Latest Post | Last 10 Posts | Archives
Previous Post: Fun with numbers
Next Post: US Supremes take Illinois unionization case
Posted in:
* As the Illinois Family Institute correctly points out today, the gay marriage bill offers no protection for business owners who do not want to provide services for gay marriages.
The IFI continues…
[Rep. Greg Harris] cited the Illinois Human Rights Act as his justification for not protecting the rights of people of faith to refuse to use their labor and goods in the service of an event that violates their deeply held religious beliefs. Well, the Illinois Human Rights Act also prohibits discrimination based on religion; hence the conflict of which Chai Feldblum spoke. Harris finds discriminating based on religion tolerable and justifiable but not discrimination based on sexual predilection.
By the way, choosing not to participate in a same-sex “wedding” does not reflect discrimination against persons. It reflects discriminating among types of events.
The elderly florist who is being sued by the state of Washington for her refusal to provide flowers for a same-sex “wedding” did not discriminate against a person. She made a judgment about an event. She had previously sold flowers to one of the homosexual partners. She served all people regardless of their sexual predilections, beliefs, sexual activities, or relationships. She just wouldn’t participate in an eventthat she (rightly) believes the God she serves abhors.
It’s an interesting point. After all, the Catholic Church and lots of other denominations are denouncing gay marriage, which puts their religious adherents in a bind if asked to “participate” in an event (by selling products or services for that event) that they deeply oppose.
No business, by longstanding law, is allowed to refuse to provide services to a gay person because that person is gay, but asking businesses to provide services for an event is another concept. ADDING: Judging from some comments, there is a disagreement over whether it actually is a separate concept. OK, I can see that side as well. But even if I fully concede the point, the question remains.
* The Question: Should Illinois business owners be required under law to provide services and products for gay marriages, regardless of the owners’ religious beliefs? Take the poll and then explain your answer in comments, please.
posted by Rich Miller
Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 12:26 pm
Sorry, comments are closed at this time.
Previous Post: Fun with numbers
Next Post: US Supremes take Illinois unionization case
WordPress Mobile Edition available at alexking.org.
powered by WordPress.
Strong yes.
Discrimination is wrong.
It is wrong when it is done based on race.
It is wrong when it is done on gender.
It is wrong when it is done on the basis gay/straight.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 12:32 pm
Forcing acceptance of a practice which is against a person’s religion by legal sanction is not a good answer.Suggest custom with businesses that approve would be adequate-loss of business to the denying company.
Comment by leonard Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 12:34 pm
I lean no, but it’s a difficult and touchy issue. To me there’s a difference in providing services and goods that ultimately get used in a gay wedding, versus providing goods and services AT a gay wedding. I have less of a problem with requiring business to sell, for example, flowers or a cake for a gay wedding than I do with say catering one. With the first two examples, the provider either delivers the items to the venue and leaves or someone picks them up. With something like catering, staff is there at the event all day/evening, and I have trouble forcing people to do that and balancing the various rights at play here. I don’t think just letting businesses say a flat “No” across the board is a great idea, though I would hope that money would talk and while people should be able to get goods and services for the most part from whom they please, the marketplace would dictate that gay couples would not and would not want to give their money to businesses that are not welcoming and friendly to them. Very tough issue to balance.
Comment by Ron Burgundy Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 12:36 pm
The crux of this issue is the definition given to the phrase “public accommodation”
Catholic weddings are not a public accommodation.
A hotel or restaurant generally open to the public clearly is.
Other examples can be gray.
Comment by Bill White Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 12:38 pm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations
Comment by Bill White Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 12:39 pm
BW, a wedding is not a public accommodation. Stipulated. That’s not the question here.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 12:40 pm
Amendment 1.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
++shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;++
That’s all that needs to be said.
Comment by Pete Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 12:41 pm
Can a Catholic caterer refuse to provide food to a Jewish couple? If the answer is “no,” then there’s no reason that caterer should be allowed to refuse to serve a gay couple.
Now, I suppose the caterer could just be booked solid for every conceivable date that gay couple might need their services…
Comment by South of Sherman Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 12:44 pm
Yes and no, the Catholic faith while opposed to gay marriage is also opposed to the equal treatment of women, i.e., the sacrement of holy orders. Is the treatment of “these people” religious, or simply wrong as is a women’s right to medical treatment.
Comment by Jim'e' Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 12:46 pm
I voted no. While i believe that the marriage equality bill should pass i don’t believe those opposed should be required to set aside their First Amendment rights.
For instance i know of several families who have wineries. They live on the grounds and rent the wineries for outdoor weddings. I have a real problem telling them (assuming they oppose) they must violate their beliefs in order to host a gay wedding. I do think the market will straighten it out. If you state no gay weddings there will be those who will Avoid your business and vice versa. Forcing someone to violate their 1st amendment right is not to be done lightly.
Comment by Mason born Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 12:52 pm
I don’t get it. This has nothing to do with state recognition of same-sex marriage — it’s just a distraction from the marriage issue, which Capitol Fax played right into. Gay couples can currently hold wedding ceremonies and receptions and ask businesses to provide services for them, regardless of whether Illinois legally recognizes those marriages or not — so IFI is not complaining about state sanctioned marriage, they’re complaining about our current anti-discrimination laws.
So now that we’ve clarified that we’re not really talking about marriage here, is the Illinois “Family” Institute also suggesting that businesses should be able to kick out all gay families whenever they want if they don’t believe in being gay, as well as anyone else they don’t agree with or like? What’s next, refusal to serve Jews or Muslims because Judaism and Islam are religions that the ‘Christian god they serve abhors?’
Comment by Lee Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 12:53 pm
I see the question as being whether the florist is offering a public accommodation.
If yes, then they should not be allowed to discriminate. If no, then their right of personal conscience should prevail.
Whether the business advertises to the general public is one factor (of many) that would influence my assessment of the situation.
Comment by Bill White Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 12:53 pm
Voted No. If a private concern doesn’t want the business (and the money that goes along with it), that should be their choice. Personally (IMO), that’s generally not a smart business decision, but that should be up to them.
Otherwise, we’re going to end up with lots of unexpected consequences. What happens if somebody turns down the business because (bluntly) they are a real jerk and extremely difficult, and the service providers just don’t want the hassle. So they shoot them a price that is 50% higher so they will go torture somebody else. Is that discriminatory?
Dealing with Godzilla/Bridezilla types isn’t fun, regardless of sexual orientation.
Comment by Judgment Day (Road Trip) Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 12:55 pm
I catered plenty of weddings I didn’t approve of. It was none of my personal business and it would have been terrible for my business to express my opinion.
Comment by Chavez-respecting Obamist Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 12:58 pm
“What happens if somebody turns down the business because (bluntly) they are a real jerk and extremely difficult,…”
That should have read:
“What happens if somebody turns down the business because (bluntly) the potential customer(s) are a real jerk and extremely difficult,”
Comment by Judgment Day (Road Trip) Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 12:59 pm
I think consideration should be given as to whether the service can only be gotten thru the particular vendor. If, for example, you are the only florist or cake baker within a hour’s drive, then maybe. Otherwise, the vendor should be able to refuse. If they lose business, then they lose business. If more customers start shopping at the more liberal business, then that’s the consequences.
Let small business owners refuse to serve whomever they want as long as the refusal of the service won’t keep the service from being rendered at all (such as my example above). Of course, there needs to be exemptions for medical services, etc, where actual harm will come to the person being refused.
