special "male only" project group for this student to participate in? Would we regard this any differently if the student wanted a special "whites only" project group for religious reasons? Should we?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Works both ways, doesn't it? Do bakers, photographers, etc. have a "compelling reason" to force couples to comply with their view of what is an acceptable marriage?
No, For me {or, presumably, the state) to demand that you run your (nonessential) business a particular way is vastly more invasive than for me to say that I disapprove of how you run your business, and so will not participate in it. The baker or photographer are not forcing the potential client to change how they live -- they're just not willing to be a part of it. For the burden to be comparable, the state would have to require the gay couple to hire a bigoted photographer for their wedding, whether they wanted to or not.
So, again, how is this different from desegregation in the South? You had the exact same thing-- private business owners claiming "religious scruples" against "race mixing" (even pointing to the same book of the Bible-- Leviticus-- to support it) to justify refusing service to a portion of the community. If it was OK for the government to force restaurant owners and hotel owners to provide services to black, why isn't it OK for the government to do the same with wedding photographers & caterers?
There are many, many businesses which the government regulates. The government is already telling the baker that s/he must use certain approved facilities in certain approved ways to meet health code violations. There may be regulations about labeling of ingredients. In some parts of the US, caterers may not serve fois gras. There are labor regulations. All sorts of regulations. So the government already does tell private business owners how to run their business. The government does not, however, ordinarily tell consumers what they do/do not have to buy (in fact, that was a major GOP argument vs. Obamacare).
[ 08. October 2014, 02:39: Message edited by: cliffdweller ]
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
If it was OK for the government to force restaurant owners and hotel owners to provide services to black, why isn't it OK for the government to do the same with wedding photographers & caterers?
As I already said, it is a matter of how burdensome the views are. If there is a whole social structure that makes Jim Crow-style ostracism the operative situation across vast swaths of the country, then there is a compelling reason for the state to intervene. But that is the exception, not the norm. It isn't a matter of someone holding views that you find odious, but of normal life being impossible because of the social collusion of the entire order. I just don't believe that that is the case any more with gay life generally in this country. If I am wrong, then there is a legitimate basis for state intervention. But not otherwise.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
If it was OK for the government to force restaurant owners and hotel owners to provide services to black, why isn't it OK for the government to do the same with wedding photographers & caterers?
As I already said, it is a matter of how burdensome the views are. If there is a whole social structure that makes Jim Crow-style ostracism the operative situation across vast swaths of the country, then there is a compelling reason for the state to intervene. But that is the exception, not the norm. It isn't a matter of someone holding views that you find odious, but of normal life being impossible because of the social collusion of the entire order. I just don't believe that that is the case any more with gay life generally in this country. If I am wrong, then there is a legitimate basis for state intervention. But not otherwise.
--Tom Clune
Again, I suspect you are wrong when it comes to rural areas and the Bible belt, but I'll allow other shippies with more first hand knowledge to weigh in.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
As I already said, it is a matter of how burdensome the views are. If there is a whole social structure that makes Jim Crow-style ostracism the operative situation across vast swaths of the country, then there is a compelling reason for the state to intervene. But that is the exception, not the norm.
I'm pretty sure that even a cursory examination of American history will show Jim Crow (or its equivalents) is actually the norm, not the exception.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
Again, I suspect you are wrong when it comes to rural areas and the Bible belt, but I'll allow other shippies with more first hand knowledge to weigh in.
It seems like tclune's interpretation would require a fairly micromanagerial theory of individual rights. Does the only pharmacist in town have religious liberty to discriminate against customers he doesn't like? How about the only baker in town? What if there's a second baker but he only works weekends and can therefore only take on a limited number of orders? What if the second baker is also discriminatory? Designing a system of "rights" that are highly contingent upon the actions of other actors seems highly problematic.
More to the point, it seems like the kind of system designed under Jim Crow, where you theoretically had access to a legal remedy, but it would be incredibly complicated to actually access it. (e.g. yes, you have a legal right to vote in this precinct, but unfortunately the case took so long to resolve the election is long past.)
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It seems like tclune's interpretation would require a fairly micromanagerial theory of individual rights.
