Support NeoGAF

[Maiden Voyage]

As a business, why would you want to cut off any potential revenue streams? Seems silly to me.

 

[cackhyena]

As a business, why would you want to cut off any potential revenue streams? Seems silly to me.

Eternal hell fires for complicity is a strong deterrent.

 

[waypoetic]

"Fight the power for God's rules - or get sued for hate crime!"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=32&v=BmuC5X_RwYw

 

[quickwhips]

Change gay to black, Asian and it would show these bigots how wrong they are.

 

[Raistlin]

Aren't you though?
If I come to a church and want to take comunion, because I want to - why shouldn't I be able to?
I'm guessing whatever god that church might be following would love new possible followers?

At the same time - If I am gay and want to get married in a church, I should be able to.

You realize that neither of those are true for anyone, right? That not how it works, or I should say it's up to the church.

Meaning, they don't have to give you communion, and they don't have to marry you ... even if you're straight.

 

[Kai Dracon]

Change gay to black, Asian and it would show these bigots how wrong they are.

I suspect for a lot of genuine bigots it wouldn't. There seems to be a not insignificant overlap between gay = bad and whites = best race (among white bigots).

One reason a lot of bigots are so hot and bothered about gay rights is because this represents yet another group of degenerates that they would be forced kicking and screaming to share the same room.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Well yeah, many would argue that the black communities were stronger in cities when they were forced to look out for themselves due to housing and economic segregation.

O_O fire hoses build character? :|

 

[typist]

Well plenty of church ministers with racist tendencies would object to marrying a black partner to a white partner and say that they're just practising their religion, does anyone think that they deserve an exemption?

 

[ItIsOkBro]

This is basically asking for legal permission to discriminate? Shouldn't even be entertained.

 

[The Faceless Master]

As a business, why would you want to cut off any potential revenue streams? Seems silly to me.

because many people say "fuck those fucking faggots and niggers and i don't want their kind in here, it's not about the money, fuck their filthy fucking money" in private all the time and the ones who think that's 'crazy' and not just bigoted probably just "don't see race/etc..." and ignore history and just do not have a realistic view of society in general.

 

[slit]

Change gay to black, Asian and it would show these bigots how wrong they are.

No it wouldn't.

In fact most libertarians would be perfectly fine with all those types of discrimination.

 

[The Faceless Master]

Change gay to black, Asian and it would show these bigots how wrong they are.

as if you don't know they'll say "you can't choose to be asian" by now. c'mon son.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

Well plenty of church ministers with racist tendencies would object to marrying a black partner to a white partner and say that they're just practising their religion, does anyone think that they deserve an exemption?

They already have an exemption. A minister can refuse to marry any couple for any reason, basically. It's not a simple economic transaction, it's a religious rite. Therefore, it cannot be regulated by government laws mandating nondiscrimination. After Loving v. Virginia, many churches refused to officiate interracial marriages for a long time, and this still happens more infrequently today.

Again, this comes back to the distinction between marriage as a religious rite and as a state institution. The Supreme Court mandated that gay couples are entitled to the state institution of marriage, because 1. that's the only one that they have jurisdiction over, and 2. because it's the only one that matters in a legal context, since it's the only one that conveys benefits from the state. A simple religious ceremony only means that people are married within their religion and has no legal bearing on their marital status as recognized by the state, and a religious component is not required for state recognition of marriage.

 

[Matty77]

Well plenty of church ministers with racist tendencies would object to marrying a black partner to a white partner and say that they're just practising their religion, does anyone think that they deserve an exemption?

it's not a matter of deserve, it's a matter of constitutionally your hypothetical minister has that right. Do I agree, no, do I think it's bigoted, yes.

However they have that right as a private religous institution, whether I like it or not.

 

[rudieboy77]

If they get these exemptions, I'd really hope someone in the Western Buddhist community would try for exemptions from paying for war and the machines that wage it.

