Why do so many conservative Christians feel they have to dictate how the rest of us live?

[LucyStoner]

You said that the Colorado law had been upheld as constitutional. That implies that there was a challenge. Perhaps you are referring to Romer? That struck down a referendum, but as far as I know, the Court never directly addressed the constitutionality of Colorado's public accommodation laws. However, I have not been following Colorado law, so I could easily be wrong on that.

 

There is no right to a cake. For anyone. But there is a right to freedom religion. Public accommodation laws that go far beyond the original Title II of the Civil Rights act are are problematic, in my view.

 

Did anyone have a peek at the articles I linked? Richard Epstein is worth a look.

 

ETA: I most certainly do not think my religious views are the only ones which should be protected. That much, at least, should be abundantly clear from what I have written.

You don't have the right to demand that I, as a private citizen, bake you a cake.

 

If I open a store (not a religious organization, not a private club) and am selling cake, you do actually have a right to buy that cake for the same price as I am presently offering to others. Even if you are a color, sexual orientation, gender or creed I personally object to.

 

This is a concept upheld by the courts, including the SCOTUS, repeatedly.

 

So while there is no right to cake there is a right to buy cake from for-profit businesses open to the general public which are offering it for sale.

[Mrs Mungo]

You said that the Colorado law had been upheld as constitutional.  That implies that there was a challenge.  Perhaps you are referring to Romer?  That struck down a referendum, but as far as I know, the Court never directly addressed the constitutionality of Colorado's public accommodation laws.  However, I have not been following Colorado law, so I could easily be wrong on that.

I meant that public accommodation laws in general had been upheld by SCOTUS, which they have...repeatedly.

 

I would disagree with Epstein because freedom of association means that you are allowed to associate with whom you please. It doesn't guarantee the freedom *from* ever encountering anyone else. In fact, the fact the the constitution doesn't offer many (if any) "freedom FROMs," which is a major reason for differences in US law and much of the rest of the world.

 

If you believe what Epstein and company say, answer the question(s) I posed to TM (re-paraphrasing):

Do you reject the Civil Rights Act entirely or believe there should be exceptions?

 

Do you believe that a baker should be able to refuse to sell a cake to a black person because the baker has a freedom FROM association? Or an interracial couple? What if the baker in question has strong religious reasons for rejecting black people or interracial couples? Is that okay with you?

[Love]

. 

 

Edited November 19, 2015 by Love

[LizItaly]

But what happens when one person's faith conflicts with another person's civil rights?  Should religious conviction trump civil rights in a secular society?

 

I agree that it would be wrong if all bakers had some sort of requirement to make wedding cakes for gay marriages.  But they don't.  Bakers can make all sorts of things and none have to make wedding cakes.  They also can do wedding cakes as a private business and sell by word of mouth to whomever they want to (or refuse to sell to people they don't want to sell to).  

 

What everyone is required to do is to follow public accommodation law in exchange for the legal benefits they get for setting up a public business. If those laws don't fit your religious beliefs, then don't try to get the benefits too.

 

Buying a cake is not a civil right.  Freedom of religion is a civil right.  For this reason I think many public accommodation laws are too far-reaching.  If the Colorado baker does not make a wedding cake for the gay couple, this in no way hinders the couple from obtaining a cake elsewhere.  He is not stopping their marriage, their reception, or their ability to purchase a cake from anyone else.  He is expressing his freedom of association by declining to provide a cake for a certain event.

 

I don't have a particular problem with Satanists, but many people do.  Would a Christian baker who sells wedding cakes be forced to provide a cake for a Satanist wedding?  

 

The argument has gone round and round.  Disagreement remains.  I appreciate all who have been civil; I always enjoy a good debate. I hope most would agree that I've tried to respond as much as I can, despite a less-than-friendly tone from some.  I'll repeat that my main interest is in securing and maintaining freedom for everyone.  This does not mean that everyone always gets everything desired, or that everyone will always be happy.  It does not mean that outcomes are always equal.  It just means freedom. It is up to the individual to do with that freedom what he will.

