Author Topic: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)  (Read 2335 times)

Lloyd Perna

  • Members
    • View Profile
Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« on: December 06, 2022, 01:24:22 PM »
Quote
42 U.S.C. §2000a (a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

Yesterday the Supreme Court heard arguments on 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis in which this law is at the center of the arguments.

I happened to run into another story today and I'm wondering if those of you with more education in Constitutional Law could explain to me why this situation does or does not violate this statute.

A Christian Organization, The Family Foundation made a reservation for a large group at a Richmond Virginia restaurant called Metzger Bar and Butchery last Wednesday night.
Quote
The Family Foundation is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, non partisan, faith-based organization. We believe there is no square inch in all the universe over which God has not claimed “Mine”, and that includes the arenas of civil government and public policy where we spend much of our time. We advocate for policies based on Biblical principles that enable families to flourish at the state and local level. We are uniquely positioned at the center of a national, state, and local coalition, which includes being associated with Focus on the Family.
About 90 minutes before the time of the reservation the restaurant called the organizer of the event and cancelled the reservation.  When the organizer asked why, they were told that an employee looked up their organization and refused to serve them.

Thursday Night, the restaurant posted this on their Instagram.

Quote
Metzger Bar and Butchery has always prided itself on being an inclusive environment for people to dine in. In eight years of service, we have very rarely refused service to anyone who wished to dine with us. Recently we refused service to a group that had booked an event with us after the owners of Metzger found out it was a group of donors to a political organization that seeks to deprive women and LGBTQ+ persons of their basic human rights in Virginia.

We have always refused service to anyone for making our staff uncomfortable or unsafe, and this was the driving force behind our decision. Many of our staff are women and/or members of the LGBTQ+ community. All of our staff are people with rights who deserve dignity and a safe work environment. We respect our staff’s established rights as humans and strive to create a work environment where they can do their jobs with dignity, comfort and safety.

Is this restaurant in violation of the Public Accommodations law?  If not, Why?




NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« Reply #1 on: December 06, 2022, 02:00:33 PM »
The act specifies "without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin." You'll note that politics is not in that list.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« Reply #2 on: December 06, 2022, 02:13:47 PM »
Of course neither is sexual orientation.

Lloyd Perna

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« Reply #3 on: December 06, 2022, 02:42:14 PM »
It seems to me they are discriminating based on religion.

If I owned a restaraunt and refused to serve the NAACP, I think I would be in some trouble.

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« Reply #4 on: December 06, 2022, 03:38:17 PM »
If I create a religion that says that Republicans are evil and cannot be served at restaurants, am I being discriminated against on religious grounds if my (non-Republican-serving) restaurant is sued?

Lloyd Perna

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« Reply #5 on: December 06, 2022, 03:43:44 PM »
If I create a religion that says that Republicans are evil and cannot be served at restaurants, am I being discriminated against on religious grounds if my (non-Republican-serving) restaurant is sued?

Yes.

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« Reply #6 on: December 06, 2022, 03:57:29 PM »
Which is actually a pretty good reason to allow discrimination against religion, I suppose, and to start taxing churches. But YMMV.

Lloyd Perna

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« Reply #7 on: December 06, 2022, 04:01:53 PM »
I don't understand why you have come to that conclusion.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« Reply #8 on: December 06, 2022, 04:03:43 PM »
If I create a religion that says that Republicans are evil and cannot be served at restaurants, am I being discriminated against on religious grounds if my (non-Republican-serving) restaurant is sued?