I suppose establishing that there actually is harm being done before one institutes sweeping remedies that one finds to their liking could be called "micromanaging." If so, I'm all for this kind of micromanaging.
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Am I wrong that it is illegal to refuse to rent a room to someone because of their race in all of our countries? This is a characteristic of the person, visible and not subject to change. I'm thinking that this is first cut. Always and easily to define the wrongness.
The second cut is inhibition of other types of belief as it impacts on others.
I recall a news story of a trans person and their fiancé who were denied service at a wedding dress store Link. Is this okay? If the argument that service can be had nearby so there's no loss, then it would be, except the couple felt it as a loss.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
Further, there is the loss of competitive advantage to the consumer. The GOP is all about the free marketplace, that competition drives better services. And in this instance they will claim that some other company will come along to provide the wedding services that the more... uh... religiously narrow photographer/caterer/ whatever declines.
But-- that leaves the GLBT consumer w/o that coveted free marketplace. Without free competition. They won't be free to choose the best service or the best price or whatever they desire. If left with a single option (as might very well be the case in a smaller community and/or Bible belt) that provider will be able to charge an astronomical sum for an inferior product.
All of which to say that "real harm" comes in a lot of varieties and ways.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
cliffdweller
Shipmate
# 13338
|
Posted
It could also impact the businessperson. It's not just the business owner's religious scruples that are at play here, it's the community. In the Bible belt, a baker may be willing to provide a cake for a gay wedding, but find that if word gets out in their small community that s/he is supporting that sort of thing, they might find their straight wedding business drying up. Especially if, as has happened so often recently, there's another baker in town who's managed to make a big play out of refusing to accommodate a gay couple-- leading to a lot more business from the straight fundie community.
This sort of thing happened in the South under Jim Crow a lot-- restaurant owners, etc. under pressure to segregate not only because of their own "religious convictions" but out of fear of losing white business.
So the advantage of government regulation here is that it levels the playing field. Everyone is playing by the same rules, so no business owner is disadvantaged at least economically because they all have to operate by the same rules.
Again, there are all sorts of industries (particularly service industries) in the US that have government regulation for a variety of reasons, some good, some bad. But one byproduct of that is a leveling of the playing field.
--------------------
"Here is the world. Beautiful and terrible things will happen. Don't be afraid." -Frederick Buechner
Posts: 11242 | From: a small canyon overlooking the city | Registered: Jan 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
If it was OK for the government to force restaurant owners and hotel owners to provide services to black, why isn't it OK for the government to do the same with wedding photographers & caterers?
As I already said, it is a matter of how burdensome the views are. If there is a whole social structure that makes Jim Crow-style ostracism the operative situation across vast swaths of the country, then there is a compelling reason for the state to intervene. But that is the exception, not the norm. It isn't a matter of someone holding views that you find odious, but of normal life being impossible because of the social collusion of the entire order. I just don't believe that that is the case any more with gay life generally in this country. If I am wrong, then there is a legitimate basis for state intervention. But not otherwise.
--Tom Clune
The categories addressed by non-discrimination laws, including sex, religion, age, sexual orientation, national origin and handicaps were all added to the laws because there were widespread examples of exactly such discrimination.
So now that you're proposing to roll back some of this because it seems to you that you haven't encountered some of this, what parts do you want to leave standing despite the horrible imposition on business people with religious beliefs?
Do you think that race is no longer an issue worth protecting people? How about equal pay for women? And while it's nice that you think Gays have won such great victories that you have a set of zip codes where public accommodation laws are no longer required to ensure they can have get business services?
The 2013 report on lgbqt victims of violence for example shows
quote:
The 2013 report also documents a number of troubling findings related to the interaction of LGBTQ survivors of violence with police. Overall, 45% of survivors reported their incidents to the police, a decrease from 56% in 2012. Of those survivors reporting to the police, 32% reported experiencing hostile attitudes from the police in 2013, a slight increase from 27% in 2012
You might take that as an contra indicator to your theory that GBLTQ folk have won such great victories that they no longer need unambiguous protection of law.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
hosting/
Just a reminder that homosexuality, and specific discussion of discrimination against such, is a Dead Horse. Which is not the case for the subject of religious belief.
/hosting
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
What about this situation?