[Love]

 

 

.  

Edited November 19, 2015 by Love

[Mrs Mungo]

despite a less-than-friendly tone from some.

Those of us who are actually in minority groups tend to feel that a desire to repeal civil rights laws is not friendly. There are those in the majority who also feel that way. You must understand that the whole POV that public accommodation laws are wrong feels actively *threatening* to some people?

[Love]

 

.  

Edited November 19, 2015 by Love

[Pam in CT]

Gracious, cougars. :huh:     Such problems, we don't have here, praise be.

[Love]

.

[LizItaly]

I meant that public accommodation laws in general had been upheld by SCOTUS, which they have...repeatedly.

 

I would disagree with Epstein because freedom of association means that you are allowed to associate with whom you please. It doesn't guarantee the freedom *from* ever encountering anyone else. In fact, the fact the the constitution doesn't offer many (if any) "freedom FROMs" is a major reason for difference in US law and much of the rest of the world.

 

If you believe what Epstein and company say, answer the question(s) I posed to TM (re-paraphrasing):

Do you reject the Civil Rights Act entirely or believe there should be exceptions?

 

Do you believe that a baker should be able to refuse to sell a cake to a black person because the baker has a freedom FROM association? Or an interracial couple? What if the baker in question has strong religious reasons for rejecting black people or interracial couples? Is that okay with you?

 

Freedom of association gives you the right to associate or not associate with anyone.  It has nothing to do with encountering people.  It means you can choose with whom you want to deal.  It is a right most people exercise everyday.

 

I said explicitly in another comment, and have said similarly in comments before that one, that the Civil Rights Act was necessary, period.  You are talking about a time when several states were segregated BY LAW.  That means it was illegal  for a business, school, etc., to integrate itself.  I am not arguing against the Civil Rights Act, although I have said repeatedly that, in this day and age, an openly racist business owner would get shut down in no time, regardless of the law.  I am arguing against far-reaching public accommodation laws that have a limiting effect on  the freedom of speech, religion, and association of the individual.  

 

I think I've been clear.  I hope I have.  Regardless, I am going to bed.  Goodnight, all.

[LizItaly]

Those of us who are actually in minority groups tend to feel that a desire to repeal civil rights laws is not friendly. There are those in the majority who also feel that way. You must understand that the whole POV that public accommodation laws are wrong feels actively *threatening* to some people?

 

Hey girl, I'm a member of a minority myself, and so is my husband, and so are my kids.  Some of the people at Reason.com who argue against public accommodation laws are gay.

 

Diversity of opinion is a good thing.

[Mrs Mungo]

Buying a cake is not a civil right.  

 

<snip>

 

I don't have a particular problem with Satanists, but many people do.  Would a Christian baker who sells wedding cakes be forced to provide a cake for a Satanist wedding?

Common access to goods is a recognized civil right. It is part of Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

 

SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

So, yes. Assuming all of the following bakers own bakeries that are open to the public? A Christian baker would have to make a wedding cake for a Satanist wedding. A Muslim baker might have to make a wedding cake for a Jewish couple. A gay baker might have to make a wedding cake for a conservative Christian. That's how it works. It works both ways.

 

Analysis:

http://civilrights.findlaw.com/enforcing-your-civil-rights/discrimination-in-public-accommodations.html

 

Privately-owned/operated businesses and buildings. Privately-owned businesses and facilities that offer certain goods or services to the public -- including food, lodging, gasoline, and entertainment -- are considered public accommodations for purposes of federal and state anti-discrimination laws. For purposes of disability discrimination, the definition of a "public accommodation" is even more broad, encompassing most businesses that are open to the public (regardless of type).

