Support NeoGAF

[GameGuru59]

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.

There was also segregation at every level of government except maybe Federal (though I'm sure there was discrimination there too). I'm not at all proposing that we should allow that. On the contray, the government should work to be as inclusive as possible. There was segregation in every public college and school, segregation at every public facility. That should not nor ever be allowed.

However, what happens on private property is a different matter. At the time of the civil rights bill, racism was pervasive and all encompassing. I agree that at that time, passing a law requiring public accommodation was in the state's interest. It is no-longer. Racism is no longer as pervasive, and any businesses that discriminate would be few in number.

I believe to the extent possible, people ought to be honest with one another, and society should reflect the true nature of the feelings it harbors in public life- not cloak it under a legal shroud that only masks the problem. If there is racism, I want it right in my fucking face. Not hidden. If you believe so strongly that I as a black man should not eat at your restaurant, I want to see a whites only sign, not the dirty look when I come in. When the state itself is run by a legislature and electorate that is by in large racist (be it more subtlely than prior) I want to see your confederate flag taken down by referendum rather than as an apology by the legislature. If you're working with me and you're racist, I want to confront you directly about it at work, rather than have you fired and drummed out of society. I want the ugliness of the society laid bare in front of me. Not hidden. Is that so hard to understand?

 

[andrerobot]

Wait, in the US religious wedding ceremonies are legally binding marriages??

 

[linkboy]

Wait, in the US religious wedding ceremonies are legally binding marriages??

You need a marriage license for a marriage to be legal.

For a marriage license to be legal, you basically need someone representing the state to sign the license. Clergymen in churches can become licensed by their particular state to represent the state and sign a marriage license.

So yes, and no. You can't just waltz into a church and have a ceremony without a license and say you're married, but you can have a ceremony in a church and get have the licensed signed by someone at the church.

 

[Square2015]

The only thing the conservative christian community needed was another excuse to feel persecuted.

This will rally the conservative base, SCOTUS just swung a blow to HiIlary's chances.

 

[BLACK AMERICAN PSYCHO]

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.

Ahahahaha @ this post, everything he said is true.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

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?

To be fair, any punishments for discriminatory business practice would be much more severe than a minor parking ticket. You don't just get a small fine for civil rights violations.

I also think that there's a difference in the grounding of the religious objections to gay marriage and interracial marriage. It's been awhile since I went to Sunday school, but IIRC the religious objections to interracial marriage involved a lot more jumping through hoops because it isn't really expressly forbidden anywhere in the bible and requires the willful interpretation of several disparate passages to form a shaky conclusion. The bible straight up says homosexuality = wrong in no real uncertain terms. Obviously many Christians can interpret that as a relic of the Old Testament and therefore no longer valid under Christ's New Covenant. However, dogma of several denominations purports the canonical validity (albeit often in hypocritical ways like shellfish being ok) of the Old Testament. There's slightly more legitimacy to their objection to gay marriage from the standpoint of their faith's dogma than their was to interracial marriage. Not that that should mean that private businesses should be allowed to pursue discriminatory business practices, as its unconstitutional for them to do so. It is also, as you pointed out, impossible to test if their religious objection meets any kind of "good faith" standard.

I think ultimately most of these situations will be solved the same way they are now with interracial marriage or other marriages people in that industry might find objectionable. Couples generally don't want to hire businesses/people for their wedding services who don't approve of the fact they're getting married. Christian business owners are free to say to gay couples "I cannot refuse service but I have religious objections to your marriage" then the couple will probably not end up hiring that particular service provider and would find one that was tolerant of their union. I'm sure that plenty of interracial couples have chosen specific service providers over others for similar reasons.

 

[Oblivion]

There was also segregation at every level of government except maybe Federal (though I'm sure there was discrimination there too). I'm not at all proposing that we should allow that. On the contray, the government should work to be as inclusive as possible. There was segregation in every public college and school, segregation at every public facility. That should not nor ever be allowed.

However, what happens on private property is a different matter. At the time of the civil rights bill, racism was pervasive and all encompassing. I agree that at that time, passing a law requiring public accommodation was in the state's interest. It is no-longer. Racism is no longer as pervasive, and any businesses that discriminate would be few in number.

I hear this argument quite often from people of a certain political persuasion, and I'm still trying to wrap my head around it.

