April 1, 2015 2:58 pm at 2:58 pm #615421
From what I understand, the new law in Indiana allows businesses to deny service and employment to same gender couples on religious grounds. I’m curious if there is any basis to that in halachah. Obviously halachah forbids that type of lifestyle, but is there a prohibition with engaging them in business?April 1, 2015 3:35 pm at 3:35 pm #1070168TheGoqParticipant
Arkansas has now followed suit. I am not in favor of the law but there are groups who will send people to faith based businesses just to make trouble that is not right either.April 1, 2015 3:45 pm at 3:45 pm #1070169Torah613TorahParticipant
I was once in a women’s clothing store in Boro Park, when a man called and asked if he could come buy clothes for his wife. The Chassidish woman who owned the store said no, she doesn’t allow men in the store as the women will walk out.
About 2 weeks after that, I was in a specialty non-Jewish women’s clothing store that actually had a sign, “No men allowed past the cash register”, which was right at the front of the store.
I told them I like that rule, and they said that they made that rule because they noticed that women wouldn’t buy as many clothes if there was a man around.
I think people should be allowed to make rules about who they want to serve. It’s their business they’d be losing.April 1, 2015 4:03 pm at 4:03 pm #1070170nolongersingleMember
Should a photographer be forced to accept a job to photograph a toeiva marriage? Should a baker be forced to bake a cake for a toeiva engagement? Should a wedding hall be forced to rent to a toeiva wedding? Should a band be forced to take a job playing at a toeiva event?April 1, 2015 4:39 pm at 4:39 pm #1070172
If a person walks into a frum store wearing a Budda or cross around his neck, Should the store owner have the right to kick out the Avodah Zarah?April 1, 2015 4:48 pm at 4:48 pm #1070173
Torah and nolonger- I understand that those are quite awkward and uncomfortable. It would freak me out as well. But if there is no religious prohibition, if there’s no conflict between religious law and American law, how could you support that constitutionally? What if black people annoyed me? Can I deny them business? Where do you draw the line?April 1, 2015 4:59 pm at 4:59 pm #1070174
Zahavasdad- there might be a difference between a religious requirement and not. I don’t think halacha allows for a Jewish person to have avodah zara on his property. And if it did allow it, then maybe a store owner shouldn’t have the right to kick him out just because it makes him uncomfortable.
Would it be ok if Jews weren’t allowed in certain stores? Again, where do you draw the line?April 1, 2015 5:02 pm at 5:02 pm #1070175
It wasnt too long ago that there were sign No Dogs or jews AllowedApril 1, 2015 5:03 pm at 5:03 pm #1070176akupermaParticipant
The law protects members of religious minorities, such as us. It requires businesse and government agencies to reasonably accomodate us. The people making a stink are closet (or perhaps not so closeted) anti-semities, who want to see the legal system used to crush the various religious minorities. Without these laws, which are in many if not most states, and also in anything governed by Federal law, people like us are protected. Without them, discrimination on the basis of religion is perfectly legal as long as expressed in terms of behavior (e.g. “no head coverings allowed” or ” must work Saturdays”) rather than based on a formal religious belief (e.g. the former “test” acts).
P.S. I have seem many hareidi stores, and don’t observe them kicking out customers with crosses, and have seen them hire employees with crosses. The issue is whether a store must hire someone with a cross, or a yarmulke, or whatever.April 1, 2015 5:05 pm at 5:05 pm #1070177nolongersingleMember
Simcha: And if there *is* a religious prohibition for the Jewish person (or Christian person) to perform the job?April 1, 2015 5:06 pm at 5:06 pm #1070178
I think the Halacha is quite clear you cannot do business with someone who is buying something for a celebration of Avodah Zarah.
So if someone comes into your shop asking about outfits for Diwali (A Hindu Holiday) or good food to serve at the meal of Diwali, I am fairly certain its against Halacha to sell to them the itemsApril 1, 2015 5:23 pm at 5:23 pm #1070179
zdad- so in that case, there may be what to talk about. But I don’t think halacha forbids one from doing business with someone who is gay. If the only issue is that they make you uncomfortable, why should you be allowed to deny them business on those grounds?
