95 Comments - Former Downstater - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 2:23 pm: Spot on, Rich - @MisterJayEm - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 2:27 pm: “If your business is considered a public accommodation, you have to abide by a state’s public accommodation laws, which are approved by a majority of duly elected legislators, signed into law by duly elected governors and overseen by duly elected judges.” Yep. – MrJM - Amalia - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 2:28 pm: please tell that to the Governor, and legislature, in Mississippi! - Saluki - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 2:28 pm: In other words, religious rights no longer matter. - Dave - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 2:30 pm: Discrimination is not a religious right. - 47th Ward - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 2:32 pm: Smith’s letter went on to add the following, um, thoughts: ===”This bigoted decision is the latest strike in the war against religious liberty. Intolerant lawmakers and bureaucrats are now forcing citizens to do, say and act in accordance with a decidedly liberal worldview, and enforcing their dictates with the heavy hand of government. Six years ago, Leftists in Washington D.C. decided to force all Americans into socialized health insurance, whether they wanted to or not. Last year here in Illinois, Gov. Bruce Rauner joined with Leftists to pass a law to censor professional counselors and clergy from helping needy children suffering from unwanted same-sex attraction or gender-confusion. Today, there is a bill pending in the Illinois House which would quash rights-of-conscience protections of pro-life medical professionals by forcing them to refer patients to abortion providers. How have we come to a place where we allow government to tell citizens what they can or cannot do or say despite their moral objections? No American should be forced to do something that violates their sincerely held beliefs.”=== I’m pretty sure that’s how some Muslim leaders justify Sharia Law too. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 2:32 pm: ===religious rights no longer matter=== So, you’d be cool with that bed and breakfast refusing to serve Jews? - Anonymous - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 2:34 pm: I grew up in Kankakee and on one occasion I was getting a haircut at a shop on East Avenue downtown. A elderly black man came in and said he’d like a shave. The owner looked at him and said ” I don’t do shaves anymore - hands are too shakey”and proceeded to demonstrate by grabbing a razor and shaking his shaving hand. The black gent fully understood, stared at the owner, and slowly walked out. The owner and cast of regulars had a good chuckle. This barbershop had a (poorly) handwritten sign above the street entrance: “Haircuts. .$.50. Good haircuts. $.75 - true story. - Ahoy! - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 2:35 pm: If his religious beliefs are that someone should not marry someone of the same sex, than that person should by no means marry someone of the same sex. This is pretty simple and does not mean that someone has to discriminate against others to have religious beliefs. The business owner in question just needs to provide a good or service and then get paid for that good or service, it’s why they are in business. Why is this so hard for some people? - Juvenal - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 2:36 pm: @Saluki: Religious rights haven’t changed at all. There was never an exception to the human rights act that allowed you to refuse to rent to someone who was black because of your religious beliefs. And just so we’re clear, early segregationists saw plenty of justification in Scripture. In fact, it’s the same law that prohibits a B&B in Boystown from refusing to rent to you because you are Christian. - @MisterJayEm - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 2:36 pm: “In other words, religious rights no longer matter.” In other words, religious rights no longer always trump every other right in every circumstance ever. – MrJM - Honeybear - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 2:37 pm: Amen - Anonymous - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 2:37 pm: @Rich Miller “So, you’d be cool with that bed and breakfast refusing to serve Jews?” Who is claiming that have that right? - Juvenal - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 2:37 pm: @Rich - Probably just Muslims. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 2:38 pm: Cleric I have to perform a marriage for a same sex couple. Sorry but that is not going to pan out - soapbox derby - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 2:40 pm: I bet they rent rooms to unmarried straight couples…. - Jeep - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 2:43 pm: A business or institution refusing to provide services to someone based on their sexual orientation is exactly the same as refusing someone due to race or a different religion. - siriusly - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 2:45 pm: This is not tyranny, this is our society evolving. Discrimination is wrong, no matter what doctrine or belief system you use to justify it. You don’t have to marry someone of the same sex but you do have to treat others equally under the law. - Truthteller - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 2:46 pm: Do religious beliefs require him to run a bed and breakfast? He could find another line of work. Running a bed and breakfast is something he chooses to do, not something the government makes him do - Jibba - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 2:47 pm: The problem is that religious fundamentalists have hijacked the concept of sin. A person is not complicit in sin if they rent a room to a gay couple, if you believe in that. Nor is a pharmacist complicit in sin by filling a prescription for birth control. This is more about making it more difficult for others to act in ways the religious dislike. - D.P.Gumby - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 2:47 pm: Glad your “religious liberty” doesn’t include human sacrifice! - Anonymous - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 2:47 pm: @Jeep So a Jewish baker should have to bake a cake with a swastika on it? They have no right to refuse based on an objection of conscience? - @MisterJayEm - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 2:48 pm: “I have to perform a marriage for a same sex couple. Sorry but that is not going to pan out” Nonsense. What part of “public accommodation” do you not understand? https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/2000a – MrJM - Wensicia - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 2:48 pm: Tyranny, an interesting choice of word. Perhaps these faithful should reflect on the reason many people first came to this continent was to escape religious tyranny, not practice it. - JS Mill - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 2:48 pm: It is outrageous that we have to deal with so many goofballs in this life. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 2:50 pm: “So, you’d be cool with that bed and breakfast refusing to serve Jews?” What about catholics? Baptists? Presbyterians? Episcopalians? What about people with blond hair? Pick a hair color. Beards? Obese people? The point is that people will pick and choose a bias and read something in the Bible to justify the discrimination. The time has long past for people of good will to set aside differences and let others live in peace. - Menard guy - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 2:51 pm: Your logic is wrong Rich. There is nothing in religious doctrine that would support keeping African-Americans out. In fact, just the opposite. Not so with same sex marriages, or unmarried couples for that matter. This is a great overreach by the government. - Anon221 - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 2:53 pm: Last night on Independent Lens, “Welcome to Leith” was a powerful reminder of just what havoc hate can do to a community. http://www.pbs.org/independentlens/ There are decades, even millennia, of reasons why we have laws like this- http://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs4.asp?ActID=2266&ChapterID=64&SeqStart=2600000&SeqEnd=3200000 I wonder if there would have been room at Mr. Smith’s Inn a couple of thousand years ago? - Per rid - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 2:54 pm: Rich, he didn’t refuse to give them service entirely - as far as I can tell anyway- but they wanted to hold the actual marriage ceremony at his place of business. I see a big difference between refusing to give service to someone at all and refusing to hold a religious ceremony on your property. Imagine forcing a Mosque to host a bar mitzvah. I don’t agree with the guy’s beliefs but I think he should have the right to live by them on his own property - Wensicia - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 2:56 pm: A bed and breakfast is not a church. - @MisterJayEm - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 2:56 pm: “Imagine forcing a Mosque to host a bar mitzvah.” Is a mosque a ‘public accommodation’? Of course not. – MrJM - cdog - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 3:01 pm: What boggles my mind is the lack of a working knowledge of what the US Const Bill of Rights actually says and how it has been applied and practiced, to protect all, in the US. We are not a facist theocracy, as compared to a country like Saudi Arabia and their violent enforcement of Sharia Law. Did anybody catch Frontline last week? http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/frontline/film/saudi-arabia-uncovered/ It is correct to test whether there is any merit to this tantrum by inserting another minority into the rule. Jews, black, women, etc., are not second class citizens in the US, behind someone who thinks their interpretation of Christian scripture is the one true interpretation. Tyranny? Oh please. Go back to 8th grade civics class. - Johnny Pyle Driver - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 3:01 pm: if they want to exclude paying customers on the basis of sexual orientation, they can always start a private club right? Is that allowable in Illinois? - Lomez - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 3:02 pm: ==So, you’d be cool with that bed and breakfast refusing to