Monday, April 6, 2015
Opening the door for religious freedom or legalized discrimination?
In the wake of the controversial Indiana law and proposed Arkansas state law, a very provocative question has been dominating the headlines. Should a business, if that business is owned by people with certain religious beliefs, be able to refuse service to someone because they believe what they are doing is against their beliefs? Read this article for a good overview of the controversy. For example, should there be a law that allows a bakery to refuse (based on religious beliefs) to make a cake for a wedding between two people of the same sex? Does it hinder their ability to freely exercise their religion per the 1st amendment? Or does it simply allow businesses to discriminate based on sexual orientation? Is this similar to the racial discrimination of the past? Is refusal of service based on sexual orientation any different from refusal of service based on race or gender? Be sure to explain your reasons for your opinion, don't just answer yes or no. Start a discussion below of the core ideas at work here (e.g. freedom of religion, separation of church and state, unlawful discrimination, expectations of private business, etc.). Opinions are welcome, and necessary for this discussion. Disagreement is inevitable, but keep in mind this is no place for ranting or personal attacks (like the comment section on so many articles pertaining to this subject, we're better than that). Points will be awarded based on the thoughtfulness and completeness of the response. Also, be sure to cite the articles I posted (or an article you found, or the law itself) at least twice in your response for credit.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
28 comments:
I think this law provides businesses with a way to discriminate based on sexual orientation. Religious freedom should be allowed, and it is in this society. The articles cites that Jeb Bush insisted "religious freedom is a core value but that we also shouldn't discriminate based on sexual orientation." I agree with that. I don't think it hinders the 1st amendment at all. People practice their religion freely all the time. If the business is being run by people who want to make a profit and want to be successful, sexual orientation should not matter. I think a comparison to discrimination based on race and gender is accurate. Business owners are choosing not to serve prospective customers based on their opinion. I don't think discrimination of any kind has to do with religion. It's just a matter of someone's personal opinion. There are plenty of Christians that are for gay marriage, but there are also plenty of Christians against gay marriage. The article on Arkansas' proposed law states, "Just like in Indiana, Arkansas legislators have passed a bill that they say is needed to protect the religious rights of their citizens." If church and state are supposed to be kept separate, this law never should have been drafted to begin with. It defeats the purpose of keeping the two separate. By merging the two together, a "firestorm" like this occurs. There are too many opinions concerning church for it to be involved with state. Too many disagreements and controversies occur when the two mix.
There should not be any law that prohibits anyone/ anything or discriminates against anyone/ anything at all. This law tells businesses that they could deny business based on "Religious Reasons." When this law was enacted they probably did not see the loopholes in the law and to cover it up, the Speaker of the Indiana House of Representatives, Republican Brian Bosma, stated "Indiana is open for business. We welcome everyone. We discriminate against no one." Although arkansas is looking at the results of what has taken lace over in Indiana and are actively trying to fix law to not having the same effect so he declined to sign the bill because he "support the act and insists that the bill does not extend discrimination." Was it Smart for Indiana to "Adjust" their law and for Arkansaw to "Significantly Scale Back"?!?! I think so because what gives people the moral right to anything on the same very American soil that we call free. Well, Maybe the new Indiana law was a result of the ordeal that happened between Marcus Bachmann, Husband of Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann, and a dress shop. Which denied him of service because he was thought to be gay. But in actuality, Bachmann was buying the dress for his wife. Overall, nobody should be denied anything solely on the basis of religion and sexuall orientation. Period.
.