It wasnt too long ago that there were sign No Dogs or jews Allowed “
But I don’t think that’s allowed anymore. I don’t think a store can say “no Jews allowed.” So why should a store be allowed to say no gays allowed?April 1, 2015 5:33 pm at 5:33 pm #1070180
This was posed
Should a photographer be forced to accept a job to photograph a toeiva marriage? Should a baker be forced to bake a cake for a toeiva engagement? Should a wedding hall be forced to rent to a toeiva wedding? Should a band be forced to take a job playing at a toeiva event?
Change to the following
Should a photographer be forced to accept a job to photograph a Hindu marriage? Should a baker be forced to bake a cake for a Hindu engagement? Should a wedding hall be forced to rent to a Hindu wedding? Should a band be forced to take a job playing at a Hindu event?
The Toeiva is not against Halacha, but the Avodah Zarah is, and it IS against the law to descriminate against Hindus like thatApril 1, 2015 6:00 pm at 6:00 pm #1070181
“The Toeiva is not against Halacha,”
It’s not?April 1, 2015 6:04 pm at 6:04 pm #1070182
There is nothing against ???? For Hindus to get married. Contrary to what you asserted above, Gay marriage is against halacha.April 1, 2015 6:07 pm at 6:07 pm #1070183
The issue is not doing business with a gay person. The concern is that you are assisting them in doing something that is completely against halacha.April 1, 2015 6:12 pm at 6:12 pm #1070184
zdad- I agree with you. If there is “religiously mandated discrimination”, then I can understand the need for a law to protect the rights of the religious to discriminate as their religion demands (though, it still may be considered unconstitutional).
However, in our case, the law shouldn’t even get off the ground (at least from a halachic perspective- I don’t know what the Christian laws are on this topic). There shouldn’t be a law to allow you to discriminate against people that make you feel uncomfortable. That is certainly unconstitutional.April 1, 2015 6:23 pm at 6:23 pm #1070185yytzParticipant
Let’s say a Catholic priest walks in a Jewish bakery and asks them to make “Communion” wafers. Should they have to comply?
What if an Orthodox rabbi hires himself out to conduct Jewish weddings, and a toeiva couple asks him to officiate? Should he be able to decline? (Something similar, involving Xians, already might be happening in Idaho of all places.)
Should a police officer be required to participate in a gay rights rally (not protect people there, but rather participate in the event)? This has already happened, in Utah. Yes, Utah. A police officer was fired for not wanting to attend the rally. (He was willing to do his job there, to provide security or whatever, but that’s not what he was asked to do.)
The Indiana law is just like similar laws throughout the rest of the country, which allow little things like Muslim prisoners to grow bears contrary to prison regulations, and things like that. The only difference in Indiana is that corporations also can ask for a religious exemption, and that it can be raised as a defense in a civil suit. The law doesn’t guarantee religious exemptions, it just gives them a day in court.April 1, 2015 6:38 pm at 6:38 pm #1070186
It is not against Halacha for Hindus to get married, but I think at the event there usually is some event to the Hindu dieties. And there are Hindu holidays where you might be forced to do business in support of these holidays
Its alot worse to support Avodah Zarah than ToeivaApril 1, 2015 6:40 pm at 6:40 pm #1070187
It’s an issur gamur to help out a same sex “wedding”.
in fact it’s pashut that doing so in today’s environment is a yehorag veal yaavorApril 1, 2015 6:59 pm at 6:59 pm #1070188
Has anyone here ever learned beginning of masechta avoda zara? Let me ask you, what if you are a Jewish photographer and a neo-Nazi group wanted you to video tape a mock Jewish execution? Or make them a cake with a swastika in the middle? If christians don’t want to allow frum Jews in their glatt kosher restaurants, good for them.
This is america, there will always be someone else willing to take your money.April 1, 2015 7:08 pm at 7:08 pm #1070189
akuperma: Those against the law aren’t anti-semites. They’re anti-Christian.April 1, 2015 7:14 pm at 7:14 pm #1070190
So your question is based on suppositions?
I don’t think its a question that you cannot help with the parts that would be avodah Zara.
You haven’t said why it should be mutar to assist in gay marriage.April 1, 2015 7:41 pm at 7:41 pm #1070191
sam2: “Those against the law aren’t anti-semites. They’re anti-Christian.”
Actually, they are anti-religious.April 1, 2015 8:02 pm at 8:02 pm #1070192
divrei hayamim: Explanation, please.
newbee: What is relevant from the beginning of Avodah Zarah here?
