"So are drivers. I fail to see how this is relevant (unless you're going to try to shoehorn in a requirement that drivers act as taxi services even if they aren't signed up with Uber)."

Funny that you mention taxis. A lot of taxi companies where I live used to have contracts with local cities that granted them exclusive monopolies, but in return the taxi companies had to agree to take every fare who summoned them - even trips to the local grocery store for which the taxi company made little or no profit on. Licensing regimes are always the camel's nose in the tent by which governments seek to exercise its power over the productive sector of the economy.

"Do you have evidence that this is in the offing, or are you just shooting from the hip and hoping it hits the rest of us in the gut?"

I don't. But twenty years ago when Bill Clinton was signing the Defense of Marriage Act into law, who could have imagined that the Supreme Court would simply declare gay marriage a constitutional right, and have centuries of legal precedence upended in a heartbeat by a single ruling and some poor clerk who was elected before the ruling be thrown in prison a few months after the Supremes' decision for refusing to obey it?

" "If doctors are declared to have a legal duty to perform abortions," then there would have been a large step taken beyond existing law and jurisprudence."

I agree about this being a large step, but large and drastic steps in jurisprudence do seem to be 'a thing' for our high courts these last few years - and I'm not just talking about gay marriage.

"I don't. But twenty years ago when Bill Clinton was signing the Defense of Marriage Act into law, who could have imagined that the Supreme Court would simply declare gay marriage a constitutional right, and have centuries of legal precedence upended in a heartbeat by a single ruling and some poor clerk who was elected before the ruling be thrown in prison a few months after the Supremes' decision for refusing to obey it?"

The same people who thought that Loving v Virginia was a good ruling.

Seriously, Tolstoy. You are living in a super small conservative bubble it seems.

"Reality has a liberal bias."

Tolstoy even starts out the post with a hypothetical. SHEESH.

"The same people who thought that Loving v Virginia was a good ruling."

Great, a hypothetical judicial ruling compelling doctors to perform abortions against their will is being compared favorably to the nullification of miscegenation laws. This is the kind of thing that worries me. Why bother with a congress and president when the Supreme Court can always be trusted to make the right laws from the bench? And what protection is there for people in the affected profession when our judicial dictators can demand that they perform acts that are felt to be unconscionable on pain of imprisonment?

"Seriously, Tolstoy. You are living in a super small conservative bubble it seems."

Funny. One week I'm "living in a conservative bubble", the next I'm an America-hating hippy who should leave the country. Please take your silly labels elsewhere.

Who called you an America-hating hippy and where?? I need to see this.

All I know is you're the guy who really really really likes Planned Parenthood :)

"Who called you an America-hating hippy and where??"

krellin and Draugnar instantly spring to mind, but there have been several others.

several points

1 - doesn't life begin at ejaculation? so...isn't masturbation genocide? (sorry, couldn't resist poking fun at the right wingers)

2 - (on a more serious note) if a doctor decides to work in a facility that does abortions, and part of his/her legal job description is to perform abortions, then it doesn't matter what his/her moral or religious code is. do what the law tells you to, or get another job. no jail time, but they should be fired

its like if a black cardiovascular surgeoun gets a Nazi or kkk member on the surgery table. you don't get to pick and choose when to obey the law, you do the surgery for the kkk asshole or you get a new job

if you don't want to do abortions, don't take that job

"Great, a hypothetical judicial ruling compelling doctors to perform abortions against their will is being compared favorably to the nullification of miscegenation laws..."

Um, no it is not.

I raised this issue in direct response to your comments which seem to indicate you personally are flabbergasted by the response to Kim Davis' illegal crusade against gay marriage.

Someone else made the poor comparison between forced abortion and forced gay marriage.

Ever heard of school integration? Yep. Federal marshals were called in because governors were claiming "States Rights!" and ignoring the Supreme Court of the United States.

Do you think that Tenthers weren't worried about this happening to Kim Davis? That they hadn't had paranoid fantasies of being taken into custody for disobeying the law? Of course they did! THEY LOVE THAT SHIT. They were *hoping* for her to become a martyr for the cause.

