Try these examples:
Can you have a race that has no start point and no end point? How do you know if you won?
How can you have a valley without a mountain (ignoring the technicalities)?
How would you know "good" if you never saw "evil"?
Just a thought.
The JAB is not the relevant issue here. This same dilemma happens in all types of situations. The JAB is just this particular case.
While you have no OBLIGATION, you can assist by offering maybe 1 or 2 of your days. You have no OBLIGATION to give away everything. Taking the "high road" is always a good thing. Your only issue now, is to NOT commit the sin of pride. Maybe offer all the same amount.
You did not require them to take the JAB. (That would be a moral dilemma.) You did not recommend the JAB. (That would also be a moral dilemma.) You did not mislead them about the JAB. (That would also be a moral dilemma.)
You can tell a kid to not put his hand in the fire, but eventually, he will. You job then is to comfort and heal. You can't feel guilty for the kid putting his hand in the fire in the first place.
You're an innocent bystander in this case. Be nice, offer some but you don't have any obligation to sink your own boat. They will be be grateful to receive anything you offer.
This is NOT simple. Many of us do/will have this same issue. We all must decide how to handle this type of issue.
For myself, I decided to be nice, offer whatever I'm comfortable with, but as I said above, you have no requirement to take on their burden. Comfort and heal.
Ask God to help you understand.
No, you're NOT in a moral dilemma. You made a decision, they made a decision. It's OK to feel bad and pray for them, but that's NOT a moral dilemma. Do NOT absorb the ramifications of their decision. They were free to make their decision as did you.
You summarize well.
"It isn't about discrimination one bit at all. It is about not forcing people to do things that are against their religious (or other) beliefs." That's the heart of the problem.
IMHO, if the product of the BUSINESS is "custom cakes with inscription" then the business opens themselves up to this possibility. The business majority shareholder should be aware of this possibility before they decide to open the business.
In your example, "cake with a swastika..." would touch the "hate speech" laws and could be blown out thereby. Short of that, sadly, yes.
BUT: "goes against the business owner's beliefs." is where most people are getting hung up. INCORPORATED BUSINESSES don't have "owners." They have shareholders. The "owner" is usually considered the person who holds greater than 50 percent of the shares. The majority shareholder CAN direct the BUSINNESS to do something, but the BUSINESS will still be bound by the discrimination laws. The "beliefs" or "preferences" of the majority shareholder stop at the "corporate curtain."
Great Question...
Well, from reading the energetic responses from many ppl here, they would say yes. The law however, both state and federal, doesn't agree.
An argument "COULD BE" that one gang member should prevent other gang members may be compelling, but the law doesn't have that distinction. Just because, for example, one Asian was rowdy, doesn't permit the barring of all Asians from your restaurant. That discrimination, like it or not, isn't allowed.
I fully understand, appreciate, and probably mostly agree with everyone here. The problem is that BUSINESSES are highly regulated and adherence to discrimination laws are regularly verified.
The "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is a SPECIFIC exception that is SPECIFICALLY outlined in law. It USUALLY requires that the SPECIFIC individual must have had prior contact with the business and that specific person has taken a SPECIFIC action that harms the business in some way. It can NOT be applied to a "general group" of persons. Trespassing an individual is one likely example. It can not be used to prohibit a general group from doing business with the business.
This is NOT intended to be legal advise.
I would shy away from giving LEGAL advise.
My reaction to your question would be that IF your aesthetician SPECIFIES in the "qualifications" or "capabilities" or "services offered" that she doesn't provide her service to males, then she would be (in my opinion) safe and NOT discriminating. Similarly, you can't require a plumber to fix your electrical device. It's outside their expertise or field of services offered.
If, however, she ADVERTISES that she provides her services to everyone, then if she turns down a male customer because he's male, then there's a problem. IMO
Similarly, if the plumber offers "Plumbing and Electrical Services" and won't fix your electrical device because you're a male, then there's a problem. IMO
This is only my opinion and NOT offered as legal advise.
You are correct. A DBA, LLC, LLP and other such entities are usually governed by respective state law and vary widely state to state. Specifically, I have no experience with those structures. It MAY BE true that such smaller structures are NOT bound by such strict discrimination laws. As a general rule, I would NOT risk such a legal quandary. IF I were running such an entity and had a desire to discriminate, I would dissolve the BUSINESS and sell a product as a PERSON.
That's an interesting angle.
You are correct, compelled speech violates the 5th amendment. I understand and agree with that.
Using this example:
The problem is that the "cake with an inscription" was the product. If the customer pays for it, it's the product. If the business accepts the money, then the business is selling the product. If the product was "cake" then we probably wouldn't be having this discussion. The problem is that the product was "cake with inscription" (and probably decorations).
I don't like this any more than anyone else. The problem is that BUSINESS can't discriminate. Persons can. I FEEL (that's my opinion) the some people are not making that distinction. That distinction is very important.
As to your second part, can a Christian demand non kosher foods or a pork sandwich be sold to him/her; Well, -IF- the sandwich shop sells "custom" sandwiches, as subway sandwiches does, and that's one of the "options" then the BUSINESS must sell it as you described. BUT -IF- the BUSINESS offers ONLY SPECIFICALLY made sandwiches, OR that's NOT one of the options, then NO.
IF a business offers a product, then they can't discriminate against any general group of "customers." "This is my product ..., I won't sell my product to you because you're ..." is discrimination.
Technicalities sure. Thank you for the logical discussion.
If a business can refuse a customer because of religion, you become a Theocracy. (Ruled by religion) If a business can refuse a customer because of any general characteristic, you have a social MAJOR problem. Should a White owned restaurant be able to refuse to serve Blacks? No. That's why we have anti-discriminatory laws. Look, I have the same feelings as everyone else, but no, a BUSINESS can't discriminate against any generalized group. If you want to discriminate against anyone for any reason, then close the BUSINESS and do your business as a PERSON. Then you're fine to discriminate anything.
A CUSTOMER deciding NOT to BUY from a BUSINESS is a whole different thing. As a CUSTOMER we DO have the right to NOT BUY from any particular BUSINESS for any reason we choose.
The deciding point is when you open a business. Before you open a business, you can do whatever you want. Once you open a business, you accept the limitations. Your finances are separated, your morals are separated from the business. The business is its own entity. It doesn't matter what the product is. Intellectual, physical or "art" it's the product. The product comes from the business, not you. If you don't want to sell to Jews, Christians or frogs then close the business. Business is business. I totally understand people's emotions, and I have the same feelings, but having run businesses, I know that once the business is open, then YOU are NOT the BUSINESS. The business is a separate entity, governed by DIFFERENT laws than the individual person.
IMHO, this is a bad decision. Businesses CAN'T discriminate. There's a REASON for that. Should a Jewish deli discriminate against Christians? Should a Christian business discriminate against a Jewish customer? This decision opens that door. Once you decide to open a business you can't discriminate. When you are working out of your own house, then you CAN discriminate, but once you become a legal business, you can't discriminate. This is a dangerous decision IMHO.
The fact the it's being denied tells me that SCOTUS agrees that there is NO LAW in the USA that HAS TO be obeyed. Not even the constitution.
It's black and white what the procedures are, and SCOTUS says they don't have to be obeyed. To SCOTUS there is no such thing as the US Constitution.
I'll write him in if I have to! Don't need him to be on the ballot. 250M write-ins; works for me!