 

[Chmpocalypse]

Some people take religion to the worst extremes. They use it blindly to shade their internal feelings and find some sort of justification using religion as their basis for reasoning. Sickening and immature.

One of them is in this thread, even.

 

[Chmpocalypse]

Yes, but do we know these orgs. were able to pick up the slack? Probably not in my opinion. There's a deficit of adoption in this country.

With regard to the rest of your post, the state should act in the best interest of its constituents. Limiting discrimination is only one amongst many. The state also has in interest in seeing children adopted by loving parents, no matter how it arrives at that result. So I ask again, is this zero-tolerance for discrimination stance worth it when fewer children may be getting adopted. I say no, as the life of a child is more precious to me than hurting someone's feelings. And lets be clear, in almost all of these instances, people had other places from which they could adopt. So all we're talking about is hurt feelings.

This debate is reminiscent of liberal's disdain for GWB's "faith based initiatives" where progressives also cried about separating church and state. Forgetting that the partnership actually did help millions of Americans. Progressives (a group of which I am a part) should stand less often on principal and more often on practicality.

And what "behavior" is that? Disagreeing with conventional wisdom? Awwww... I'm sorrry...

Progressives don't support segregation.

 

[CadetMahoney]

Businesses?

Religion is a big tax-exempt business.

Gotta have private jets.

 

[riotous]

In your example though, it wasn't particularly because of him being Catholic, but it was him being of different Church in the first place. I think there's a difference.

No, there isn't. You can't do the same with a business open to the public, you can do it as a rabbi offering religious services. Your example doesn't apply. If a church believes that gays shouldn't be married, and that is a sincerely held religious belief, they will never have to perform gay weddings. They are protected.

 

[Netherscourge]

If I were seeking to marry a same-sex partner, the LAST place I would want to be married is in a Christian church by a Priest who has spent their entire religious life hating me for what I was.

But that's just me.

I would seek a non-denominational pastor, or at least one who actually respects who I was an didn't think I was some sort of crime against their god.

Being married by that Priest would be as offensive to me as them having to marry me would be to them. I wouldn't want the Priest anywhere near my wedding.

 

[Derwind]

Churches not wanting to perform the ceremony sure, thats fine.

A business operating refusing to serve minorities. They can fuck off with that, they shouldn't have a business license to begin with.

 

[unholyrevenger72]

If you're at work and you refuse to do your job you get fired for dereliction of duty, not for your beliefs...

 

[Sequence Six]

If they get these exemptions, I'd really hope someone in the Western Buddhist community would try for exemptions from paying for war and the machines that wage it.

You can avoid military service as a conscientious objector but I don't think any ideology will get you out of paying taxes.

 

[GameGuru59]

Progressives don't support segregation.

Neither do I. But I support peoples right to do it on their own damn property according to their own damn beliefs.

 

[hosannainexcelsis]

I see what I think is a misconception among some people in this thread - while there may be some people out there who don't want to serve homosexuals in any business capacity, all the Christians I've heard who are concerned about the Supreme Court decision are concerned specifically about being forced to participate in same-sex weddings. They don't have any problems with treating homosexuals just the same as any other costumer in any other kind of transaction. I was listening to Focus on the Family's radio show yesterday, and the host explicitly said, "If a same-sex couple came into a restaurant and ordered a hamburger, I wouldn't ask them if they were a same-sex couple and refuse them service because of that. I'd give them the hamburger. Their sexual preferences are completely irrelevant in that situation. But if I was a musician or an artist or a baker or some other creative professional and was asked to use my talents in service of a same-sex wedding, I'd have a moral objection to that. I don't want to be forced to be in the position of endorsing a marriage that I don't see as legitimate." So the racial comparison is a flawed one - Christians aren't looking to create business "for straights only". They just don't want the government mandating that they help to facilitate same-sex marriage. That seems like a position that should be allowed under the freedom of religion we have in the U.S. Constitution to me.

