Texas 'religious freedom' bill opens door to LGBT discrimination, opponents say

Texas 'religious freedom' bill opens door to LGBT discrimination, opponents say | US news | The Guardian

Proposed law would protect the right of state-licensed workers to refuse to provide services based on their religious beliefs

Civil rights advocates are condemning a proposed Texas law they say opens the door to discrimination against the LGBT community and religious minorities.

The Texas state senate passed Senate Bill 17 earlier this week, which would protect the right of state-licensed workers such as doctors, teachers and counselors to refuse to provide their services based on “a sincerely held religious belief”, except in cases where medical services are necessary to “prevent death or imminent serious bodily injury”.
================================================
Sounds to me like legalizing bigotry & formalizing the right to discriminate.

JacksinPA said:

Texas 'religious freedom' bill opens door to LGBT discrimination, opponents say | US news | The Guardian

Proposed law would protect the right of state-licensed workers to refuse to provide services based on their religious beliefs

Civil rights advocates are condemning a proposed Texas law they say opens the door to discrimination against the LGBT community and religious minorities.

The Texas state senate passed Senate Bill 17 earlier this week, which would protect the right of state-licensed workers such as doctors, teachers and counselors to refuse to provide their services based on “a sincerely held religious belief”, except in cases where medical services are necessary to “prevent death or imminent serious bodily injury”.
================================================
Sounds to me like legalizing bigotry & formalizing the right to discriminate.

Click to expand...

Then any businesses or professionals that deny treatment to the LGBT community that are caught treating/serving fornicators or adulterers should be prosecuted for discrimination.

JacksinPA said:

Texas 'religious freedom' bill opens door to LGBT discrimination, opponents say | US news | The Guardian

Proposed law would protect the right of state-licensed workers to refuse to provide services based on their religious beliefs

Civil rights advocates are condemning a proposed Texas law they say opens the door to discrimination against the LGBT community and religious minorities.

The Texas state senate passed Senate Bill 17 earlier this week, which would protect the right of state-licensed workers such as doctors, teachers and counselors to refuse to provide their services based on “a sincerely held religious belief”, except in cases where medical services are necessary to “prevent death or imminent serious bodily injury”.
================================================
Sounds to me like legalizing bigotry & formalizing the right to discriminate.

Click to expand...

Sounds like decent common sense to me. In the UK's National Health Service, for example, all staff have the absolute right not to take part on abortions if that would conflict with their religion. I'm an atheist but I have no problem with that. Texas seem to be protecting the rights of religious minorities, not discriminating against them.

It seems like a bad idea since violation of federal civil rights laws may still pose legal problems for folks who assert that their religion is cause to discriminate in offering goods/services to any special 'protected class' folks. It seems that it would only allow state courts to not allow successful prosecution of some cases.

JacksinPA said:

Texas 'religious freedom' bill opens door to LGBT discrimination, opponents say | US news | The Guardian

Proposed law would protect the right of state-licensed workers to refuse to provide services based on their religious beliefs

Civil rights advocates are condemning a proposed Texas law they say opens the door to discrimination against the LGBT community and religious minorities.

The Texas state senate passed Senate Bill 17 earlier this week, which would protect the right of state-licensed workers such as doctors, teachers and counselors to refuse to provide their services based on “a sincerely held religious belief”, except in cases where medical services are necessary to “prevent death or imminent serious bodily injury”.
================================================
Sounds to me like legalizing bigotry & formalizing the right to discriminate.

Click to expand...

This may surprise you, but I think your concerns are warranted. This bill would open up the door for bigoted business owners to engage in discrimination and hide behind "religious freedom" to legitimize their actions.

This is a very difficult issue to solve, because it involves two different but legitimate "rights" that unfortunately seem to be in direct conflict with each other. I believe that a cake shop owner who has a legitimate, religiously based objection to designing a cake for a gay wedding, should have the right to decline to do so. That does not mean that he has the right based on sexual orientation, to refuse to sell any of the available goods in his shop that are for sale to the general public. I feel that if a business owner doesn't want to create goods customized for certain events he finds religiously objectionable, he shouldn't be forced or compelled to do so.

In my opinion, there shouldn't be a need for bills like this. Although many here will not see eye to eye with me, when a person requests something specific from a business owner, and based on valid and legitimately held religious beliefs, the business owner declines to accommodate that request, that decision although inconvenient, should be respected. Making the decision to use legal force to compel a business owner to accommodate them against their will, is just spiteful and in my book the wrong thing to do.

Any business that refuses service to people based on the fact that they are gay, belong to a certain race(s), because of their gender, etc... is engaging in discrimination and should be held legally accountable... but that's not the same as refusing to take part in, or contribute to, a specific activity that they religiously or morally object to. Tolerance is a two way street and because a hand full of people forgot that, it's led to bills like this which will end up creating more problems than it solves.