That's sort of America's fault, right? If religion becomes so wrapped up in politics (and vice versa) that you can't intelligibly disentangle them in some cases, how do you enforce a non-discrimination policy based on religion when it's their politics you hate? One could get into what a "religion" is, which would further mire the issue. Does it have to be a registered charitable organization to qualify under the law? Does it simply have to involve a shared belief system across many individuals? Does it require a "home office" that runs it as a top-down organization? For instance, could the Communist Party of the USSR have been construed as a religion, technically speaking, since it involved an operational hierarchy, a core belief system, mandatory ideological obedience, and all the trappings of an otherwise fundamentalist religion, even though it happened to lack a spooky metaphysics? If so, then political organizations of various kinds also count as religions even though they don't identify as such? Surely the purpose of such a statute is to protect a person's right to practice an individual belief system, rather than to protect members of organizations that happen to be tax sheltered. If the law was consistent with the present reality I almost think "political persuasion" could be included as a subset of religion. Of course then you get into bona fide cases of being afraid, such as a neo-Nazi biker gang wanting to dine in a kosher deli. But absent some kind of reality check how can one realistically avoid a politics-based apartheid if things go too far? What would really be the difference then between religious and non-religious discrimination?

I dunno. Maybe the law needs to just be changed to allow for religious discrimination, if that's the de facto way things will be enforced in any case.

ETA - heh, I just saw your last post appear after I finished typing. I guess the same thought occurred to you, albeit perhaps for different reasons (mine being sardonic).

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« Reply #9 on: December 06, 2022, 04:16:13 PM »
Seems to me like they were looking out for the customers safety and comfort. What might happen if people handling their food knew they were bigots and homophobes, I wonder? I'm just saying there might have been a few cups of salt in their meal.

Lloyd Perna

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« Reply #10 on: December 06, 2022, 04:29:57 PM »
Religion and Politics have been intertwined since the beginning of civilization.

Seems to me like they were looking out for the customers safety and comfort. What might happen if people handling their food knew they were bigots and homophobes, I wonder? I'm just saying there might have been a few cups of salt in their meal.

I think its pretty bigoted of you to infer that all Christians are bigots and homophobes.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« Reply #11 on: December 06, 2022, 05:00:49 PM »
I don't think the Drake believes all Christians are bigots and homophobes.  Just these particular ones, who have institutionalized their bigotry and homophobia in their doctrine.  ;D

Nothing like "Christians" who justify their evil with God.  I have a feeling God is not be very pleased with them. 

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« Reply #12 on: December 06, 2022, 05:08:20 PM »
Do you even read back what was actually written before you blurt out a nonsensical response?

#1 I never made a statement about Christians as a whole.
#2 Just because A Christian is banned doesn't mean they are all banned.
#3 Just because A Christian is banned it doesn't mean they are banned because of their Christianity.
#4 Their refusal was tied to a specific group, Family Foundation
#5 That group explicitly brags about how they want to prevent gay people from marrying
#6 A smorgasbord of other unpalatable issues are also proudly featured from this group.
#7 This was a function tied to this group, not random people who happened to belong to it.

There are some wonderful Christian organizations out there in terms of inclusivity. It turns out there are a LOT of them.

https://www.hrc.org/resources/positions-of-faith-on-same-sex-marriage

None of them would be denied any service by this restaurant, at least we can presume that and it would be pretty apparent if they were rejecting all Christians. Similarly, if you had a secular group opposing LGBTQ+ rights, they would also be banned.

So your concept that they are having their rights trampled on for equal access reasons is farcical. Black Hebrew Israelites were deported by Israel, that doesn't make Israel anti-semitic.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« Reply #13 on: December 06, 2022, 05:22:56 PM »
Maybe I'm reading this all wrong

If the left gets upset about a business discriminatingly against say a Pro Choice political group or some such
I don't see why they also don't get upset about a business discriminations against a political religious group.

As long as everyone is behaving themselves

It feels similar to the debate on free speech. You can't, or shouldn't be able to have it both ways.
« Last Edit: December 06, 2022, 05:26:38 PM by rightleft22 »

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« Reply #14 on: December 06, 2022, 05:25:13 PM »
I think the Left gets more upset when a private company discriminates against all LGBQT+ people. This place discriminated against a specific sub set of Christians.

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« Reply #15 on: December 06, 2022, 05:26:18 PM »
Quote
If the left gets upset about a business discriminatingly against say a Pro Choice political group or some such...
If by "upset" you mean "calls for legal action against," I have to ask what example you're thinking of, exactly.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« Reply #16 on: December 06, 2022, 05:28:44 PM »
I think the Left gets more upset when a private company discriminates against all LGBQT+ people. This place discriminated against a specific sub set of Christians.