At any rate, if people believe that not wanting to participate in a same-sex wedding is such a heinous act that deserves punishment, there are certainly plenty of non-governmental social pressures that can be brought to bear on the offenders, especially in the current age of social media, such that you can accomplish your goals without the government's assistance.

 

[Messofanego]

Religion is a big tax-exempt business.

Gotta have private jets.

This makes me want to watch that Going Clear scientology documentary now, of how they got tax exempt from IRS and all that.

 

[balladofwindfishes]

Neither do I. But I support peoples right to do it on their own damn property according to their own damn beliefs.

So you support segregation then

 

[linkboy]

I see what I think is a misconception among some people in this thread - while there may be some people out there who don't want to serve homosexuals in any business capacity, all the Christians I've heard who are concerned about the Supreme Court decision are concerned specifically about being forced to participate in same-sex weddings. They don't have any problems with treating homosexuals just the same as any other costumer in any other kind of transaction. I was listening to Focus on the Family's radio show yesterday, and the host explicitly said, "If a same-sex couple came into a restaurant and ordered a hamburger, I wouldn't ask them if they were a same-sex couple and refuse them service because of that. I'd give them the hamburger. Their sexual preferences are completely irrelevant in that situation. But if I was a musician or an artist or a baker or some other creative professional and was asked to use my talents in service of a same-sex wedding, I'd have a moral objection to that. I don't want to be forced to be in the position of endorsing a marriage that I don't see as legitimate." So the racial comparison is a flawed one - Christians aren't looking to create business "for straights only". They just don't want the government mandating that they help to facilitate same-sex marriage. That seems like a position that should be allowed under the freedom of religion we have in the U.S. Constitution to me.

At any rate, if people believe that not wanting to participate in a same-sex wedding is such a heinous act that deserves punishment, there are certainly plenty of non-governmental social pressures that can be brought to bear on the offenders, especially in the current age of social media, such that you can accomplish your goals without the government's assistance.

Freedom of religion means that the government shall not establish a religion.

To open a business that serves the public, you need a business license, which you have to apply for from your local city, county and possibly state. Without that license, it's illegal for you to conduct your business.

With that license, comes rules that you have to follow. You dont get to pick and choose what rules you follow.

That's why places like that are in the wrong. If the rules that come attached with the business license make it illegal to discriminate against same sex couples (or anything that is a protected class), you can't choose to ignore them and still conduct business. You would be in violation of the rules you agreed to when you applied for your license.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

So you support segregation then

I think that there's a philosophical, if not practical, difference between supporting segregation and supporting the legality of segregation on private property and in private business. If you're not advocating for state sponsored segregation or institutional inequality under the laws of the state, you aren't really supporting wholesale segregation. I mean, it's clearly an example of tremendous cognitive dissonance, but there is a distinction there. I also think it's morally abhorrent.

However that's moot because segregation isn't the right word to use here. Discriminatory practices and segregation are not the same thing. Unfortunately, in most states sexual orientation is still not a protected class everywhere in the US, and until that is the case discriminatory practices against homosexuals may remain legal until another SCOTUS case determines they are federally, or it gets legislated that way.

I see what I think is a misconception among some people in this thread - while there may be some people out there who don't want to serve homosexuals in any business capacity, all the Christians I've heard who are concerned about the Supreme Court decision are concerned specifically about being forced to participate in same-sex weddings. They don't have any problems with treating homosexuals just the same as any other costumer in any other kind of transaction. I was listening to Focus on the Family's radio show yesterday, and the host explicitly said, "If a same-sex couple came into a restaurant and ordered a hamburger, I wouldn't ask them if they were a same-sex couple and refuse them service because of that. I'd give them the hamburger. Their sexual preferences are completely irrelevant in that situation. But if I was a musician or an artist or a baker or some other creative professional and was asked to use my talents in service of a same-sex wedding, I'd have a moral objection to that. I don't want to be forced to be in the position of endorsing a marriage that I don't see as legitimate." So the racial comparison is a flawed one - Christians aren't looking to create business "for straights only". They just don't want the government mandating that they help to facilitate same-sex marriage. That seems like a position that should be allowed under the freedom of religion we have in the U.S. Constitution to me.

