Anti-discrimination laws and gay rights.

[Autodidact]

Should religious organizations and individuals be allowed to discriminate against same-sex couples and gay people, when they believe it violates their religion?

For example, in New York, some town clerks refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples legally entitled to marry. Should they be allowed to so and keep their jobs?

If a religious social service agency, such as an adoption agency, refuses to place children with same-sex couples, should they be allowed to receive public funding?

What about public accommodations and businesses; should they be allowed to discriminate against gay couples? For example, should an owner of a hotel be able to refuse to rent a room to a gay couple? What if the facility is owned by a church, does that make a difference? For example, if a church owns a hall they rent out to the public, should they be able to refuse to rent it to a gay couple to celebrate their marriage? What is your view, and why?

[FinalEnigma]

No FinalEnigma, you don't understand what I'm saying. If an employer is discriminating against homosexuals, homosexuals can combat this discrimination by offering their work for less. In doing so, they essentially say that if the employer wants to discriminate he can only do so with additional costs imposed upon him.

I still don't understand where this is acceptable. Yes, in theory, a homosexual person could offer their services for less money in order to make up for being gay, but do you actually think this is any kind of solution? if a homosexual person does this, then they are implicitly agreeing that their work is worth less because they are gay.

do you consider this acceptable?

I don't see it that way but I understand what you're saying. What other effective means is there to combat discrimination? As I already said, anti-discrimination laws cannot be realistically enforced when it comes to sexuality. Yes, it would work if a hotel owner denied rooms to homosexuals because there is no ambiguity, but it would not work if an employer is genuinely prejudice towards gays because there is ambiguity.

I think in many cases they can be enforced. admittedly during the hiring process it would be difficult, unless the person hiring people could be shown to be aware of the applicant sexual orientation and made a blatant homophobic remark toward the applicant, in which case you would have a pretty good case.

But I don't think homosexuals undercutting straight people and probably harming their businesses is a solution by any stretch, further this wouldn't help an applicant in the hiring process either - you cannot apply for a job with a note saying you will work for less money if they are willing to hire a gay person.

it's difficult to legislate tolerance, but legalized discrimination isn't a better solution.

[BlackCat13]

Let's see here where to begin...

Should religious organizations and individuals be allowed to discriminate against same-sex couples and gay people, when they believe it violates their religion?

Depends on the scenario. In the middle of the street, a restaurant, stuff like that, no, it's discrimination. And illegal. In the middle of the pew in their church? Well, it's their church. I think by law, short of animal/human sacrifice and pedophilia, they can do just about anything. Catholic churches are not required to host weddings for non-Catholics. Discriminatory? Maybe. But allowed. They also are not required to marry people who have divorced.

For example, in New York, some town clerks refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples legally entitled to marry. Should they be allowed to so and keep their jobs?

Well, if they can't do their jobs...yes. If I had remained at one of my prior jobs, I probably eventually would've been let go because of my phobia of crickets. My job was made much easier if I could handle crickets. As would other people's jobs because they had to come help me cricket-wrangle. Because I sucked at it and was scared out of my wits.

If a religious social service agency, such as an adoption agency, refuses to place children with same-sex couples, should they be allowed to receive public funding?

I believe if you are going to receive public funds, you should have to allow the public, gay, straight, or otherwise, to partake. If they are privately funded, much as it may annoy me, do as you will. But public libraries don't get to choose who gets to use their computers, check out their books, hang out in their chairs. You can use computers and check out books as long as you have a library card, and hang in their chairs as long as you aren't disruptive. They can kick you out for being disruptive, but that's not discrimination. Sex offenders can use library facilities. But a private library could ask him to leave on that basis, I would assume (is there such a thing as a private library even?). If you get public funds, you should have to abide by federal and state laws, including anti-discrimination laws. If you want to be religiously affiliated, good for you, but your religious beliefs can't affect whom you work with.

What about public accommodations and businesses; should they be allowed to discriminate against gay couples? For example, should an owner of a hotel be able to refuse to rent a room to a gay couple? What if the facility is owned by a church, does that make a difference? For example, if a church owns a hall they rent out to the public, should they be able to refuse to rent it to a gay couple to celebrate their marriage? What is your view, and why?

