EPTOn March 25 2017 02:21 Krikkitone wrote:
Walking in and attending services is very different than becoming a member.
(and buying a premade cake is somewhat different from buying a custom one)
Show nested quote +
On March 25 2017 02:06 WolfintheSheep wrote:
As an atheist I have never been unable to walk into a church. Also have never been questioned about my religious affiliation when attending any services.
I mean, I don't know how stringent churches are in the US, but...
On March 25 2017 02:03 Krikkitone wrote:
If a non-messianic Jew or an atheist wanted to join a Christian church, then they would probably have to sign something stating they agreed with the churches believed that Jesus is God... definitely sounds like it would be discriminating against the person's religion.
(not that that would be likely to happen....but I would guess it would be illegal for a section of the KKK to exclude a black person that wanted to join, because that would be racial discrimination)
Basically the church can discriminate against your religion in membership, and so they are probably entitled to do so in other services they offer as well (especially if the services they offer have a religious nature, like weddings/funerals/etc.)
The bakers are arguing that their provision of custom wedding cakes have a religious nature. Given the fact that many people have strong religious beliefs around marriage, and that a custom made cake involves some personal involvement of the maker, that seems potentially reasonable.
On March 25 2017 01:45 JinDesu wrote:
I don't think churches work that way - they allow you to participate if you accept their religion and do the steps to become part of their religion, no? And so, people of other religions do not want to do that - because it is heresy to them.
On March 25 2017 01:38 Krikkitone wrote:
Then the churches with "members" run into the problem of discriminating against a protected class if they restrict members to those with certain religious beliefs.
On March 25 2017 01:08 KwarK wrote:
They could have any sign they liked but if they withdrew membership expressly from members of protected classes they would run into the exact same issue.
A golf course that is open to the general public cannot discriminate against black people.
A golf course that is members only can discriminate against non members. But it can't deny membership to black people on the grounds of their race.
All you're doing is shifting the illegal discrimination from denial of service to denial of membership, it doesn't make it any more legal.
Those signs that say "management reserves the right to refuse service for any reason" don't actually trump the law. No shirt, no shoes, no service is fine because shirt wearers aren't a protected class. No shirt, non white, no service isn't fine because race is. You can put up whatever sign you like outside your store but that doesn't mean that the laws of the nation have been changed.
On March 25 2017 01:01 Krikkitone wrote:
Based on that last bit, then it means that no one should offer services to the public if they object to anyone.
Instead just have
"Ask about our custom wedding cakes*"
*members only...membership is free and only requires your name and approval
Which would be strange to see outside a McDonalds
*members only (membership provided when you order for free, no name required, but We reserve the right to refuse/withdraw membership for any reason)
but under that argument would protect them in case McDonalds wanted to have a "safe space Saturdays" location that didn't serve whites on Saturday.
On March 25 2017 00:52 KwarK wrote:
Churches have limited powers to discriminate on the basis of religion, such as not being forced to hire a Catholic Rabbi. In terms of hosting weddings, a lot of churches don't offer their services to the general public exactly as a way to avoid this issue. They are available only to their own congregation, like a members only club.
Doesn't really apply to the bakery, it's not a members only bakery.
On March 25 2017 00:30 Krikkitone wrote:
Except you won't die on the streets because you are poor. (not for healthcare)
You will be bankrupt and out on the streets, but not dead.
You can always walk into the ER and get care, and they will bill you.. if you can't pay (are poor) then you declare bankruptcy and the ER makes up the money by billing other people more.
Now some people would rather take their risks with poor health than be bankrupt... and if you are bankrupt and poor, then there is a lot of other stuff that can kill you.
The thing is there are two separate problems
1. how to make a health insurance/healthcare system that properly assigns costs
2. how to make sure the poor can pay for the minimum amount of healthcare we think they should have (since it is a minimum, society isn't going to pay for the entire population to get weekly enhanced lab tests and a personal team of nutrition and mental health consultants)
Religion is a protected class, but churches are allowed to discriminate on that basis.
A church could refuse to marry individuals because they (or one of them) profess a different religion.
(they could probably refuse other protected classes as well... I could see a religious institution that only marries men being legal... ie only men-men weddings, no woman-woman or woman-man weddings, assuming they had sincere belief to back it up.)
On March 25 2017 00:08 Acrofales wrote:
[quote]
Except that if you are a person who interprets it as B, you should also accept that if you gambled wrong and didn't get insured for <insert rare disease>, and you get that disease, then you can either pay for the treatment yourself, or should just die, and not be a burden on society. Moreover, poor people who cannot afford insurance that includes coverage for rare diseases, but get those rare diseases are simply destined to die. In other words: you are a social Darwinist. If you don't accept this as an acceptable outcome of your model, then stop arguing insurance model B.
Given that most people here are assuming that lettng people die in the streets because they are poor is unacceptable in civilized society, it is very hard to justify any argument in favor of model B.
