Posted on 02/28/2014 8:49:24 AM PST by SeekAndFind
In this day and age, why would you be stupid enough to use your religious beliefs as an excuse to deny someone services?
There are plenty of ways to avoid entering into a business transaction without having to appear discriminatory at all. When I worked for a private repair shop and encountered a client who seemed to be more trouble than they were worth for whatever reason, we used to simply say, “I am sorry, but we cannot provide service.” If people questioned why (which they did, very often and with plenty of attitude), we just kept repeating the same phrase: “I’m sorry, we cannot provide the service.” No one interpreted us as being discriminatory, or went as far as attempting legal action. We were simply annoying, so they moved onto a business that was willing to enter into the transaction. No harm, no foul.
That is the beauty of the free market: You have choices. If a bakery simply said “I am sorry, we can’t provide that service,” and left it at that, a gay couple denied service might interpret the owner’s choice as being discriminatory, but they wouldn’t have a leg to stand on in court. You can’t sue based on an inference. Progressives, however, rely on the courts to push their agenda because Big Government is their god. So the minute you breathe a hint of something that could be misconstrued as an opportunity for a lawsuit, they gain home-court advantage.
By simply saying, “I am sorry, we can’t provide that service,” you may be opening yourself up to some annoying picketing and internet memes, but what’s the worst that will do? Throw you in the same court as Chick fil-A? We all know how well that protest worked out. The bottom line is, you’re letting the free market decide your fate, not the courts.
The primary response I can hear to that is, “But I should be free to express my beliefs!” Yes, you should. But, you haven’t been for a long time. It shouldn’t have taken gay marriage for Christians to realize that the progressive culture of political correctness has been stifling their freedom of expression for a generation. Today’s court battles over gay marriage are rooted in yesterday’s affirmative action victories; a new morality has taken hold and is avidly manipulating the power of the courts and ever-expanding government as the source of its strength.
The bill vetoed by Arizona Governor Jan Brewer opened the door to the courts to determine the “sincerity of an individual’s religious beliefs.” The bill would have also “…require[d] that those claiming a religious freedom violation show that there is an actual religious belief behind their action, that they are sincere in their religious belief, and a state action has placed a substantial burden on their religious belief.”
In other words, Christians and other “religious rights” activists were supporting a bill that would require them to defend the validity of their faith in the courts; courts, mind you, which they don’t particularly trust to begin with. That’s playing into progressive logic, strengthening government power, and generating even more business for an already porky legal system.
Regarding the existing rights of private enterprise, the bill was redundant. Private business owners across most of the United States, including Arizona, already “have the right to deny service to gays” and anyone else they choose:
It is not currently illegal for a business to deny service to someone because they are gay. Some cities in Arizona have ordinances against it but there is no state law against it. If business owners in Arizona wanted to deny service to gays, they could do so in most of the state under current law.
That’s not discrimination, that’s free enterprise. Stop burying yourselves in cries of “persecution” over wedding cakes and get busy touting the fact that the Constitution and the free market were designed to create a fair and level playing field. Use the laws we already have instead of trying to “perfect” them with even more legislation that is a mere means to a progressive end. Quit your whining and play to win.
I'm not a lawyer, and I do not play one on TV. But I disagree with the above.
If the gay mafia so desired, they could show a pattern of denial at a business. All they would need is enough data points. I'd bet that the gays would win the subsequent lawsuit against the business. Lots of money would change hands.
I think the Law while good intentioned concerning religious freedom and government overreach it was just plainly worded wrong. Here is a few things i would have changed.
1. Remove the word Religion - Religion is a hotword that causes all the MSM and weak spined RINO-crats to get all worked up in a tizzy dizzy. (I hate doing it, but it removes whole invalid as it may be sepration of church and state weasel words the libs like to use to get bills killed intheir tilted courts.)
2. Replace the word “Business” with “Artisan”
3. Rename the bill to “Artistic Expression Protection Act”
4. Re-word the bill to emphasize “Commissioned Work or individualized Consumer Products” are a product of an Artist and you cannot legally compel an Artist under force of law to produce something using their own artistic talent that is against their own personal beliefs or customs or if they are are uncomfortable with the subject matter.
5. Make sure the Bill also defines that any occupation involving an artistic services like Photography, Disc Jockey, Gourmet Catering, Entertainment, or Cultural Ceremonies are also covered by the “Artistan Rights” as well.
This would be how you write a bill that could easily pass even in a blue state that would prevent the bullying abuse that we see when a caterer or photographer is bullied by a group that wishes to make a point by bullying.
It is not just about Religion, but about protecting the occupation of an artist as well as their artistic expression.
I ask you, how would a conservative feel if they were forced to cater a luncheon for a bunch of commies against their will? How would a Stanist Sculptor feel about beign forced to sculpt a sculpture or Jesus (not that I actually give a damn).
This would protect Poltical groups as well as Religious groups as well.
Exactly. Homo activists would send a hetero customer in after the rejected homo, requesting the same service, film both transactions, and sue them out of existence.