On a side note, the impetus of this law was a woman who refused to do the photography for two women getting married. It’s fairly Pashut that there is no Issur on two non-Jewish women to get married. Ma’aseh Eretz Mitzrayim isn’t part of Giluy Arayos.April 1, 2015 8:25 pm at 8:25 pm #1070193
This bill is extremely necessary and doesn’t go far enough, a court can rule in favor of forcing a Jewish wedding hall to have a same sex “wedding” (because “discrimination” falls under the strict scrutiny test)
This bill should explicitly say that religious belief exempt someone from all LGBT discrimination laws!
My ancestors fled from Europe to America because of the first amendment protection would allow us to be follow yiddishkeit better in America then in Europe, now America has a shaas hashmad of homosexuality
the real question is how come not one of our so called Orthodox legislators trying to pass similar laws here in NY.
Even if it doesn’t pass it will send a major message and help Indiana withstand pressure to cave in to people like Cuomo and De Blasio YS.
where are Goldfeder, Hikind, Simanowitz, Felder, Deutch and Greenfield trying to push this in NYS or NYC.
why aren’t so called askonim calling on Cuomo to stop persecuting religious Jews.
Where is Agudah, OU, and all other advocacy organisations attacking Cuomo for his bigotry!
Last year Cuomo said Shomer Torah Jews have no place in NY
This year we also have no place in Indiana either
Maybe next year he’ll say the same thing in YerushalimApril 1, 2015 8:31 pm at 8:31 pm #1070194
I never said it was Muttar, I said baking a cake for a toeivah marriage is not the same thing as baking a cake for an Avodah Zarah Event.
Its probably ok to bake the cake for the toeivah marriage , It is probably not OK to bake a cake for for an Avodah Zarah event.
It is against Halacha to make any money of Avodah Zarah.April 1, 2015 8:35 pm at 8:35 pm #1070195
I think Newbee is referring to the part of Avodah Zarah where it says you are not allowed to do business with an idol worshipper for a few days before his holidays.April 1, 2015 8:42 pm at 8:42 pm #1070196NotABochurAnymoreParticipant
I’ll admit I haven’t read every single post here. But from the ones I have read, I am quite surprised that the basic ideas are being missed. First, the Civil Rights act notwithstanding, you should be able to enter into a business deal of any kind with whomever you wish and not enter into any business deal you do not wish to enter into. This is why the Civil Rights act, in my opinion went too far. Instead of making it illegal for the government to impose laws that are discriminatory (such as Jim Crow), it went a step further and said that individual citizens are not allowed to discriminate. While I agree that citizens SHOULD NOT discriminate, I also believe that the first amendment gives people the right to discriminate if they wish. The problems with enacting any law that forces you to do business with someone are not limited to the immediate effects of what amounts to involuntary servitude. The slippery slope has now enabled this law to be applied to any supposedly protected class.
In addition to the problems this type of enactment causes within U.S. civil law, let’s address the issues in Halacha. I am by no means a halachic authority and I would struggle to give mareh mikomos, but as a relatively ehrliche yid, my perception of halacha includes the idea of chillul Hashem. It is wrong for any yid to do something that gives the impression of impropriety since this constitutes a desecration of Hashem’s name. Note that the standard by which chillul Hashem is judged has nothing to do with whether gentiles will make fun of us or be dissatisfied with us (although sometimes those are measures as well). The real standard by which chillul Hashem must be judged is whether we are giving those around us an accurate representation of how Hashem wants us to live as yidden. Now, suppose a yid bakes a cake for a same-gender wedding and people at that wedding ask who baked the cake and the answer is “Moishe”, some who hear that may think that Moishe is in favor of this marriage. This type of thing happens subconsciously, by the way, anytime you go to a sporting event or see an advertisement. That’s part of the reason that companies are often pressured to remove their advertising from objectionable venues. Otherwise they are perceived to be supporting the venue ideologically. Sometimes the perceived support is a good thing for the venue and sometimes it is the opposite.
The point here is that there are reasons that a religious person would not want to be involved in certain transactions that may not be obvious to those who do not hold those religious convictions. And that is a valid point to consider. What is even more valid by U.S. Constitutional standards and what should be obvious especially to those supporting the rights of homosexuals and other minorities is that it is a bad thing when government compels anyone to do anything they do not want to do so long as there is not a good public interest reason to do so.