Of course, I also happen to think that you should be able to hire and fire whomever you want in your business for whatever reason you choose, also. As long as you are not the only employer in the area.
Comment by mythoughtis Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 1:00 pm
Judgment, you just look at your calendar and tell the potential jerk you are all booked up for that date.
Comment by Chavez-respecting Obamist Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 1:01 pm
For those answer “yes,” there is a follow up question: who else should public businesses be able to discriminate against based on their “religious” objections? Could a banquet hall deny service to an interracial couple? Could they deny service to couples from differing faiths? Would a bride be forced to assert/attest that she is a virgin and has never engaged in premarital sex? Or — and this is key — are only gay and lesbian couples deserving of this discrimination?
We don’t let people pick and choose which laws they follow based on their religious beliefs. There is a word for that — chaos.
Comment by Suburban Dad Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 1:02 pm
The distinction between “events” and “persons” is meaningless. Would it be ok to force a person who doesn’t like black people to sell food to the individual but allow him to refuse to serve a black family reunion? Or say a drug store could refuse to sell condoms to unmarried persons because they believe their use is only OK when a couple is married?
Discrimination is wrong, and just because you base your discrimination on your religion doesn’t make it right.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 1:02 pm
Wanted to vote “No” just because of individual freedoms issue, but then realized that would conflict with concealed carry, where I believe that there should be no restrictions on places where one can carry concealed, INCLUDING churches, government offices, schools, libraries(?!), or private businesses. I voted “yes”
Comment by downstate commissioner Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 1:03 pm
This is a ridiculous argument. Should a caterer who offers services to the general public be able to refuse the wedding of a Jewish couple? A black couple? A mixed-race couple? Under the law of Illinois, it’s the same thing.
The biggest lie here is that SB10 would not change the law on this one bit. It’s already the law of the land that businesses open to the general public cannot turn people away based on their religion, race, or sexual orientation. How is selling somebody flowers participating in an event?
Comment by Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 1:04 pm
===Would it be ok to force a person who doesn’t like black people to sell food to the individual but allow him to refuse to serve a black family reunion?===
That has nothing to do with the question. It’s about religion, which is also a protected right.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 1:04 pm
As half of a gay couple who just celebrated my 4th wedding anniversary (married in Connecticut), my opinion is that since I wouldn’t want to infringe on anyone’s religious beliefs, as I want my own to be respected, I would just take my business elsewhere. The very same way we took our wedding out of Illinois.
Comment by Married in CT Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 1:06 pm
“I catered plenty of weddings I didn’t approve of. It was none of my personal business and it would have been terrible for my business to express my opinion.”
—
I’m pretty much in agreement with that. Just don’t want to see it codified into law. Let the marketplace decide - if somebody doesn’t want the business, then somebody else is likely to get a pretty lucrative business opportunity. And if they are good at it, then their business grows, and let’s not forget, there’s quite a cross section that attends weddings and similar events, and that’s even more potential business. If you do it right, it’s like free advertising.
If the other service vendors don’t want to take advantage of those opportunities, more power to them.
Comment by Judgment Day (Road Trip) Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 1:09 pm
Rich, you couldn’t be more wrong. Read the Illinois Human Rights Act. Under the laws of the state of Illinois, it’s the same thing. We do not allow business owners to pick and choose whom to serve, even if they’re picking and choosing is based on religious views. That has been the law of the state of Illinois for many years.
Comment by Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 1:11 pm
The business owners are business owners, they aren’t religious leaders. And the argument that they aren’t discriminating against the people, they are discriminating against an event is laughable. It is people hosting an event.
As I’ve said before, if business owners do not want to provide a good or service to the public, then they shouldn’t operate a business that sells goods or services to the public.
Allowing a church to not rent out their basement for a wedding is allowable, but not a business owner who just-so-happens to have strong religious beliefs.
Comment by Just Me Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 1:11 pm
…adding….this argument is similar to the argument that bullies should be allowed to beat up the gay kids in school because their religion tells them its okay.
Comment by Just Me Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 1:11 pm
Yes, they should be forced to provide services. Requiring that does not break their rights to practice their religion as, once you reach the realm of public accomodation, you enter a sphere where you’re already required by law to not discriminate for any number of other reasons against minorities and disabled citizens.
People have a right to free speech just as they have a right to practice their religious beliefs, but even the most virulent racist isn’t allowed to refuse service to a black customer at a diner counter all the while being free to remaining part of the Klan if they should so desire. Same goes here, you can be opposed to gay marriage all you want, but if a customer comes in you should not be allowed to refuse service because of their sexual orientation.
And plus, there are already examples of the government not allowing religious excuses to get in the way of the common good, a la prosecution of Christian Scientist parents that refuse to get their sick kids medical treatment and prohibiting Islamic business owners from not allowing seeing eye dogs in their stores due to their religious taboos against the species. I’m not hearing many people cry out about prohibiting their free exercise of religion there.
Comment by TJ Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 1:12 pm
Yes. Allowing businesses to refuse to serve people they don’t like is wrong, whether its turning away people for the color of their skin, their gender, or their sexual orientation. It’s discrimination, and it shouldn’t be acceptable.
Comment by Jeff Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 1:14 pm
The only possible circumstance in which the market would not address this situation (ie, why would gay people patronize your business if you’re such a jerk) is in a local monopoly-type situation where there is no other flower shop or whatever.
The state does not have a compelling interest in protecting monopolies. Not even when they’re jerks in the name of invisible people.
Comment by Will Caskey Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 1:15 pm
— I voted no. While i believe that the marriage equality bill should pass i don’t believe those opposed should be required to set aside their First Amendment rights. —
I agree with this and think of free association. Then I think about owning a diner and not letting black people in and how I would feel about that…
Not sure to be honest. I do know sometimes gov’s go overboard by pushing things too far (which country was it that started charging religious pastors that wouldn’t perform a gay wedding). But private business. I have a hard time telling private business who they must do business with.
I would hope the loss of business and private pressure through that means would allow them to make the decision to support or not.
Comment by RonOglesby Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 1:25 pm
“That has nothing to do with the question. It’s about religion, which is also a protected right.”
Maybe, but it is far from unlimited.
You can’t smoke weed just because your religion says it is OK.
If the Aryan Brotherhood labeled itself a religion and opened a deli, they would still have to serve black customers.
The existence of a religion by the owners of the establishment is not a sufficient basis to allow discrimination.
Comment by Skeeter Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 1:25 pm
===You can’t smoke weed just because your religion says it is OK.===
Native Americans can smoke peyote during religious ceremonies.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 1:29 pm
I would echoed Skeeter’s very clear comment: “The existence of a religion by the owners of an establishment is not a sufficient basis to allow discrimination.”
Comment by fan of Skeeter Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 1:30 pm
Yes. If we require those who have religious objections to serving people of another race or gender to do so anyway, we should treat gay marriages the same.
Comment by ChicagoR Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 1:31 pm
What would the Illinois Family Institute say if a business decided it no longer wanted to serve fundamentalist Christians? Oh that’s right, businesses are not allowed to discriminate based upon a person’s religion.
There is a very, very small number of businesses that wish to discriminate against gay folks. If you allow them to do so, then you must allow all businesses to discriminate against any person they want.
Comment by homer Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 1:31 pm
Yes, the “person” vs. “event” distinction is phony. They’re discriminating against the people.