The sick thing is the attorneys who know they don't have a legal leg to stand on but they wanted to get money and publicity, so they have offered her up as a sacrifice for the cause. As a born-again Apostolic, THIS GIVES HER LIFE MEANING. Lord knows she'd lived a messy one up until then.

krellin calls everyone a hippy. Tars and feathers everyone who disagrees with him the same.

So, when I initially read this I had the same thought as 2WL and OutsideSmoker. I was thinking, "Of course not! Marriage licenses are distributed by a government official and doctors are privately employed, so the clerk has to follow the law regardless of beliefs but a doctor can refuse to perform a service for any reason."

But then I remembered the legal rulings saying that bakeries have to make cakes for same-sex couples. The bakers aren't government employees. They have a private business, but the courts maintain that they are violating gay couples' rights by refusing to bake them cakes. So if you're a doctor who doesn't believe in abortions, are you violating people's rights by denying them abortions?

I never thought of it until this thread. I still don't believe that the Kentucky clerk's refusal to issue licenses has any bearing because she's a government official. But I do think the ridiculous rulings prohibiting private businesses from deciding whom they will serve and in what capacity could easily lead to it...

It's not ridiculous. Businesses cannot legally discriminate against customers if they are not behaving in a manner which detracts from the business itself.

Bouncers can kick out unruly or violent patrons. Restaurants can kick out people who violate health codes.

But once you put out a shingle to serve the public, you serve the public.

If you allow businesses to discriminate on the basis of the owner's religious beliefs, then you quickly slide down the slippery slope that they can discriminate on the basis of skin color and wipe out the Civil Rights Act and all the court decisions relating to it and other laws. There will be a rise in religious groups to exclude whatever others you don't want to deal with in your life.

Whether businesses can "legally discriminate" is subject to state and local laws. In Oregon, where the highest-profile case occurred, there is a law prohibiting such discrimination. Other states have laws preserving the rights of business owners to do so.

I don't mind having the debate as to whether those laws are morally right, but try to avoid making blanket statements that suggest that it's a foregone conclusion that those laws exist or that it's a foregone conclusion that those laws don't violate the rights of the business owner. Remember that part of the function of courts is to determine whether laws violate rights guaranteed by the federal or state constitution. Given that I believe that those laws are not moral and do violate the rights of business owners, it's not surprising that I would call the rulings ridiculous.

I believe that it is ridiculous to assert that my work is the property of another. Take religion or race or anything else out of the equation. To force a person to work, to create, against his will is slavery. It isn't the patron's right to demand service. That makes the worker a slave to the whim of the patron, forced to work or create not for himself, but because the patron demands it. Anyone who owns a business has the right to refuse service for any reason or no reason at all, otherwise he isn't free at all.

Laws such as the one in Oregon usually start with fine intentions. Unfortunately, the end result is that one moral right (the fair treatment of others) is somehow elevated over another moral right (the right to control and own the work of one's own mind and body). I don't know if anyone is qualified to answer which is more important, though if pressed I would say the latter.

I know from a practical perspective I would much rather let the free market handle this. If they willingly give up business because of their religious beliefs, then someone else will seize the opportunity and another bakery will grow. I wouldn't visit a business that I believed mistreated complete strangers for no reason, and I'm a straight white guy.

Also, you avoided my original point. Since doctors serve the public, are they required not to discriminate against the irresponsible by performing abortions on demand?

@Randomizer I was typing as you were posting, the first was directed at Jeff's comments.

I would allow business owners to discriminate on any basis at all or with no basis whatsoever, for the reasons stated above. I do not believe that any positive impact of stopping racism/sexism/homophobia is worth the negative impact of forcing someone to provide a service that they do not wish to provide. It conflicts interestingly with the Thirteenth Amendment.

I believe that Title II of the Civil Rights Act is an exploitation of the Interstate Commerce clause that gives the federal government rights that were never envisioned by the founders. I do not believe that the federal government should have any say in the operation of private business save for ensuring that its goods and services can move freely across state lines (the original intention of the Commerce Clause). I have no problem with Title III or VI, since they apply to government facilities and recipients of public funds. These are not private businesses and should be required to serve all citizens.

@LeonidasVader
There are always things that weren't envisioned at the time of the Constitution was first written. Things that were acceptable practices then are no longer considered legal.