Marcus Bachmann Refused Serviced In Indiana, Store Owner Assumed He Was Gay
http://nationalreport.net/marcus-bachmann-refused-service-indiana-store-owner-assumed-gay/
Allowing businesses to deny service to any person based off of characteristics from their personal lives is an unfair practice as it reinforces previous racism that plagued our country that we are currently trying to rid ourselves of. If any person is denied service because of a religious qualm is blatantly violates your right to act as a citizen and consumer. The governor of Indiana claimed in the first article that this bill won't be used to discriminate, its main criticism, and will be used solely for freedom purposes, is a statement just as Obama said about the NSA and we later found it to be a lie. This kind of bill opens doors to unfair treatment of citizens in a private environment which is obviously unconstitutional. If a bakery denies the service of a couple because of their sexual preference then the couple should not try and give this business their money and find one that does. This business should be allowed to deny service unless the service is a necessary/vital one. It is up to a business who they want to serve and this law just creates a legal scapegoat for discrimination to occur. This is a right to have opinions and speak your mind but the right is universal and the customers also have the right to consume at another establishment. It doesn't limit the religious freedom of the bakery as they are simply a bakery and are able to practice their religion however they would like in private but pushing your religion on others who do not share the same is unfair and shouldn't be allowed. This is where the separation of church and state comes into play as the laws established by government should never give any advantage or disadvantage to peoples just because of their religion. This bill is opening a loophole in legislation to make discrimination based upon religion legal. This refusal of service is not any different from our countrys' past refusal of service based upon gender or race. There is currently a bill in limbo right now to protect employees in the work place. This bill hasn't passed yet but will be the starting ground of not allowing businesses to discriminate based off of their private or public religious beliefs. As the controversy summarized stated: the GOP is so far off from representing the population as compared to the Democrats. The old white protestant conservative mentality is trying to make a comeback in these highly conservative states and must be stopped before another civil-religious-war occurs because of intolerance of a "non-mainstream" (in this case, same sex partnership) personality that somehow goes against your private beliefs. they are your PRIVATE beliefs therefore PUBLIC action being taken is unconstitutional, unjust, and discriminatory.
I think that businesses should not be allowed to discriminate their customers because of their sexual orientation. When the creators made the bill, they thought that they found their loophole. However, because of the criticism, it backfired. In the article it stated that Jeb Bush originally was for the bill but "By Wednesday though, Bush was backtracking" and that we "shouldn't discriminate based in sexual orientation". This demonstrates how important public opinion is. It has the power to sway people's decisions, mostly in this case because Bush is a potential presidential candidate and did not want to lose votes because of this unpopular bill. In writing the bill they were trying to find loop holes in which they do not have to serve someone because they don't agree with it. This is no different than refusing service to race or gender. In the past, stores did not serve African Americans because of racism and because they simply did not want to. The same here goes for sexual orientation, where people didn't give service because they didn't have the same opinion with the customers. It can also be compared to not serving a Muslim because they do not have the same beliefs, which is illegal by the Civil Rights Act; just because you have different beliefs than the customer is no reason to discriminate against the person by not serving them. The first amendment gives people the freedom to practice their religion, but that does not mean that they should be allowed to hinder their beliefs on other people by doing so. This is why we have a separation of church and state because any religion should not be able to pick and choose who they want to serve and don't want to serve. That is unfair to the customers and does not give equal opportunity for the customer. As the article stated, there should be an "image of tolerance" for everyone. If they do not, businesses can drop, evident in the boycotts by other businesses such as "Apple" and "Walmart". America is seen as the land of the free, so that means EVERYONE should have the same rights and not be denied service.
A business shouldn't be able to refuse services to people because of their religion. People should be set as equals no matter their race, religion, gender, or sexuality, and if you refuse to serve someone based on that, wouldn't that imply that you aren't being accepting and therefore are judging people? Religions are generally against judgement and are all love thy neighbor. For example, the Christian religion says that you shouldn't judge, and therefore any Christian refusing to serve a gay couple would be going against their own religion as well. There shouldn't be a law that allows this because this just allows people to be hateful and discriminate for no real reason. Even the article says that "gay rights is a symbol of tolerance for so many young voters..." There is no reason why a business should be able to refuse a service because of one aspect of a person. There is a difference between accepting and tolerating. Just because you serve someone doesn't mean you have to accept their lifestyle. But if you refuse to even tolerate people, then you're stepping over the line into discrimination. I think this is very similar to racism in the past, business owners are still deciding not to serve a paying customer because of their own opinions. This is the same as refusal based on race or gender. The only difference is they would be able to blame their discrimination on religion, using it as a scapegoat. The law allows for-profit businesses to "exercise religion" but this seems to be an excuse to refuse services to anyone they want. For all we know, these businesses might not even be religious, they could just be against gay marriage.