 

Laws Prohibiting Discrimination in Public Accommodations: Race, Color, Religion, and National Origin

 

Federal law prohibits public accommodations from discriminating on the basis of race, color, religion, or national origin. If you think that you have been discriminated against in using such a facility, you may file a complaint with the Civil Rights Division of the Department of Justice, or with the United States attorney in your area. You may also file suit in the U.S. district court.

 

There are also state laws that broadly prohibit discrimination on the bases of race, color, religion, and national origin in places of public accommodation. To determine whether your state has such a law, you should contact your state or local human rights agency, your state attorney general's office, or speak to a Civil Rights attorney in your area.

[Mrs Mungo]

Freedom of association gives you the right to associate or not associate with anyone.  It has nothing to do with encountering people.  It means you can choose with whom you want to deal.  It is a right most people exercise everyday.

 

I said explicitly in another comment, and have said similarly in comments before that one, that the Civil Rights Act was necessary, period.  You are talking about a time when several states were segregated BY LAW.  That means it was illegal  for a business, school, etc., to integrate itself.  I am not arguing against the Civil Rights Act, although I have said repeatedly that, in this day and age, an openly racist business owner would get shut down in no time, regardless of the law.  I am arguing against far-reaching public accommodation laws that have a limiting effect on  the freedom of speech, religion, and association of the individual.  

 

I think I've been clear.  I hope I have.  Regardless, I am going to bed.  Goodnight, all.

I'm sorry, but much of the Civil Rights Act has to do with public accommodation laws. So, I'm extremely confused how (in your opinion) you could be against the latter and in favor of the former.

[kiana]

I think (pardon me please if I am misinterpreting) that the distinction LizItaly is trying to make is that during the Civil Rights era, many states and cities explicitly banned integration. This would be sort of like a state banning selling cakes to gay weddings rather than a single baker doing so. 

 

(btw, this is not my viewpoint, but this is what I think she's trying to get at. Liz, please correct me if I'm wrong). 

[Mrs Mungo]

I think (pardon me please if I am misinterpreting) that the distinction LizItaly is trying to make is that during the Civil Rights era, many states and cities explicitly banned integration.

But, many states did not. The Civil Rights Act was specifically designed to apply to businesses (not state laws) that provide public accommodation for that reason.

[LucyStoner]

I think (pardon me please if I am misinterpreting) that the distinction LizItaly is trying to make is that during the Civil Rights era, many states and cities explicitly banned integration. This would be sort of like a state banning selling cakes to gay weddings rather than a single baker doing so.

 

(btw, this is not my viewpoint, but this is what I think she's trying to get at. Liz, please correct me if I'm wrong).

I know a white woman from North Carolina who recounts a tale from the 1980s. She decided to go to lunch with some of her colleagues. Her black colleagues said "no, we can't go there." she said "why ever not?" They told her that the place wouldn't serve black people. She thought that was ridiculous. It was after all the 1980s and not the 1950s, right? She persuaded them to come with her. They walked in and sat down and no waitress would come over and take their order. This white woman had been there many times before and never had a problem. She was stunned. This was long after the Civil Rights Act passed.

 

What should the consequence be for the restaurant? Mind you, there were other places go and eat. No one has a right to buy a roll and bowl of soup.

 

But wait. They actually do.

[kiana]

I know an a white woman from North Carolina who recounts a tale from the 1980s. She decided to go to lunch with some of her colleagues. Her black colleagues said "no, we can't go there." she said "why ever not?" They told her that the place wouldn't serve black people. She thought that was ridiculous. She persuaded them to come with her. They walked in and sat down and no waitress would come over and take their order. This white woman had been there many times before and never had a problem.

 

What should the consequence be for the restaurant? Mind you, there were other places go and eat. No one has a right to roll and bowl of soup.

 

I agree with the Civil Rights act being applied to businesses so I'm not sure why you're asking me what the consequences should be. I was pretty explicit about this not being my viewpoint. 

[LucyStoner]

I agree with the Civil Rights act being applied to businesses so I'm not sure why you're asking me what the consequences should be.