[quote]
Except that if you are a person who interprets it as B, you should also accept that if you gambled wrong and didn't get insured for <insert rare disease>, and you get that disease, then you can either pay for the treatment yourself, or should just die, and not be a burden on society. Moreover, poor people who cannot afford insurance that includes coverage for rare diseases, but get those rare diseases are simply destined to die. In other words: you are a social Darwinist. If you don't accept this as an acceptable outcome of your model, then stop arguing insurance model B.
Given that most people here are assuming that lettng people die in the streets because they are poor is unacceptable in civilized society, it is very hard to justify any argument in favor of model B.
Except you won't die on the streets because you are poor. (not for healthcare)
You will be bankrupt and out on the streets, but not dead.
You can always walk into the ER and get care, and they will bill you.. if you can't pay (are poor) then you declare bankruptcy and the ER makes up the money by billing other people more.
Now some people would rather take their risks with poor health than be bankrupt... and if you are bankrupt and poor, then there is a lot of other stuff that can kill you.
The thing is there are two separate problems
1. how to make a health insurance/healthcare system that properly assigns costs
2. how to make sure the poor can pay for the minimum amount of healthcare we think they should have (since it is a minimum, society isn't going to pay for the entire population to get weekly enhanced lab tests and a personal team of nutrition and mental health consultants)
On March 25 2017 00:24 KwarK wrote:
[quote]
So, if I were a private subcontractor, like a wedding venue, who wanted to discriminate against interracial marriages you'd be cool with that? As long as my objections to interracial marriages were strongly held and religious in nature.
Divorced, sex before marriage, being a jerk etc, all not protected classes.
.
[quote]
So, if I were a private subcontractor, like a wedding venue, who wanted to discriminate against interracial marriages you'd be cool with that? As long as my objections to interracial marriages were strongly held and religious in nature.
Divorced, sex before marriage, being a jerk etc, all not protected classes.
.
Religion is a protected class, but churches are allowed to discriminate on that basis.
A church could refuse to marry individuals because they (or one of them) profess a different religion.
(they could probably refuse other protected classes as well... I could see a religious institution that only marries men being legal... ie only men-men weddings, no woman-woman or woman-man weddings, assuming they had sincere belief to back it up.)
Churches have limited powers to discriminate on the basis of religion, such as not being forced to hire a Catholic Rabbi. In terms of hosting weddings, a lot of churches don't offer their services to the general public exactly as a way to avoid this issue. They are available only to their own congregation, like a members only club.
Doesn't really apply to the bakery, it's not a members only bakery.
Based on that last bit, then it means that no one should offer services to the public if they object to anyone.
Instead just have
"Ask about our custom wedding cakes*"
*members only...membership is free and only requires your name and approval
Which would be strange to see outside a McDonalds
*members only (membership provided when you order for free, no name required, but We reserve the right to refuse/withdraw membership for any reason)
but under that argument would protect them in case McDonalds wanted to have a "safe space Saturdays" location that didn't serve whites on Saturday.
They could have any sign they liked but if they withdrew membership expressly from members of protected classes they would run into the exact same issue.
A golf course that is open to the general public cannot discriminate against black people.
A golf course that is members only can discriminate against non members. But it can't deny membership to black people on the grounds of their race.
All you're doing is shifting the illegal discrimination from denial of service to denial of membership, it doesn't make it any more legal.
Those signs that say "management reserves the right to refuse service for any reason" don't actually trump the law. No shirt, no shoes, no service is fine because shirt wearers aren't a protected class. No shirt, non white, no service isn't fine because race is. You can put up whatever sign you like outside your store but that doesn't mean that the laws of the nation have been changed.
Then the churches with "members" run into the problem of discriminating against a protected class if they restrict members to those with certain religious beliefs.
I don't think churches work that way - they allow you to participate if you accept their religion and do the steps to become part of their religion, no? And so, people of other religions do not want to do that - because it is heresy to them.
If a non-messianic Jew or an atheist wanted to join a Christian church, then they would probably have to sign something stating they agreed with the churches believed that Jesus is God... definitely sounds like it would be discriminating against the person's religion.
(not that that would be likely to happen....but I would guess it would be illegal for a section of the KKK to exclude a black person that wanted to join, because that would be racial discrimination)
Basically the church can discriminate against your religion in membership, and so they are probably entitled to do so in other services they offer as well (especially if the services they offer have a religious nature, like weddings/funerals/etc.)
The bakers are arguing that their provision of custom wedding cakes have a religious nature. Given the fact that many people have strong religious beliefs around marriage, and that a custom made cake involves some personal involvement of the maker, that seems potentially reasonable.
As an atheist I have never been unable to walk into a church. Also have never been questioned about my religious affiliation when attending any services.
I mean, I don't know how stringent churches are in the US, but...
Walking in and attending services is very different than becoming a member.
(and buying a premade cake is somewhat different from buying a custom one)
Membership to churches is not open. Just like colleges.