Can a Catholic florist refuse to sell flowers to a Catholic who is marrying an unbaptized non-Catholic without dispensation? To a Jew? To a Muslim?
Can a Muslim refuse to sell flowers to a Muslim woman who is marrying a non-Muslim?
Can an Orthodox Jew refuse to sell flowers to a Jew marrying a non-Jew?
Enough already. If you’re selling in the public square, you’re selling the public square.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 1:32 pm
Looks like somebody is freeping the poll all of a sudden.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 1:36 pm
I voted yes, with reservations.
If the question is religion then who is defining the religion.
What if your group has as strong of feelings against a minority as the Catholic Church does against gays. Does that then allow you to dicriminate and not provide services for members of that minority?
There are a lot of groups out there who’s hatred of certain groups is fanatical. It is their belief. Where is the line that separates a practice or doctrine from being a religion?
Or is there a membership number or asset level that qualifies a group to become a “bona fide” religion with the ability to discriminate?
With a ruling in favor of the lady in Washington, I can see these groups forming a “religion” that embraces their beliefs and then allows them to not provide services to groups they despise.
I think when you go into business you are going into it for the purpose of making money. Everyone’s money spends the same. I think you have to realize that sometimes you are not going to like your customer. And I think you can refuse to do business with an individual if the reason is about that individual. But when you make it about a group of individuals of which the individual is a member, then I think you have crossed the line.
I personally would not want to patronize a business that did not want me there. But then that is just me.
Comment by Irish Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 1:38 pm
Well, Rich, that’s a sign of some organization at least, lol.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 1:41 pm
For me it comes down to asking “What religion is Walmart? Apple?” Steve Jobs was a Buddhist. Does this mean Apple is a person too and follows Buddhism? To me such a question is silly.
The same with these small businesses. The OWNERS have a religion which they follow in their private lives. Their BUSINESSES operate in the public sphere and have to follow the same sets of civil rights and labor laws that other public businesses follow.
Comment by Jeff J Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 1:45 pm
Just substitute “black wedding” or “interracial wedding” for “gay wedding,” and see how you feel about letting someone discriminate, even on the basis of religious beliefs.
Comment by Levi Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 1:45 pm
This is a ridiculous question on its face because Illinois has LONG protected gay citizens from discrimination in public accommodations. If same-sex marriage is legalized, NOTHING will change regarding the law which is ALREADY IN PLACE.
From Section A of the Illinois Human Rights Act, which was amended in 2006 to include sexual orientation: “Freedom from Unlawful Discrimination. To secure for all individuals within Illinois the freedom from discrimination against any individual because of his or her race, color, religion, sex, national origin, ancestry, age, order of protection status, marital status, physical or mental disability, military status, sexual orientation, or unfavorable discharge from military service in connection with employment, real estate transactions, access to financial credit, and the availability of public accommodations.”
The lawsuit against the florist mentioned in this post does NOT cite the recently achieved legality of same-sex marriage in Washington state. Its basis lies in Washington state’s *previously existing” public accommodation law. In fact, the most “notorious” of these battles involves a photographer in New Mexico which has NOT (yet) legalized same-sex marriage.
Even if these laws distress you, at least acknowledge that they have nothing to do with the passage (or not) of same-sex marriage. And by the way, only 21 states presently have such laws. In 29 states it remains perfectly (and shamefully) legal to refuse to serve gay people.
Comment by Joe Jervis Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 1:46 pm
If someone does not want you in their business because of your race, identity, preference, etc…you probably don’t want to give those jerks business anyway.
Comment by Wumpus Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 1:47 pm
If the business is open to the public, it shouldn’t be allowed to discriminate based on religion, ethnicity, age, sexual orientation, whatever.
To turn away a gay couple would be no different than turning away a Christian because of his/her faith. (Well, except that Christians can choose their faith, whereas gay people are born that way.
Comment by mike Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 1:49 pm
Misleading wording on the poll - extremely. This is required based on public accommodation/discrimination law - it is literally 100% irrelevant to whether same-sex marriage is legal or not.
Comment by Adam Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 1:51 pm
Actually, Rich, you do not have the right to smoke peyote, even if your religion requires it. That’s the holding of Employment Div. v. Smith, a U.S. Supreme Court case. You had it backwards.
The law is settled that it doesn’t matter if your discriminatory conduct is motivated by religious belief. You don’t get an exemption from generally applicable nondiscrimination laws. Remember the Bob Jones university case? The university lost a tax exemption even though it claimed a religious justification for its prohibition on interracial dating. There’s another case — Newman v. Piggie Park — that similarly rejects religious justifications for racial discrimination. Courts have rejected such justifications for sex discrimination, too. This is a basic principle that applies equally to all types of discrimination. Anti-gay discrimination is no different.
Also, a florist and a caterer are public accommodations. If they don’t do weddings as a general rule, they don’t need to serve gay people who want services for a wedding. But if they do weddings, then they need to serve everyone equally — regardless of the sexual orientation or sex of the wedding participants.
Comment by pinget Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 1:51 pm
Yes because discrimination is wrong.
Comment by AMoreno Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 1:51 pm
Businesses, the last time I looked, don’t practice religions. If I decided not to serve Catholic weddings, we’d hear the screams from miles away. If you can’t treat all people equally and with respect, frankly, you shouldn’t be in business at all.
Comment by TomTallis Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 1:51 pm
hey remember back in the days when Catholics were refused services and thought ill of and denied equal rights? Yeah and how you hated it even though you were in the minority…how soon you forget.
Comment by Tom Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 1:53 pm
I voted yes, because when you discriminate against the event, you discriminate against the people who are directly participating in it. How can you separate the event from the person? The rejection of service is directly linked to the people who request it.
Comment by Grandson of Man Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 1:54 pm
@rich little ” Native Americans can smoke peyote during religious ceremonies”
Apparantly you don’t understand the difference between native soverinty rights and state discrimination laws/ freedom of religion. That was the worst example ever…
Fact is it is already illegal to discriminate against same sex couples, marriage changes nothing. If you want to run a business to the public it has to be to the public. there is no violation of your faith for putting flowers tigether for someone. You can’t refuse gay couples, interracial, interfaith, or whomever you want.
Comment by steven Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 1:55 pm
Rich: I seem to recall that Native Americans on reservations are citizens of free and sovereign tribal nations, independent of the US’ laws, as long as they’re on those lands. So they can smoke away, as long as they’re not on US soil.
Now, as far as your question: If someone establishes a business in a given jurisdiction and offers services to the public in exchange for payment, they are offering a public accommodation, and must follow the non-discrimination laws of the particular jurisdiction. Regardless of their religious beliefs. They MUST not discriminate against people based on personal traits listed in those laws.
If the state if Illinois specifically names “sexual orientation” in their laws, businesses MUST NOT DISCRIMINATE against LGBTQ people. Period. Religion does NOT trump state law.
The Establishment Clause of the Constitution first FREES us from official religion; then it notes that the state will allow people to worship as they choose. Fundamentalists would like us to forget that the Constitution prohibits establishment of any official religion. Guess what? We DON’T forget that.
Comment by Free Thinker 99 Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 1:56 pm
Illinois has a Public Accommodation Law that prohibits discrimination on many grounds, including sexual orientation. If a business is open to the public, in a store front or even a private home, it must comply with the law. This is nothing new. Attempts to frame such refusals and the subsequent outcomes to the recognition of gay and lesbian marriages are disingenuous. Such acts of refusal are already illegal and punishable by law.