I was asking everyone, just using your post to respond to because it touches an interesting point.

 

The idea that people can be excluded from public accommodations under the right to free association, as some here have argued, is extremely problematic.

[kiana]

I was asking everyone, just using your post to respond to because it touches an interesting point.

 

The idea that people can be excluded from public accommodations under the right to free association, as some here have argued, is extremely problematic.

 

I agree with you completely. I'd find it pretty repulsive to have to go back to having travel guides specifically published so that people could know where it would be "safe" to get something to eat, drink, or stay overnight. 

[Amira]

Buying a cake is not a civil right.  Freedom of religion is a civil right.  For this reason I think many public accommodation laws are too far-reaching.  If the Colorado baker does not make a wedding cake for the gay couple, this in no way hinders the couple from obtaining a cake elsewhere.  He is not stopping their marriage, their reception, or their ability to purchase a cake from anyone else.  He is expressing his freedom of association by declining to provide a cake for a certain event.

 

I don't have a particular problem with Satanists, but many people do.  Would a Christian baker who sells wedding cakes be forced to provide a cake for a Satanist wedding?  

 

The argument has gone round and round.  Disagreement remains.  I appreciate all who have been civil; I always enjoy a good debate. I hope most would agree that I've tried to respond as much as I can, despite a less-than-friendly tone from some.  I'll repeat that my main interest is in securing and maintaining freedom for everyone.  This does not mean that everyone always gets everything desired, or that everyone will always be happy.  It does not mean that outcomes are always equal.  It just means freedom. It is up to the individual to do with that freedom what he will.

 

In that light, it isn't a civil right to buy most anything, no matter your race, religion, sexual orientation, etc.  Buying a cake obviously isn't comparable to having religious beliefs and public accommodation laws aren't in place to make sure people's sweet tooth is satisfied.  They're in place to make sure everyone in protected classes has equal access to publicly offered services, whatever those services are.  They're designed to protect the customer/tenant/employee/receiver of services rather than the employer/landlord/business owner/person offering a service publicly.

 

Protected classes were designated because of horrible discrimination against people in the past based more on what they *are* not what they *do* (religion could be an exception to this depending on how you look at it).  Sexual orientation isn't a protected class in order to make sure gay couples can have cake at their weddings; it's a protected class because people have been bullied, harassed, denied services, and even killed for being gay.  I think it is entirely reasonable and right that sexual orientation is a protected class and that the religious beliefs of the employer/landlord/business owner/person offering a service publicly can't trump anyone's status as a protected class. Because the person in power is not the one the laws are designed to protect.

[Corraleno]

The argument is not to make certain religious beliefs the law, but rather to allow individuals to behave as they see fit according to their religion, moral code, etc..  Catholics and protestants differ, and within protestantism, there are huge differences, too.  Jews and Muslims are different from Christians.  They all want to be free from being required to do something which conflicts with their faith.

 

No one should ever be "required to do something that conflicts with their faith," even if their refusal interferes with someone else's civil rights? So if a Christian restaurant owner believes that Islam is evil, he should have the right to put a sign in the window saying "No Muslims"? Or to refuse to serve an interracial couple?

 

 I most certainly do not think my religious views are the only ones which should be protected.  That much, at least, should be abundantly clear from what I have written.

 

Unless you agree that business owners should be free to refuse to serve anyone they choose, for any reason as long as they claim there is a "sincerely held religious belief" behind their desire to discriminate, then yes you are suggesting that the only religious views that should be protected are those you deem worthy.

 

And if you do think it is OK for business owners to discriminate based on race, religion, gender, or sexual orientation, as long as their reason is religious, then I don't see how you can also say you support the civil rights act.