At any rate, if people believe that not wanting to participate in a same-sex wedding is such a heinous act that deserves punishment, there are certainly plenty of non-governmental social pressures that can be brought to bear on the offenders, especially in the current age of social media, such that you can accomplish your goals without the government's assistance.

I can understand where they're coming from but it doesn't invalidate the points from the post above me or that this complaint just doesn't hold up logically. There's no legal standard that holds product sellers liable for what is done with their products. If that were the case gun manufacturers would be held liable in mass shootings. It's just not a logically tenable argument. I agree that the free market would solve the problem anyway, but the fact of the matter is that the first amendment does not and was never intended to allow businesses to employ discriminatory business practices on the basis of their owners' faith. That is not a protection afforded under the 1st amendment. The Free Exercise clause does not apply when there is a compelling public interest for the government to limit religious expression, such as in the case of preventing discriminatory business practice. Or, yknow, stopping human sacrifice.

 

[neojubei]

City planning departments keep records on what businesses offer what services. Moreover, you could go to court if you felt the business was the only business that offered a desired service. If you were harmed by the lack of service to a certain degree, you would win the case and the business would be required to provide you with that service. Not that hard really.

And yes, I get what implementing such a law would entail. There would be an upside though. If white businesses closed their doors to blacks, for example, more black owned businesses would pop up to fill the demand. Same with businesses that refused LGBT people.



No you misunderstand my argument. I would outlaw private "community" pools run by HOA's (believe it or not, cities have the right to do this). Instead, I would construct more public pools throughout the city, where all would be welcome without issue.

I cannot believe someone wrote this. An actual person.

 

[Gotchaye]

I see what I think is a misconception among some people in this thread - while there may be some people out there who don't want to serve homosexuals in any business capacity, all the Christians I've heard who are concerned about the Supreme Court decision are concerned specifically about being forced to participate in same-sex weddings. They don't have any problems with treating homosexuals just the same as any other costumer in any other kind of transaction. I was listening to Focus on the Family's radio show yesterday, and the host explicitly said, "If a same-sex couple came into a restaurant and ordered a hamburger, I wouldn't ask them if they were a same-sex couple and refuse them service because of that. I'd give them the hamburger. Their sexual preferences are completely irrelevant in that situation. But if I was a musician or an artist or a baker or some other creative professional and was asked to use my talents in service of a same-sex wedding, I'd have a moral objection to that. I don't want to be forced to be in the position of endorsing a marriage that I don't see as legitimate." So the racial comparison is a flawed one - Christians aren't looking to create business "for straights only". They just don't want the government mandating that they help to facilitate same-sex marriage. That seems like a position that should be allowed under the freedom of religion we have in the U.S. Constitution to me.

At any rate, if people believe that not wanting to participate in a same-sex wedding is such a heinous act that deserves punishment, there are certainly plenty of non-governmental social pressures that can be brought to bear on the offenders, especially in the current age of social media, such that you can accomplish your goals without the government's assistance.

So, flesh this out a little. What's the principle at work here and where do you want to draw the line?

I guess first it's worth making the obvious point that the Supreme Court's recent ruling doesn't actually require that a musician play at a same-sex wedding. Nor does it even seem to pave the way for a court case establishing that duty. The worry here, to the extent that it's a rational one and not just fear-mongering, is that a city council or a state legislature or Congress will pass a law saying that businesses can't discriminate against gay people, written broadly enough to include small businesses consisting of a couple people who play music at weddings. As I think some legislatures have done, giving us occasional news stories about bakeries. But it's important to understand that Obergefell really has nothing to do with this except to the extent that it leads to more popular support for gay people's right to not be discriminated against.