The Civil Rights Act was okay back in the 1960s because racism was rampant and prevalent. But because race relations have made great strides over the decades, we don't need laws like it anymore? Huh? If you're so certain that things will still be hunky dory even if the CRA was repealed and that businesses wouldn't discriminate, why would it even be necessary to get rid of it? I mean, if the status quo will remain the same after getting rid of the CRA, then what would be the point? Wouldn't it be a tremendous waste of time?

Furthermore, think of how insane this argument sounds when it's applied to other issues:

"Our murder rate is at record lows, so let's get rid of our outdated homicide laws!"

"2014 had the lowest levels of rape reported, so let's get rid of all our outdated sexual assault laws!"

"Hardly anyone diddles children anymore, so let's get rid of our outdated pedophilia laws!"

 

[MattKeil]

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.

Assuming the minority in question had the resources, time, and ability to bring such a suit or investigation against the business. It's much easier and less time consuming for all concerned to just mandate non-discrimination and involve legal proceedings for specific cases of attempted discrimination. What you're proposing creates a tremendous and labyrinthine governmental body that has to dedicate itself to policing small businesses in an unprecedented way and on an unprecedented level of scrutiny. Philosophically you think you're advocating for less stringent laws, but in practice you're advocating for more intrusive controls on business owners, not less.

 

[DR2K]

LGBT needs to be a protected class. This type of discrimination has no business in a civilized society.

 

[Gr1mLock]

The irony of republicans seeking church exemptions from state law is seriously some onion article shit.

 

[Chainsawkitten]

I don't see why we should give tax exempt status to institutions that discriminate against minorities. You don't want to marry gay or interracial couples? Ok, but then you gotta pay up.

Churches have a constitutional right to freedom of religion, but they don't have a constitutional right to freedom from taxes. Churches get tax exemptions because they're a non-profit organization for public interests, the fact that they're religious is really secondary. In fact, granting tax exemption status to religious instutitions on the grounds that they are religious, rather than that they are non-profit, would be against the separation of church and state, the way I interpret it.

If religious institutions benefit, it is in spite of, rather than because of, their religious character. For religious institutions simply share benefits which government makes generally available to educational, charitable, and eleemosynary groups.

So I don't understand why purely religious institutions would be the only case were discrimination is not grounds for removal of tax exempt status. If religious schools can have their tax exempt status removed due to discrimination against interracial couples, due to the reasoning that they are not purely religious institutions, then to me that contradicts the idea that the religious nature of churches is secondary to their non-profit status when it comes to tax exemption. To me, that means either that the tax exemption of all churches should go, or that churches should be held to the same standards as all other tax exempt instutitions when it comes to discriminatory practices.

 

[zychi]

I don't see why we should give tax exempt status to institutions that discriminate against minorities. You don't want to marry gay or interracial couples? Ok, but then you gotta pay up.

Churches have a constitutional right to freedom of religion, but they don't have a constitutional right to freedom from taxes. Churches get tax exemptions because they're a non-profit organization for public interests, the fact that they're religious is really secondary. In fact, granting tax exemption status to religious instutitions on the grounds that they are religious, rather than that they are non-profit, would be against the separation of church and state, the way I interpret it.



So I don't understand why purely religious institutions would be the only case were discrimination is not grounds for removal of tax exempt status. If religious schools can have their tax exempt status removed due to discrimination against interracial couples, due to the reasoning that they are not purely religious institutions, then to me that contradicts the idea that the religious nature of churches is secondary to their non-profit status when it comes to tax exemption. To me, that means either that the tax exemption of all churches should go, or that churches should be held to the same standards as all other tax exempt instutitions when it comes to discriminatory practices.

Exclusion and discrimination is a big part of all religions. Even if they don't want to marry certain groups, they aren't legally stopping them like some places in Alabama are trying to do. They'd have to discriminate against hiring someone. Schools are an entire separate issue because they get funding from states and the gov't. Religions don't directly.

Also, they discriminate against other religions already, if you're Catholic and want to marry a Lutheran in the church, you have to convert, but you're not legally being stopped from getting married in a courthouse like some LGBT were until yesterday.

 

[Gambit 1138]

Nobody should be forced to do anything they don't want to do

America is about freedom and difference of opinion

 

[Chainsawkitten]

Exclusion and discrimination is a big part of all religions. Even if they don't want to marry certain groups, they aren't legally stopping them like some places in Alabama are trying to do. They'd have to discriminate against hiring someone. Schools are an entire separate issue because they get funding from states and the gov't. Religions don't directly.