Gays and lesbians will achieve marriage equality. It time to move on to more important matters.
Comment by ReligiousAndRight Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 1:58 pm
Just as businesses can’t discriminate against single mothers, divorced couples, inter-faith couples or people who don’t confess on a regular basis, they can’t discriminate against LGBT citizens. It’s already the law in IL.
Comment by Rebecca Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 1:58 pm
Read the Illinois Human Rights Act. Under the laws of the state of Illinois, it’s the same thing.
So Illinois passed an unconstitutional law? SO SUE THEM!
Comment by Pete Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 1:59 pm
===That’s the holding of Employment Div. v. Smith, a U.S. Supreme Court case===
Overturned by federal law a couple years later.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 2:00 pm
++prohibiting the free exercise thereof;++
FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION!!!
Come on people.
Comment by Pete Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 2:01 pm
–Let small business owners refuse to serve whomever they want as long as the refusal of the service won’t keep the service from being rendered at all (such as my example above).–
Like, say, at a lunch counter, as long as there’s a lunch counter on the other side of the tracks?
Or a drinking fountain or bathroom, as long as there’s another drinking fountain or bathroom?
I think we’re way past that.
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 2:04 pm
I voted yes because while I’ve lived in Illinois for almost 20 years, I grew up in the Deep South and very much remember white ministers there citing the Bible to justify racial segregation and discrimination in public accommodations. No one is saying churches have to hold same-sex marriages but a business open to the public just can’t cite religion as a justification to violate civil rights laws.
Comment by OldSmoky2 Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 2:04 pm
Employment Div v Smith was NOT overturned by federal law. Congress passed a law known as “RFRA” in an effort to repeal Smith and make the standard easier to meet for those claiming religious discrimination. However, RFRA was held unconstitutional as applied to states. Consequently, Employment Div v. Smith is still the law when it comes to what states can do, such as criminalize use of peyote. Further, even in states such as Illinois with a state version of RFRA, courts have still refused to allow discrimination solely because the discrimination is justified by someone’s religious beliefs. For example, courts have rejected companies’ efforts to pay women less than men based on religious views about who is the head of household, etc. Your religious beliefs don’t give you a pass from laws prohibiting discrimination that apply equally to all of us.
Comment by pinget Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 2:12 pm
@Pete
Please explain how not allowing people to discriminate based on sexual orientation prohibits their free exercise of religion?
Fundies are allowed to hate gays all they want, just as racists can hate blacks, misogynists can hate women, and Sox fans can hate Cubs fans, but none are allowed to discriminate against them if they’re business owners and customers walk through the door. Is this infringing upon their freedom of speech rights?
Comment by TJ Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 2:14 pm
“But even if I fully concede the point, the question remains.”
You know that’s not really how fully conceding the point works, right?
Comment by rustywheeler Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 2:15 pm
So - tell me again how this is different from not allowing someone who is black patronize your establishment? Bigotry is bigotry.
Comment by Tangwystel Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 2:16 pm
===For example, courts have rejected companies’ efforts to pay women less than men based on religious views about who is the head of household, etc.===
I get that. And I’m also on record numerous times supporting gay marriage, by the way.
Still, the question remains. I don’t think it’s been debated at all in Illinois. But it’s at the core of what opponents are saying (setting aside other, ulterior motives, of course), and therefore we’re having a debate here.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 2:17 pm
===You know that’s not really how fully conceding the point works, right?===
Dude, I post questions all the time that I personally have opinions on one way or another. There are a lot of people who have differing opinions in Illinois, and we’ve gotten to one that you don’t like. Deal with it.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 2:19 pm
Should an emergency room doctor be allowed to refuse treatment to a critically wounded gay patient because of the doctor’s deeply-held religious belief that homosexuality is a sin? Same issue here. The first amendment does not trump humanity.
Comment by Keppler Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 2:21 pm
===Should an emergency room doctor be allowed to refuse treatment to a critically wounded gay patient because of the doctor’s deeply-held religious belief that homosexuality is a sin?===
Of course not, but that’s not the question posed here.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 2:24 pm
As long as everyone realizes that religious freedom applies to all. So if you forget your insulin while on vacation, should an Orthodox Jewish pharmacist have the right to ask you whether you eat pork before filling your prescription?
Comment by Rich Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 2:25 pm
Try this one:
Should Illinois business owners be required under law to provide services and products for Muslim, black, Jewish or Hindu marriages, regardless of the owners’ religious beliefs?
Comment by Gigi Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 2:28 pm
Rich, is a Catholic real estate agent refusing to show the gay newlyweds a house she reps different than refusing to sell the flowers for the big day? And how about refusing to accept their babies into her home day care? Discrimination in the name of religion is a slippery slope. The School Sisters of St. Francis taught me all discrimination is wrong.
Comment by Jeff Park Mom Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 2:30 pm
No one put a gun to their head and forced them to open a business licensed by the State of Illinois. If you don’t want to render onto Caesar, don’t venture into the secular world. Ditto to the Cardinal and his dispute with DCFS over placing foster children with same sex and unmarried couples.
Comment by anon Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 2:33 pm
…I was raised Catholic all my life, and this is WHY at 53 - Im no longer a Catholic,nor religious, just a Humanist….while on the Planet Earth - will Treat Others, as I Myself Wish to be Treated!!!…excuse me, but IF you are serving the PUBLIC ie: PUBLIC ACCOMADATION….then you serve ALl the public…IF you get ANY kind of Public TAX Breaks, then YOU MUST SERVE ALL the PUBLIC….its really that simple…don’t like gays marrying, dont marry someone of the same gender…see sooo EZ…..IF you are a BUSINESS with a STATE BUSINESS License - You MUST SERVE EVERYONE, period. Whats so hard about that…and “what would Jesus do…”???? Do you even have to ask…?
Comment by Rextrek Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 2:35 pm
RE: “As the Illinois Family Institute correctly points out today, the gay marriage bill offers no protection for business owners who do not want to provide services for gay marriages.” The non-discrimination law prohibits this type of discrimination. You can have a “deeply held religious belief” but if you own a business, you can’t refuse service due to your interpretation of scripture.
A non-discrimination bill first passed the House in 1993, also because of the work of Equality Illinois. “Sexual orientation” was added to the state’s existing nondiscrimination statute which already banned discrimination in employment, housing, public accommodations or credit on the basis of race, religion, ethnicity, gender, age, disability, marital status and military status. The definition of “sexual orientation” includes provisions to specifically cover transgender persons.
Comment by Gigi Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 2:36 pm
Florists being forced to sell flowers, bakers being forced to sell cakes, jewelers being forced to sell jewelry… where does it all end? With a bustling economy, looks like.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 2:36 pm
Illinois law already prohibits businesses from discriminating. The law of the land prohibits discrimination based on religion. As others have done here, flip this around and consider this discussion from the perspective of being Jewish or any other “other.” This issue is an excuse to sanction bigotry.
Comment by RCChicago Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 2:37 pm
Again, both segregation and miscegenation laws were defended by many Christian sects using religious arguments. Today, we wouldn’t allow a public restaurant to force black people to sit in a different area than white people on religious grounds, and we wouldn’t allow a catering firm to refuse to cater a wedding between a white person and an asian person on religious grounds.
Religious beliefs don’t always lead to morally defensible actions. Equality in the public sphere is guaranteed in the constitution, and when religious freedom is interpreted as allowing citizens to treat their fellows unequally in the public sphere, equal treatment trumps that narrow interpretation of religious freedom.