.

Grim17 said:

This may surprise you, but I think your concerns are warranted. This bill would open up the door for bigoted business owners to engage in discrimination and hide behind "religious freedom" to legitimize their actions.

This is a very difficult issue to solve, because it involves two different but legitimate "rights" that unfortunately seem to be in direct conflict with each other. I believe that a cake shop owner who has a legitimate, religiously based objection to designing a cake for a gay wedding, should have the right to decline to do so. That does not mean that he has the right based on sexual orientation, to refuse to sell any of the available goods in his shop that are for sale to the general public. I feel that if a business owner doesn't want to create goods customized for certain events he finds religiously objectionable, he shouldn't be forced or compelled to do so.

In my opinion, there shouldn't be a need for bills like this. Although many here will not see eye to eye with me, when a person requests something specific from a business owner, and based on valid and legitimately held religious beliefs, the business owner declines to accommodate that request, that decision although inconvenient, should be respected. Making the decision to use legal force to compel a business owner to accommodate them against their will, is just spiteful and in my book the wrong thing to do.

Any business that refuses service to people based on the fact that they are gay, belong to a certain race(s), because of their gender, etc... is engaging in discrimination and should be held legally accountable... but that's not the same as refusing to take part in, or contribute to, a specific activity that they religiously or morally object to. Tolerance is a two way street and because a hand full of people forgot that, it's led to bills like this which will end up creating more problems than it solves.

.

Click to expand...

It is hard to believe that an avowed conservative would agree with one of my opinions.

JacksinPA said:

It is hard to believe that an avowed conservative would agree with one of my opinions.

Click to expand...

I agree completely with the bill's intent, but like I said, it's pretty obvious to me that such a law could be abused by actual bigots. What I want to know is, what's the alternative? What can be done to preserve the rights of both sides? That's a question that I don't have an answer to... Do you?

On a related topic concerning possible abuse, this brings to mind the laws that allow transgender men the right to use women's restrooms and changing facilities. If you want to talk about possible abuse, those laws are at the very top of my list, but the abuse they are open to aren't a matter of inconvenience or hurting someones feelings... The abuse they are open to present a physical threat to women, and more importantly, children.

What's your take here?

.

JacksinPA said:

Texas 'religious freedom' bill opens door to LGBT discrimination, opponents say | US news | The Guardian

Proposed law would protect the right of state-licensed workers to refuse to provide services based on their religious beliefs

Civil rights advocates are condemning a proposed Texas law they say opens the door to discrimination against the LGBT community and religious minorities.

The Texas state senate passed Senate Bill 17 earlier this week, which would protect the right of state-licensed workers such as doctors, teachers and counselors to refuse to provide their services based on “a sincerely held religious belief”, except in cases where medical services are necessary to “prevent death or imminent serious bodily injury”.
================================================
Sounds to me like legalizing bigotry & formalizing the right to discriminate.

Click to expand...

The elephant in the room that's not mentioned above is abortion.

Grim17 said:

This may surprise you, but I think your concerns are warranted. This bill would open up the door for bigoted business owners to engage in discrimination and hide behind "religious freedom" to legitimize their actions.

This is a very difficult issue to solve, because it involves two different but legitimate "rights" that unfortunately seem to be in direct conflict with each other. I believe that a cake shop owner who has a legitimate, religiously based objection to designing a cake for a gay wedding, should have the right to decline to do so. That does not mean that he has the right based on sexual orientation, to refuse to sell any of the available goods in his shop that are for sale to the general public. I feel that if a business owner doesn't want to create goods customized for certain events he finds religiously objectionable, he shouldn't be forced or compelled to do so.

In my opinion, there shouldn't be a need for bills like this. Although many here will not see eye to eye with me, when a person requests something specific from a business owner, and based on valid and legitimately held religious beliefs, the business owner declines to accommodate that request, that decision although inconvenient, should be respected. Making the decision to use legal force to compel a business owner to accommodate them against their will, is just spiteful and in my book the wrong thing to do.

Any business that refuses service to people based on the fact that they are gay, belong to a certain race(s), because of their gender, etc... is engaging in discrimination and should be held legally accountable... but that's not the same as refusing to take part in, or contribute to, a specific activity that they religiously or morally object to. Tolerance is a two way street and because a hand full of people forgot that, it's led to bills like this which will end up creating more problems than it solves.

.

Click to expand...

I have to disagree, I like how Quebec deals with it: if a business normally offers a good or service to the general public they cannot refuse to sell it to a member of the general public on the grounds that person is a member of a protected class, which in Quebec at least includes sexual orientation. If you are not interested is serving the general public you should not be operating a business open to the general public.

I agree it shouldn't be needed but I think the potential for abuse by bigots is far greater than the imposition on the rights of business owners, who like I said should not be operating a business if they are not willing to serve only a part of the general public.