This ruling wasn't about state funding though, it was specifically about tax exempt status and as such would only concern them as a tax exempt institution. If it was about funding they should have removed their funding, not their tax exempt status.

Also, they discriminate against other religions already, if you're Catholic and want to marry a Lutheran in the church, you have to convert, but you're not legally being stopped from getting married in a courthouse like some LGBT were until yesterday.

That's about membership, though. It would be another thing if they refused someone membership based on them having previously been part of the Lutheran church.

Nobody should be forced to do anything they don't want to do

Like pay taxes.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

I don't see why we should give tax exempt status to institutions that discriminate against minorities. You don't want to marry gay or interracial couples? Ok, but then you gotta pay up.

Churches have a constitutional right to freedom of religion, but they don't have a constitutional right to freedom from taxes. Churches get tax exemptions because they're a non-profit organization for public interests, the fact that they're religious is really secondary. In fact, granting tax exemption status to religious instutitions on the grounds that they are religious, rather than that they are non-profit, would be against the separation of church and state, the way I interpret it.



So I don't understand why purely religious institutions would be the only case were discrimination is not grounds for removal of tax exempt status. If religious schools can have their tax exempt status removed due to discrimination against interracial couples, due to the reasoning that they are not purely religious institutions, then to me that contradicts the idea that the religious nature of churches is secondary to their non-profit status when it comes to tax exemption. To me, that means either that the tax exemption of all churches should go, or that churches should be held to the same standards as all other tax exempt instutitions when it comes to discriminatory practices.

Religious institutions are tax exempt for good reason. Taxation on religious institutions would ultimately allow the government to reduce their ability to operate if they wanted. Churches may be a point of contention now in regards to discrimination, but in the past they have been vital places free of government control that has allowed the generation of civil rights movements. Can you imagine what the government would have done to all the black-majority churches during the formation of the civil rights movement? They would have taxed them into oblivion to reduce dissent and remove them as places where such ideas could form.

It wouldn't necessarily mean they couldn't discriminate in who they provided weddings to if you removed their tax exempt status anyway. The reason that they are allowed to be discriminatory is because they exist at institutions whose only purpose for existence is the exercise of religious belief, which would still fall under greater protection of the Free Exercise clause of the 1st amendment compared to other private institutions irrespective of their tax status. The Red Cross, for example, is also a tax exempt institution but they don't receive the same religious exemption from anti-discrimination law and can't refuse to give donated blood to gay people. Tax exempt status is not the primary reason for their exemption. Similarly religious schools don't receive Free Exercise protections to the same degree that churches do because schools have secondary functions aside from religious practice, namely education.

 

[Chainsawkitten]

But to my understanding churches were not tax exempt because they were religious institutions; that was merely coincidental. But your saying their religious status does play a role in tax exemption?

The Red Cross and schools don't deserve religious exemptions from providing their services, I agree. But if all tax exempt institutions are equal regardless of religious affiliation then either none should be able to discriminate without having their tax exempt status removed (but can have other measures, like fines, taken against them) or all should. Because what services they provide is irrelevant in this specific context. The only thing that matters is that they're non-profit. Unless I have misunderstood something and religious institutions get their benefits not just from being non-profit but also from being religious.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Nobody should be forced to do anything they don't want to do

America is about freedom and difference of opinion

You're absolutely right and if they don't want to serve gay folk then they can chose to do so at the cost of also choosing not to run a business.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

But to my understanding churches were not tax exempt because they were religious institutions; that was merely coincidental. But your saying their religious status does play a role in tax exemption?

There are different types of tax exempt status in the tax code. For example, trade associations, charities and most other non-profits fall under the designation of 501(c3). Super PACS and the like fall under 501(c4). There is a separate category for churches as well as mosques and other purely religious institutions. Religious institutions have always been tax exempt because early lawmakers decided that taxation could be used by the government to overburden or eliminate specific religions, and in early America there was a lot of contempt for certain minority religions (Quakers, Mennonites, Jews, etc.). Therefore religious institutions have always been tax exempt in every US tax code ever written in light of the possibility of government abuse.

 

[Prophet Steve]

Nobody should be forced to do anything they don't want to do

America is about freedom and difference of opinion

Sure have a lot of people in prison for a country about freedom.

It seems like a nice utopia, but no, it doesn't work like that.