If you don’t approve of gay marriage for religious reasons, don’t get gay married. But you can’t discriminate against other people in public accommodations if THEY decide to get gay married.
Comment by E. Carpenter Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 2:38 pm
It’s important to understand that this isn’t about he law that would authorize same-sex marriages, it’s about the anti-discrimination laws.
There is not one set of laws for wedding, same-sex or otherwise, and another for other goods and services. Writing a “strongly held religious beliefs” exemption into the anti-discrimination laws means not just that florists or caterers could refuse to sell to a gay couple getting married. It would mean that doctors or pharmacists could refuse medical care or needed drugs. It means hotels, restaurants and gyms could refuse to allow gay patrons. It means that any business could refuse to serve ANY person that they disapprove of, as long as they can cite a religious justification. That means they can refuse to serve unmarried couples, or members of any other religion. It means hotels or landlords could turn away single mothers or remarried divorced people, or anyone else they choose.
The law is not limited to weddings, so any exceptions written into the law would not be limited to weddings. And if such exemptions get written into them, anyone who thinks that the discrimination would be limited only to weddings hasn’t been paying any attention.
This is a smokescreen, and it’s one this group in particular is famous for. Don’t fall for it.
Comment by Lymis Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 2:39 pm
FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION!!!
Show me a business that goes to church.
Comment by Chavez-respecting Obamist Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 2:43 pm
Rich substitue black for the question and you have your answer.
Can I refuse to sell products or services and use as the basis that we will not support any event that has black people?
A rose by any other names is still discrimination. The strenght of ones beleif in the right to discriminate is not relevant, otherwise we would never have had brown v board of education.
We need to stop considering that a religious beleif creates a basis to discriminate. The Aryan Nation holds relgious/christian beleifs against blacks, mexicans, jews etc. If making something a deeply held religious beleif gives it credibility, then our anti discrimination laws are meaningless.
unless you follow the Church of the Flying Spaghetti Monster, the oppose all beings not made of bleached flour….
Comment by Ghost Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 2:44 pm
Illinois already has public accommodation laws for the LGBT community so this issue has nothing at all to do with legalizing gay marriage. I wish christians would stop the lies already.
Comment by Dale Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 2:47 pm
Someone please clarify. Sex, race, religion, national origin, age are all constitutionally protected classes, sexual orientaion is not.
Comment by Anon2 Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 2:49 pm
I agree with much of the aforementioned here. The most cogent point: businesses don’t have religions. Requiring a business to provide a service to a willing customer does not violate that business’ religion, because inanimate objects can’t “hold” beliefs.
(And likewise, if a business OWNER would prefer not to abide by public laws, perhaps they should not participate in the public sphere).
Comment by xxtofer Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 2:49 pm
Anon2, In Illinois gender, race, national origin, and age are protected classes by state statute, as is sexual orientation.
Comment by OldSmoky2 Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 2:59 pm
There are a very finite number of places or services where this might apply and the free market wouldn’t dictate that business is business. In those few cases, it would be beneficial to simply accommodate them in the law as has been asked and then move forward to get it passed. There are religions that frown on alcohol and their more devout members won’t attend where it is present. If a devout florist doesn’t want to be compelled to provide service, choose another florist. Slight irony; how hard it is to find a florist who supports LGBT weddings? Same with a small inn or B&B. They shouldn’t be forced to ignore their beliefs. What if they are a religious retreat most of the time? The bill sponsor should back off on this part and get 98% of a loaf. It’s not selling out, it’s practical legislating. If it’s just a matter of some people catch up with the times, roll the dice. If this is all that’s standing in front of getting legalized Gay Marriage, I would advise they offer the language and move forward. It’s not like this is the very last shot at this. They should take their cue from Legalized gambling and proceed a step at a time. First, only one Lotto game a week. Today, no one in Illinois is more than 90 minutes from a casino. Most people are within 30 minutes. Accommodating a few circumstances isn’t selling out the bill. But, trying to pass it without any protections might be.
Comment by A guy... Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 3:03 pm
OldSmoky2 - Thank you. So if religious rights are constitutionaly protected, how does a state statute override the constitutional protection.
Comment by Anon2 Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 3:05 pm
Try it this way:
I’m not against black people; in fact, I sell flowers to black people. But my deeply-held religious beliefs tell me the God I serve abhors interracial marriage, so if you’re a black man marrying a white woman, I will not provide flowers for your wedding.
Comment by Aloysius Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 3:06 pm
If a business owner can refuse service base on his/her religious beliefs, then where can a line be drawn? If a fundamentalist Christian can refuse service to a gay couple, then that would set a very complicated precedent. A Muslim business owner could then refuse service to a Christian.
Comment by Jonathan Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 3:06 pm
The number of votes cast since noon certainly is surprising. The tab from lunchtime is still open, unrefreshed, in my browser.
Results were running 48% (106 votes) YES - 52% (115 votes) NO.
They are now running 86% (1324 votes) YES - 14% (214 votes) NO.
That means roughly 1,300 votes have been cast in the past 3 hours or so.
The total number of votes cast also indicates this may be the most popular QOTD poll ever conducted on CapFax. Prior QOTD polls available via a quick site search indicate this year’s polls consistently tend to fall into the range of 600 - 800 votes cast.
Based on the results of past site polls on marriage issues and the general sentiment of Illinoisans, it seems likely that YES would win today’s question by a healthy margin.
But the number of votes cast in such a rapid timeframe may be worth taking a look at, Rich.
It could just be great grassroots and digital organizing by an advocacy group. Or someone may have found a means of gaming the EasyPolls system in recent days.
If it is the former, that is great. Most people could learn from the successful work they are doing advocating for their cause.
If it is the latter, EasyPolls might want to know the have a security flaw.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 3:07 pm
A “Wedding” is not a person and a “Wedding” does not contract with a business. Only a person can contract with a business.
And contracting a service is not an invitation to “participate” as a guest at the wedding for crying out loud.
That it’s being debated whether a licensed business in the State of Illinois can decide on how many bouquets of flowers that I can purchase and for what purpose based on their religious is about as absurd as it gets.
It is 2013?
Comment by David Ormsby Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 3:09 pm
These supposed “Christians,” who refuse to serve anyone they don’t like, would be wailing and gnashing their teeth if that were turned around on them. If LGBT businesses have to serve these bigots, then they need to shut their hypocritical mouths.
Comment by Ali Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 3:10 pm
Aloysius - Race is a constitutionaly protected class that you can not discriminate against. Orientation is not.
Comment by Anon2 Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 3:11 pm
One commenter said ” If you state no gay weddings there will be those who will Avoid your business and vice versa”. In the old days we could say “No Blacks” and then they would avoid your business.
Comment by RIchard Lewis Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 3:11 pm
109 YES votes (1433), 9 NO (223) votes cast in the roughly 7 minutes it took me to draft that comment.
Seems unusual compared to normal CapFax polls. Could be nothing at all, just trying to help stave off future headaches or surprises before any possible abuse spreads.
Comment by Formerly Known As... Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 3:12 pm
The crux of the issue: those who object on religious grounds do not see race, gender and sexual orientation as belonging in the same sentence. 2 determined at birth and seen as discrimination. 1 considered a sin like any other sin: no better, no worse, just a sin. Let the business be a business and face the consequences of their business decisions in the free market.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 3:13 pm
Sorry - please delete those (and this) after reading Rich, should have probably emailed you
Comment by Formerly Known As... Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 3:13 pm
Or not, lol. No more posts from me. Just didn’t want to clutter the posts. Have a good one, Rich!