So it would be ok to discriminate against a subset within a LGBQT+ group just not All

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« Reply #17 on: December 06, 2022, 05:33:57 PM »
Possibly. But that is just a guess on my part. IANAL but there might be cases where that would be possible.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« Reply #18 on: December 06, 2022, 05:40:20 PM »
Possibly. But that is just a guess on my part. IANAL but there might be cases where that would be possible.

I see too many loopholes in such reasoning.

I have to go with all discrimination is wrong. If a person and group comes to my place of business they get served and treated respectfully. If they start behaving badly then steps can be taken.

If were not going to start from a place of curtesy we will never heal this growing tribalism. And is a server is going to spit in my food because I belong to this or that group. I'd ask that that server be fired and that I be compensated. If they worked for me they would be 
« Last Edit: December 06, 2022, 05:47:41 PM by rightleft22 »

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« Reply #19 on: December 06, 2022, 05:41:39 PM »
I'm not sure how one can reconcile support for this establishment barring a group dining there due to their religious and/or political beliefs, with also supporting a bakery being sued for refusing to bake a cake to celebrate a gay wedding. In the long discussion we had on the latter topic there was a significant focus on a potential difference between offering a standard off-the-shelf product versus doing custom work, and how the former should really have no logical basis for discrimination (e.g. a store selling a standard item to a gay person, Christian, etc) whereas the latter represents a commission for particular labor that may violate someone's conscience. There wasn't unanimous consensus on this point but it seems to me fairly obvious that refusing a custom job based on beliefs is quite different from outright refusing service/sales of any kind. And restaurants did indeed come up in that thread as an example of a 'service' that can still have a standard product it sells in-restaurant versus perhaps custom jobs (like catering). I won't rehash that entire thread so I'll just leave it like this.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« Reply #20 on: December 06, 2022, 07:13:50 PM »
Quote
If the left gets upset about a business discriminatingly against say a Pro Choice political group or some such
I don't see why they also don't get upset about a business discriminations against a political religious group.

Are we losing focus here? The question isn't whether you are "allowed" to get upset. This group can get upset all they want. They can make the argument that they were treated unfairly. But neither of your hypothetical groups will pay damages related to discrimination. If you think a pro-life owner isn't going to refuse to take a reservation for Planned Parenthood, you're out of your mind. Some of the public will say, heck yeah! Another portion will say, unfair! In neither case would it be a public accommodation case.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« Reply #21 on: December 06, 2022, 07:18:21 PM »
It's not "tribalism" to want people to be free. There's a right side and a wrong side. You can't exclude Christians from your business, and you can't exclude gays. Because both groups are free to live their lives. The difference is, no one is trying to stop Christians from getting married, adopting kids, being scout leaders, reading storybooks, or any other freedom that the Christians take for granted. Instead, they are wounded and under attack if someone says Happy Holidays.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« Reply #22 on: December 06, 2022, 08:07:16 PM »
Quote
If the left gets upset about a business discriminatingly against say a Pro Choice political group or some such
I don't see why they also don't get upset about a business discriminations against a political religious group.

Are we losing focus here? The question isn't whether you are "allowed" to get upset. This group can get upset all they want. They can make the argument that they were treated unfairly. But neither of your hypothetical groups will pay damages related to discrimination. If you think a pro-life owner isn't going to refuse to take a reservation for Planned Parenthood, you're out of your mind. Some of the public will say, heck yeah! Another portion will say, unfair! In neither case would it be a public accommodation case.

I don't think anyone is losing focus. The argument made about the bakers who wouldn't make the cake wasn't that "the gay customers were allowed to be upset", but rather that the law as well as public harassment should cause them to be ruined, the business destroyed, and ground back into the earth they came from. That is the established standard of 'getting upset' when it comes to discrimination, it would appear.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« Reply #23 on: December 06, 2022, 08:12:25 PM »
The difference is, no one is trying to stop Christians from getting married, adopting kids, being scout leaders, reading storybooks, or any other freedom that the Christians take for granted.