 

[Chainsawkitten]

There are different types of tax exempt status in the tax code. For example, trade associations, charities and most other non-profits fall under the designation of 501(c3). Super PACS and the like fall under 501(c4). There is a separate category for churches as well as mosques and other purely religious institutions. Religious institutions have always been tax exempt because early lawmakers decided that taxation could be used by the government to overburden or eliminate specific religions, and in early America there was a lot of contempt for certain minority religions (Quakers, Mennonites, Jews, etc.). Therefore religious institutions have always been tax exempt in every US tax code ever written in light of the possibility of government abuse.

Then I was misinformed and my argument is based on a faulty premise. I don't agree with religious institutions getting tax exemptions, in that case (or at least not as a separate category), but that's for a different topic altogether.

 

[CrimzonSamurai]

Then I was misinformed and my argument is based on a faulty premise. I don't agree with religious institutions getting tax exemptions, in that case, but that's for a different topic altogether.

It's always been somewhat contentious. I think it's ultimately a good thing, though. I mean the potential for abuse from antisemitism or anti-islamic sentiment alone are pretty scary even in the mid-20th century for the former and today for the latter.

Again, though, their right to discriminate is governed by the Free Exercise clause of the 1st amendment and not by their tax exempt status.

 

[Nikodemos]

Since LGBT people consider the rainbow flag as their identifying symbol, one could expand that to encompass all manner of non-gender-traditional individuals under the generic term of 'colored'.


That being the case, businessowners would likely start using placards bearing signs such as

to identify that their businesses cater exclusively to 'traditional' gender/orientationed persons and to cut down on any uncomfortable confusions that might arise.

Spoiler

Hahahaha, NO. Go fuck yourselves, you bigoted cunts and your attempts to bring back Jim Crow.

 

[Korey]

Nobody should be forced to do anything they don't want to do

America is about freedom and difference of opinion

Who's forcing bigots to run a business in our country?

If you want to run a business, you can't not serve someone just because they're black or gay or left-handed or disabled. Those are the rules you agree to. If you don't agree, you can go ahead and not run a business.

 

[Demojay13]

Who's forcing bigots to run a business in our country?

If you want to run a business, you can't not serve someone just because they're black or gay or left-handed or disabled. Those are the rules you agree to. If you don't agree, you can go ahead and not run a business.

Not agreeing in gay marriage does not make you a bigot.

 

[excelsiorlef]

Not agreeing in gay marriage does not make you a bigot.

Nope pretty much does.

There's no reason for straight folk to be against gay marriage that isn't isn't bigoted.

 

[Demojay13]

Nope pretty much does.

There's no reason for straight folk to be against gay marriage that isn't isn't bigoted.

If we are going to convince people who don't believe in gay marriage to believe! We can't just call them bigots.

 

[Siegcram]

If we are going to convince people who don't believe in gay marriage to believe! We can't just call them bigots.

Yes we can. Same reason we can call people those proudly flying the confederate flag racists. That's what they are.

 

[excelsiorlef]

If we are going to convince people who don't believe in gay marriage to believe! We can't just call them bigots.

Here's an interesting fact I don't care about hearts and minds, it's legal now. They don't like it? Cool they can go be bigots while my American LGBTQ folk get their marriage on and love each other.

 

[obin_gam]

Not agreeing in gay marriage does not make you a bigot.

I most certainly do.

 

[Takamura-San]

I mean, your church doesn't want to perform same sex marriage, more power to you, no-one's ever suggested otherwise I don't think

Businesses? Fuck off though

If a church doesn't want to perform same sex marriages, then forfeit the right to issue state marriage licenses.

 

[Nikodemos]

If a church doesn't want to perform same sex marriages, then forfeit the right to issue state marriage licenses.

I second this.

 

[water_wendi]

If a church doesn't want to perform same sex marriages, then forfeit the right to issue state marriage licenses.

Isnt the marriage in a church just a ceremony? i was under the impression that they didnt issue marriage licenses and that you had to go to the county office for that.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

If a church doesn't want to perform same sex marriages, then forfeit the right to issue state marriage licenses.

Based on what rationale?

 

[thefro]

Isnt the marriage in a church just a ceremony? i was under the impression that they didnt issue marriage licenses and that you had to go to the county office for that.

For legal purposes, basically all they do is sign your license as the officiant of the wedding/send a certificate back in.

The county issues the marriage license and you can have the whole ceremony there at the courthouse with a Clerk/Judge presiding if you want.

 

[Strife In a Teacup]

Sure, once they remove One Nation Under God from money, like it used to be before. Oh, and remove it from the Pledge of Allegiance as well. Separation of Church and state and all that. Oh, and how about not advertising your faith on Billboards in Vegas as well?

