Racial Integration is in Breach of Religious Freedom

As I'm sure we're all aware there has been a recent surge in the idea that serving LGBTQ persons is in breach of one's religious freedom. After watching a video which mentioned that the exact same arguments were used as justification for not serving ethnic minorities I decided to do some digging.

Why do I bring this up? Well I thought if one is engaged in the above argument it would be a great piece of knowledge to throw at someone who thinks serving LGBTQ persons is against religious freedom.

The case in question:
http://leagle.com/decision/19661197256FSupp941_11032.xml/NEWMAN%20v.%20PIGGIE%20PARK%20ENTERPRISES,%20INC.

Defendant Bessinger further contends that the Act [serving ethnic minorities in his restaurant chain] violates his freedom of religion under the First Amendment "since his religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatever."

http://www.forwardprogressives.com/sc-restaurant-owner-refuses-serve-blacks-cites-religious-beliefs/

Part of the message is hidden for the guests. Please log in or register to see it.

'Tis curious how people too terrified to explore the depths of their own consciousness also have extreme difficulty understanding terms like "religion" ('religious') and "freedom". Bigotry is the most prominent hallmark of slavery to stupidity and fear. It is Shadow projection in its most cancerous form.

The religious experience can be liberating, but neither the experience of it nor that freedom/liberation can be edified into a static code, creed or cult. It really has less to do with 'including the out-group' as it does 'not mis-placing one's faith in an in-group' to begin with. Indeed, as we can see in the case, the "religious (sic) beliefs" were the very source of religious blockage.

In other words, if one is just pig-headed enough to want to dump one's own nastiness on a particular 'kind' of people, then just say so -- don't blame it on God.

Mustard based sauce? What hell? I'll be long in my grave before I recognize that as legit barbecue sauce, then.

in general i think a business owner should be able to serve or not serve and hire or not hire whoever they want for whatever reason they want

same with a church - if you built the church then feel free to lock the door to whoever doesnt belong to your idea of what it means to be righteous or deserving; after all its your church

im less supportive of whining about "all the _" who eat at your favorite resteraunt or go to the church you attend

basically i disagree with complaining and agree with initiative

also i like freedom and that means protecting peoples right to do things we disagree with

its more important that we have the right to build a church that promotes our beliefs than that we have the right to attend whichever one we want

and that we have the right to open the resteraunt we would like to eat at than that we all be allowed to eat at every resteraunt thats out there

this is how you promote individual freedom and in the long run it probably creates a much more tolerant society as long the actual ability to create an establishment itself is accessible to everyone

Forcing people to be dishonest is stupid. If someone is racist, let them be open about it, they have a right to it anyway (freedom of conscience). There are companies which, for some reason are allowed to discriminate on the grounds of gender, ethnicity and national origin, yet others are not. On state-funded TV we are told all-female teams are better, indian restaurants employ indian staff, gay bars refuse to serve homophobes, etc.

The good thing about this is that as a consumer/business, I can choose not to use these people. If someone believes you to be an inferior race and doesn't want to serve you in their restaurant, it is likely that you will want to eat their food even less than they want you to to eat it. Because Maurice Bessinger was honest about his beliefs, other businesses could also be honest about theirs, and refuse to serve him.

But there's a difference between the public and private spheres. In private sure you can do and think and act however you want, but businesses do not operate in the private sphere, they operate in the public sphere. If you are putting yourself in the public sphere then you need to submit to whatever it is which is acceptable and expected in the public sphere.

If a business refused to serve someone because they were racist or homophobic then I would fully expect that business to be sued. Simply being homophobic or racist is different to actually speaking you mind and saying homophobic or racist comments. If someone went into a business and started saying racist comments then that business could remove them for causing a disturbance or insulting other customers etc.

But that's the whole point, you can think whatever the hell you like, just keep it to yourself if you're in public.

my view is that your view is just a different kind of racism

its ok to be a **** in your own home just dont let me see you out in public

spiritually it is the same thing but people always think its ok when they express their own special and enlightened form of racism

also, if we must "submit to what is acceptable in the public sphere" then the only reason to or not to be racist is because everyone else is or isnt racist

OB1Shinobi wrote: my view is that your view is just a different kind of racism

its ok to be a **** in your own home just dont let me see you out in public

spiritually it is the same thing but people always think its ok when they express their own special and enlightened form of racism

You wouldn't allow shops to have 'white only' signs up, so why would you allow them to discriminate based on sexuality or gender?

actually what i argue for is that all people have equal access to OPPORTUNITIES
which means opening their own businesses and churches

as far as i am concerned a shop owner can hang whatever sign they want in the window

to me its not at all about peoples feelings - its about opportunities

racism etc is when society prevents a certain class of people full access to the opportunities of the society more than to its privedges

for person with opportunities, priveledges can be self created

a person fortunate enough to enjoy the priveledges of their culture but barred from its opportnities has only the illusion of freedom

in an open and free society it is bad business to discriminate based on race or sexuality or gender

most business people understand that

OB1Shinobi wrote: actually what i argue for is that all people have equal access to OPPORTUNITIES
which means opening their own businesses and churches

as far as i am concerned a shop owner can hang whatever sign they want in the window

If someone hangs a 'whites only' or 'no gays' sign in their window, their 'opportunity' for being open isn't going to be around very long... but I understand what you mean.

I'm confused though why you think that being required to serve people 'against their religion' etc (as this topic is) is somehow preventative of their enjoying full opportunities?