[Pam in CT]

I know a white woman from North Carolina who recounts a tale from the 1980s. She decided to go to lunch with some of her colleagues. Her black colleagues said "no, we can't go there." she said "why ever not?" They told her that the place wouldn't serve black people. She thought that was ridiculous. It was after all the 1980s and not the 1950s, right? She persuaded them to come with her. They walked in and sat down and no waitress would come over and take their order. This white woman had been there many times before and never had a problem. She was stunned. This was long after the Civil Rights Act passed.

 

What should the consequence be for the restaurant? Mind you, there were other places go and eat. No one has a right to buy a roll and bowl of soup.

 

But wait. They actually do.

 

1980s??!

 

:banghead:

[Tanaqui]

I know a white woman from North Carolina who recounts a tale from the 1980s. She decided to go to lunch with some of her colleagues. Her black colleagues said "no, we can't go there." she said "why ever not?" They told her that the place wouldn't serve black people. She thought that was ridiculous. It was after all the 1980s and not the 1950s, right? She persuaded them to come with her. They walked in and sat down and no waitress would come over and take their order. This white woman had been there many times before and never had a problem. She was stunned. This was long after the Civil Rights Act passed.

 

What should the consequence be for the restaurant? Mind you, there were other places go and eat. No one has a right to buy a roll and bowl of soup.

 

But wait. They actually do.

 

My mother would never eat at Denny's for just that reason. She said that every Denny's she ever went to systematically ignored African-American customers, that this was widely known even before the lawsuits (well, if a white woman managed to know this, it possibly was), and that therefore, no matter what they do in the future, she'll never eat there ever.

 

[LucyStoner]

1980s??!

 

:banghead:

Yeah, it was like full on silent treatment too. They literally ignored them when they asked to order. She said her colleagues went there with her to prove they were right. She was glad to have learned about the restaurant's true colors.

[Pam in CT]

Yeah, it was like full on silent treatment too. They literally ignored them when they asked to order. She said her colleagues went there with her to prove they were right. She was glad to have learned about the restaurant's true colors.

 

God.help.us.all.

[Mrs Mungo]

God.help.us.all.

But, you know, we don't need those pesky government civil rights laws telling poor, mistreated business owners what to do.

 

I think some people are naive and/or extremely ignorant of history.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

But, you know, we don't need those pesky government civil rights laws telling poor, mistreated business owners what to do.

 

I think some people are naive and/or extremely ignorant of history.

You left out the options of:

-- don't care

--miss the good old days

[LucyStoner]

But, you know, we don't need those pesky government civil rights laws telling poor, mistreated business owners what to do.

 

I think some people are naive and/or extremely ignorant of history.

Yes. There's a time for a boycott and there's also a time for the government to issue fines and pull business licenses for scofflaws.

[Corraleno]

But, you know, we don't need those pesky government civil rights laws telling poor, mistreated business owners what to do.

 

I think some people are naive and/or extremely ignorant of history.

 

Oh but the free market will take care of all those discriminatory business owners! I mean the percentage of bigots in this country is sooo tiny no company catering to them could possibly stay in business for very long, right?

[kiana]

Yep. And I think the idea of "the free market would sort it out" is misguided at best. I can guarantee you that I know a fair number of people ... I don't know about black people, but if a restaurant did not allow Mexicans or Muslims, or even demanded citizenship papers from them, they'd go there to support them.

[elegantlion]

You left out the options of:

-- don't care

--miss the good old days

 Don't forget they can just go somewhere else.  :mad:

[Slartibartfast]

Yep. And I think the idea of "the free market would sort it out" is misguided at best. I can guarantee you that I know a fair number of people ... I don't know about black people, but if a restaurant did not allow Mexicans or Muslims, or even demanded citizenship papers from them, they'd go there to support them.

 

 

I agree, there would be quite a few. There are many determined bigots in this country and some media is only encouraging that behavior.

[Love]

.  

 

 

Edited November 19, 2015 by Love

[LucyStoner]

I think that performing a medical service is a lot different than selling some one a cake or meal. No doctors for instance are required to perform abortions. Also if you don't provide those services, you don't provide those services. It has nothing to do with the color or creed or age of the patient. I see that as different than selling a product. A cake is a product.