Slavery was legal and even indentured servitude where people could be forced to serve another. These were private business practices protected by law.

Allowing businesses to discriminate because another one is available leads to a slippery slope where a group of like minded people can exclude another group from an area by making it impossible to shop there. So while the government allows them to legally live there, they could be prohibited from doing anything else in the area that they live. Sure they lose one customer base, but they can replace it with a base that they will only serve.

Would it be acceptable for a business to exclude customers based on skin color or ethnic group because their religion says that group isn't human? Until the federal government intervened there were large parts of the South where Blacks couldn't use Whites only businesses. These businesses had no trouble finding customers that supported that policy. I grew up in Chicago, Illinois where Blacks and Jews couldn't buy or rent in certain neighborhoods in the 1960s and 70s. Real estate agents wouldn't even show properties to proscribed groups to keep them ethnically cleansed.

If you want to see how deeply held religious beliefs can conflict with the law, then read this:
http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2005-07-29/281915/

How many of those religious practices do you think are acceptable that are endorsed by an established church for decades?

If you want to know how this turned out, as of last year:
http://www.cnn.com/2013/10/31/us/fundamentalist-church-of-jesus-christ-of-latter-day-saints-fast-facts/
Also the Hobby Lobby decision was used to block an investigation into Child Labor and other illegal practices:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/18/hobby-lobby-testimony-mormon-child-labor_n_5844696.html

"Whether businesses can "legally discriminate" is subject to state and local laws."

LIES.

The federal Civil Rights Act of 1964 covers this for broad sections of protected classes. Take your false Tenther ideas away from here.

The CRA does not cover sexual orientation explicity, which is why we are having issues with the whole "bake me a cake" situation. It is just a matter of time before the Fourteenth Amendment to the constitution evens the playing field for everyone.

"I believe that Title II of the Civil Rights Act is an exploitation of the Interstate Commerce clause that gives the federal government rights that were never envisioned by the founders."

Again...

THIS IS SETTLED LAW. Your Tenther *BELIEFS* mean nothing.

Vote Democrat.
Then, catch up to the rest of the civilized world, and get universal health care from said democratic leader.
Then doctor's are state employees, not private capitalists who pick their own clients.

Or, vote republican, and see if god wants doctors to perform abortions.

'Murica

@Randomizer Thank you for a reply that isn't in all caps that's full of name-calling. It'll take me a while to reply to the stupidity of Jeff's posts, but I'll give you a short answer first.

To your question whether I think it's acceptable to discriminate based on skin color or religious belief...my answer is yes. I think my prior post made it clear that I believe, without reservation, that ownership grants the exclusive right to decide who will be served. I do not personally believe that discrimination is right or a sound business practice. I do believe that no one has any right to anything owned by another, including their labor, for any reason.

I would also mention that I am not a Christian. As a few people mentioned before, it is not exclusively Christians who take issue with abortion. You'll notice that I haven't even waded into the debate about the morality of abortion. My interest is in limiting the continued expansion of government intervention into the private lives of its citizens.

Also, Randomizer, you're totally correct about the 13th Amendment coming after the original constitution. Almost 100 years later, in fact. So yes, certain things were not envisioned. However, I'd be interested to hear your justification for forcing business owners to serve those whom they prefer not to serve given that the constitution now explicitly bans slavery, which is nothing more than forced labor.

@Jeff Let me start by saying that I will not continue to communicate with you in this manner. I didn't go around CAP-shouting at you or calling you names. I also politely requested after your first reply that you not make blanket statements asserting that because something is law, it must be right. If you can't manage to even respond to the substance of a post, just stay quiet.

Now that we're past that, nineteen states have passed Religious Freedom acts that do preserve the right of individuals to engage in or refrain from activities as required by their religious beliefs. I'm certain you remember the controversy over Indiana's not too long ago, so don't conveniently get amnesia now. So yes, state and local law do have bearing on whether one can discriminate legally.