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
As I already said, it is a matter of how burdensome the views are. If there is a whole social structure that makes Jim Crow-style ostracism the operative situation across vast swaths of the country, then there is a compelling reason for the state to intervene. But that is the exception, not the norm. It isn't a matter of someone holding views that you find odious, but of normal life being impossible because of the social collusion of the entire order. I just don't believe that that is the case any more with gay life generally in this country. If I am wrong, then there is a legitimate basis for state intervention. But not otherwise.
You seem to be saying that bigoted discrimination is OK so long as only a few people do it. Is that a fair summary?
So would you say it's OK for restaurants to put up "No Blacks" signs again, as long as it's only one or two of them and the rest stay open to everyone? Would it be OK for companies to utterly refuse to hire women to management positions, so long as it's only the odd one? Would it have been OK for St Andrews golf club to continue barring women from membership, because there are plenty of golf courses in Scotland that women can join?
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arethosemyfeet
Shipmate
# 17047
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
What about this situation?
I think it should probably be illegal, but then so should the university's anti-gay policy. In this case the young woman in question has reaped what she has sown. I hope she wins her case and they award her $1 in damages and refuse her costs.
Posts: 2933 | From: Hebrides | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
I think we should have zero tolerance of intolerance.
If we are providing a service, either public or private, our own religious or other beliefs should not get in the way of providing that service.
Taking money off other people, either through taxes or payment does not allow you to judge their lifestyle at all imo.
In most areas you wouldn't know anything about their lifestyle anyway.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Demas
Ship's Deserter
# 24
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
You seem to be saying that bigoted discrimination is OK so long as only a few people do it. Is that a fair summary?
Whether an action is morally OK and whether it should be illegal are two different questions. Which are you asking?
--------------------
They did not appear very religious; that is, they were not melancholy; and I therefore suspected they had not much piety - Life of Rev John Murray
Posts: 1894 | From: Thessalonica | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Dafyd
Shipmate
# 5549
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian:
So would you say it's OK for restaurants to put up "No Blacks" signs again, as long as it's only one or two of them and the rest stay open to everyone? Would it be OK for companies to utterly refuse to hire women to management positions, so long as it's only the odd one?
People have been known to argue that if people want to support a health service, people out of work, etc, then they should do it themselves rather than ask the state to coerce other people to do it.
I'm not seeing any difference in principle between that position, and arguing that if people want minorities to have access to consumer goods and services they should provide them themselves rather than coerce other people into providing them.
If the libertarian argument in the latter case fails (which I think it does) it fails in the former case. If the market will sort it out argument fails in the latter case (which I think it certainly does) it fails in the former case.
--------------------
we remain, thanks to original sin, much in love with talking about, rather than with, one another. Rowan Williams
Posts: 10567 | From: Edinburgh | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Kaplan Corday
Shipmate
# 16119
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I think we should have zero tolerance of intolerance.
If we are providing a service, either public or private, our own religious or other beliefs should not get in the way of providing that service.
Taking money off other people, either through taxes or payment does not allow you to judge their lifestyle at all imo.
In most areas you wouldn't know anything about their lifestyle anyway.
Suppose a Muslim organisation refused to hire out a facility (such as a hall or campsite or convention centre) unless an undertaking was given that no alcohol or pork product was served or consumed on the premises.
On what grounds would you forbid them that right?
Posts: 3355 | Registered: Jan 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Erroneous Monk
Shipmate
# 10858
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I think we should have zero tolerance of intolerance.
If we are providing a service, either public or private, our own religious or other beliefs should not get in the way of providing that service.
Taking money off other people, either through taxes or payment does not allow you to judge their lifestyle at all imo.
In most areas you wouldn't know anything about their lifestyle anyway.
This sounds good, but it hits a snag in the case of a Roman Catholic doctor who sincerely believes the unwanted pregnancy presenting to her involves two patients, and both are entitled to her care.
I think it's entirely reasonable for her to decline to provide a service that is freely available elsewhere.
--------------------
And I shot a man in Tesco, just to watch him die.
Posts: 2950 | From: I cannot tell you, for you are not a friar | Registered: Jan 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Horseman Bree
Shipmate
# 5290
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
What about this situation?