serve Jews== No, I would not be cool with it. I would not patronize the business, and I likely would urge others to refrain from doing so as well. The end. - Jocko - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 3:02 pm: In David Smith’s version, the Good Samaritan is fined for interference, while the Priest and Levite are celebrated for exercising their “religious liberty”. - IllinoisBoi - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 3:04 pm: Illinois had a progressive public accommodation law way back in 1885 — one that covered “all persons…and applicable alike to all citizens. ” An Act to protect all citizens in their civil and legal rights and fixing a penalty for violation of the same. Section 1. Be it enacted by the People of the State of Illinois, represented in the General Assembly: That all persons within the juris- diction of said State shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the accommodations, advantages, facilities and privileges of inns, restaurants, eating houses, barber shops, public conveyances on land or water, theaters, and all other places of public accommodation and amuse- ment, subject only to the conditions and limitations established by law, and applicable alike to all citizens. (Laws of Illinois, 1885, p. 64) - Johnny Pyle Driver - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 3:06 pm: “No, I would not be cool with it. I would not patronize the business, and I likely would urge others to refrain from doing so as well. The end.” This opens the door to tyranny of the majority, which prevailed during the pre-civil rights era, where majorities of people effectively lock the minorities out of civil life. - DuPage Saint - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 3:10 pm: Here is an idea: if you don’t want to serve the public , don’t get into the serving the public business - Ghost - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 3:16 pm: this is not a “religious” belief anyway unless the person is adherng to all the tenents of the bible. its just discrimination otherwise using the name religion to hood itself. For example, the bible states that those who commit adultery are sinners to be stonned to death. So unless this guy is refusing to serve people who have committed adultry, or who have coveted their neighbors wife, or who have disobeyed their parents, or who have taken the lords name in vein etc then it is not a religious based rule follower, just a narrow minded biggot. i am offended that a grp which opposes the formation of lovng families is using the name family in its title, what hypocrites. thats like calling yourself a fireman because you love to burn books….. - Menard guy - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 3:16 pm: Illinoisboi: You’re forgetting one thing…in 1885 homosexuality was a criminal offense. The public accommodation law did not include homosexuals. - Anon - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 3:26 pm: Per rid, === I see a big difference between refusing to give service to someone at all and refusing to hold a religious ceremony on your property.=== 1.) The B&B’s website clearly advertised that they allowed for services to be performed on the premises, so much to the point that they even have arrangements to contact a civil justice that can perform marriage ceremonies that lives near by. 2.) It’s not as simple as “his property.” That property has been permitted to be used as a public accommodation and as a result of that special use, they are also required to follow laws concerning that special use. 3.) At issue with your argument is that it also relies on the idea that they were only partially discriminated against. That’s still discrimination. 4.) You might want to check the facts of the case because they corresponded by email and told the plaintiffs exactly what was up. - Curious Georgina - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 3:27 pm: Anonymous @ 2:47: Last I checked, Nazis weren’t a protected class in terms of anti-discrimination laws. LGBT are. - Anon221 - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 3:30 pm: In case you were wondering where this B&B is located… http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/timbercreek-gay-wedding-fine_us_56fbf258e4b083f5c6063832 - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 3:31 pm: ===There is nothing in religious doctrine that would support keeping African-Americans out. === Were you born this morning? Have you never read a history book? - Educ - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 3:38 pm: “I don’t agree with the guy’s beliefs but I think he should have the right to live by them on his own property” That’s true — right up until he opens his property as a business to the public, taking advantage of the fine laws and government of the state of Illinois in order to limit his liability, write off some of his taxes, enforce his contracts, sue suppliers who fail to provide services or payments, go after guests who fail to pay, participate in workers comp, etc. etc. etc. When he opens the business to the public, he takes advantage of a whole web of laws and regulations that benefit him as a business owner. In exchange, he is subject to the laws of this