Yes, of course a business owner should have the right to refuse service to gay people

At issue is whether tort laws that require business not to discriminate against a class of people must apply to a owner-operator business while the owner-operator, because his business is a separate legal entity, is not allowed to apply his personal, First Amendment rights to freedom of expression and religion to his business.  Perhaps what the cake baker should do is to honor the customer’s request and then to include a public disclaimer that the cake does not necessarily represent an endorsement of gay marriage by the management, the same way liberal and conservative media outlets take the ad money from and run ads for products and people who with whom they completely disagree.  The gay couple would have the right to refuse the goods, since they are the customer.  Then we could have the constitutional argument over whether they could suppress the disclaimer.  My guess is that would prefer to go elsewhere, but maybe they would be open-minded enough not to care

This is one problem I have with churches being licensed as businesses, because they are not businesses in the tort sense.  They have a First Amendment right to assemble and to say whatever they feel to be the truth as their scriptures or gurus tell them.  Whether those outside the assembly agree with what they preach should be of no consequence

Also, if the state wishes to have some kind of cohabitation contract, that is the state’s business.  But a Christian marriage should fall under the jurisdiction of the Christian assembly and should not be a matter for state licensure.  We cry a lot about the separation of church and state, and yet there is non.  If there actually were, Christians might not feel the need to try to legislate their religion, and they might not see every anti-christian legislation as an attack against the Church.

The Matt Walsh Blog

gay bill

We critics of modern society tend to run into a problem very similar to the one you encounter when you go to a bar with 27 different beers on tap.

Sometimes, we just don’t know where to begin.

That’s how I feel when I read about the progressives working themselves into a lather over that religious freedom bill in Arizona. The legislation simply solidifies a business owner’s right to act according to his or her religious beliefs (I say “further solidifies” because the First Amendment already covers this ground pretty thoroughly). “News” outlets like CNN, engaging in blatant editorializing (surprise!), refer to it as “the anti-gay bill,” because part of religious freedom is the right to not participate in activities which you find mortally sinful.

It’s not that business owners want to “refuse service” to gays simply because they’re gay; it’s that some business owners — particularly people who work in the wedding industry…

View original post 1,660 more words

Advertisements

2 Comments

Filed under Law and Politics, Meditations, On Family, Health, Environment and Ethics

2 responses to “Yes, of course a business owner should have the right to refuse service to gay people

  1. I actually, went off several times on this issue without even reading or understanding the gist of the Arizona Bill. I am ashamed. I would like to point to this article,which helps to clarify that the bill in question actually had nothing to do with refusing service to gays, as reported by the media.

    http://thefederalist.com/2014/02/28/dumb-uneducated-and-eager-to-deceive-media-coverage-of-religious-liberty-in-a-nutshell/

    Having read the bill at last, I believe it was passed with all due diligence and did improve upon the wording of the original law to more perfectly reflect the intent of the law, to whit: no one may be coerced to act in his business against his religious convictions, nor may he be coerced to do such in any personal suit. In other words, refusal to perform is a clear right of a business when 1) such performance would violate a religion or practitioners and 2) lack of such performance does not harm the interests of the state. For example, the state does not suffer a loss if I don’t want to participate in a gay wedding, and my lack of participation does not hinder you from proceeding.

    • If I were to force everyone else to not participate in a gay wedding because of my beliefs, then I would be coercing others to practice my religious principle, which would be a breach of the 1st Amendment. By the same token, if I were to compel someone to participate in my gay wedding, a breach of the 1st Amendment. Only in coercion is there an injured party, and only then does the state have an interest to uphold the constitution.

      Now, the state may decided that it’s in the best interest of the state not to have a legal marital status of “marriage” that includes two people of the same sex. Any state law deals with contracts. It may deem any contractual category it sees fit. That does NOT mean that any religion or practitioner does not have the right to refuse to engage in such contracts under their 1st Amendment rights. It DOES mean that they cannot compel others to follow their religious beliefs. In the same way, a religious organization could recognize an ecclesiastic “marriage” without having to engage in a state contract of marriage, complete with a state marriage contract license. I personally know of a couple who is married under God but is not holding a state marriage contract. This is their right under the constitution, as has been upheld more than once in their case in civil courts.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s