Comment by Formerly Known As... Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 3:15 pm
Anon 2 is correct. Regardless of your preference on this question, this is not a Civil Rights question. It is certainly a societal equality rights question, but using race to support your position discounts what Black Americans went through from Slavery all the way through the Civil Rights Movement even into today. A civil rights argument is not what it takes to achieve the right the LGBT movement are trying to achieve. Gay people already have their Civil Rights, like everyone else.
Comment by A guy... Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 3:21 pm
Should Illinois business owners be required under law to provide services and products for a Baptist man marrying a Methodist woman, regardless of the owners’ religious beliefs?
Should Illinois business owners be required under law to provide services and products for a man who is marrying a divorced woman, regardless of the owners’ religious beliefs?
Should Illinois business owners be required under law to provide services and products for interracial marriages, regardless of the owners’ religious beliefs?
Comment by Jim Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 3:25 pm
Anonymous - You are correct:
Try it this way: I own a B&B and I don’t want to let a room to an unmarried couple. I consider it a sin. I may have hurt my business, but I have stood on my moral principle. As long as I have not discriminated based on gender, race, religion, national origin or age (constitutionally protected classes), I should be allowed to do so.
Comment by Anon2 Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 3:29 pm
WWJD? When asked whether Jews should pay taxes, Jesus responded: “Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s”. When Jesus understood the difference between personal belief and secular obligation under the laws, it’s astonishing how few of those who invoke his name want to accept that difference.
Comment by anon Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 3:29 pm
As I see the question, I believe the IFI is asking for the right, as religious followers, to deny service based on the intended or perceived type of event that is being conducted. I find that pernicious because I have never, not ever, been in a business that has had me indicate to what end their product or service was to be used. Now, when they start questioning my intent, then I will get the same ability in my business to question their intent and base my decisions on some wonderful Old Testament requirements, before my religious convictions will allow me to serve them. Do they not see how this will place some of their own coalition at each other’s throats. The baptists won’t be handling any catholic weddings, that pope thing, you know. And the catholics will not be doing any of those Jewish ceremonies, no savior type of thing. Where will it end?
Comment by ScottL Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 3:30 pm
Public opinion is swinging in the favor of treating all people equal and fairly. True Christians know that judging and treating gay people differently is the real sin– and one punishable by being denied entrance into Heaven! There are going to be a LOT of sorry fake Christians when it comes time to meet the Lord and they find out that they’re denied eternal salvation because of their hatred and cruelty.
Comment by ChristianMom Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 3:37 pm
I am struggling with the word “required”, and I have thought about that word here, but not for the reasons that seem natural.
I will explain in my answer.
If you are in the marketplace and do business, you can’t decide to provide your service to those that you find “cool” or “of the same background”, or any qualifier as to why your business does or does not exchange in commmerce with the public.
If the key is the discrimination, period, then I believe a business can’t decide to male available what they do to only “select” clients or selectpart of the public.
All that said, I am also of the belief a business that decides to turn away business because practicing a Blood Oath or Litmus Test is part and parcel with completing a transaction, I can’t see how in the Free Market, that business “making it”, even if its a monopoly type like a florist or a baker in a small town or the only one in a county.
People talk. People remember how their friends are treated, family, outsiders, word of mouth can make or break businesses, otherwise larger businesses and corporations would not have perss people, PR firms, etc., telling everyone how “Great” they are. Your reputation as a business is as large of an asset as your financial standing and the product you provide.
So, I voted, “Yes”, because to decide on the customer you service negates the Free Market idea, and I hope that in that Free Market, if the practice is started and continued, the Free Market itslef will correct, maybe encourage competition, and make social change relevent in the marketplace, and not in the courtroom.
Funny thing about a Free Market society. That Free Market can turn on the business quicker than a business can decide to turn its back on society.
Comment by Oswego Willy Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 3:42 pm
Got several friends in the catering business. If the check is good, you are in. They often have customers they may not like, but their business is selling a service so they decided to adapt or not grow their business. They learned very quickly that gay groups have money and will spend it. Their business is booming.
Comment by zatoichi Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 3:44 pm
Of course they should! To deny services to law abiding, tax-paying persons based on a subjective discriminatory opinion about that person is never right. No one should be denied services in any establishment unless they are breaking a law, or a reasonable code of conduct that disturbs others in that establishment. This is 2013 FOLKS!
Comment by Scott W Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 3:48 pm
“Try it this way: I own a B&B and I don’t want to let a room to an unmarried couple. I consider it a sin. I may have hurt my business, but I have stood on my moral principle. As long as I have not discriminated based on gender, race, religion, national origin or age (constitutionally protected classes), I should be allowed to do so.”
How do you verify the couple is actually married? How do you verify the marriage does not violate scripture (Rom. 7:2-3; 1 Cor. 7:39; Matt. 19:3-9; Lk. 16:18)? Isn’t adultery as sin?
Comment by Mark Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 3:54 pm
Justifying discrimination against anyone by cloaking it w/ the gloss of religion is unacceptable in civil society. It is what the Taliban does in murdering Christians and shooting girls who want to go to school. It is what one sect of Islam does to the other sect of Islam because they are not Islamic enough. Your religion and morality is not based upon what other people do, but on how you treat those other people.
Comment by D P Gumby Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 4:00 pm
==Like, say, at a lunch counter, as long as there’s a lunch counter on the other side of the tracks?
Or a drinking fountain or bathroom, as long as there’s another drinking fountain or bathroom?==
Oddly enough, when I made my earlier comment, those images did not enter my mind. I find those images as reprehensible as everyone else does. Not being from the south, I never saw those images in real life, so maybe my brain just doesn’t go there.
So, maybe I am just as confused as everyone else. I think it would be very insulting and demeaning to refuse service to someone that walked in your door, but I also think people have a right to not condone practices that they find morally wrong. And, for a single owner business (especially if they file a schedule C), how do you separate your business from yourself?
Comment by mythoughtis Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 4:05 pm
If you are a business open to the general public you should not be allowed to discriminate…it’s that simple. If you don’t want to serve certain members of the general public then get the HELL out of business.
Comment by George Deeming Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 4:10 pm
Rich, to your point:
A florist who serves weddings but does not serve gay weddings is not discriminating based on the event. They are discriminating based on sexual orientation.
On the otherhand, a Jewish caterer who refuses to serve pork or other non-kosher foods has every right to refuse to cater a bake yard bbq style, pig roast reception for Christians. He is not refusing to serve them because they are Christian, its just that pork is not on his menu.
And only discriminating some of the time aint a defense under the law, any more than “I have lots of friends who are…”
Comment by Juvenal Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 4:14 pm
Christianmom: Not sure this is a case of hatred or cruelty; just beliefs. I’m guessing Christian’s beliefs probably shouldn’t change with public opinion though.
I’d suggest that the ruling of a group of 9 is irrelevant and the Court’s ruling and/or debating the issue will not adjust the mindset on either side of the wall, nor their actions for that matter…All irrelevant.
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 4:22 pm
@TJ.
If someone decides not to provide me with their service, I find a new provider.
Part of the reason we have anti-monopoly laws.
I don’t see how this debate is any different than the issues that came with the ‘98 law that violated the State’s Health Care Right of Conscience Act; the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA); the Free Exercise of Religion Clause of the First Amendment of the U. S. Constitution.
