Marriage and other LGBTQ Rights

[chappy]

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ge-debate.html

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by chappy

http://www.thedailybeast.com/article...ge-debate.html

In my mind, this is a stupid debate.

If a business doesn't want to take the business, that's their loss. Word will get around not to try to retain them in the future; others will be more than willing to step-up to fulfill the requests...

Bakers, flower arrangers and photographers et al are not exactly an exclusive domain, after all....

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by chalsall

In my mind, this is a stupid debate.

If a business doesn't want to take the business, that's their loss. Word will get around not to try to retain them in the future; others will be more than willing to step-up to fulfill the requests...

Bakers, flower arrangers and photographers et al are not exactly an exclusive domain, after all....

Well...

That may be right, certainly in those parts of the world where marriage is open to all, but perhaps you can also empathise with the feelings of a marrying couple when they are choosing the arrangements for their wedding, finally approach the bakery/florist/photographer whose services have taken their fancy, and then get told that although the business does indeed cater for weddings, an exception is being made in this particular case. In other words - religious sensitivities notwithstanding - this couple's happiest day of their lives is being disapproved of, simply because they are the same gender.

Here in The Netherlands there is still, nearly 13 years after marriage was opened, an issue with (a small minority of) marriage registrars who refuse to officiate at same sex marriages due to their religious beliefs. Despite strong political moves to outlaw this discrimination, it is still legal at a national level here and a few local authorities still employ some so-called "weigerambtenaren" (refusing officers) to this day. The argument put forward particularly by the Christian political parties here is basically similar to what you say above: same sex couples can get married in any local authority here, because all local authorites must employ at least one registrar who will perform these marriages, so what is the problem? Well, the problem is that same sex couples are still being discriminated in that not all officers will handle their weddings, and this is (1) insulting to the couple concerned and those close to them, and (2) conducive to perpetuating the idea in the psyche of the general public that same sex marriages are not as worthy as opposite sex ones.

So in summary, I abhor the idea that discrimination doesn't matter provided that the services can be obtained from other businesses or officials who are prepared to provide them.

It smacks a bit of apartheid as used to be officially practised in South Africa and several other countries in southern Africa, in that case treating people separately according to their race as opposed to the gender of those they love. I accept that that is an offensive exaggeration considering the appalling situation there at the time (and while it may be officially over, the repercussions continue to this day). But the principle is similar, and it is an insidious one.

---

On another note, I just want to express my delight that Zeta-Flux has returned to this discussion, even if it is only fleetingly. I have read the arguments put forward by him and various other people above with great interest.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by chalsall

In my mind, this is a stupid debate.

If a business doesn't want to take the business, that's their loss.

Indeed. It is their loss. And it is the customer's loss as well.

How would you like to be someone who is visiting a strange city
and is refused a hotel room? [as Blacks and Jews were in the 40's and 50's]
Or refused gasoline at a gas station because you are part of a gay couple
with a "just married" sign on your car?

Not all "services" are small and/or trivial. Not all services are easily
obtained elsewhere.

Get this through your thick head: WE have an equal protection clause
in our constitution. Discriminating against someone because they are part
of a minority that you dislike is both illegal and morally reprehensible.

Word will get around not to try to retain them in the future; others will be more than willing to step-up to fulfill the requests...

Sheer fantasy on your part. Especially if the business is located in the
U.S. bible belt. It is more probable that similar bigots will come forward to
applaud their actions.

Bakers, flower arrangers and photographers et al are not exactly an exclusive domain, after all....

But if you are only of of two hotels in town? Or the only gas station?
Not all situations are as trivial as you portray.

There is also a scene from a MASH episode. I don't know if it is true.
A person in the South died because he was black and the only available
hospital was for whites only.....

To quote a over-used and hackneyed phrase: "You can't get a little
bit pregnant". Discriminination of the kind you think is OK can not be
and must not be tolerated.

[fivemack]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Here in The Netherlands there is still, nearly 13 years after marriage was opened, an issue with (a small minority of) marriage registrars who refuse to officiate at same sex marriages due to their religious beliefs.

Is there symmetry: would a marriage registrar get into trouble if he accepted only to officiate at same-sex marriages?

(Britain has had this issue litigated, and ended up deciding that all registrars must officiate at all marriages)

[Spherical Cow]

As always, there is a lighter side to the controversy here in Arizona- One of the more popular pizza restaurants now has a large sign posted clearly stating:

"We Reserve the Right to Refuse Service to Arizona State Legislators!"

(I'm out of town now, but plan to eat there as soon as I get back...)

Norm

[chalsall]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

Get this through your thick head: WE have an equal protection clause in our constitution. Discriminating against someone because they are part of a minority that you dislike is both illegal and morally reprehensible.

Sorry guys... I was being overly flippant, and naively arguing that "the market will settle on what is right".

Being a liberal person, who believes that right-thinking people will converge on what is correct, I was thinking that those business owners who were discriminatory would, at the end of the day, go out of business.