I take your general point that the different types of groups involved have an asymmetrical relationship to society, but I think your starting premise here is that one group is the subject of discrimination while the other isn't, and that is patently untrue. Historically the types of relative discrimination are not of the same variety, and in some cases severity, to be sure. But even if you want to compare legal punishments for being an out-group, such as capital punishment, you can find cases both involving gays as well as cases (earlier in the colonies) involving Catholics. But as of right now it is absolutely easier to be gay than Christian in many communities, and with a significant amount of repercussions involved in admitting to be Christian in the wrong social environment. It will never be an apples to apples comparison for many reasons, but I am merely contesting your throwaway axiom that one side is currently discriminated against while the other isn't.

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« Reply #24 on: December 06, 2022, 10:20:57 PM »
Which American communities do you think it would be hard to be a Christian in?
I ask because I think you're defining a community here as a self-selected social group, not a geographic or demographic one. By that logic, EVERYONE is the subject of discrimination, because the community made up of myself and my best friends doesn't consider everyone else to be me or my best friends.

I submit that this bastardizes the definition of "discrimination" into something meaningless, into something close to what Republican pundits pretend they think the word means.

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« Reply #25 on: December 07, 2022, 12:34:44 AM »
Quote
If the left gets upset about a business discriminatingly against say a Pro Choice political group or some such
I don't see why they also don't get upset about a business discriminations against a political religious group.

Are we losing focus here? The question isn't whether you are "allowed" to get upset. This group can get upset all they want. They can make the argument that they were treated unfairly. But neither of your hypothetical groups will pay damages related to discrimination. If you think a pro-life owner isn't going to refuse to take a reservation for Planned Parenthood, you're out of your mind. Some of the public will say, heck yeah! Another portion will say, unfair! In neither case would it be a public accommodation case.

I don't think anyone is losing focus. The argument made about the bakers who wouldn't make the cake wasn't that "the gay customers were allowed to be upset", but rather that the law as well as public harassment should cause them to be ruined, the business destroyed, and ground back into the earth they came from. That is the established standard of 'getting upset' when it comes to discrimination, it would appear.

I'm not interested in rehashing the well trod ground for the bakers.

And it's generally understood that it's your type of Christian that determines whether they provoke strong reactions. It is true that someone might look away with disgust from someone wearing a crucifix. But they aren't being discriminated against until someone harasses them to leave their establishment or refuses to serve them over it.

There aren't many families that disown their kids or send them to reeducation camps because they're born again.

If you're going to say dirty looks are just part of a discrimination spectrum with shunning, then I guess I buy that, but the question here is about legal protection, protected groups, and public accommodation. That's what I mean by focus.

Wayward Son

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« Reply #26 on: December 07, 2022, 01:16:59 AM »
Quote
But as of right now it is absolutely easier to be gay than Christian in many communities, and with a significant amount of repercussions involved in admitting to be Christian in the wrong social environment. It will never be an apples to apples comparison for many reasons, but I am merely contesting your throwaway axiom that one side is currently discriminated against while the other isn't.

Two things:

1. Degree of discrimination.  While there is some discrimination against Christians in certain quarters, I believe the discrimination against gays is much, much worse.  While people are mad at some Christians for being the obnoxious hypocrites that they are, it does not rise to the murderous hatred some people have toward gays.  I would be surprised to see someone who was dragged to his death recently just because he was "Christian."

2.  Reason for discrimination.  I haven't seen anyone being discriminated against just because he is a Christian.  I have an ex-minister living two doors down from me.  Nicest guy you could know.  He's friendly with everyone in the neighborhood, and they are friendly back.  I don't know anyone who actually hates him.