ISTM that Amaruk should have enquired as to whether her beliefs would allow her to function in a team that appears to have strongly negative views about religion. She would also have the right to question Amaruk about their views in relation to her taking the position.
Why she would want to work with a bunch of actively and rudely gay-positive men who are also Christian-phobic is a question.
What the University had as a policy is irrelevant to the situation, since they are not being hired, and the policy in question had just about nothing to do with the job.
I can see that a lawyer might have a problem in a case involving gays, but part of law training is supposed to be the neutrality of the lawyer in question. I assume that they try to teach that, lest it become a factor in the handling of a case.
--------------------
It's Not That Simple
Posts: 5372 | From: more herring choker than bluenose | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Suppose a Muslim organisation refused to hire out a facility (such as a hall or campsite or convention centre) unless an undertaking was given that no alcohol or pork product was served or consumed on the premises.
On what grounds would you forbid them that right?
You aren't discriminating on a protected status only a specific practice that is not protected (and btw no alcohol bans are fairly common in parts of the US) nor is the ban aimed at indirectly discriminating against a protected group. Note btw that sexual orientation is not a protected class in all states.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I think we should have zero tolerance of intolerance.
If we are providing a service, either public or private, our own religious or other beliefs should not get in the way of providing that service.
Taking money off other people, either through taxes or payment does not allow you to judge their lifestyle at all imo.
In most areas you wouldn't know anything about their lifestyle anyway.
This sounds good, but it hits a snag in the case of a Roman Catholic doctor who sincerely believes the unwanted pregnancy presenting to her involves two patients, and both are entitled to her care.
I think it's entirely reasonable for her to decline to provide a service that is freely available elsewhere.
I think she has chosen become a doctor, therefore needs to treat patients. If that treatment involves abortion, so be it.
If she needs to move to another area of medicine for her own state of mind, fair enough. But her beliefs should not impinge on the treatment patient at all imo.
Doctors are not there to make value judgemets, they are there to treat their parients. I can't refuse to teach children if I disapprove of their parents' lifestyles.
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Suppose a Muslim organisation refused to hire out a facility (such as a hall or campsite or convention centre) unless an undertaking was given that no alcohol or pork product was served or consumed on the premises.
On what grounds would you forbid them that right?
You probably wouldn't. You've changed over from deciding which members of the public to serve to deciding which services to offer. The latter is usually not the subject of anti-discrimination laws. If you were running a campground that only served practicing Muslims that might be an issue, but even that can be worked around by a religious organiziation. Most anti-discrimination statutes are based on the idea that if you're a business serving the public, you don't get to decide who is and isn't "the public". But a religious organization doesn't have to organize itself as a business. It can claim to be more similar to a private club, serving only its own members, not the general public. This generally allows much wider latitude for discriminatory behavior, particularly if it's a religiously-themed organization.
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
This sounds good, but it hits a snag in the case of a Roman Catholic doctor who sincerely believes the unwanted pregnancy presenting to her involves two patients, and both are entitled to her care.
I think it's entirely reasonable for her to decline to provide a service that is freely available elsewhere.
What about a doctor who converts to the Church of Christ, Scientist? Should she be accommodated in declining to treat patients with anything other than prayer? Given your position this would seem to be a handy way to invent a sinecure. Can't be forced to work because it violates your faith and can't be fired because your religious beliefs must be accommodated.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
There is many a church which is a no-alcohol facility (except for the Communion wine). I spearheaded making our church a no-alcohol campus, after an unfortunate incident with drunken bridesmaids. That was one merry wedding ceremony, let me tell you.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anyuta
Shipmate
# 14692
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Kaplan Corday:
Suppose a Muslim organisation refused to hire out a facility (such as a hall or campsite or convention centre) unless an undertaking was given that no alcohol or pork product was served or consumed on the premises.
On what grounds would you forbid them that right?
that is not based on the PERSON being rented to, but an activity that they prohibit. I think it reasonable tor someone to put restrictions on the uses of a rented facility. For example, many places would potentially have a no-alcohol policy based on licencing or indemnity issues. They may have restrictions on bringing in outside food. they may have restrictions on noise levels.. I can think of many other restrictions based on ACTIVITY that anyone might engage in, but which the facility doesn't want. but if we're talking about WHO they rent to (regardless of activity), then we have a problem. for example saying they won't rent to non Muslims (in your example) might be wrong, but saying "no alcohol or pork products" would be OK (a non-Muslim who rents with the understanding of and agreement to those restrictions could still rent the facility). There is an inherent difference between banning a particular activity or person.
and one can't say "gay wedding" is an activity. it's a wedding.. the "gay" part refers to a person (people).