There should not be a law that discriminates against people and their beliefs. America symbolizes freedom and no one should have that taken away from them solely due to the way they choose to live their lives. Individual’s religious beliefs should be restricted to only them and not affect others. Everyone has different opinions and all people should be allowed to believe whatever they want. I agree with Bush’s opinion in the article, “insisting that religious freedom is a core value but that we also shouldn't discriminate based on sexual orientation.” Everyone has differing beliefs and values, which should be limited to themselves and those who agree with others. Many people would get along with one another aside from their religious beliefs, which show that we are all similar despite how we decide how to live our lives. It is our right to be able to practice and believe what we want. Therefore, no one should discriminate they should just be appreciative for being able to practice religious freedom in the first place. The 1st amendment is not hindered. In this situation however, people should respect others values and not discriminate because there will always be others who do not agree with you. The 1st amendment is carried out whenever people please. It should not be taken for granted and used against others to criticize their beliefs and values. Although the two parties disagree as stated in the article; “The views of the GOP's white, older, conservative primary electorate are farther away from the center of American public opinion than the Democratic base is right now. That's the challenge for the GOP — it needs to project an image of tolerance in order to win the White House while at the same time satisfying its conservative base, which, in this case, wants Christian florists, bakers and photographers to have the right to refuse services to gay weddings”, I believe that religion should be set aside when speaking to those of different views. We all have the privilege of being able to believe what we want and it is ignorant to argue with someone whom has different beliefs. In this case of the bakery, if people were more open to all beliefs and religions, they would get more business and benefit more from their acceptance. This is similar to racial discrimination of the past because despite race, gender, or religion, it is all the same in the fact that people are not treated fairly. The article states, “gay rights is a symbol of tolerance for so many young voters”. People support what they believe in and they will stand by their opinions. In my opinion, often times peoples beliefs are shaped through their upbringings. Therefore, those who were brought up religiously and those who were not may have never had a choice to choose because they don’t know any better or know of an alternative. Due to this, people should not be discriminated against because they were raised to believe certain things and should not be punished for it, such as being refused from a bakery.
I feel that its not really right for the business to say no to providing service just because of their race. But at the same time it is their decision, it is upto them what they are comfortable with and what they feel right to do. They have their own views, beliefs, and opinions, we have no right to take them away from them. I feel that this is the same racial discrimination as it was in the past and to be very honest I don’t think the human race is going to change. No matter what bill or whatever you pass out, the human race is stubborn and if it hasn’t changed from the past till now, I highly doubt its going to change in the future. Refusal of service due to sexual orientation is infact the same the same as service based on race or gender. “The new language explicitly states that the religious freedom law cannot be used to deny services to anyone on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity, but not all businesses are on board.” Businesses are not agreeing to this, they feel that they should be able to do what they want and deny service to who they want. You are committing the same partiality and the same atmosphere of injustice. But what I get from the law and I strongly agree to is that yes a bakery can say no to providing the cake for the wedding, but if a gay couple walks in to buy food, they cannot say no. I strongly stand by this, if they feel that they are doing wrong by providing cake then that’s okay, but if they say no you cant walk in to buy food, then that’s not okay. This is the biggest difference from the past to now, in the past it just said that blacks aren’t allowed in or gays aren’t allowed in.
I think that businesses with certain beliefs should not discriminate people based on their sexual orientation. One of the main reasons is because it is unfair, a business is primarily to make people happy and to make money, by refusing to serve people based on their sexuality they are not only hurting themselves, because they are loosing customers, but they are also making others feel insignificant about their beliefs. This is no different than racial discrimination, the only thing is the person's sexuality. No matter how it's put, businesses are discriminating others based on what they believe in. I don't think it necessarily hinders the 1st amendment because everyone is entitled to their own opinions/beliefs but I don't think it has to intentionally hurt others in the process. I believe that in the end, as Jeb Bush stated "religious freedom is a core value but that we also shouldn't discriminate based on sexual orientation."