Compare that to certain Fundamentalist Christians who try to get gay marriage banned, don't want to do business with gays or anyone else they don't like, say that abortion doctors are murderers, and anyone who doesn't agree will burn in hell for all eternity.  ::)  Those types of Christians, I would say, do get discriminated against at times.  Because who wants an in-your-face kind of person, telling you what to believe and trying to make laws to force you to believe as they do?

This discrimination is based on the type of person the "Christian" is and how you react to it.  Because those types of "Christians" are jerks.  And there ain't no law that says you can't discriminate against a person who is a jerk. :)

I would say that those "Christians" in Family Foundation were not being discriminated against because they were Christians, but because they were jerks.  Because of the behavior of their organization.  Which means that, if they simply changed their behavior and became like the Christians who lived down the street from me, they would not be discriminated against.  An option not afforded to gays.

(And anyone tempted to say that gays could do the same and change their behavior, well, change your sexual orientation for a few years and then we can talk. :) )

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« Reply #27 on: December 07, 2022, 02:17:09 AM »
I agree with all of you that, as I mentioned above, this is not apples to apples. If we are talking about current severity of repercussion I think there is no doubt that generally being gay would be harder than being Christian in most, but not all, contexts. However this is somewhat mitigated that in liberal cities I think it's reasonable to assume that a gay person will have certain advantages, e.g. in being hired. I'm a bit biased since I work in the arts, but in that milieu being gay will garner much more social and employment capital than being Christian will. That being said, that's a very particular milieu, albeit one that has special significance in the U.S. where media portrayal shapes society just as much as geographical location.

Which American communities do you think it would be hard to be a Christian in?
I ask because I think you're defining a community here as a self-selected social group, not a geographic or demographic one. By that logic, EVERYONE is the subject of discrimination, because the community made up of myself and my best friends doesn't consider everyone else to be me or my best friends.

This is a fine point to raise, but I think I would resist accepting that a geographic grouping would be the best. To bring in an old right-wing argument, it is often posited that academia is largely dominated by left-wing politics, to the point where many humanities courses have critical theory or critical race theory as fundamental axioms. Since this is not a geographical grouping, and according to your definition is 'self-selected' by virtue of the fact that, I suppose, you could have avoided deciding to be an academic, I would reject your strict parameters as such. I do know right-leaning people who work in colleges, and they say they have to basically keep their conservative positions to themselves; to not let the cat out of the bag, as it were, even if people sort of suspect it anyhow. And I think the same will be true in the arts, by and large, but with potentially more severe blowback in the arts (i.e. being shunned in a geographic arts community if you have the wrong opinions).

Rather than say it's hard to be Christian, I would say that it's something that ignites sparks, much as certain other 'groupings' do. Mentioning you're Jewish won't typically raise eyebrows any more (unlike 50 years ago), but 'Christian' has some very negative connotations nowadays to a lot of people. But as I'm agreeing to, so does being gay and being several other things. I think we can't avoid including self-selected scenarios, though, as often the stigmas attached to your values are only present in certain company. By that rationale, all discrimination is in fact self-selected, in America at least. If you're openly gay in Pakistan that's a different story, there is no circumstance there where you will be ok.

Lloyd Perna

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« Reply #28 on: December 07, 2022, 07:37:44 AM »
Quote
Compare that to certain Fundamentalist Christians who try to get gay marriage banned, don't want to do business with gays or anyone else they don't like, say that abortion doctors are murderers, and anyone who doesn't agree will burn in hell for all eternity.  ::)  Those types of Christians, I would say, do get discriminated against at times.

I get it now. It's ok to be a Christian,  Just don't discuss your beliefs in public or advocate for societal policies you believe in unless you're ok with being discriminated against.

Quote
Because who wants an in-your-face kind of person, telling you what to believe and trying to make laws to force you to believe as they do?

Can you even hear yourself?  What are you doing right now? 

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« Reply #29 on: December 07, 2022, 07:45:57 AM »
Or be a real Christian and love everyone and treat your neighbor as you would want to be treated.

NobleHunter

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« Reply #30 on: December 07, 2022, 08:03:56 AM »
What's the world coming to when Christians can't pray on street corners without everyone judging them?