Posts: 764 | From: USA | Registered: Mar 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
Perhaps the situation would be sort of okay for some religious ideals in some situations? Suppose a physician doesn't want to counsel or provide family planning services out of a fundamentalist or RC belief, but seamlessly passes off the patient to another physician in the office essentially immediately: "excuse me, this is not my area of expertise, would you please wait a moment so I can get Dr Tolerant to meet with you?", with no delay (I might suggest 10 mins max wait). The patient would never know that Dr Willnot was passing off for religious reasons and was not inconvenienced or made to feel something bad.
On the other hand, if there is no other physician immediately available, and the patient might need to travel, experience delay etc, this would seem unacceptable, and the physician would have to provide the service, contrary to their held beliefs.
My question has evolved from reading the responses on this thread to whether there is "reasonable accommodation" for something like this, or whether any attempted accommodation is simply a bad idea, and we shouldn't consider it.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Boogie
Boogie on down!
# 13538
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
I can think of many other restrictions based on ACTIVITY that anyone might engage in, but which the facility doesn't want. but if we're talking about WHO they rent to (regardless of activity), then we have a problem. for example saying they won't rent to non Muslims (in your example) might be wrong, but saying "no alcohol or pork products" would be OK (a non-Muslim who rents with the understanding of and agreement to those restrictions could still rent the facility). There is an inherent difference between banning a particular activity or person.
and one can't say "gay wedding" is an activity. it's a wedding.. the "gay" part refers to a person (people).
Yes I agree, regarding renting.
For example we can say 'no pets' etc. It doesn't discriminate, it simply sets out terms.
Many Churches don't allow any alcohol on the premises, for example. Which is fine imo - you know before you book and will book accordingly.
[ 08. October 2014, 16:12: Message edited by: Boogie ]
--------------------
Garden. Room. Walk
Posts: 13030 | From: Boogie Wonderland | Registered: Mar 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
no prophet's flag is set so...
Proceed to see sea
# 15560
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Horseman Bree:
quote:
Originally posted by Demas:
What about this situation?
ISTM that Amaruk should have enquired as to whether her beliefs would allow her to function in a team that appears to have strongly negative views about religion.
Is there a cultural disconnect between Canada and Norway, where communication and ideas are differentially expressed? I am not familiar enough with their culture to know. The correspondence in the subsequent link on the CBC.ca website would suggest this, though the comments seem to be particularly profane, ill-mannered, intemperate and ill-advised.
--------------------
Out of this nettle, danger, we pluck this flower, safety.
\_(ツ)_/
Posts: 11498 | From: Treaty 6 territory in the nonexistant Province of Buffalo, Canada ↄ⃝' | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Leorning Cniht
Shipmate
# 17564
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anyuta:
that is not based on the PERSON being rented to, but an activity that they prohibit. I think it reasonable tor someone to put restrictions on the uses of a rented facility.
So how does that differ from the case of the doctor who doesn't want to offer advice on contraception? He's not refusing to offer advice to a particular person - he's putting restrictions on the services he offers.
How does a doctor who doesn't want to offer contraceptive advice differ from a function room that doesn't want to permit the consumption of alcohol, or pork, or whatever?
Is it just a question of degree - that the ability to access contraception is more important than the ability to have a glass of wine with your lunch?
Posts: 5026 | From: USA | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Matt Black
Shipmate
# 2210
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
quote:
Originally posted by Erroneous Monk:
quote:
Originally posted by Boogie:
I think we should have zero tolerance of intolerance.
If we are providing a service, either public or private, our own religious or other beliefs should not get in the way of providing that service.
Taking money off other people, either through taxes or payment does not allow you to judge their lifestyle at all imo.
In most areas you wouldn't know anything about their lifestyle anyway.