Public accommodations/businesses are public. Therefore, anyone who is part of that public should be allow to partake, regardless of what the person behind the desk believes. Hotels can't discriminate against me because I wanted to share a room with my fiance, to whom I am not married. (yet). Regardless of whether or not the manager believes that premarital sex or sharing a room before marriage is moral or not, they cannot deny me my room. If the facility is owned by a church, once again, under law, they are private and can do nearly whatever they want. A volunteer organization can say 'you're not Christian, you can't volunteer with us', and they are perfectly within their rights. I don't necessarily think this is right, because a non-Christian can be as good of a volunteer as a Christian, but I digress. There's also the question of is the marriage a "legal" marriage. I don't believe facilities for weddings have to let you have your wedding there if you can't get a marriage license. Renting to the public and renting to the public for a ceremony that would completely misrepresent your churches beliefs (i.e. a gay marriage if your church is anti-gay) is unreasonable to me. I wouldn't expect the church to allow an idol worship ceremony (also against their beliefs, I'm sure). Most likely, as in the case of a church owned lake around here, somewhere on their website it had something like '[insert place here] is dedicated to God and seeks to bear a Christian witness. Therefore, Christian ideals are expected of those who share our camp facilities.' Of which, for a lot of Christian churches, gay people and gay marriages are not included. Of course, I don't know why a gay person would want to marry somewhere they aren't accepted to begin with. That baffles me.

[chris_brown207]

Should religious organizations and individuals be allowed to discriminate against same-sex couples and gay people, when they believe it violates their religion?

If they are a private church, they should be within their rights to deny admittal of any person or group based upon their beliefs.

If they are benefitting from public funds, then they should be subject to public law which requires that there shall be no discrimination based upon race, sex, age, sexual orientation, etc.

For example, in New York, some town clerks refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples legally entitled to marry. Should they be allowed to so and keep their jobs?

No, if their religious beliefs deny them the ability to carry out their duties, then perhaps they should find another job. Their job is to carry out the law, not write it.

If a religious social service agency, such as an adoption agency, refuses to place children with same-sex couples, should they be allowed to receive public funding?

No, as I said before - any group that benefits from public funding should also defer to public regulations.

What about public accommodations and businesses; should they be allowed to discriminate against gay couples? For example, should an owner of a hotel be able to refuse to rent a room to a gay couple? What if the facility is owned by a church, does that make a difference? For example, if a church owns a hall they rent out to the public, should they be able to refuse to rent it to a gay couple to celebrate their marriage? What is your view, and why?

While it may not be socially acceptable or even a wise business decision to do so, they should have the right to reject any business they wish to as long as they are privately owned.

[ymerc123]

The question wasn't about employment discrimination, though - It was about whether or not a person's religious beliefs should be legally sufficient to deny services to LGBT people outside of churches, as in the case of the Arizona photographer who refused to photograph a lesbian couple's wedding based on the photographer's religious beliefs, or in the case of the town clerks in New York, or a religious university banning married gay couples from living in housing for married couples. You've evaded the question, WinePusher.

No, you just didn't fully read my post:

'And yes, a private church has the right to deny gay people facilities. That isn't an issue of discrimination Autodidact, it's an issue of freedom of association and the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the right of private entities to associate with whoever they want.'

To which SCOTUS decisions are you referring? The case of Roberts V. United States Jaycees, the Jaycees were required to admit women as members based on Minnesota public accomodations law, because the Supreme Court considered the Jaycees a commercial organization and therefore subject to non-discrimination laws.

The Boy Scouts Of America had their right to exclude LGBT persons upheld by the court, however, because they are primarily an expressive organization and therefore have the right to exclude on a religious basis - The same as churches.

In other words, commercial organizations don't get to discriminate based on sexuality. Expressive organizations, like churches and the Boy Scouts, do get to discriminate.

That extends to the photographer who refused to take wedding pictures of a lesbian couple because he possesses the right to associate with whoever he wants

Nope. The photography business is a commercial organization and doesn't get to discriminate under the law.

and the religious university because it's a private entity and has the right of freedom of association.

That's true. I may not like it, but it's the law.

Neither you nor the topic creator is adequately informed on this subject

Obviously we aren't the only ones...

since the situations you've brought up have been tested repeatedly before SCOTUS and the rulings have been consistent: a private individual or group has the right to associate with whoever they want.

Wrong again. Expressive organizations have the right to associate with whoever they want. Commercial organizations have to abide by non-discrimination laws.

Furthermore, consider the implications that what you're saying is the proper interpretation of the law would have on society. If a private individual or group actually has the right to right to discriminate against anyone they want in the way that you propose, it would mean that a landlord who was also an anti-Semite could evict Jewish people just because he doesn't want to associate with them. It's no different: It's a person, who runs a business, discriminating against someone because of their personal beliefs. If the wedding photographer can refuse to serve a lesbian couple, then the landlord can evict his Jewish tenants. It's the same thing.

[JoeyKnothead]

From the OP:

Should religious organizations and individuals be allowed to discriminate against same-sex couples and gay people, when they believe it violates their religion?