Anyway, what's the test you want to apply to figure out if some business' objection to providing service to someone for some purpose is a permissible opt-out that the law ought to recognize? Where I think you're going to run into trouble is that even if we keep almost every feature of the cases the same, almost nobody is going to want to allow an opt-out if the objection is based on race, which makes allowing an opt-out for an objection based on orientation look like nothing but bigotry. What if a musician objects to an interracial marriage? Are you okay with that? Certainly you couldn't get that exemption put into the law almost anywhere, and it seems to me that we ought to be consistent.

Edit: I'd add that saying "if people believe that not wanting to participate in a same-sex wedding is such a heinous act that deserves punishment" is more than a little pearl-clutchy. I mean, we also think that going two miles per hour over the speed limit "is such a heinous act that it deserves punishment", right?

 

[You Know Nothing]

Neither do I. But I support peoples right to do it on their own damn property according to their own damn beliefs.

Nice to know you support segregation then.

 

[Messofanego]

And yes, I get what implementing such a law would entail. There would be an upside though. If white businesses closed their doors to blacks, for example, more black owned businesses would pop up to fill the demand. Same with businesses that refused LGBT people.

An upside in Jim Crow laws, nice to know.

 

[rudieboy77]

You can avoid military service as a conscientious objector but I don't think any ideology will get you out of paying taxes.

I understand that. It sure would be interesting to read a ruling by the SCOTUS saying that religion is not an excuse for tax exemption.

 

[aeolist]

An upside in Jim Crow laws, nice to know.

and any group small enough that it doesn't support its own exclusive set of businesses can get fucked i guess

 

[GameGuru59]

Nice to know you support segregation then.

That's not segregation, at least as historically practiced in the US. Nor would I support a business who condoned those practices. I'm just saying its their right (and ultimately, best) for them to be allowed to do it. There's a huge difference. Maybe at some point you can bring yourself to understand it.

An upside in Jim Crow laws, nice to know.

There's an upside to everything if you look for it.

and any group small enough that it doesn't support its own exclusive set of businesses can get fucked i guess

If you read my proposed implementation, you'd see that that wouldn't be a problem. If there were only one business in the area providing the service, they would be forced to provide the service for everyone.

 

[cajunator]

I can sympathize with private businesses. Not because I agree with their stance but because it's a privately owned business.

I agree with that because there are already signs warning customers that the company reserves the right to refuse service to anyone. They are well within that right because its a private company. governmental agencies however cannot refuse service.
Private companies risk losing large amounts of customer base when they pull stunts like that though. they know the risks. Its sad but thats part of free market. But Idl ike to think that not every company are a bunch of bigoted fucks either. Someone somewhere will accept your patronage and serve you.

 

[timetokill]

Well plenty of church ministers with racist tendencies would object to marrying a black partner to a white partner and say that they're just practising their religion, does anyone think that they deserve an exemption?

Yes, and they have a constitutionally protected right to refuse to marry anybody for any reason.

I agree with that because there are already signs warning customers that the company reserves the right to refuse service to anyone.

Those are generally bullshit.

 

[cajunator]

Yes, and they have a constitutionally protected right to refuse to marry anybody for any reason.


Those are generally bullshit.

Mostly I think they will throw out unruly people and improperly dressed (like public nudity and such) more than sexual orientation and such. But take for example a bakery that refuses to make a cake with a gay message on it. They can refuse to do that. Its not usually an extreme case because companies are well aware if they piss off enough people their business will disappear. Especially in todays globally connected environment. In a small town you might come across this sort of thing "we dont serve your kind here" and that DOES happen.

 

[PlayALLtheGames]

I can sympathize with private businesses. Not because I agree with their stance but because it's a privately owned business.