state, which include the requirement that places of public accommodation — such as his — be open to all citizens of the state. The state mediates a mutually beneficial relationship between him and his customers that provides him a variety of protections and benefits in exchange for him providing the citizens of the state — without discrimination — a service. If you don’t like that trade off — if you can’t provide services to all the citizens of the state — the state is under zero obligation to provide you with the benefits of business ownership. You can go back to being a private citizen with private property that you can do whatever you like with — except earn a profit by taking advantage of the state’s power to enforce contracts and agreements. All of your rights as an individual remain intact. That’s the social contract business owners agree to. They are not individual citizens doing whatever they want; they are beneficiaries of a legal regime that protects their interests and their ability to do business. What the state demands in return is that they serve everyone equally. There is no religion I am aware of that requires its members to own or run businesses of any sort, let alone B&Bs specifically. Therefore there’s no religious discrimination claim here by the owner; it’s purely a matter of being unwilling to follow state laws for public accommodations. He can either follow them and stay in business, or decide that he can’t in conscience follow those rules and close the business. His religious freedom remains intact. - cdog - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 3:42 pm: I find the 21st century Christian to be a bundle of contradictions. This is a great example. A basic working knowledge of law and gospel should be inherent in anyone that considers their self to be a mature Christian. (them self? them selves? grammar police, help please. I am going to resist climbing on my high horse, but please try to represent with some love people. Maybe I will see some of you at the well. - GraduatedCollegeStudent - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 3:46 pm: @Menard guy. Google “Curse of Ham” - Just Me - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 3:57 pm: His bed and breakfast is not a church. - Lomez - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 4:14 pm: ==This opens the door to tyranny of the majority, which prevailed during the pre-civil rights era, where majorities of people effectively lock the minorities out of civil life.== So we mock the innkeepers for their conception of tyranny, then turn around and warn of tyranny if a couple must call a second B&B to host a ceremony (it’s not even that they were denied staying at the B&B, right?) There is zero need for the government to be involved here. All the way to the point of creating PA laws in the first place. - ArchPundit - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 4:15 pm: —-I have to perform a marriage for a same sex couple. Sorry but that is not going to pan out No. And in fact, if you do not want to marry two people of different races you do not have to. A Catholic Priest does not have to marry two Jews or even a Catholic and a Jew. The distinction is between being involved in public commerce and being engaged in a religious ceremony. The Bed and Breakfast is a public accommodation not a religious institution. Watch Eyes on the Prize and hear all the white folks in the South in the 1950s saying their faith justifies segregation and then try and distinguish between discrimination based on race and sexual orientation based on someone’s religious beliefs for me. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 4:16 pm: ===All the way to the point of creating PA laws in the first place.=== And there it really is. - A guy - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 4:16 pm: The dude should be flattered they wanted to have the event at his place. If you can’t change your mind, it’s best to brood privately while you’re counting the money. People accommodate things every day that doesn’t match up with their consciences. Freedom means the boundaries are decided by all of us, not one of us. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 4:17 pm: ===A Catholic Priest does not have to marry two Jews or even a Catholic and a Jew. === Or two Catholics. - Lomez - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 4:17 pm: I got banned? Have a Snickers. - Lomez - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 4:19 pm: ==I got banned?== Hey I did not get banned! Why did I get censored? - ArchPundit - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 4:19 pm: ===There is nothing in religious doctrine that would support keeping African-Americans out. http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2014/02/26/3333161/religious-liberty-racist-anti-gay/ Now, I’m sure you will say that is not True Christianity ™. I would agree in the sense I think it is a horrible misuse of Christianity, but the thing about religious freedom is people get to interpret it differently and have their own faith. Many Christians used their interpretation of Christianity to justify slavery and segregation. That’s not a theory, that’s history. - ArchPundit - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 4:21 pm: ===Or two Catholics. Exactly. My wife and I had to demonstrate to our Presbyterian minister that we met his standards before he would perform the ceremony. Jennifer almost blew that. Don’t ask–it was complicated. - Rich Miller - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 4:22 pm: ===Why did I get censored? === I’m not the government. And this is not a public accommodation. - Lomez - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 4:31 pm: ==And there it really is.