 

[slit]

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.

No there is no difference when private businesses openly discriminate and you're wrong, segregation is ABSOLUTELY the right word here.

Do you know what the old south was like before the Civil Rights Act aside from the gov't level?

Done on private property after a sit-in.

Another private property rule.

Yet another


If you don't think there is a difference between supporting the right for this to happen but not supporting it on a gov't level I don't know what to tell you because both cases lead to societal segregation and something morally reprehensible. Arguing some philosophical distinction is what is moot when the results in the larger context are the same and arguing there is some practical distinction is even more absurd.

 

[travisbickle]

I'm pretty sure you are exempt if you're not gay.

 

[McLovin]

Lol they should let them just for kicks. It's only the vocal minority that's against it. People who are for gay marriage can just avoid churches and businesses that aren't. Their businesses will suffer and they will either give in or go away.

 

[neorej]

It's 2015 and people are actually calling for Jim Crow-like laws.



SMFH.

 

[PHOENIXZERO]

Christians, the most persecuted group on Earth.

Spoiler

I mean besides pretty much everyone else.

 

[orthodoxy1095]

Christians, the most persecuted group on Earth.

Spoiler

I mean besides pretty much everyone else.

Well in America they aren't, but it's not a good idea to belittle Christians when so many of them face persecution in other parts of the world.

 

[Brawly Likes to Brawl]

Well in America they aren't, but it's not a good idea to belittle Christians when so many of them face persecution in other parts of the world.

That's what makes it even more pathetic. In some other countries, Christians have to hide who they are (sound familiar?)in order to escape torment, torture, forced conversion, in some cases even murder and rape. Meanwhile the biggest threat to Christianity in America is Adam & Steve getting married. That's not even taking the shit that other religions catch into account either, I'm sure the average Muslim would love to trade problems with the Christian far right.

 

[Takamura-San]

Based on what rationale?

That a state licence is a governmental tool and citizen right. According to the ruling this now applies to every citizen of the United States. The moment a church applies to issue marriage licenses they are now compelled to issue those licenses to everyone. If they want to do ceremonial marriages to those they seem fit, they are welcome to do so. But they will not be recognized by the state.

 

[Dude Abides]

That a state licence is a governmental tool and citizen right. According to the ruling this now applies to every citizen of the United States. The moment a church applies to issue marriage licenses they are now compelled to issue those licenses to everyone. If they want to do ceremonial marriages to those they seem fit, they are welcome to do so. But they will not be recognized by the state.

Churches don't actually issue licenses as far as I'm aware. You get the license from a local government office and the officiant just signs it.

 

[dan2026]

I don't think the Churches should get a free pass on bigotry.

I guess you cant force them to marry gay people. But I don't like anything that legitimises bigotry.

 

[GoldenEye 007]

That a state licence is a governmental tool and citizen right. According to the ruling this now applies to every citizen of the United States. The moment a church applies to issue marriage licenses they are now compelled to issue those licenses to everyone. If they want to do ceremonial marriages to those they seem fit, they are welcome to do so. But they will not be recognized by the state.

Churches don't issue licenses. The couple gets them from the county. The church just signs it and performs the ceremony. A church is never actually needed in legally approving a marriage.

 

[inner-G]

Maybe the hardcore anti-gay Christians can start their own reservations to move to and live on. It was good enough for other people who were a religious minority, right?

 

[Frodo]

These people... Seriously?

I want to look back to this in 50 years and read all this stuff again. Hopefully I'll be even more perplexed than I already am now.
And as it has already been said, if your work requires you to cater to gay people, than maybe you should find another job if you don't want to do that because of religious beliefs, instead of, you know, not making the job you were contracted to make and use your imaginary friends as an excuse.

And even if the state supports them, we should all stop supporting business that go against it. Let the market speak for itself. As soon as those people start closing doors I believe we will see the rise of a much more tolerant market, that doesn't feel the need to be protected against being alive on the 21st century.

 

[SpiralZilla]

So, let me get this straight. They want to legalize discrimination because not discriminating is discrimination against them. Makes perfect sense.

 

[Jedi2016]

So, let me get this straight. They want to legalize discrimination because not discriminating is discrimination against them. Makes perfect sense.

The worst part is that they feel that the right to discriminate is a god-given basic need, while the right to get married is not. "You're not allowed to love, but we have to be allowed to hate." How fucked up is that?