Carjosse said:

I have to disagree, I like how Quebec deals with it: if a business normally offers a good or service to the general public they cannot refuse to sell it to a member of the general public on the grounds that person is a member of a protected class, which in Quebec at least includes sexual orientation. If you are not interested is serving the general public you should not be operating a business open to the general public.

Click to expand...

This happens every time... I express an opinion taking the rights of both sides into account, and what I get in return is a one sided perspective that doesn't take into account or acknowledge that the other side has rights too.

Let me ask you this, and it's not a trick question... Let's say gay man walks into a place of business and there are 10 people ahead of him waiting, so he has to take a number. If he doesn't take a number and immediately demands to be waited on, then is told that there are several people ahead of him, and he goes on a verbal tirade yelling and screaming, insulting every employee in the place, resulting in the manager refusing to serve him and kicking out of the building, does that constitute discrimination based on sexual orientation?

You are free to answer or not answer, but I only asked it to make a point about something you wrote.... You said a business "cannot refuse to sell it to a member of the general public on the grounds that person is a member of a protected class". The example I gave in my question was my way of saying:

You can't refuse service to someone because they're gay, but that doesn't mean someone who is gay can't be refused service.

A person being gay, a minority, etc... doesn't afford them special treatment, or give them an automatic "You must serve me no matter what" pass. It means they will be treated no different than any other customer.

Taking the incident where a baker wouldn't bake a custom cake for a gay wedding due to his deeply held religious beliefs, many people believe that refusal to be an act of discrimination against the gay couple who requested it. I disagree. The answer to 3 question are the basis of my disagreement:

1. Is he in fact a life-long and active member of a church that believes gay marriage is a sin?
Answer: Yes

2. Would the baker have designed and created that specific cake, if the customer who requested it was not gay?
Answer: No. He has never designed such a cake.

3. Has the baker in his many years owning that shop, ever refused to sell to anyone, any of the goods in his shop available for sale to the general public because they were gay, a minority, etc...
Answer: No. There has never been any such an incident reported or alleged, prior to the case being discussed.

Those answers make it clear to me, that the baker's refusal of service wasn't because the couple ordered it were gay. The baker's refusal stemmed from the event, a gay wedding, which violates one of the tenets of his religion. My opinion takes into account that both the gay couple and the baker have rights. You can't pretend that freedom of religion doesn't exist, and you certainly can't deny someone the right to own a business because of their religious beliefs... That would be discrimination on a grand scale.

JacksinPA said:

Texas 'religious freedom' bill opens door to LGBT discrimination, opponents say | US news | The Guardian

Proposed law would protect the right of state-licensed workers to refuse to provide services based on their religious beliefs

Civil rights advocates are condemning a proposed Texas law they say opens the door to discrimination against the LGBT community and religious minorities.

The Texas state senate passed Senate Bill 17 earlier this week, which would protect the right of state-licensed workers such as doctors, teachers and counselors to refuse to provide their services based on “a sincerely held religious belief”, except in cases where medical services are necessary to “prevent death or imminent serious bodily injury”.
================================================
Sounds to me like legalizing bigotry & formalizing the right to discriminate.

Click to expand...

Anytime you have two groups rights coming into conflict with each other, then you have to weigh which group has experienced and continues to experience more discrimination in that jurisdiction. No one can seriously argue that in the state of Texas, Christians have been discriminated against more than Gays and Lesbians.

Carjosse said:

I have to disagree, I like how Quebec deals with it: if a business normally offers a good or service to the general public they cannot refuse to sell it to a member of the general public on the grounds that person is a member of a protected class, which in Quebec at least includes sexual orientation. If you are not interested is serving the general public you should not be operating a business open to the general public.

I agree it shouldn't be needed but I think the potential for abuse by bigots is far greater than the imposition on the rights of business owners, who like I said should not be operating a business if they are not willing to serve only a part of the general public.

Click to expand...

Yeah, there is a fallacy promoted by social and religious conservatives that says if business x is required to not refuse business to gays and lesbians, a Jewish deli will have to start serving ham sandwiches. What they ignore of course is that anti-discrimination laws do not force you to sell a product you don't already sell, but rather they force you to sell a product that you do sell to one group, to everyone else should they want to purchase that product or service.

SDET said:

The elephant in the room that's not mentioned above is abortion.

Click to expand...

If you take a job where you know you have to assist with certain procedures and arent willing to do so, then you are in the wrong...you shouldnt have taken the job.

No Drs are forced to perform elective abortions...they do have a choice.

Do you think nurses and other medical staff have the right to 2nd guess a woman's medical decisions?

SDET said:

The elephant in the room that's not mentioned above is abortion.

Click to expand...

Surely that’s only an issue for religious veterinarians.