== A distaste for PA laws does not necessarily equate with promotion or acceptance of the discrimination their absence may permit. - Demoralized - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 4:34 pm: Did everyone click on the link to the full letter? A man complaining about not having the right to refuse service to a gay couple laments about bigotry and berates lawmakers as intolerant. This guy’s picture is plastered next to the dictionary definition of hypocrisy. And the cherry on top of his little diatribe? He declares that nobody should have to do anything that violates their sincerely held beliefs. So basically, all laws are merely suggestions. You’ve got a “sincerely held belief” against that law? You’re good. Because nobody should be forced to do anything that violates their beliefs. This guy is a real piece of work. - IllinoisBoi - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 4:39 pm: ==Menard guy - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 3:16 pm: Illinoisboi: You’re forgetting one thing…in 1885 homosexuality was a criminal offense. The public accommodation law did not include homosexuals.== I knew someone was going to say that. My point is that the concept of public accommodation is not a new one. The principle goes back centuries. But society and laws have evolved to enlarge the definition of who “all persons” deserving equal treatment includes. - Demoralized - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 4:40 pm: ==There is zero need for the government to be involved here.== Yes, we certainly don’t need the government involved in protecting it’s citizens from discrimination. I mean, why not allow everyone to do what they want and hope for the best. That’s a great plan isn’t it? - late to the party - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 4:47 pm: “…then turn around and warn of tyranny if a couple must call a second B&B to host a ceremony…” I mean, black people at least had seats at the back of the bus, right? Why did they complain, just find another seat? Or another lunch counter? /s - Lomez - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 4:52 pm: ==Yes, we certainly don’t need the government involved in protecting it’s citizens from discrimination. I mean, why not allow everyone to do what they want and hope for the best. That’s a great plan isn’t it?== Aside from the strawman in there — yes, that is more or less my position. - Lomez - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 4:55 pm: ==I mean, black people at least had seats at the back of the bus, right? Why did they complain, just find another seat? Or another lunch counter? /s== You are free to believe the only way we progress morally is via legislation. - Demoralized - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 4:55 pm: ==yes, that is more or less my position== And what an upstanding position it is to take. - Demoralized - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 4:56 pm: ==You are free to believe the only way we progress morally is via legislation.== It worked out well in the South for decades without legislation didn’t it? Sheesh. - Liberty - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 4:57 pm: There is no law that says someone has to be nice. - Lomez - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 5:12 pm: ==It worked out well in the South for decades without legislation didn’t it? Sheesh.== What is the ultimate goal? That someone receives service because the law mandates it? Or that someone receives it because another wants to provide it? The difference between us is that you think legislation is the answer irrespective of the preferred goal. - Anonymous - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 5:14 pm: Thumbs up to Mr. Miller’s concept of the concept. - Wensicia - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 5:25 pm: ==Or that someone receives it because another wants to provide it?== And when they don’t want to provide what any unfavored citizen is requesting, though they’re happy to provide for others? What? You agree business owners should have a right to declare anyone they’re offended by unfit for service? Don’t you get this is pre-civil rights discrimination at work? - ArchPundit - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 5:25 pm: ===What is the ultimate goal? That someone receives service because the law mandates it? Or that someone receives it because another wants to provide it? The ultimate goal is service to everyone regardless of the receiver’s irrelevant to the provision status. If you need a hotel room for the night the issue is whether you can get a hotel room for the night not why someone wants to provide it or not. - Lomez - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 5:47 pm: ==You agree business owners should have a right to declare anyone they’re offended by unfit for service?