This sounds good, but it hits a snag in the case of a Roman Catholic doctor who sincerely believes the unwanted pregnancy presenting to her involves two patients, and both are entitled to her care.
I think it's entirely reasonable for her to decline to provide a service that is freely available elsewhere.
I think she has chosen become a doctor, therefore needs to treat patients. If that treatment involves abortion, so be it.
As far as she is concerned, she is treating both her patients by, in particular, not ending the life of one of them. Now what?
--------------------
"Protestant and Reformed, according to the Tradition of the ancient Catholic Church" - + John Cosin (1594-1672)
Posts: 14304 | From: Hampshire, UK | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by cliffdweller:
quote:
Originally posted by tclune:
There is a difference between people who perform essential services, like medical or pharmaceutical workers (or police or firemen) and people who, say, sell party favors. We may have a bit of difficulty deciding who is who, but the group providing essential services presumably do not get to choose to withhold their professional services for ideological reasons. Or so ISTM.
--Tom Clune
I'm not sure you can even draw that line. In the American South under Jim Crow it wasn't just essential services that were denied or limited for African Americans. They also were denied service at restaurants, hotels, all sorts of other private businesses that are non-essential. But the sheer volume of the exclusion was such that it effectively limited the free movement and particularly ability to engage in commerce of Southern African Americans, which is why it ultimately was outlawed under the Civil Rights Act. I see a very similar dynamic at play with, for example, professional bakers or photographers who refuse to provide services for gay weddings.
I've read a bit about the bakers & photographers who want to be able to refuse to provide services for same-sex weddings. In every case, the providers have made the point that they're not refusing to sell cakes or take photos for gay people; rather, they are conscientiously opposed to participating in what they feel is a travesty of Christian marriage. It's not that they're opposed to taking money from homosexuals, more that they don't wish to be seen as implicitly approving of something that they see as wrong.
To be honest, I'm on the fence about whether they should get a pass for this, if for no other reason than that it makes anti-discriminatory laws extremely time-consuming and difficult to enforce. But their refusal to provide their services for same-sex marriages is not quite the same thing as a refusal to serve black people in a restaurant.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Brenda Clough
Shipmate
# 18061
|
Posted
But somehow I am certain that those bakers do not scope out the birthday party, to be certain that the birthday boy and all the attendees are not living in sin, open and notorious, and so on. Acknowledged villains have no difficulty getting birthday cakes.
--------------------
Science fiction and fantasy writer with a Patreon page
Posts: 6378 | From: Washington DC | Registered: Mar 2014
| IP: Logged
|
|
Fr Weber
Shipmate
# 13472
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
But somehow I am certain that those bakers do not scope out the birthday party, to be certain that the birthday boy and all the attendees are not living in sin, open and notorious, and so on. Acknowledged villains have no difficulty getting birthday cakes.
It doesn't seem as though they're taking pains to investigate any of their customers. It's difficult to hide the fact that a same-sex wedding is a same-sex wedding, though; as soon as two men or two women come in to taste the cakes it's going to be known.
I don't have a problem believing that the same bakers would refuse to bake a cake for Richard Speck's 70th birthday party. But of course, I have no way of knowing that.
--------------------
"The Eucharist is not a play, and you're not Jesus."
--Sr Theresa Koernke, IHM
Posts: 2512 | From: Oakland, CA | Registered: Feb 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
que sais-je
Shipmate
# 17185
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by no prophet:
Is it okay to have your or anyone's religious belief be a reason to refuse to provide a service or product? Where might the limits be? Why would a limit be okay in some situations but not in another?
In a recent thread I admitted that volunteers (including me) at a charity bookshop don't put out for sale anything which we believe opposes the aims of the charity. This includes anything racist, pornographic or inciting breaches of human rights. Also we pulp salacious 'true crime' books.
The two responders disagreed with our stance. Would that be the view here? I did ask others on my shift but they just added several other categories which they thought should be pulped as well for the greater good of humankind (the names 'Clarkson' and 'Archer' were mentioned).
I'm conflicted. Should we just sell all we can?
--------------------
"controversies, disputes, and argumentations, both in philosophy and in divinity, if they meet with discreet and peaceable natures, do not infringe the laws of charity" (Thomas Browne)
Posts: 794 | From: here or there | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