This is a very controversial topic, especially when considering the immorality of discrimination based on race, which is an issue that was resolved somewhat recently. I believe that a business that is open to the public should be forced to serve cliental that have done nothing that has personally effected the lives of the server. I also believe that cases like Brown v. Board and civil rights in general sets a precedent for courts to follow regarding social issues. People’s religious beliefs are their own private matter, as are their sexual orientations.
After having read the article, I realized that if focused mainly on gay marriage as if it were part of gay rights, but republicans like Mitt Romney believe that gay rights and gay marriage are two separate things. This ideology is seriously putting republicans backwards and is causing them to lose popularity among the younger generations. If even Bush, the most religious president of the 20th century, can say that people shouldn’t be discriminated based on sexual orientation, then republicans have to see the difference between religious freedom and discrimination with religion to support this behavior.
It shard to place a difference between not allowing somebody into your house versus not allowing them into your business, both of which are your private property; however, it is essential that no discrimination based on sexual orientation is tolerated in this country.
I think that there shouldn’t be a law that allows businesses to refuse service to those who may not have the same religious beliefs as them. Businesses are made for the public and if they feel as though those who have different beliefs than them are an inconvenience to their business and it’s made known, people who stand for gay rights probably won’t even bother coming to their business in the first place which would eliminate their issue somewhat. I don’t think it hinders their ability to freely exercise their religion regarding the first amendment because just as they are entitled for freedom of religion so are others as well, just as the article stated that republicans feel as though they may have to come to some time of compromise for gay rights I think businesses can do the same as well regarding who they choose to service. The refusal of service based on sexual orientation is a lot like refusal of business based on race or gender because they are both types of discrimination in one way or another but the only thing that differs is that with race and gender that is part of your born identity and sexual orientation is more of a choice which may cause the two subjects to differ in some ways. Although essentially in a moral manner we see that they are both types of discrimination which shouldn’t be acceptable in society but it is. I also think that the separation between church and state should remain because of issues like this; I don’t even think that sexual orientation is a factor that should be considered in our government. I am completely all for freedom of religion but I also think that with this you shouldn’t be able to discriminate others on any level and especially not in government, but we all know America for not being the best advocate against discrimination of race, gender, or even sexual orientation. Regarding the article in this aspect I think that a firestorm has been created because people are tired of the everyday discrimination and whether republicans believe it or not, I think that future wise and heading toward the presidency some compromise will eventually have to be made.
This bill was a mistake and it was a good thing that they revised it because it is such a controversial topic. I believe that you cannot FORCE certain companies to serve someone that they do not wish to work with. If it is someone’s religious belief or they were raised to think this way or even if it is just their own opinion, we should respect it and we can’t make them go against what they believe in. I am not saying that this is an okay thing to do, to turn someone away because of their sexual orientation. It makes me sick that people can’t accept someone for who they are because in reality, someone being gay or lesbian does not affect you at all. But people are allowed to express their freedom of speech and can do what they please with their company; however, this goes against the civil rights. You can’t make a law saying you can turn down someone based on their sexual orientation like Arkansas proposed because again, it goes against civil rights. The effect of the law being actually passed in Indiana is businesses who had conventions there or had business with the state were canceling things before they changed the law. For example, my father’s company Eli Lilly was very upset and against the law being passed and was considering stopping conventions in Indiana but then the law was changed.
I strongly believe that there should not be a law the prohibits businesses from providing services for people of the opposite religious group, or different sexual orientations. Businesses should not even be discriminating at all because they are the ones making the money no matter what you are. The more people that you have in your particular business the more money you are able to bring in. This would also be bad for the Republicans as well like it said in the article "National Republicans especially the ones running for president have to hope its enough to dig themselves out of the whole they dug themselves in." The Democrats have already shown that they are for the support of gays and other minority groups, but the country wants to if the republicans are for it to. But besides from all of this it all can effect the 1st amendment which is the freedom of speech. Companies should have the freedom to do and say what they want with their companies. For example when Truett Cathy founder of Chick Fil A said that he believes in biblical marriage is one thing he openly said about his opinion toward his company. Even though he didn't legitamelty say he was against gays but according to the 1st Amendments has a right to do so.