Stupid, I know; I'm often sadly stupid....

[Zeta-Flux]

Dear Brian-E,

One more post, then I'll probably go into reclusiveness again (although it was fun to be back for a bit).

You said something profound. Namely:

Originally Posted by Brian-E

The argument put forward particularly by the Christian political parties here is basically similar to what you say above: same sex couples can get married in any local authority here, because all local authorites must employ at least one registrar who will perform these marriages, so what is the problem? Well, the problem is that same sex couples are still being discriminated in that not all officers will handle their weddings, and this is (1) insulting to the couple concerned and those close to them, and (2) conducive to perpetuating the idea in the psyche of the general public that same sex marriages are not as worthy as opposite sex ones.

There are many issues here that I want to address, and hopefully I can keep everything separated into its own box.

In my mind there are at least three distinct levels of behavior we are talking about. (A) Official government action. (B) Business activity. (C) Private behavior. Similarly, we are talking about different levels of response to these activities. (I) Legal repercussions. (II) Social repercussions.

If we don't keep these separate is can get a bit confusing. For instance, Silverman said, in bold-face font, that discrimination "can not be and must not be tolerated." If he means that when a private individual expresses unjust discrimination we should socially disapprove, then I agree. If he means that we should punish private individual expressions of bigotry with legal action, then I completely (and strongly) disagree. So, in my post to follow, I'll try to take care to keep these options separate.

In the United States, when a state legalizes gay marriage then any government official whose responsibilities include ratifying marriages is required to ratify those unions as well. There is no opting out for reasons of conscience. This, in my opinion, is both just and proper. The 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law, and the law says the relations are equivalent (for governmental purposes).

Two of the reasons you gave for being opposed to opt-outs are of a different nature (although one reason was similar, and I'll get back to that momentarily). You said: "this is (1) insulting to the couple concerned and those close to them, and (2) conducive to perpetuating the idea in the psyche of the general public that same sex marriages are not as worthy as opposite sex ones." It seems to me that you are upset by the message these people are giving. In other words, you want to limit their speech because you find it disgusting.

In my mind, being insulted or disagreeing with an idea being perpetuated are not sufficient reasons (in and of themselves) to justify limiting someone's speech by legal means, whether it be government, business, or private expression we are limiting. That said, in government actions, I strongly believe in the principle of equal treatment, and so when that insulting speech is ALSO a form of inequal treatment under the law (as is the situation in your country) it should cease. If your government recognizes that marriage and gay marriage are legally equivalent, then they should be treated equivalently. (If they are not equivalent, then that is another issue.)

I don't believe that the law should be used to put out of business those businesses who say things that upset us. I do think that businesses should provide their services equally; but should also be (mostly) free to define their own services.

One puzzling thing here in America is that some of those opposed to religious interference in law because they don't want other's morality imposed upon them in law [and I sympathize with this position] nevertheless want to impose their moral view that discrimination is bad by having legal consequences for (their view of) bigotry.

Anyway, I hope that helps clarify things on my end.

[xilman]

Paul

[Brian-E]

Zeta-Flux, I am in broad agreement with what you write - for what must be the first time in this thread! (We've never discussed the aspect of being free to express bigoted opinions here before, as far as I can remember.)

Like you, I don't believe that people or businesses should be prevented from expressing bigoted views, or to define their services on their own terms in general.

However, I think there are exceptions to this. I think it is an important role of government and law to protect minority groups against majority oppression. If a particular minority group is being oppressed by huge swathes of the population, then specific legislation is necessary to protect that group. For this reason, I believe that a business should not be permitted to tailor its services only to opposite gender couples (or to white people, or to able-bodied people, or to non-muslims) if this discrimination is not obviously justified due to the type of service which it is.

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by fivemack

Is there symmetry: would a marriage registrar get into trouble if he accepted only to officiate at same-sex marriages?

(Britain has had this issue litigated, and ended up deciding that all registrars must officiate at all marriages)

This is a very astute question, and one which I've never heard asked before.

As far as I can tell, it's not symmetrical. The law specifically allows discrimination against same sex couples by marriage registrars, if I understand it correctly. (But I'm not absolutely sure and I cannot find the wording of the law.) Discrimination against opposite sex couples when officiating at a wedding has not been tested in the law courts as far as I know!

Incidentally, the permission for marriage registrars to discriminate against same sex couples may shortly be about to end. A proposed end to this legal discrimination was passed by our parliament last summer. It still has to pass through the other House before it can take effect.

I think Britain is wise to have this discrimination outlawed from the start. In The Netherlands in 2001 when marriage was opened, the law at that stage allowed registrars who were already in service to discriminate so that none would have to be sacked. But then, when the small Christian Union party managed to get into government in 2006, it succeeded in putting in a clause in the law which allowed new registrars who refused same sex couples to be taken on. This is still in effect now and will be until the new anti=discrimination legislation can be signed onto the books.