== Yes. Consumers can then decide whether this vendor is unfit to purvey goods and services via their spending choices. Consumers being the same group of folks who could alternatively go through the needless process of electing reps to enact laws that will have the same effect. - GraduatedCollegeStudent - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 5:58 pm: ===What is the ultimate goal? That someone receives service because the law mandates it? Or that someone receives it because another wants to provide it?=== At some point, if you do something because the law mandates it, it eventually becomes habit. Hence you achieve the latter outcome through the former. - GraduatedCollegeStudent - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 6:02 pm: ===Yes. Consumers can then decide whether this vendor is unfit to purvey goods and services via their spending choices. Consumers being the same group of folks who could alternatively go through the needless process of electing reps to enact laws that will have the same effect. === Now lets pretend for five seconds that you don’t live in Chicago or another big city but rather in some rural area where the vendor is the only one in town who provides the service and therefore enjoys de facto monopoly status. I think the invisible hand’s going to have a little trouble addressing this problem. - @MisterJayEm - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 6:12 pm: “What is the ultimate goal? That someone receives service because the law mandates it? Or that someone receives it because another wants to provide it?” The goal is that the person receives service. Period. I care about what merchants do — I don’t give half a damn what’s in their hearts. – MrJM - wordslinger - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 6:21 pm: –Consumers can then decide whether this vendor is unfit to purvey goods and services via their spending choices. Consumers being the same group of folks who could alternatively go through the needless process of electing reps to enact laws that will have the same effect. === Now lets pretend for five seconds that you don’t live in Chicago or another big city but rather in some rural area where the vendor is the only one in town who provides the service and therefore enjoys de facto monopoly status. I think the invisible hand’s going to have a little trouble addressing this problem.– For crying out loud, don’t pretend anything. You’re being trolled by some obtuse, ignorant zealot stoner who hasn’t read anything deeply but the Wendy’s Late-Night Dollar Menu. - efudd - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 6:35 pm: Right-wingers. So angry. So paranoid. What a miserable way to go through life. - cdog - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 6:48 pm: “Consumers can then decide whether this vendor is unfit to purvey goods and services via their spending choices.” This assumes that the consumer is eventually matched with a willing vendor. There are many instances in history and around the world now, where certain segments of a society have difficulty participating in trade. - Lomez - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 7:24 pm: ==Now lets pretend for five seconds that you don’t live in Chicago or another big city but rather in some rural area where the vendor is the only one in town who provides the service and therefore enjoys de facto monopoly status. I think the invisible hand’s going to have a little trouble addressing this problem.== I do have more concerns in situations like those, particularly if the mobility of the affected was limited. And would be open to laws covering the sale of goods and services that address basic needs. But I do believe the market will still eventually dictate a change, if not from within then by effectively sealing off that community from others, where it will be left to rot. And from that, change still, albeit over a much longer term. - Lomez - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 7:49 pm: ==The goal is that the person receives service. Period. I care about what merchants do — I don’t give half a damn what’s in their hearts.== I guess I wouldn’t find much solace in a world where vendors are mandated to provide goods and services against their will. And who would want to get married at a place owned by someone who objects to the core of it yet begrudgingly complies because of some law? If these people wanted to avoid the fine, they probably should have just voiced their views but said they’d still host it because the law says they must. And then watched as the the gentlemen said thanks, but no thanks and left. - Wensicia - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 8:13 pm: ==I guess I wouldn’t find much solace in a world where vendors are mandated to provide goods and services against their will.