I don’t believe that businesses should have the right to refuse service to someone of opposite beliefs because I think this is a form of discrimination; I think that it is just as bad for businesses to discriminate based on sexual orientation as it is for businesses to discriminate against races or ethnicity. I agree that religious freedom is very important, but I think people need to realize that religious beliefs cannot exempt them from everything (i.e. providing a service to someone based of separate beliefs). We already have religious freedom in the United States and it doesn’t seem as if the United States will give up that right to citizens anytime soon (it’s part of our constitution, so I don’t think it’s going anywhere), so I don’t understand why Arkansas legislatures are saying that the law is “needed to protect the religious rights of their citizens”. Indiana and Arkansas legislation has obviously made a mistake in passing/proposing laws of such nature, as seen by the push-back of Americans; now, it is said that “Arkansas has backed down from the bill over the discrimination concern, while Indiana is scrambling to fix its law”.
Having a business to discriminate against sexual orientation based on their sexual orientation is highly unfair and unlawful. There shouldn’t be a law that is targeting homosexuals or beliefs of any kind in this despicable matter. A businesses prime role is to make a profit off of their merchandise, not to judge people on their lifestyle. Everyone has their own lifestyle and they get to choose what they want to believe in life. This law is clearly unlawful because its discrimination. It’s basically stating that a business should give their service who favors them, whether its race, gender, or sexual orientation. Business should have the right to practice their religion, but they shouldn’t shun people for not having the same beliefs as theirs. This bill does bring up some past events where race come into play where back then white owners can legally decline service to black people because of their race. That event come into reality again in this modern age society. In a nutshell, this law is completely unjustly and unlawful and business should not discriminate against a person preference.
I think this is a great example of the debate between equality and freedom. It shows a clash between two historical topics of American history: discrimination and freedom of speech. First of all, I do believe that a company has the right to openly subscribe to a religion since they are a private party. However, I also believe it is morally wrong to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sexual orientation, etc.
It makes sense that these bills are supported by Republicans like Jeb Bush who are all about conservatism because they see these bills as an opportunity of freedom from government censorship. It's easy to just resort to the whole "absolutely no discrimination" viewpoint and not recognize that both sides of the argument have good intentions in mind.
In response to Eric Miller of Advance America's statement that the endgame is to "get government approval for protecting sexual orientation," I don't understand what the negative implication of that is. People of all sexual orientations should be protected under the law anyways.
I believe the legislation of Indiana are Arkansas are in good nature. If these laws were to become real things, I think the critics should focus their frustration towards the businesses that would use this law to discriminate instead of the state legislation who simply want to protect freedom of speech. Those who completely believe in nondiscrimination should instead hold legal protest or boycott such a business to force them financially, if not legally, to not discriminate.
However, that scenario would create much more chaos for something that could not be indefinitely solved in courts.
So I would not support such laws. I believe in both freedom of speech and nondiscrimination but in this situation, nondiscrimination would have to prevail. Discrimination against sexual orientation is the same as discrimination against color and gender.
I think this bill gives a loophole to the people (especially those involved religiously) to discriminate others based on their sexual orientation. Freedom of religion is already allowed in America since it is in the 1st Amendment and what the new bill "... allows people to use their religion beliefs as a legal defense against government regulation." But the controversy begins on how people interpret this new bill. After businesses began refusing to provide services based on their customers sexual orientation is the problem. This is a form of discrimination and this will also not allow business to become successful. Also I think this generation of young people are accepting gays, lesbians, transgenders, and others more than previous generations. "A new Pew poll showed that 61 percent of young Republicans favor gay marriage." Not only does this show how the young people accept this, but also this demonstrates that Republicans must change in order to appeal to the young. " The Republicans can't appeal to the young voters if they're on the wrong side of gay marriage, because gay rights is a symbol of tolerance for so many young voters."