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« Reply #31 on: December 07, 2022, 09:14:23 AM »
Quote
It's ok to be a Christian,  Just don't discuss your beliefs in public...
It has never been okay in America to call for the stoning of moneylenders.

Lloyd Perna

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« Reply #32 on: December 07, 2022, 09:19:51 AM »
Or be a real Christian and love everyone and treat your neighbor as you would want to be treated.

I think most Christians believe they do.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« Reply #33 on: December 07, 2022, 09:21:17 AM »
Unless the neighbor is gay or trans or not Christian or an immigrant.

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« Reply #34 on: December 07, 2022, 09:25:17 AM »
Quote
Mentioning you're Jewish won't typically raise eyebrows any more...
I would like this to be true, but I think there's ample evidence that the Protocols of Zion are still widely believed.
My daughter (who is an atheist of almost entirely Celtic ancestry, and looks it) is attending a traditionally Jewish university, and visited a local arcade with some of her dorm; a handful of locals there mocked their "big noses" and joked about how of course they had money to spend on all the imported Japanese rhythm games. She told me later that she's gotten used to occasionally getting side-eye for holding hands with her girlfriend, or a rude rejoinder from a rejected prospective suitor based on her orientation, but that she was genuinely surprised by the casually vicious racism aimed at a group of presumed "Jews."

Lloyd Perna

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« Reply #35 on: December 07, 2022, 09:29:16 AM »
Unless the neighbor is gay or trans or not Christian or an immigrant.

It is possible to love someone for who they are and disagree with them at the same time.

Christians are against immigrants now? 

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« Reply #36 on: December 07, 2022, 09:32:32 AM »
Just the racist ones.  Or I should say the White Christian Nationalist.  Lot of Christians out there

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« Reply #37 on: December 07, 2022, 09:44:52 AM »
It's not "tribalism" to want people to be free. There's a right side and a wrong side. You can't exclude Christians from your business, and you can't exclude gays. Because both groups are free to live their lives. The difference is, no one is trying to stop Christians from getting married, adopting kids, being scout leaders, reading storybooks, or any other freedom that the Christians take for granted. Instead, they are wounded and under attack if someone says Happy Holidays.

Do I understand the argument correctly? A desire to 'want people to be free' justifies some discrimination, even if that means limiting freedom for some group, as long is its only a subsegment of the group and not the whole?

The line drawn in the discrimination (as discernment) is between Freedom From || Freedom To The 'freedom to' having higher standing then the 'freedom from' except when its the other way round. Were really bad at measuring such 'freedom'  let alone understanding the paradox of freedom which always involves setting of boundaries.

In regards to the issue of business and the issue of discrimination  I don't see how any argument that justifies some discrimination won't come back on the business making it as some kind of hypocrisy.

Did that group of "Christians" state their political views when making the reservation? Probably not. Does that business ask all there customers their political, religious views before setting them? Do they ask thier customers if their pedophiles, abusive to thier partner... because I wouldn't want to serve those people. No they probably don't nor should they.   

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« Reply #38 on: December 07, 2022, 09:52:05 AM »
Unless the neighbor is gay or trans or not Christian or an immigrant.

It is possible to love someone for who they are and disagree with them at the same time.

Christians are against immigrants now?

Its possible if difficult... or simple.  My observation is that in general most people assume they know what they mean when they use a word like Love but don't.
Joseph Campbell like to tell the story of the Samurai
“A  Japanese warrior, who had the duty to avenge the murder of his overlord. And he actually, after some time, found and cornered the man who had murdered his overlord.
And he was about to deal with him with his samurai sword, when this man in the corner, in the passion of terror, spat in his face. And the samurai sheathed the sword and walked away"

I think the answer lies somewhere in that.