Trying to force a pharmacist to issue the morning after pill is a deeper and more complex debate regarding Health Services and Religion. If the 1st amendment can protect religion over abortion, I don’t see how the 1st amendment wouldn’t be able to protect religion over “public accomodation”.
Again, a pharmacist can provide the same individual other services, just like a baker would can decide to sell a cake to a gay person, but not provide a “wedding” cake to that same customer.
Comment by Pete Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 4:31 pm
Customers are always right when doing business, and if you infringe upon their right to be different from you by refusing their business, you are rightly going to risk losing their business. Plain and simple.
Comment by Str8guy Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 4:34 pm
“cloaking it w/ the gloss of religion is unacceptable in civil society”
Agreed. Assuming that deeply held religious beliefs are a “gloss for discrimination” is just as unacceptable.
Comment by Pete Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 4:35 pm
Well, 4:22, it used to be popular to “believe” that men and women of different races shouldn’t marry or that women shouldn’t be able to vote. These pretend Christians are using God as a shield to try to justify their own hatred. They can call it anything they would like to but it is very clear what is actually happening.
Comment by ChristianMom Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 4:35 pm
Pete, I read every decision in that pharmacy case last week. The final ruling, at the appellate level, clearly stated that the government did have a right to compel a pharmacy to provide morning after pills, but that it couldn’t be done via executive order.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 4:36 pm
…Been waiting all afternoon for somebody to bring that up. lol
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 4:36 pm
=Got several friends in the catering business. If the check is good, you are in. They often have customers they may not like, but their business is selling a service so they decided to adapt or not grow their business. They learned very quickly that gay groups have money and will spend it. Their business is booming.=
Are those friends also deeply religious? Do they put their religious belief above profit? Will they skip Sunday mass to work an event, or will they turn down a paying client to attend services?
It takes a lot of courage to place your religious beliefs out in public. If your friends aren’t attending regular services, I don’t think they are a good indication of the topic.
Comment by Pete Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 4:39 pm
===These pretend Christians are using God as a shield to try to justify their own hatred. ===
I most certainly think there’s a lot of that.
But when the entire Catholic hierarchy is opposing the gay marriage bill, what are their loyal followers to do if it becomes law?
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 4:39 pm
I guess they can follow their hearts and follow the Lord instead of the empty rhetoric of an organization that colludes to protect and hide child molesters?
Comment by ChristianMom Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 4:47 pm
Rich,
The appellate level isn’t the best indication of constitutional justice.
After reading the recent list that the IL state supreme court has been posting, I think the appellate court on appeal gets it wrong more often than not.
Illinois had it wrong with gun laws.
I think Illinois would have it wrong with the morning after pill too if it went to the top bench.
I think it’s a fine line. Government shouldn’t be forcing people/citizens to do anything. There can be penalties for not doing something… like a loss of privalige or a fine, but if you decide that you can absorb that cost… than you can go about your business.
Same with press revealing sources. Once the government gets the ability to force citizens into compliance, we lose our fundamental freedom.
Comment by Pete Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 4:47 pm
===But when the entire Catholic hierarchy is opposing the gay marriage bill, what are their loyal followers to do if it becomes law?===
They will continue to be free to exercise their religion. Their church will not be forced to perform or host a same-sex wedding. SB10 deals with civil marriage only. Not church marriage. People can go to whatever church they want to, believe what they want to believe, worship how they want to worship. But the laws of Illinois will treat same-sex couples equally.
Comment by Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 4:47 pm
===The appellate level isn’t the best indication of constitutional justice.===
Perhaps so, but the attorney general has decided not to appeal the ruling upwards. So, it stands as is.
Comment by Rich Miller Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 4:51 pm
=But when the entire Catholic hierarchy is opposing the gay marriage bill, what are their loyal followers to do if it becomes law?=
Catholics lost the ability to provide adoption services in Illinois because the religious viewpoint is that marriage is between a man and a woman. They’re not out preaching hate about gays. Their not picketing gay bars, or putting flaming rainbows on anyones lawn. Most Catholics will talk to a gay person, shake their hand, have a meal with them, even give them a hug. That’s not the point.
There are 7 sacraments in the Catholic Church.
Baptism
Confession
Communion
Confirmation
Marriage
Holy Orders
Last Rights
You’re messing with a fundamental tenant of the Catholic Church. It’s something that needs protection to maintain faith.
Comment by Pete Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 4:52 pm
Discrimination is wrong. Ormsby, Word and others have already laid it out very well.
The B&B in Paxton could simply change its business licensing and become a “club.” Same with the K of C halls or other venues that don’t want to serve the public. Then they can choose who to admit as members and make their facilities “members only.”
So if somebody really wants to go to great lengths to keep the gays away, it can easily be done. Just get out of the public accommodations business and advertise accordingly.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 4:52 pm
Oh, and Rich, regarding Native Americans and peyote, I believe that is limited to tribal lands since those are sovereign. Not sure they can light up just anywhere. Rastafarians have protested that smoking MJ is a religious ritual and they should be allowed to freely practice anywhere. So far, no luck.
Comment by 47th Ward Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 4:58 pm
We have a right to like and dislike who we want. Besides businesses in Illinois, can post signs out front that say no shirt , no shoes, no service not to mention when Illinois finally gets their concealed weapons carry law up and running you’ll see businesses post signs out front that prohibit legally licensed concealed weapons carriers from entering theirs stores and refusing business to those people will be fine and dandy with the Illinois liberals.
Comment by Tony Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 5:08 pm
I think you got freeped here.
http://www.joemygod.blogspot.com/2013/10/freep-this-illinois-poll.html
Comment by Mugwump Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 5:09 pm
47th is right, as usual. If you only want to serve people who share your views, then shut down your storefront and sell your goods by word-of-mouth only. It’s not a business — it’s a service you provide to your friends.
And this isn’t just about catering weddings. What happens when that married couple wants to go out to dinner and maybe even hold hands in public? Or stay in a charming bed and breakfast?
We can’t. We just can’t.
Comment by Soccermom Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 5:11 pm
Another point to make is that churches and religious organizations are not considered public accomodations. Catholic/Lutheran/Baptist/Muslim Schools, etc…
Comment by Pete Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 5:18 pm
People have used ‘religion’ to justify human slavery, the subjugation of women, and the 911 attacks in New York and Washington, D.C. You can’t legitimately use religion to justify discrimination against millions of people in the provision of public services. The greater public interest in maintaining equality before the law trumps the freedom to discriminate on the part of private individuals every time, whether or not this involves their religious beliefs. This is not a theocracy.
Comment by ultimata Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 5:27 pm
NYC Human Rights Commission is suing ultra-Orthodox store owners for going beyond “no shoes, no shirts, no service” to “No Cleavage” and other “modesty” restrictions on whom they will serve. I don’t care about their religion. I shouldn’t have to be slut-shamed when I enter a licensed business. http://www.tabletmag.com/scroll/147451/nyc-battles-ultra-orthodox-on-modesty-signs#gvo2poOtevkWe4fl.01
Comment by anon Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 5:39 pm
===But when the entire Catholic hierarchy is opposing the gay marriage bill, what are their loyal followers to do if it becomes law?===
The same thing all of those good Catholics do about birth control. They ignore the Church.
===It’s something that needs protection to maintain faith. ====
Really? you need laws to keep you in your church?