Although I believe that it is not right for people to be discriminated against, I believe that the separation of church and state is more important. America is known as the land of the free and for the government to be involved in religious cases they are taking away that freedom. In an article I found regarding the Indiana law Rep. Tom Washburne says that “It’s important that we allow our citizens to hold religious beliefs, maybe even those we might be appalled by, and to be able to express those,” it is the decision of the business of whether or not they will provide full customer service that leads to a successful business, if they choose to discriminate they are acting inhumane but it is their business and their choice. Additionally, America is growing to be a more accepting nation overall and while there will always be people who act unfairly towards others because of religion, that number of unaccepting people is shrinking. In the NPR article they included the statistic that “61 percent of young Republicans favor gay marriage” which would have been unheard of just years ago. The government should not take away the religious rights of people considering the issue is something that is slowly becoming less of a concern.
I can’t believe this law is even happening at the present time because it seems like a piece of documented ignorance that was more in line with the attitudes prevalent at least 50 years ago. Recently, the attitude of young voters has been largely based on equality, which is effectively being destroyed at its very core by these laws. Discrimination by sexual orientation is the same as racial and gender discrimination and should be outlawed as the latter have been for decades. How, when gay marriage is legal in more than ½ of our states, can we justify legal discrimination against the very people we promised equality to? If someone opens a business, they should be required to serve all patrons who are willing to give their support. Even if their beliefs are not the same, that does not have to interfere with the business-consumer relationship. Instead of moving backwards into discrimination we should be moving forward into equality.
I think that businesses should not discriminate against sexual orientation.The article stated that Jeb Bush originally was for the bill but "By Wednesday though, Bush was backtracking" and that we "shouldn't discriminate based in sexual orientation". This demonstrates how important public opinion is. It has the power to sway people's decisions, mostly in this case because Bush is a potential presidential candidate and did not want to lose votes because of this unpopular bill. In writing the bill they were trying to find loop holes in which they do not have to serve someone because they don't agree with it. This is no different than refusing service to race or gender.People practice their religion freely all the time. If the business is being run by people who want to make a profit and want to be successful, sexual orientation should not matter. I think a comparison to discrimination based on race and gender is accurate. Business owners are choosing not to serve prospective customers based on their opinion. I don't think discrimination of any kind has to do with religion. It's just a matter of someone's personal opinion. There are plenty of Christians that are for gay marriage, but there are also plenty of Christians against gay marriage. The article on Arkansas' proposed law states, "Just like in Indiana, Arkansas legislators have passed a bill that they say is needed to protect the religious rights of their citizens." If church and state are supposed to be kept separate, this law never should have been drafted to begin with. It defeats the purpose of keeping the two separate. Therefore, People should not be discriminated especially based off of that.
I don't think their should be a law that tells bakeries that they cannot make same sex cakes. That is discrimination and they are people as well. Businesses will be losing money just because of personal preference. This is violating the first amendment because their speech is ruined and no free press because they can't show things that normal families have the ability to. I think it is wrong for any place to discriminate against people. It is not based on religion, but mostly by parent's beliefs and your own. "The Republicans can't appeal to young voters if they're on the wrong side of gay marriage, because gay rights is a symbol of tolerance for so many young voters — not to mention suburban women." (http://www.npr.org/blogs/itsallpolitics/2015/04/03/397104768/fights-on-religious-freedom-and-gay-rights-are-costing-republicans)
This law allows businesses to discriminate against sexual orientation. They shouldn't be able to push their views on someone the same way people with government jobs are not allowed to push their political views or advocate for a certain party. This issue relates back to racial discrimination by allowing people to separate themselves from someone who is different or in their religious views "wrong". This is no different from refusal of service based on skin color or gender. This an issue that has changed been disguised by many colors and it's finally getting to the end of the rainbow. (kind of funny based on the topic) To many changes have gone on in the world for things this low to still be an issue. Bigger things have come to focus on.