Additionally, we're not talking about what is or isn't law. If we were posting in 1860, would you have just said "SLAVERY IS SETTLED LAW" and expected me to then agree that yes, absolutely, slavery is right? Or how about in 1998, when DOMA was still around? Would you have told me that "STRAIGHT MARRIAGE IS SETTLED LAW" and let the debate end there? Of course not. The Tenth Amendment is also "SETTLED LAW" and has been for far longer than the CRA...

We are discussing an issue of morality. It's fine to know what the laws are and aren't, but it's literally impossible for laws to be changed or updated if every discussion of right and wrong is ended by someone saying what the current law is.

So: Forcing someone to work against their will is morally wrong. It is akin to slavery. Refusing someone the right to work unless they agree to work against their will in the future (not allowing them to open a business unless they will serve everyone) is morally wrong and is akin to slavery. You can either discuss why you believe that those statements are not true, admit that they are true and that you're wrong (not likely), or say that they are true but that other considerations such as the prevention of discrimination are more important. Those are the only options. If you can't manage to do one of those in an intelligent manner, then don't bother to reply.

@LeonidasVader:
This has already been discussed before.

If you want to discriminate, form a private club with memberships. Then you can admit or refuse whoever you want.

If you want to operate a business, privately owned and operated, but interacting WITH THE PUBLIC, you have to serve the public as any other business does.

It's that simple.

@Jeff Obviously in your twisted world, laws that you like make absolute moral right and only laws that you don't like are up for discussion.

It's probably this flawed worldview that allows you to genuinely believe in the liberal views that you support. Logic certainly doesn't.

At this point unless you actually choose to engage in debate instead of repeating that the law is the law and might makes right, I'm done responding to you.

@LV: Here's a moral question for you?

Is it wrong to misrepresent yourself or business to the world?

Businesses do not exist as a part of natural law. They are legal constructs and must therefore follow the law. If you start an organization, you affirm and accept that you will follow the law based on the type of organization you create.

As it turns out, sole proprietors have laws they must follow. Imagine that. They do not have an unlimited "right to refuse service" (look it up) despite what libertarian bloggers "believe."

Ever heard of Costco? BevMo? Credit Unions? All membership organizations that are heavily into commerce. And guess what? They have extremely broad membership requirements.

How about the AARP? Boys Scouts of America? Augusta National? Hey! More membership organzations. These are not so heavily into commerce, but they do have fairly clear membership requirements which allow discrimination.

Back to the point above. So, someone starts a private business and doesn't want the hassle of dealing with membership. They become "open to the public" and are not legally allowed to discriminate. If they attempt to discriminate, they are in violation of the businesses legal charter.

Or to put it in moral terms, the owner misrepresented their business structure.

Or perhaps they were just lazy and ignorant.

Tolstoy is trolling. He can't seriously believe this. America is fast turning into a country where politically correct nutbags are being allowed carte blanche, which has the unfortunate effect of empowering bozos like Donald Trump. The obvious and reasonable alternative is for people to attempt to get along with each other and respect their differences. This is one of those times (jailing people arbitrarily) where it's okay to compare people to Nazi's.

@Jeff That's a valid point. Still presented in a condescending style, but at least an actual argument.

I can understand where one could argue that if you formed a business after 1964, you knew the requirements and therefore you should have created a membership-only business if you didn't want to serve everyone. I would still argue that it's a sad state of affairs when you have to do that to get around a law that is morally reprehensible, but it's a fair statement to make.

So let me follow up with a question. Can the bakery in question say "ok, we're changing our business model to a membership-only bakery. You have to affirm that you are opposed to gay marriage to be a member" and then get away with not baking cakes for gay marriages because they don't have any gay members? It seems like they could. And there's really no barrier to any business doing that if they chose to. If that's the case, isn't the whole Title II a waste of paper and ink?

You still haven't responded with a clear answer regarding whether you think that enslaving someone by forcing them to work against their will is a morally valid idea. Do you intend to continue avoiding that question?

And beyond that, you still haven't responded to the entire original point of discussing the gay-bashing bakery, which was to ask: can the CRA be used to force a doctor to perform an abortion?

@LV: Why don't you reread Title II and figure the answers to the first and third questions for yourself? They are in black and white.

As for the slavery question, use some common sense.

I'll make it easier for you:

http://www.justice.gov/crt/title-ii-civil-rights-act-public-accommodations