 

The contractor can also turn away a strip club as adult businesses are not a protected class. And that's fine.

[ChocolateReignRemix]

The contractor is under no obligation to work at an adult club.

 

Healthcare professionals are trickier. The nurse would be best served to not work in departments that perform medical procedures he/she has moral issues with.

[kiana]

Hmm, yes and no.

 

I think that, for example, a nurse who won't do circumcisions should avoid working in a place where they will regularly be asked to assist with them. For example, a nurse who specializes in cardiac care should never be asked to do them. Similarly, a nurse who doesn't do abortions under any circumstances should not work for a gynecologist who wants to perform them. If they're of the subgroup of people who believe that (for example) a tubal pregnancy should not be terminated because it's part of God's plan, or that drugs shouldn't be used to terminate a tubal pregnancy instead of surgery, they should not work in OB-GYN or the ER. The question will then not arise.

[Slartibartfast]

Just out of genuine curiosity- Do you all believe there is an appropriate time for sincere people to not be forced into something, for religious or philosophical reasons?

 

I am thinking of maybe a nurse who won't assist in circumcisions or late term abortions, or something like an Amish contractor who gets asked to remodel a place to make into an adults only dance club/bar.

 

 

FWIW, I really am just curious as to what most people think.

If some one refused to perform a late term abortion and someone died then that could cost them their medical license.

 

There are many who won't perform them for no reason and many states do not permit them, if here was a medical reason then that would be different.

 

Many pediatricians do not perform circumcisions, the practice we used does not. We since moved and they are no longer close to us.

[LucyStoner]

My midwife is an ARNP and has prescriptive authority in our state. Her office also provides routine gynecological services (PAPs, women's healthcare). She is a devout Christian. She will provide mifepristone for those who have an incomplete miscarriage. If she is seeing a patient who decides to terminate their pregnancy before 10 weeks, she would refer them elsewhere. That is her right provided she is professional and makes the referral if needed.

[albeto.]

Just out of genuine curiosity-  Do you all believe there is an appropriate time for sincere people to not be forced into something, for religious or philosophical reasons?

 

I am thinking of maybe a nurse who won't assist in circumcisions or late term abortions, or something like an Amish contractor who gets asked to remodel a place to make into an adults only dance club/bar.  

 

 

FWIW, I really am just curious as to what most people think.  

 

No, I don't. I think it's appropriate for me to expect a medical care provider will provide the best medical care for the circumstances regardless of their personal religious, political, or economic ideologies.

 

The thing is, "sincerely held" beliefs doesn't mean "noble," "good," or even "rational" beliefs. One can sincerely believe blacks are cursed because of Ham, lesbians taunted god until he flew airplanes into buildings, or killing people to make a point is the lesser of two evils. This should never rationalize oppressing people, or unjust persecution. 

 

I imagine this stuff will be sorted out the first time a prominent "job creator" loses a family member because police, fire, or rescue wouldn't come to their aid for some sincerely religiously held belief. Until then, it's getting more and more embarrassing to be a part of a theocratic nation that doesn't recognize it's chasing its own tail, crying all the time that it's after some demonically charged bogey man. 

[LucyStoner]

No, I don't. I think it's appropriate for me to expect a medical care provider will provide the best medical care for the circumstances regardless of their personal religious, political, or economic ideologies.

 

The thing is, "sincerely held" beliefs doesn't mean "noble," "good," or even "rational" beliefs. One can sincerely believe blacks are cursed because of Ham, lesbians taunted god until he flew airplanes into buildings, or killing people to make a point is the lesser of two evils. This should never rationalize oppressing people, or unjust persecution.

 

I imagine this stuff will be sorted out the first time a prominent "job creator" loses a family member because police, fire, or rescue wouldn't come to their aid for some sincerely religiously held belief. Until then, it's getting more and more embarrassing to be a part of a theocratic nation that doesn't recognize it's chasing its own tail, crying all the time that it's after some demonically charged bogey man.