I don’t think there should be any law on this subject, because I feel as though people should have the right to chose whether or not they would like to deny them a cake. The couple can always go somewhere else, there is nothing forcing them to go to this bakery. Making a law on this situation won’t fix anything, you will either make the people who own the bakery mad or you will make the customers mad. I feel that this allows them to freely exercise their religion AND is allows them to discriminate. Depending on the type of person, they could either be true to their beliefs, or they could just use them as an excuse. I think this is similar to the racial discrimination in the past, but just like that situation, making a law isn’t going to make people any less racist. And on one hand I feel like there is no difference between refusal of service on race and gender, but on the other hand I think there is a slight difference, because same sex marriage does go against what some people truly believe. Although its not right to judge, and just making a cake won’t hurt your religion or anything, I don’t think these people should be forced to make a cake for them if they don’t want to. They own that bakery, and they should be able to do what they want with it and serve who they want. Is it morally right in my eyes? No, but they should have that right. And commenting on this part of the article “The Republicans can't appeal to young voters if they're on the wrong side of gay marriage, because gay rights is a symbol of tolerance for so many young voters — not to mention suburban women. The same is true for one of the fastest-growing parts of the electorate — Hispanics. How do Republicans show Hispanics that they are welcoming and inclusive if they oppose a path to legalization for hard-working immigrants here illegally?” , people can’t expect republicans to just feed into what the youth thinks gay rights is a symbol of, if it is going to ultimately take away the first amendment rights of the people. It’s making it fair for some, but it’s unconstitutional to others. So I think what Jeb Bush was wrong, although he went with what he believed, I don’t think a law should have been made to begin with. The fact is that to make sure that everyone has their rights, sometimes a compromise has to be made, and I think that compromise is, not making a law at all.
There should not be a law that allows any sort of discrimination not only based off beliefs but race or sexual orientation because everyone is different what people do with their lives is their personally business, and we can not judge them based off of what we see because none of us are perfect or the same. I think it does hinder them to freely excercise their religion per 1st amendment because it clearly states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishiment of religion, or prohibiting the free excercuse thereof" which clearly shows that everyone should be allowed to be who they would like to be and that is their right. This situation is similar to the racial discrimination because African-Americans were not allowed in certain places and we're not treated with the same respect, so it shows that the situation that just happened is very similar to the past as if the past is repeating itsellf. The refusal to give service based of their sexual orientation is different because it's not something that you can outright tell which makes it ridiculous of why it has become such a big issue, "61% of young Republicans favor gay marriage" this shows that the generation now wants there to be equality and honestly it does not matter what people do in their free time as long as they are not hurting anyone or getting in any criminal activities. This is why it is not understandable of why everyone can not be equal even if they love differently or live differently, that's what makes us unique and doesn't make anyone of us better that the other because we act, look, or do differently.
In today's society a law allowing discrimination against sexual orientation based on religious beliefs is illogical and wouldn't help the business. In my opinion, this is no different from racial discrimination. If your beliefs involve anti-gay enforcement and you refuse to help a gay customer who walks into your store because they are in fact gay is not right and should not be allowed. And with this quote, "...because gay rights is a symbol of tolerance for so many young voters — not to mention suburban women. The same is true for one of the fastest-growing parts of the electorate — Hispanics. How do Republicans show Hispanics that they are welcoming and inclusive if they oppose a path to legalization for hard-working immigrants here illegally?" sexually discriminating against someone based off of your beliefs would only go badly for your business and would not sit well with surrounding peoples. Freedom of religion is very much encouraged in the United States of America, but for someone to sit behind this while sexually discriminating against someone should not be allowed to be practiced. Business comes before religious beliefs. If you are very religious and decide to start a business, you have to set some of your beliefs aside that are going to hinder successful business and if you cannot do that, then you should not be running a business. "It's as if Republicans — particularly in the deep-red states of Arkansas and Indiana — operate according to a different political calculus, insulated from the divide between their own conservative constituents and changing national opinion. Because of redistricting and the phenomenon of a midterm electorate that leans a lot more Republican than a presidential-year electorate, there are now many more GOP governors and many more conservative majorities in state legislatures. And those majorities are moving forward with an agenda that satisfies their base of social conservatives but is seen as intolerant and divisive by the business community and a growing majority of voters in the country. This week, those two opposing dynamics reignited the culture war, with Republican politicians as the first casualties." With this quote, it only reinforces my claim that allowing religious beliefs to come before successful business and majority opinion is only bad for the business owner and the business itself. If you are to run a business, its obvious you cannot have any sort of discrimination. Business is business, you must treat all of your customers with equal service.