So many people forget that the 1950’s and 60’s civil rights movement was not about private busineses being discriminatory, it was about STATE SANCTIONED discrimination!!!!!
You know the STATE the thing the left loves so damned much...
While there was blatant private discrimination going on, as soon as the State Discrimination went away the situation improved considerably.
[ Exactly. Homo activists would send a hetero customer in after the rejected homo, requesting the same service, film both transactions, and sue them out of existence. ]
Or this:
A Liberal goes into Conservative printshop and orders up 100,000 flyers that are pro communist, he says no, the Liberal forces them to print the flyers and there is a spelling mistake etc... Now since the covservative was forced into doing this (by government decree)... The Liberal would be justified (under the law precedent and past history) to sue the conservative print shop for “sabotaging a product with malicious intent” even if the mistake was unintentional...
No one has thought of this scenario.... but it could lead to this...
That won’t fly, printers ALWAYS create “proofs” for the customer to approve. The customer has to sign that the proof is perfect and good to go. Any errors in the finished product are the customer’s fault.
I think I see the flaw in his argument.
“In other words, Christians and other “religious rights” activists were supporting a bill that would require them to defend the validity of their faith in the courts; courts, mind you, which they don’t particularly trust to begin with. That’s playing into progressive logic, strengthening government power, and generating even more business for an already porky legal system.”
I had the same qualms about the bill. It would give government the right to judge whether a religious belief was “sincere” or legitimate. Is that the best possible solution to this dilemma?
I say we simple say that any business making a persnalized product or service is an artisan and by forcing an artisan to do somethign they don’t want to do it is infringing their “Artistic Rights” which are protected by the 1st amendment.
Trying to get a bill with Religious anything through the corrupt liberal Circus court system is simply tilting at windmills at this point. Maybe after an Article V reform it would be viable, but here, now? Not so much, if the bill passed we all know the lib judges with their “Stench from the bench” would throw it out and we cannot even trust people like Roberts onthe supreme court anymore if it gets knocked up there...
Use Neutral Language that would INCLUDE religious views by definition and get it passed, then when it gets appealed in the courts you can sopecifically view it as a 1st amendment expression.
It is not like we are saying that someone can refuse selling a pre-made hostess twinkee that they walk out of the store with, this is a personalized custom product or serivce that would involve deep collaboration and contact with a client over a prolonged period of time.
If you are forcing someone to use their artistic skills and talent to do somethign they don’t want to do that is intellectial tyranny.
What I was saying all the way back when the lawsuit hit the news: if you don’t want to work with a particular customer never tell them why just don’t. If you must get into why keep it general never get personal, booked that week/ month, not enough notice. As soon as you say why doors get open you’d rather keep closed, especially if you make it personal.
[ That won’t fly, printers ALWAYS create “proofs” for the customer to approve. The customer has to sign that the proof is perfect and good to go. Any errors in the finished product are the customer’s fault. ]
Never underestimate a liberal lawyer with an agenda....
To attempt to make a law to frame out the extent of religious freedom within this false premise will be, well. .garbage in, garbage out.
We should not need a new law for this. I already am endowed with the right not be compelled to endorse or promote a behavior that violates my own moral code.
Patterns are hard to establish though, especially with a business that needs run time. The wife and I got “rejected” at a few places when planning our wedding, turns out 3 months (which we figured was plenty) isn’t enough lead time for a lot of that stuff (especially dresses, they apparently want everybody to think they don’t even plant the cotton until you place your order). With these companies probably refusing at least one customer a day due to timing finding the ones you rejected for other reasons gets tough.
Printing mistakes you’ll have to redo one way or the other. A couple of years ago we would get flyers from a pizza joint on Campbell over and over and over and I know the pizza joint never paid for any of them because the printer just couldn’t seem to wrap their head around the street NOT being Camel. Your printing contract says you’ll do it right or replace it.
Any homosexual, or anyone else for that matter, who would seek out a business with the intention of forcing the owner to act against his morals, is an a$$hole and a bully when there are hundreds of options available.
If not for SPITE, many of these fights could be avoided.
What kind of a JERK deliberately seeks out an overtly, devoutly religious photographer or professional baker, and asks that professional to serve at a gay wedding (or whatever it is) that the Jerk KNOWS goes against the professional’s religious views? Does the jerk really think he’s going to get the best service possible if the professional reluctantly complies? No. It’s all about spite, bullying.
It reminds me of the lines in Orwell’s 1984 in which the Inner Party man, O’Brien, confirms this to Winston Smith: “’How does one man assert his power over another, Winston?’
Winston thought. ‘By making him suffer,’ he said.
‘Exactly. By making him suffer. Obedience is not enough. Unless he is suffering, how can you be sure that he is obeying your will and not his own? Power is in inflicting pain and humiliation.’”
I’m sure the overwhelming majority of folks in a gay wedding will pick a gay-friendly photographer and cake baker, but a few people just have to be spiteful jerks. (Can a gay baker be forced to cater to a Westboro Baptist Church wedding, as Jonah Goldberg recently asked? Can the baker be forced to inscribe “GOD HATES F*GS” on the cake?)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.