Businesses benefit from public services and infrastructure paid for by tax payers. This focus on "privately owned" pretends like they exist in some vacuum.

 

[Ahasverus]

Well yeah, many would argue that the black communities were stronger in cities when they were forced to look out for themselves due to housing and economic segregation.

Black communities were BETTER SEGREGATED? Did you violently fell off your cradle or something? Jesus Christ

 

[AstroNut325]

Businesses benefit from public services and infrastructure paid for by tax payers. This focus on "privately owned" pretends like they exist in some vacuum.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[RoninChaos]

As a business, why would you want to cut off any potential revenue streams? Seems silly to me.

Because people aren't practical when it comes to whatever god they worship.

 

[Toxi]

I can sympathize with private businesses. Not because I agree with their stance but because it's a privately owned business.

See. This is the problem I have. Why should businesses be any different? And before any body brings it up (again), I'm black, and would be willing to have the same standard applied to black people.

In my opinion, if you're not the only business offering a particular service in an area, you should be able to serve who you like. The idea you can't control who enters your business strikes me as very un-American.

Holy shit this thread is amazing.

Well yeah, many would argue that the black communities were stronger in cities when they were forced to look out for themselves due to housing and economic segregation.

Holy shit it keeps going.

Title 2 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was a good thing guys.

 

[GameGuru59]

Black communities were BETTER SEGREGATED? Did you violently fell off your cradle or something? Jesus Christ

Well, I'm not saying they definitely were, but there were several "black wall streets" during segregation, while today we typically only see such levels of communal racially based cooperation in Asian communities. As a race, black people are better off, but our wealth is dispersed across a wider area than it was when it was more concentrated in singular communities. Many of these black communities were destroyed by the interstate highways system and the desegregation of housing and schooling. When all the money left these neighborhoods, only the poor remained.

 

[Ahasverus]

Well, I'm not saying they definitely were, but there were several "black wall streets" during segregation, while today we typically only see such levels of communal racially based cooperation in Asian communities. As a race, black people are better off, but our wealth is dispersed across a wider area than it was when it was more concentrated in singular communities. Many of these black communities were destroyed by the interstate highways system and the desegregation of housing and schooling. When all the money left these neighborhoods, only the poor remained.

With all due respect, you're not black, you're not gay, you're not a lawyer, so you don't understand many things you're trying to take instance in, people don't like when other people say they know what is or was better for themselves when they have their own concerns. If I were you I'd shut up and listen, read and meet people who the things you talk about affect directly, not in dead letter but in the real world, and then form a personal yet collective empathic opinion.

 

[GameGuru59]

With all due respect, you're not black, you're not gay, you're not a lawyer, so you don't understand many things you're trying to take instance in, people don't like when other people say they know what is or was better for themselves when they have their own concerns. If I were you I'd shut up and listen, read and meet people who the things you talk about affect directly, not in dead letter but in the real world, and then form a personal yet collective empathic opinion.

I didn't know I wasn't black... that'd be news to me!

And for the record I am black, went to an HBCU, and talk to black people about their communities everyday. They express the exact sentiments you are responding to. So yes, I am listening. I'm also forming my own opinion. Instead or regurgitating common practice verbatim.

 

[Majima Everywhere System]

City planning departments keep records on what businesses offer what services. Moreover, you could go to court if you felt the business was the only business that offered a desired service. If you were harmed by the lack of service to a certain degree, you would win the case and the business would be required to provide you with that service. Not that hard really.

This seems really hard, actually. Hope I get born straight and white so I don't have to make the cause of finding a plumber my life's work.

 

[hosannainexcelsis]

So, flesh this out a little. What's the principle at work here and where do you want to draw the line?