A great many health care providers are self employed. Except in emergency situations, I don't think HCPs are obligated to provide any care. Just like I can't be forced to offer auction management services to a fundraising client (that's right, want to do an auction, move along!), a self employed healthcare provider can not be forced to provide a service they choose not to offer. Yes, my example isn't at all the same as a needed medical service but you can't demand a pediatrician see an adult patient.

 

In the cases of employee health care providers, they have to follow the policies of their employer and the employer has to follow the law.

[kiana]

A great many health care providers are self employed. Just like I can't be forced to offer auction management services to a fundraising client (that's right, want to do an auction, move along!), a self employed healthcare provider can not be forced to provide a service they choose not to offer. Yes, my example isn't at all the same as a needed medical service but you can't demand a pediatrician see an adult patient.

 

In the cases of employee health care providers, they have to follow the policies of their employer and the employer has to follow the law.

 

Yes, I was thinking more of employee health care providers who refuse to provide services their employer wishes to offer.

 

As far as individual ones, I think there's a difference between not providing a service and only providing a service to specific people. It's like the baker is totally free to say "I don't do wedding cakes" but not "I don't do wedding cakes for you."

 

However, I'll bring up a specific case. One of my mother's friends had a very bad pregnancy that resulted in a very bad uterine rupture and an emergency C-section. I don't remember how much blood they had to give her, but it was a lot. They saved the baby, but her regular OB-GYN was not attending. The doctor who was attending specifically told her that if she ever got pregnant again, she would have a high chance of dying and the baby too ... but because of his religious beliefs, he refused to perform the hysterectomy that was indicated while she was already open, or to call in a doctor who would (because that would be facilitating it). Her regular doctor was furious that he hadn't been called in for this, and so he had to perform another surgery later.

 

I find that really-really problematic. I would actually understand it if someone came in for an elective hysterectomy ... when it can wait ... but I really find this problematic. I don't think that someone who feels this way about *emergencies* should be working in this specialty.

[Anne in CA]

It seems to me that an abortion clinic was shut down somewhere in TX when no contractors would work on it because they would lose their church business and it was too scary to them.

 

Which leads down another rabbit trail. Can you turn down business just because it will offend your religious clients? I am not sure how that would work. Because that works both ways. If the majority of your clients will be offended if you do business with someone, do you really have a choice?

[kiana]

As far as the differences between this and the baker or photographer -- I think there is a big difference between "Oh, I do this -- but I won't do it for YOU" and "I don't do this at all."

 

I just can't come up with an analogy involving abortion because I can't think of a case where someone would be like "Oh abortions are just fine if they're for Martians but abortions for Venusians are against my religion". I can't think of a case where abortion would be denied based on someone being a member of a protected class.

[LucyStoner]

I agree that OB-GYNs have no business working as OB-GYNs if they won't handle an emergency hysterectomy. He knew full well that he'd be liable and perhaps lose his license if he actually refused to perform or "facilitate" a life saving procedure in an emergency situation.

 

ETA-

 

It was the doctor who was caring for her that wouldn't do the indicated hysterectomy? Yeah , he shouldn't have refused to get another doctor in there to do the hysterectomy.

[Slartibartfast]

 

However, I'll bring up a specific case. One of my mother's friends had a very bad pregnancy that resulted in a very bad uterine rupture and an emergency C-section. I don't remember how much blood they had to give her, but it was a lot. They saved the baby, but her regular OB-GYN was not attending. The doctor who was attending specifically told her that if she ever got pregnant again, she would have a high chance of dying and the baby too ... but because of his religious beliefs, he refused to perform the hysterectomy that was indicated while she was already open, or to call in a doctor who would (because that would be facilitating it). Her regular doctor was furious that he hadn't been called in for this, and so he had to perform another surgery later.