== Providing goods and services is a voluntary choice, not forced or mandated by anyone, in this country. Once you decide this as your choice, it does not mean you can discriminate as to whom receive these services, in this country. You need never serve anyone at all, if you object to the few. Yes, allow them to voice their views, but provide the service anyway. Just don’t deny anyone based on discrimination. We don’t allow that, in this country. - Per rid - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 8:16 pm: I am obviously in the minority here, but as I said earlier I can see the argument that says that a business owner should not be forced by the government to participate in a religious ceremony, even if that participation is only allowing it on the owner’s property. Anon says that my argument would mean that this is still “partial discrimination” and they are right, the people being turned away would be treated differently because of who they are and what they want to do, but I don’t like the idea of the government forcing people to participate even to this extent in a religious ceremony. Both parties have rights here that are being infringed upon, it’s just a question of whose right take priority. I’m on the side of the business owner’s religious freedom, even though I think his beliefs are wrong and hurtful. And if this does (as I believe) constitute an infringement on his religious freedom, then the First Amendment would trump the public accommodation laws I think, though I would be interested to see whether the SC would side with the 1st amendment or the 14th, since last year they said that marriage was a right of citizenship protected by the 14th amendment. Wow, I rambled on for longer that I thought I would, lol. - transplant - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 8:34 pm: I have to wonder if the B&B allows seafood to be served on their premises, or if the towels and sheets they provide are 100% cotton or a blend? - Crispy Critter - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 8:57 pm: What about this scenario? A person in in the wedding video business and had been prior to same sex marriage. The videograpgher is actually in the church as a part of the ceremony. Should that person be able to deny a same sex couple since this service is actually in the church and actually a part of the ceremony? I know a guy that has quit this business as he felt his service was a part of the ceremony and he fells marriage should be between a man and woman, therefore should he be required to do this service? He was not in a business outside of the ceremony such as bakers or an eatery. Thoughts? - My thoughts - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 9:18 pm: Religious rights matter? What about my religious rights? My faith, Episcopalian, along with many Presbyterian, Methodists, and several other Christian denominations sanction same sex marriage. Some, like the Episcopal church allows for same sex weddings in church. My religious beliefs says it’s right- and a bed and breakfast owner is going to deny me because his religion says it’s not right? Where’s the limit of any discrimination in this instance? - blue dog dem - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 10:09 pm: I believe that a states public accomondation laws are as important as the first and second amendment. Just saying….. - Southside Markie - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 10:38 pm: I couldn’t have said it better, Rich Miller. And therefore, I won’t say more. - Sidler - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 10:38 pm: ==I believe that a states public accomondation laws are as important as the first and second amendment. Just saying….. == Interesting. 1A is grant of freedom to be a sh*tty person, while PA is a restriction of it. - Photograph One - Wednesday, Apr 6, 16 @ 6:33 am: — efudd - Tuesday, Apr 5, 16 @ 6:35 pm: Right-wingers. So angry. So paranoid. What a miserable way to go through life.— No, God Made 1 man and 1 woman to be joined in marriage… That is the only marriage I observe. As in Babylon much immoral acts are done that I cannot change but I do not have to approve them or let them in my house. We need to pass a religious freedom act like in GA that just passed, MO has one in the House too. We need one. - blue dog dem - Wednesday, Apr 6, 16 @ 7:02 am: Photo One. I respect your view. I may not completely agree, but you do have rights too. - Demoralized - Wednesday, Apr 6, 16 @ 7:43 am: Photograph One: You don’t understand the concept of religious freedom. It isn’t a license to discriminate. What happened to make you think that your “freedom” means you should have a right to discriminate? - cdog - Wednesday, Apr 6, 16 @ 7:47 am: Religious freedom is American. But be careful not to pass a law that condones things that are practiced under the religious freedom cloak of Sharia law. It should never be ok for stoning, genital mutilation of young girls, honor killing, etc, all in the name of religious freedom. Some religious beliefs are criminal acts. What now? - Graduated College Student - Wednesday, Apr 6, 16 @ 7:52 am: Religious freedom was meant to be a shield, not a sword. The sooner the religious right remembers this, the better. - crazybleedingheart - Wednesday, Apr 6, 16 @ 11:03 am: ==In other words, religious rights no longer matter.== Religious businesses are not a thing. People keep saying they are a thing, but they are not a thing. Sorry, comments for this post are now closed.