Comment by Chavez-respecting Obamist Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 5:51 pm
From some of the “no big deal, just buy your flowers elsewhere” comments, I have to wonder about the percentage of responders who are straight white males. It’s not about the stupid flowers! It’s about the debilitating impact on the protected group of being subjected to discriminatory behavior through slut-shaming, gay-bashing and Jim Crow.
Comment by anon Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 6:03 pm
Should a Jewish caterer have to cater a Neo-Nazi event? Should a Afro-American caterer have to cater a KKK event? Should an Islamist cab driver be able to refuse service to females unless they wear a burka?
Comment by Tom Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 6:25 pm
People should check Scalia’s opinion in Employment Division v Smith. Writing for the majority, Scalia claimed that religious exemptions to otherwise valid laws made many laws impossible to enforce.
On a more practical level, we got past “we don’t serve your kind here” over 50 years ago. Enough already.
Comment by David Cary Hart Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 7:02 pm
When a person runs a business open to the public, then no form of discrimination is justifiable nor should it be legal!
Comment by AusTex Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 7:27 pm
If a business has received a license to operate under state or local laws, they automatically buy into the responsibility to serve an. They are still free to complain and commiserate with their friends and fellow bigots about it. Nobody gets to use their religion as a free pass to discriminate.
Comment by Elmo Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 7:27 pm
It seems to me that people here with “strongly held religious beliefs” are essentially all Christians. I would ask all those with strongly held religious beliefs to simply go to the book that they find sacred and read the following passages:
Matt 22:16-22
Mark 12:13-17
Then come back and tell us how those 2 passages square with your vote.
Comment by BudSFO Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 8:14 pm
It’ll be the Jews next… We’ve already been done this road.
Comment by Steve Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 8:26 pm
Strong NO.
Discrimination is wrong.
It is wrong when it is violates an individual’s right to freely exercise his/her religion.
It is wrong when it violates an individual’s conscience.
It is wrong when it is done on the basis of Christian/Jewish/Muslim.
Comment by Howell Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 8:30 pm
If I were a business owner, I would relish the opportunity to serve others not like me. Not only would it be good for business, but I would get to learn about other people, their different experiences, and what struggles they encounter. It would only enrich not only my business but my whole self and world view.
I continue to learn that judging and condemning another only hurts me and my spirit.
I would hope that those willing to refuse service to the “other” because of their religious beliefs will take a second look at their religion to find where compassion, open-mindedness, and service to others is espoused and focus on that instead of pushing the “other” away.
Comment by Mike Bernard in Baltimore (go O's!) Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 8:41 pm
Wow. And I thought “tolerance” was a liberal virtue. Not so much…
Comment by Smitty Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 8:53 pm
=That has nothing to do with the question. It’s about religion, which is also a protected right.=
Amen to that one–and the only reason I’m even posting on this thread is because the “other” Anonymous did not consider this, which this Anonymous argues needs to be considered from a logical perspective.
Other than that, I’m taking the “coward’s way out” on this one by agreeing with Pete to a certain extent. Duke out the ambiguity in the courts if you have to until it’s clarified, but I’ll also agree with the statement that if you feel you are not wanted there, then leave and take your business elsewhere to someone who will be happy to have it. (Why put yourself at risk of having your special day ruined until this is resolved if there are other good options?)
I know that’s probably contradictory to “duke it out in the courts until…,” but there seem to be a variety of possible scenarios here (i.e., I will pursue it in the courts if put in this situation because I’m an activist FIRST; I hope someone will discriminate against me, because I want to file a suit and hopefully, make some money off of it; and this is MY wedding and I’m not going to go anywhere where this special day may be ruined.
Emphasis added: I am NOT suggesting that hoards of people are going to start filing suits simply to make money off of the situation. Those three options are generally available when it comes to a question of law in any scenarios and people respond differently in determing a course of action that’s apropriate for them after making a risk assessment and identifying their own personal priorities and objectives.
Having said all that and looking at it from a service provider’s perspective, I agree with Mike B’s statement and would wish that everyone would be able to begin there in deciding what is right for them. Some may be able to reconsider sooner rather than later based on that premise; it may take others longer; and some may not be able to do so at all because of deeply grounded religious beliefs. (And I’d hope in the latter cases (and I have no idea as to how many there may be), compassion and open-mindedness would flow from the “opposite” direction as well. I believe in freedom and sometimes, it means nothing more or less than being able to make a choice to walk away from a situation that does not suit you.)
Comment by Anonymous Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 9:25 pm
Nope. There should be an exception carved out for a conscientious objection based upon One’s Religious Beliefs, if it becomes law through the Legislative route, although I expect some Illinois Judge(s) who are sympathetic to the cause will no doubt make their Constitutional argument to justify legalizing it first. It’s not a big deal, though, as some can get so bent out of shape about, really, as there will plenty of Business outlets available to otherwise accomodate them. Each of us just needs to “take a Chill Pill” once in awhile…!
Comment by Just The Way It Is One Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 9:33 pm
Smitty: There is nothing inconsistent in the progressive belief that there is no public right to be intolerant.
If folks want to refuse to have gays over for their backyard BBQ, that is their business. Although I would humbly suggest it will be a pretty small affair if they refuse to have anyone over who has ever violated Catholic doctrine.
What I think the Pope was suggesting is that the Church ought to practice the politics of addition, not subtraction.
If I knock on a door and the voter loudly tells me they oppose gay marriage, do I tell them how wrong they are? Nope. I tell them I respect their right to believe what they believe. Then I try to find common ground on issues where we do agree.
Heck, I’ve even been known to grill food for folks who I disagree with philosophically.
That florist could have chosen a different path too.
Comment by Juvenal Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 9:36 pm
I’m surprised by the number of folks who think its okay for a business to refuse service other citizens. It took the country a long time to get past that and it was a great victory.
Catholics, historically, felt the sting of discrimination for their religion in the public square for a very long time. To use their religion to return the favor is sad.
Pope Francis has weighed in on the dangers of the “obsession” with gay marriage, abortions and contraceptives.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/chi-pope-francis-gays-20130919,0,6719110.story
Comment by wordslinger Thursday, Oct 3, 13 @ 10:14 pm
No privately owned business should be forced to provide goods or services to persons or organizations in a matter that can reasonably be seen as violating their freedom to exercise their religion without government interference. There are such a small number that this is a big discussion about something better handled by the market. Freedom should be the over-riding principal here, including the freedom to patronize businesses that support your beliefs over those that choose not to.
Comment by Amuzing Myself Friday, Oct 4, 13 @ 8:53 am
So if a business owner said that paying taxes was against his religion, people would be okay with that? How about serving African-Americans? People used the Bible to justify racism and bigotry for centuries? Are people okay with that?
There is no constitutional right to open and run a business. If someone can’t or won’t follow the laws put in place, then they shouldn’t have their own business.
Comment by Theo Friday, Oct 4, 13 @ 12:18 pm
A business is not a person. The Constitution does not grant freedom of religion to businesses. A table cannot protest being used in a church, claiming that it is a Jewish table and should only be used in synagogues or secular venues. Neither can a business claim that anything is a violation of its religious values, because businesses have no religious values.
Businesses do not wed in the church, cannot make sacraments, are not baptized or confirmed or called to the Torah as B’nai Mitzvot. When a business accepts the sacrament of communion or makes Aliyah or Hajj, we can talk about it choosing to associate only with people who share its faith.
Comment by TychaBahe Friday, Oct 4, 13 @ 4:22 pm