I might argue that Discrimination is not a loving act against someone you disagree with (setting healthy boundaries IMO is different then discrimination )
« Last Edit: December 07, 2022, 09:55:51 AM by rightleft22 »

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« Reply #39 on: December 07, 2022, 11:42:57 AM »
Quote
It is possible to love someone for who they are and disagree with them at the same time.
I want to surface this hypothetical for a moment, because I'm actually curious what sort of "love" might be felt by a right-wing Christian for, say, a drag queen who is running a show open to children in order to educate them; I ask because I often see such Christians accuse people of "grooming," and assert that they are in a literal fight for the soul of America against people who would seek to pervert their children and destroy the country from within. If you believe that a drag queen is grooming your child for perverse and harmful sexual exploitation with the explicit intent of contributing to the instability of the nation, what love do you feel for that person?

Let's tone it down for a moment and talk about our poor bakers for a second. They love you, their gay neighbor, but not so much that they would allow you to pay them for a wedding cake. What form of "love" is that?

TheDrake

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« Reply #40 on: December 07, 2022, 12:00:09 PM »
It's not "tribalism" to want people to be free. There's a right side and a wrong side. You can't exclude Christians from your business, and you can't exclude gays. Because both groups are free to live their lives. The difference is, no one is trying to stop Christians from getting married, adopting kids, being scout leaders, reading storybooks, or any other freedom that the Christians take for granted. Instead, they are wounded and under attack if someone says Happy Holidays.

Do I understand the argument correctly? A desire to 'want people to be free' justifies some discrimination, even if that means limiting freedom for some group, as long is its only a subsegment of the group and not the whole?

The line drawn in the discrimination (as discernment) is between Freedom From || Freedom To The 'freedom to' having higher standing then the 'freedom from' except when its the other way round. Were really bad at measuring such 'freedom'  let alone understanding the paradox of freedom which always involves setting of boundaries.

In regards to the issue of business and the issue of discrimination  I don't see how any argument that justifies some discrimination won't come back on the business making it as some kind of hypocrisy.

Did that group of "Christians" state their political views when making the reservation? Probably not. Does that business ask all there customers their political, religious views before setting them? Do they ask thier customers if their pedophiles, abusive to thier partner... because I wouldn't want to serve those people. No they probably don't nor should they.

My assumption would be that they mentioned the name of their organization. Just like if you were booking a corporate party, you'd give the name of the company. It would be quite natural if the bookers might look up the organization. Particularly when the group is called family foundation, which just sounds like it might be anti gay at least to me. Or a censorship group wanting to force Hollywood to clean up their heathen video.

The only alternative I could think of, is that somebody googled the name on the reservation. I don't know anybody in the restaurant business that has the spare time to do a background check on every guest.

This changes things for me quite a bit. If a random member of the organization gets denied a reservation, I would slide it into the "wrong" category. A leader, less so.

I've envisioned that this group is likely to be talking about their passion, oppressing gay people, and their plans to get gay marriage outlawed while they are in the restaurant.

These are assumptions on my part nothing in the linked articles prevents evidence backing it up, it just feels the most plausible explanation to me.

rightleft22

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« Reply #41 on: December 07, 2022, 12:27:15 PM »
Quote
I've envisioned that this group is likely to be talking about their passion, oppressing gay people, and their plans to get gay marriage outlawed while they are in the restaurant.

These are assumptions on my part nothing in the linked articles prevents evidence backing it up, it just feels the most plausible explanation t

One of the reasons why I view such Discrimination as too slippery, it requires to many assumptions.  There are better tools and means to deal with issues that such groups hold then such discrimination, which only end up hardening hearts, changing nothing and inevitable hypocrisy.

With regard to the "christion" notion of 'Love the sinner but hate the sin'( I love you but hate the things you define your sense of self and identity by.... why should that make you feel bad and angry... I love you...) is no longer held by as many Christion's as it used to.

Lloyd Perna

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« Reply #42 on: December 07, 2022, 02:22:30 PM »
Quote
It is possible to love someone for who they are and disagree with them at the same time.
I want to surface this hypothetical for a moment, because I'm actually curious what sort of "love" might be felt by a right-wing Christian for, say, a drag queen who is running a show open to children in order to educate them; I ask because I often see such Christians accuse people of "grooming," and assert that they are in a literal fight for the soul of America against people who would seek to pervert their children and destroy the country from within. If you believe that a drag queen is grooming your child for perverse and harmful sexual exploitation with the explicit intent of contributing to the instability of the nation, what love do you feel for that person?