 

I find that really-really problematic. I would actually understand it if someone came in for an elective hysterectomy ... when it can wait ... but I really find this problematic. I don't think that someone who feels this way about *emergencies* should be working in this specialty.

 

Was that recent? I would have sued him.

[LucyStoner]

It seems to me that an abortion clinic was shut down somewhere in TX when no contractors would work on it because they would lose their church business and it was too scary to them.

 

Which leads down another rabbit trail. Can you turn down business just because it will offend your religious clients? I am not sure how that would work. Because that works both ways. If the majority of your clients will be offended if you do business with someone, do you really have a choice?

Abortion providers are not a protected class either though. That is a sucky condition for abortion providers in Texas but unless the law changed, the contractor has the right to decline the business.

[El...]

I'll be brave and put out a couple of thoughts.  For the interest of full disclosure I'm a conservative Christian but I don't believe everything that some conservative Christians do.  

 

There is a belief stemming from Old Testament Israel, that a nation should obey God in order to have prosperity and security.  Some go so far as to see the US as a "Christian nation" that has taken the place of Israel as God's chosen nation for this time in history.  They want to protect that.  They want prosperity and security in the nation.  They see certain sins as a threat to that.

 

 I'm tired and am going to go to bed but that is one very simplistic answer based on the theology of some conservative Christians.  

 

This thread has been very interesting and thought provoking.  I wanted to add something I've heard several times, from the pulpit and from lay people, in the very (very) conservative evangelical churches in which I grew up:  someone will mention the increasing acceptance of gay people in any form, and then say, "Oh, yes, we're going the way of Sodom and Gomorrah." 

 

Well.  That is a doozy of an idea, isn't it?  If you believe God toasts nations who countenance that particular sin in their midst, that would make controlling your culture an imperative, wouldn't it?  For everyone's survival, Christians had better keep us all on the blessing side and not on the cursing side. 

 

That conversation, in my experience, ends with some kind of admonishment to "be salt and light", "speak out", "stand", and to vote.  Though the speakers are taking the OT in a bald literal sense, I have never heard anyone say we Christians should hurt someone to stop sin.  (I don't follow the FRC....hmmm.) 

 

These people are not evil-hearted, and would shudder over the bullying or harm of anyone.  However, they are being sort of logical, according to the way they read the Bible. 

 

For myself, I've come to the conclusion that if my reading of the Bible takes me to a place inconsistent with charity, truthfulness, and justice, I am reading it wrong and had better re-think. 

[Cammie]

"Human Rights begin in small places close to home."  - Eleanor Roosevelt.

 

That is why the bakery is important.  And the local café.  And this discussion.  Until we make the small changes in our communities, in our families, true Human Rights cannot take hold.

 

I want to thank everyone who participated with genuine interest in answering the question I posed.  Really, I have learned a lot about how other people think. 

 

 

[CAMom]

I just want to say...

 

I know people tend to believe that no one will change their mind in a thread like this dealing with a controversial topic. I am what many would consider a conservative Christian. I was originally on the side of the baker.

 

Upon reading the well thought out, well reasoned, well cited arguments in this thread, I have changed my position.

 

I still don't know what my position on gay marriage is. I'm still thinking that through.

 

Sometimes people do sit back, listen, and change their mind. :)

[*Lulu*]

I just want to say...

 

I know people tend to believe that no one will change their mind in a thread like this dealing with a controversial topic. I am what many would consider a conservative Christian. I was originally on the side of the baker.

 

Upon reading the well thought out, well reasoned, well cited arguments in this thread, I have changed my position.

 

I still don't know what my position on gay marriage is. I'm still thinking that through.

 

Sometimes people do sit back, listen, and change their mind. :)

And I firmly believe that even when these discussion do not cause someone to change thier position at that time, they plant seeds of ideas. Those ideas may one day bring a change or help refine a position that was previously unconsidered.

 

Most importantly, they turn the faceless other into one of us.