How soon before the government makes it illegal to operate a yeshiva or wedding hall that does not want to host a same-gender wedding?April 1, 2015 9:10 pm at 9:10 pm #1070197
“Its probably ok to bake the cake for the toeivah marriage , It is probably not OK to bake a cake for for an Avodah Zarah event.”
And regardless, are you for or against the law in Indiana?
And you have to differentiate. The actual wedding by homosexuals are is the maaseh issur which the cake is. apparently, an intrinsic part. Like the communion wafers.
So you think the people who are complaining against the law are only two women who wish to get married? (And I don’t know why you take it as pashtus that there is no issur for two women as well, even if it is not the same level) But if it were two men getting married with the intention of “consummating” then the protesters would be ok with the law in Indiana?April 1, 2015 9:16 pm at 9:16 pm #1070198
divrei hayamim: Explanation, please.
1. chillul hashem is yehorag veal yaavor
2. shaas hashmad is yehorag veal yaavor
“It’s fairly Pashut that there is no Issur on two non-Jewish women to get married. “
vayikra rabbah (in achrai mos) includes 2 women “marrying” each other as a reason for the mabulApril 1, 2015 9:26 pm at 9:26 pm #1070199
There is a specific Halacha not to do business with Avodah Zarah, you are not allowed Benefit from it, Even if you think its stupid and would never do it yourself
, One could discuss chilul Hashem or other things with Toeivah, but its not the same Halacha. There is no Halacha that you cant finnancially benefit from such and event. Only that you dont do the Averirah.April 1, 2015 9:30 pm at 9:30 pm #1070200
nisht: Two women is an Issur D’Oraisa of Maaseh Eretz Mitzrayim, which is not Arayos (certainly for a Goy) and therefore is not Assur for non-Jews.
divrei hayamim: This is not Sha’as Hashmad. It’s not L’ha’avir Al Das. It’s L’hana’as Atzman.
By the way, I don’t know how legit this whole conversation is. What’s the Issur of a wedding? The Torah has an Issur of Ma’aseh Biah. I’m not sure why a party celebrating something related to something Assur is Assur for non-Jews.April 1, 2015 9:40 pm at 9:40 pm #1070201
Divri- I don’t think we paskin halachah from Midrash. The fact is, two women “marrying” each other is only an issur d’rabanan (I’m pretty sure that’s how the Rambam paskins- I have to look it up), which would certainly not apply to goyim.April 1, 2015 10:04 pm at 10:04 pm #1070202
I asked for a source. Can you please provide?
It too, is from the 3 chamuros.
Sam: “It’s not L’ha’avir Al Das.” Of course it is. Lehanoas Atzmon they could just be quiet. They are making themselves a protected class. They expect preferential treatment because of their perversion.
They want to change perverted way of life to preferred way of life. LAApril 1, 2015 10:08 pm at 10:08 pm #1070203
“What’s the Issur of a wedding?”
And now you know why OO is so dangerous, they have made it possible for someone to consider writing this on a Jewish website.April 1, 2015 10:39 pm at 10:39 pm #1070204
Why does it apply to photographers and not Rabbis? Whats to say they cant take a Rabbi to court unless he officiates at their gay wedding? There are orthodox jewish gays believe it or not.April 1, 2015 10:42 pm at 10:42 pm #1070205
“This is not Sha’as Hashmad.”
1. government legislation is shaas hashmad
2. a movement that’s goals are directly against the Torah is also shaas hashmad (R Yoshe Ber paskened this way and it’s pashut that his psak would also be applied to the LGBT movement)
“It’s not L’ha’avir Al Das. It’s L’hana’as Atzman.”
This shows your lack of understanding of the lgbt movement, Gays suing people for not helping out in their “Wedding is only about forcing people to accept homosexuality. This boycott of Indiana by people around the country (who have never been to Indiana) by people who lose no personal benefits from this law, show that the gay movement is not for personal benefit but only to undermine God’s prohibition of homosexuality. Your saying this tells me you have been sleeping for the past 40 years. The LGBT movement is completely about L’ha’avir Al Das, arguing this point is like arguing if the World is spherical!