Let me preface this by saying other than attending church on Holidays, Deaths and Weddings I don't practice religion.

The love I would feel for that person includes treating them with compassion, respect and honesty and justice and a willingness to forgive them of their mistakes.   That doesn't mean they shouldn't be held to account for the harmful  things they do.

Let's tone it down for a moment and talk about our poor bakers for a second. They love you, their gay neighbor, but not so much that they would allow you to pay them for a wedding cake. What form of "love" is that?

The same love you would have for one of your children if they asked you to hang a Nazi flag on your front door.

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« Reply #43 on: December 07, 2022, 04:19:09 PM »
Quote
The love I would feel for that person includes treating them with compassion, respect and honesty and justice...
Remember, you believe they are intentionally perverting your children in order to destroy America. They have not said this is their intent, but you're sure this is the case anyway.

Where is the room for compassion, respect, or honesty in that?

Quote
The same love you would have for one of your children if they asked you to hang a Nazi flag on your front door.
Do bakers usually have their company printed on the side of the cake, so that attendees at the wedding go, "Oh, this bakery clearly endorsed this marriage?" A better analogy might be: your son gives you money and asks you to buy him a Nazi flag from Amazon, since he doesn't have an account.

Fenring

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« Reply #44 on: December 07, 2022, 04:26:48 PM »
There are many Christian groups so it's a bit troubling to define a term in a Christian context that is going to be meaningful. One version would be to do everything in your power for the best outcome for another person, in the long-term (i.e. including eternally). Two points about this, if we accept it: (1) It implies that there is objectively a best outcome, which is not up for the person him/herself to decide arbitrarily; i.e. it is a literal fact of nature that can be discovered but not decided on; (2) It may mean any number of approaches to help that person get to the best result, and this aspect is going to be subjective because we each have different gifts in how we help or support others. So love in this sense may mean telling someone else a hard truth; or it may mean abstaining from saying anything because you know if will only drive a wedge, and instead being a friend to them; or it may involve an intervention if the person is in danger (like a drug user, let's say). And so forth. But presupposing that "you really, really find this person offensive" seems to me to be leading toward some kind of admitting that you'll just flame them rather than care about them, and in cases where people are (shall we say) badly brought up this might happen. But even they would say on paper that this is not the proper path; they would more likely than not just be falling short of their own stated values. 

Lloyd Perna

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« Reply #45 on: December 07, 2022, 04:30:07 PM »
Quote
The love I would feel for that person includes treating them with compassion, respect and honesty and justice...
Remember, you believe they are intentionally perverting your children in order to destroy America. They have not said this is their intent, but you're sure this is the case anyway.

Where is the room for compassion, respect, or honesty in that?


I appreciate how you cut off the important part of my post.

Quote
The love I would feel for that person includes treating them with compassion, respect and honesty and justice and a willingness to forgive them of their mistakes.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« Reply #46 on: December 07, 2022, 04:34:48 PM »
So being gay is a mistake?

Lloyd Perna

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« Reply #47 on: December 07, 2022, 04:44:47 PM »
Not in my opinion.  But getting half naked and shaking your ass in front of 6 year olds is.

msquared

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« Reply #48 on: December 07, 2022, 04:53:48 PM »
Even if the parents do not think so? I mean for most of these drag shows the kids do not get there by themselves.

Also, while I have not been to many (maybe none) drag shows, I seem to recall that many of them the people are fully clothed. In fact the clothes, I think, are part of the draw.

Tom

  • Members
    • View Profile
Re: Title II of the Civil Rights Act (Public Accommodations)
« Reply #49 on: December 07, 2022, 05:09:08 PM »
Ah. See, I don't consider that meaningful at all. "You're trying to destroy America by making my kid a sexual deviant, but I forgive you!" is, quite frankly, nonsensical.