In a very covert manner, the proposed laws in Indiana and Arkansas could possibly be aimed at preventing people of a different sexual orientation from receiving service. Why the Republicans that created this bill did not anticipate this large backlash is surprising, considering an increasing number of Americans are supporting gay and lesbian rights. These state laws should simply not be passed because they discriminate against people of a different belief system. The United States was founded on the principles of liberty and freedom, so technically, aren’t we digressing and moving backwards towards a time when not all men and women were treated equally. This legislature does draw similar parallels to the 1950s and 1960s, around the time of the Civil Rights Era. African-Americans were denied service because of the color of their skin. Similarly, those of a different religion or sexual orientation would be denied service. As a democratic model for the other 193 countries around the world, the United States must make strides to treat each and every one of its citizens fairly and equally. According to the first article, “Critics argued it could be used to discriminate against gays and lesbians. And lawmakers, like Senate Democratic Leader Tim Lanane, watched those concerns grow into national outrage”. Refusing to service those of a different sexual orientation would only perpetuate the world issue of governments discriminating against those that do not fit into their ideals. According to the second article, the state government of Arkansas is attempting “to protect the religious rights of their citizens”. In this goal that they are aggressively attempting to reach, they are neglecting the rights and freedoms of their other citizens. It is not fair to shield certain citizens and their businesses, and in the interim, neglect and disregard others.
Refusal of service based on sexual orientation is no different than a refusal of service based on gender or race. America exemplifies, or at least is trying to exemplify, a democratic and egalitarian private sector, which distributes positions based on the merit system; which consists of assessing their qualifications, their ability to provide the designated service, and their credit ( confidence that he/she can uphold their contract). The Indiana bill stipulates in section 5 that it essentially provides protections to religious practices by allowing them to justify discriminatory practices based on their belief system. It has been historically proven that when discriminatory practices are backed by the state, mob rule is instilled, which if left unchecked, destroys the little political power that minorities have. On a another note, if one has to resort to passing laws that discriminate and are hurtful to our citizens to defend and uphold your religion, then maybe your religion needs to be re-evaluated.
Honestly, a business is there because of the push of one person or group and they usually begin with passionate beliefs that they will one day succeed. So if the company has a belief that they will grow and become successful at its core, then why shouldn’t they be able to dictate how they run that company? Discriminating against one group whether it be based on religion, race, or sexuality is the right of the company just as it is the right of the patron to refuse service. According to the website ivn.us, “…while critics want to put emphasis on the word “discriminate,” they avoid discussing the rights of business owners.” This is absolutely true as that the word “discriminate” can range from mentally isolating a person of to openly bashing them verbally, but every person has the right to their own opinions and beliefs as long as they do not harm anyone else. If a store owner wants to keep a gay couple from entering their Christian book store filled with little old ladies who may become upset, harming their business, then that is the right of the store owner. The couple choose to openly show their affection in a situation that may cause issues so the store owners have the right to ask them to leave the building in which they own. If a person who advocated terrorism came into my home, I would be highly offended and uncomfortable as would my family, so I would ask them to leave. According to the NPR article “Fights Over 'Religious Freedom' And Gay Rights Are Costing Republicans”, mixing religion with the freedom to express sexual identity does not always result in the best policy item for some candidates like Jeb Bush. Refusal of service based on race or sex is very similar to refusal due to sexual orientation in the fact that people are who they are and should not be put down in society, however, it can be argued that race and gender are not a choice, but are forever unlike sexual orientation. In conclusion, if a man wishes to not serve another man, that is between them. People’s beliefs are extremely sensitive to debate and they are the guiding factors not only in business, but in life
Post a Comment