Not when such is done in the public sector.

The hatin' they do in their own homes and churches, as despicable as it may be, should be protected.

For example, in New York, some town clerks refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples legally entitled to marry. Should they be allowed to so and keep their jobs?

No. It's no different than refusing such licenses to mixed-race couples.

If a religious social service agency, such as an adoption agency, refuses to place children with same-sex couples, should they be allowed to receive public funding?

No. Such would be an overt and government sanctioned acceptance of bigotry.

What about public accommodations and businesses; should they be allowed to discriminate against gay couples?

No. As above, we should not allow bigotry to infiltrate public policy.

For example, should an owner of a hotel be able to refuse to rent a room to a gay couple? What if the facility is owned by a church, does that make a difference?

No on both. There should be some meaning to the term "public facility".

For example, if a church owns a hall they rent out to the public, should they be able to refuse to rent it to a gay couple to celebrate their marriage?

No. I'd just about propose they'd hafta have only gay folks running around, just to see that "the gehys" ain't "the devil".

What is your view, and why?

Your freedom stops when it starts interfering with mine (or 'otherses').

[JoeyKnothead]

From Post 6:

...
If a homosexual got rejected from a job, you have no clue whether the decision was based on his sexuality or his actual qualifications. The law would have no effects on people who are actually discriminating.

In an effort to clarify, and ensuring folks this may not be what East of Eden is getting at, "He's gay!" is, in many states, sufficient grounds for not hiring, or for terminating employment...

Wikipedia: LGBT Rights in the US - Employment.

That said, I'm sure there's a million excuses one can present in an effort to conceal their bigotry.

[Autodidact]

The question wasn't about employment discrimination, though - It was about whether or not a person's religious beliefs should be legally sufficient to deny services to LGBT people outside of churches, as in the case of the Arizona photographer who refused to photograph a lesbian couple's wedding based on the photographer's religious beliefs, or in the case of the town clerks in New York, or a religious university banning married gay couples from living in housing for married couples. You've evaded the question, WinePusher.

There are employment examples, however. For example, in several states, it is illegal to discrimination in employment against someone based on sexual orientation. Should a church be able to discriminate against a candidate for a pastor position based on their sexual orientation? What about for janitor? What about an individual, not a church? Should they be able to discriminate in this way, based on their religious beliefs?

[Autodidact]

The question wasn't about employment discrimination, though - It was about whether or not a person's religious beliefs should be legally sufficient to deny services to LGBT people outside of churches, as in the case of the Arizona photographer who refused to photograph a lesbian couple's wedding based on the photographer's religious beliefs, or in the case of the town clerks in New York, or a religious university banning married gay couples from living in housing for married couples. You've evaded the question, WinePusher.

No, you just didn't fully read my post:

'And yes, a private church has the right to deny gay people facilities. That isn't an issue of discrimination Autodidact, it's an issue of freedom of association and the Supreme Court has consistently upheld the right of private entities to associate with whoever they want.'

That extends to the photographer who refused to take wedding pictures of a lesbian couple because he possesses the right to associate with whoever he wants and the religious university because it's a private entity and has the right of freedom of association. Neither you nor the topic creator is adequately informed on this subject since the situations you've brought up have been tested repeatedly before SCOTUS and the rulings have been consistent: a private individual or group has the right to associate with whoever they want.

Would you please cite the relevant cases? Thank you.

In the case of the New Mexico wedding photographers, the state Human Rights Commission ordered them to take the photos.

In any case, I'm not so much asking what the law is as what you think it should be.

[FinalEnigma]

From Post 6:

...
If a homosexual got rejected from a job, you have no clue whether the decision was based on his sexuality or his actual qualifications. The law would have no effects on people who are actually discriminating.

In an effort to clarify, and ensuring folks this may not be what East of Eden is getting at, "He's gay!" is, in many states, sufficient grounds for not hiring, or for terminating employment...

Wikipedia: LGBT Rights in the US - Employment.

That said, I'm sure there's a million excuses one can present in an effort to conceal their bigotry.

this is unfortunately true. Here in Arkansas, 'you're gay' is sufficient grounds to fire someone.

[Autodidact]

If a religious social service agency, such as an adoption agency, refuses to place children with same-sex couples, should they be allowed to receive public funding?

I'll take this one on, as it seems an easy case to me. It's not fair for someone to use my tax money to discriminate against me. If the Catholic Church doesn't want to place babies with gay couples (because they value their prejudice above the welfare of the babies) then they should not be allowed public funding for their organization. They can pay for their own bigotry, if they think their religion requires it.