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?

[WinePusher]

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?

The issues about homosexuality has been beaten to death on this forum, so I'm just going to address the anti-discrimination aspect of this topic. The thing that so many people suffer from is the confusion between anti-discrimination legislation and civil rights legislation. They are not the same, civil rights gave one portion of the population the same rights as the other portion while anti-discrimination laws would force one portion of the population to treat another portion of the population according to set predetermined standards. If this is another crusade for gay marriage Autodidact, the focus should be on civil rights laws, not anti-discrimination laws. And when discussing anti-discrimination laws, you have to distinguish between people who discriminate for relevant reasons and people who discriminate for irrelevant reasons. If an employer is looking over a stack of applications for a job as a waiter at an authentic chinese restaurant, he is going to automatically discriminate against all non-chinese speakers and would focus only on the pool of candidates who are bilingual. If an individual is looking for a worker to move his furniture, he is going to automatically discriminate against midgets, paraplegics and teenage girls and search for people who can demonstrate a reasonable amount of strength and stamina. Both are discriminating for relevant reasons and it is perfectly valid. People such as a hotel owner refusing to rent a room to a gay couple, would be discriminating for irrelevant reasons. And he would have a cost imposed upon him. By refusing to rent a room to a gay couple, he loses out on the money he would have recieved had he actually rented the room to that gay couple. It's the same thing with employment discrimination, if an employer chooses not to hire an individual solely because he/she is gay, the employer is discriminating for irrelevant reasons. But he has a cost imposed upon him because the gay individual can offer his work for less than an average heterosexual individual, and if the employer still chooses to discriminate he will have to pay more for labor than he would have had to pay if he didn't discriminate. By enacting anti-discrimination laws you eliminate this cost. An employer who discriminates for irrelevant reasons now has no incentive to hire gays. 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.

[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.

[WinePusher]

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.

[FinalEnigma]

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 the clerks are saying that, because of their religion, they cannot issue legal marriage licenses to same sex couples, then they are basically saying that their religion prevents them from doing their job, and they should be fired.

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?

This one is far more arguable. I'm not certain on this one and would like to hear arguments on it. one could argue that it is harmful to the children to refuse to place them with legitimate homes.

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?

No. I don't believe that discrimination should be legal. Anti-discrimination HAS to be enforced or discrimination will continue and perhaps even grow.

What if the facility is owned by a church, does that make a difference?

I don't think so. I don't think belonging to a particular club or religion or any other kind of group should allow you to break the law with no consequences - If something is law, it applies to everyone.

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?

I don't think they should, save within their church itself, be allowed to refuse. The reason for this is that, for one, this would open things up to allow churches to buy as much property as possible and discriminate against homosexuals. As soon as you open your services or location up to the public, you cannot use it to discriminate. This has been seen even here in Arkansas. An atheist group wanted to put an add on a bus and the company refused because it was an atheist message. the atheist group sued and won, because you cannot have services open to the public and then discriminate.

By enacting anti-discrimination laws you eliminate this cost. An employer who discriminates for irrelevant reasons now has no incentive to hire gays.

Winepusher, can you explain how anti-discrimination laws would make an employer NOT hire homosexuals, and could you explain the implication in your sentence that homosexuals will work for less money like illegal immigrants?

and winepusher, as noted in my example of the ad on the bus here in arkansas - it is NOT legal for a business to discriminate.

[WinePusher]

Winepusher, can you explain how anti-discrimination laws would make an employer NOT hire homosexuals, and could you explain the implication in your sentence that homosexuals will work for less money like illegal immigrants?

If an employer refuses to hire a homosexual simply because he/she is gay, the homosexual can offer to work for less than a heterosexual which imposes a cost on the employer. And the problem with any type of anti-discrimination law is that there is no realistic way to enforce it. 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.

[FinalEnigma]

Winepusher, can you explain how anti-discrimination laws would make an employer NOT hire homosexuals, and could you explain the implication in your sentence that homosexuals will work for less money like illegal immigrants?

If an employer refuses to hire a homosexual simply because he/she is gay, the homosexual can offer to work for less than a heterosexual which imposes a cost on the employer. And the problem with any type of anti-discrimination law is that there is no realistic way to enforce it. 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.

so your position is that gay people should take the same jobs for less money than straight people, and that we should not attempt to prevent this obvious inequality? What about lesbians who make less because they're women (which isn't valid, btw). should they make less for being homosexual, too?

[WinePusher]

so your position is that gay people should take the same jobs for less money than straight people, and that we should not attempt to prevent this obvious inequality? What about lesbians who make less because they're women (which isn't valid, btw). should they make less for being homosexual, too?

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.

[FinalEnigma]

so your position is that gay people should take the same jobs for less money than straight people, and that we should not attempt to prevent this obvious inequality? What about lesbians who make less because they're women (which isn't valid, btw). should they make less for being homosexual, too?

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?

[WinePusher]

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.