I guess first it's worth making the obvious point that the Supreme Court's recent ruling doesn't actually require that a musician play at a same-sex wedding. Nor does it even seem to pave the way for a court case establishing that duty. The worry here, to the extent that it's a rational one and not just fear-mongering, is that a city council or a state legislature or Congress will pass a law saying that businesses can't discriminate against gay people, written broadly enough to include small businesses consisting of a couple people who play music at weddings. As I think some legislatures have done, giving us occasional news stories about bakeries. But it's important to understand that Obergefell really has nothing to do with this except to the extent that it leads to more popular support for gay people's right to not be discriminated against.

Anyway, what's the test you want to apply to figure out if some business' objection to providing service to someone for some purpose is a permissible opt-out that the law ought to recognize? Where I think you're going to run into trouble is that even if we keep almost every feature of the cases the same, almost nobody is going to want to allow an opt-out if the objection is based on race, which makes allowing an opt-out for an objection based on orientation look like nothing but bigotry. What if a musician objects to an interracial marriage? Are you okay with that? Certainly you couldn't get that exemption put into the law almost anywhere, and it seems to me that we ought to be consistent.

Edit: I'd add that saying "if people believe that not wanting to participate in a same-sex wedding is such a heinous act that deserves punishment" is more than a little pearl-clutchy. I mean, we also think that going two miles per hour over the speed limit "is such a heinous act that it deserves punishment", right?

I think there's a difference between wishing to refuse services based on the nature of the person requesting them and wishing to refuse services based on the ideological nature of the event at which your services are being requested, which is the distinction I was trying to explain in my original post. If a person was running a bakery and refused to bake a customer a birthday cake because that customer was gay, that would be discrimination that the government would have an interest and a right in stepping in and prohibiting. On the other hand, if the bakery customer was looking for, say, a rainbow-colored cake for an LGBT pride event and the bakery owner did not want to bake the cake because they had a religious issue with supporting that message, I don't think the government should come in and say that the owner has to bake that cake.

I'll give some other examples. Let's say an atheist singer was approached by a Christian church to sing at a revival service, and that singer replied that she wouldn't sing at the service because as an atheist she had an objection to supporting the propagation of Christianity. I don't think that falls under the discrimination of religion that the government has an interest in preventing, but rather under the free exercise of religion that the government has an interest in protecting. The atheist in this case is not refusing her services because her prospective customers are Christian, but because she does not want to go against her own beliefs by supporting a Christian message. Or say a progressive Christian violinist was asked to play at a fundraiser for a conservative Christian crisis pregnancy center which encouraged women to seek options besides abortion, and the violinist refused because she saw this group as attempting to restrict women's rights and felt morally obligated to not support them. Again, the violinist should not be required by the government to take this job, because she is objecting based on the religion of her prospective customers but based on not wanting to further a message that goes against her religious beliefs.

So to return to your question about interracial marriage. If the musican refused to offer his services because he "didn't serve blacks", that would be discrimination that would be a legal problem. If the musican refused to play at the wedding because he felt he had a religious objection to promoting marriage between two different races, then I think that would fall under the free exercise of religion, to not legally compel the musician to endorse a belief he didn't agree with. That the belief that interracial marriage is morally wrong is repugnant to most people in America today, including myself, does not mean that the law should be requiring people to discard that belief. Once the word got out that this musician objected to interracial marriage, I'm sure that most people in his community would not want to support him by hiring him, and he would quickly find himself out of work. That's an avenue society has to discourage people from acting on beliefs that it as a whole finds objectionable, and that avenue runs into no problems with the Constitution.

Essentially I don't think the government should be in the business of ensuring that its citizens are ideologically pure. The government compelling people to support beliefs they disagree with is a dangerous road.

 

[Toxi]

That's not segregation, at least as historically practiced in the US. Nor would I support a business who condoned those practices. I'm just saying its their right (and ultimately, best) for them to be allowed to do it. There's a huge difference. Maybe at some point you can bring yourself to understand it.

It was segregation as historically practiced in the US. Why the hell do you think it was banned in the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Discrimination from private businesses was a major part of Jim Crow.