OhLook wrote in post #16415991
My, my. People have been busy here while I was sleeping.
Abby, where you see a fine line, I fail to see a line at all. I don't detect a supportable difference. A religious belief gets a free pass; an opinion or emotional reaction not backed by a religious institution doesn't. Not liking something isn't exactly a belief, so let's make the two statements more comparable. "I don't believe in gay marriage" versus "In my religion, we don't believe in gay marriage." Why should the second be a legal reason for refusing to serve someone, but not the first? Is it only for historical reasons (First Amendment)? Is it because a large religious institution has more resources with which to defend its line in the sand than an individual who acts from his or her conscience?
Similarly, there are secular reasons to oppose abortion, but it seems that a business owner needs religious reasons in order to get the exemption from insurance requirements that your father got. Why would the government accept religious reasons for an opinion and dismiss secular ones?
On the nude-photos example, an observant Muslim wouldn't shoot male nudes, either. The Koran enjoins modest dress for both sexes.
I believe it's a fine line. Perhaps in my first example I should have said something like "I don't want to do your wedding b/c you are gay. I believe you are inferior, therefore I won't support it". vs "I am (whatever religion) and I cannot attend a gay wedding, therefore it would be impossible for me to do the job".
In one case, the person is trying to maintain that the other is inferior and deserves less treatment. In the other the person is trying to maintain their religious standard. This is probably where the photographer went wrong, and made it about them being gay as opposed to the fact that his religion prevents him attending certain aspects of the ceremony. If the photographer has a professed christian business, this could hurt his rapport with his primary customer is religious conservatives.
Now some of you will say "well he doesnt have to show the pictures of the gay wedding in his portfolio… and yes he does. That will be the next lawsuit: Such and such photographer photographed our wedding and he puts all the other couples pictures on FB but he didn't display ours anywhere…. b/c we are gay. "He leaves all the gay couples he photographs off of his website and social media and only puts the straight ones".
The example regarding the muslim. It isn't about whether or not he would do it. It's to illustrate a point that just because he would turn someone down doesnt mean its b/c they are female and it's intentional discrimination or that he thinks they are lowly. Instead he's just trying to maintain what he deems are his religious standards.
The wrestling example is just another. Many religions feel women shouldn't wrestle men (or touch for that matter). Over the course of my martial arts years, I've had several Christian men tell me "I can't train with you in class my wife won't let me" (all were very religious). When these men attended class with me, and it was training time, and if we happened to be the only 2 without a partner, I sat to the side b/c he would not train with me. One now has his own gym. Last we spoke he would not let female students, even as young as 5, train with boys. He wouldn't let them partner either in the same class. Is he discriminating against women? Because certainly I could make a point that the women are missing out by training with men… after all they are most likely to be attacked and taken to the ground by a man, and thus training with one is crucial to their success. Forced segregation in class hurts females chances for self defense. Is he trying to stifle the success of a female student if he refuses to train with her when she is the only one out that round, or refuses to let the girls train with boys? Is that not just like making blacks use the other water fountain? Or is he just doing it b/c of the compromising nature of the act (wrestling) and a religious belief that it is not appropriate contact. You see, therein lies the difference, in his intentions.
Companies who are trying to get exempt from providing employer mandated abortions are not doing so b/c they are against "women's' rights" and feel women are inferior, or b/c they just feel like discriminating. It's b/c they feel the task they have to provide violates their religious freedom. Their argument is about their religious freedom, not about the fact that women are inferior or don't deserve access to abortion. That's the difference I talked about: It's not "I don't think you deserve this right" It's "I can't provide this for you due to religious beliefs". It goes back to the whole "what are your intentions". The fact that the courts sided with hobby lobby shows a turn in protecting religious freedom of companies.
I am not against minorities, gays, women's rights, etc. I just feel the government should not be involved in taking away someones religious freedom b/c they are a business. And you can not make the argument that a business is not a person. Many photographers are sole proprietors or sole member LLC's. They are the business. In a capitalistic society today, for every business that turns someone down for a religious reason, another will see that as an opportunity to work within that niche demographic and make $. Just look at this thread: Would a photographer who services primarily gay weddings do well? Certainly so! Religious wedding photographers aren't the only ones out there. There are a ton of choices when it comes to wedding photography. When the government steps in and says "you have to do something against your religion if you want to have a business" at that point religious business owners are equally harmed and feel they have to make a choice. At that point religious freedoms are lost and there is no separation of church and state, and the ramifications of that could be massive. In all of this, I am simply stating that there are 2 sides to this. It's easy to stand up for the gay couple. I can imagine they felt hurt and upset, and I feel sorry for that. I also feel sorry for any business owner who feels he has to make a choice between choosing his religion and business. Remember, when many of these photographers went in to the wedding business, the concept of photographing a gay wedding was not an option. Now it is, and now they are suddenly faced with a moral dilemma, and I feel their pain too. Just like i feel pain for any christian based company that after 20, 30, 40 years in business, suddenly has to come to grips that they might start paying for abortions.