PS In some shilos uteshovos chilul hashem has has been used in limited cases when it’s L’hana’as Atzman. (I would also apply it here but that is not pashut)April 1, 2015 10:50 pm at 10:50 pm #1070206
“By the way, I don’t know how legit this whole conversation is. What’s the Issur of a wedding? “
the halacha of meisah eretz mitroyim uses a lashon of marriage, the chazal learns out an issur of 2 men “marrying” each other from that pasuk. (this is the only possible pshat that doesn’t render this part of a halachich ruling irrelevant)
“The Torah has an Issur of Ma’aseh Biah. I’m not sure why a party celebrating something related to something Assur is Assur for non-Jews.”
see gemara in chullin 93b (this is quoted by poskim as halachaic)
the world only has 3 merits
1. that they don’t write kesubos for men
rashi writes that even though they are o’ver on mishkav zachar and are misyachid (like a spouse) they don’t have the chutzpa to write a “marriage” documentApril 1, 2015 10:55 pm at 10:55 pm #1070207
Apparently it has been determined that the law in Indiana was only applying to two non-Jewish women marrying. Because it was poshut that if there were Jewish women or men involved they were never assumed to be protected by the law.
And we know that there are no irreligious Jewish men or women who are homosexual, correct? Because it seems that is the poiton that Sam & Simcha are taking.
Shmuely Yanklowitz would argue against this (whether there are Jewish homosexuals He clearly feels that they are a preferential class. But I am not sure that he would fall into the Jewish category, based on his own press release)April 1, 2015 11:01 pm at 11:01 pm #1070208
“Divri- I don’t think we paskin halachah from Midrash. “
do you make the bracha of baruch shepatrani
if you do with shem and malchus you pasken 100% from a medrish
if you do without shem and malchus you still pasken from a medrish but not enough to make a bracha with shem and malchus
“The fact is, two women “marrying” each other is only an issur d’rabanan (I’m pretty sure that’s how the Rambam paskins- I have to look it up), which would certainly not apply to goyim.”
1. the rambam pasken’s it’s deoraysa, the punishment is derabanan
2. the source of the rambam’s psak strongly implies it’s ra biaynay hashem for a goy to be a lesbian even if it’s not assur (though I would argue that a lesbian “marriage” falls under apikorsus which a goy is michuyuv in, and thus the pshat in the vayikra rabah)April 1, 2015 11:26 pm at 11:26 pm #1070209ChortkovParticipant
And we know that there are no irreligious Jewish men or women who are homosexual, correct? Because it seems that is the position that Sam & Simcha are taking.
I hope you are being sarcastic there, not incredibly naive.April 1, 2015 11:49 pm at 11:49 pm #1070210
Divrei HaYamim: Find me what the Issur is. None of the Halachic Rishonim bring down that interpretation of Ma’aseh Eretz Mitzrayim, as far as I know. And having an agenda is still Hana’as Atzman. They don’t want to destroy religion. They just want religion to be “nice” to them. Now, the only way to accomplish that is by destroying religion. But that’s a means, not an end, which is exactly what Hana’as Atzman means.
And an anti-Torah “Jewish” movement is Apikorsus. Goyim are not Metzuvim on things like Mach’chish Magideha and similar forms of Apikorsus. That’s why we have Torah Sheba’al Peh and they don’t.April 1, 2015 11:54 pm at 11:54 pm #1070211
Of course it was sarcasm. Sadly that is not the case. It should have very apparent from the rest of the comment.
Why all the excising that marriage may not be ossur between two non Jewish women or even men. Do you not really find the most radical pro LGBT rights are the reform and OO crowd?April 2, 2015 12:30 am at 12:30 am #1070212
it should be noted that the store memories pizza went from having 2 reviews to over 500 hate reviews by these people.April 2, 2015 1:17 am at 1:17 am #1070213
Even if there is a law to allow not serving Toevah people, there is no law (and never would be such a law) to prevent people from protesting your establishmentApril 2, 2015 2:52 am at 2:52 am #1070214
“Divrei HaYamim: Find me what the Issur is. None of the Halachic Rishonim bring down that interpretation of Ma’aseh Eretz Mitzrayim, as far as I know. “
no rishon mentions it because it’s pashut pshat (there is absolutely no other way to read men “marrying” men without making it a completely extraneous drasha), the only reason why you think differently is because you are homosexualist.
“And having an agenda is still Hana’as Atzman. They don’t want to destroy religion. They just want religion to be “nice” to them. Now, the only way to accomplish that is by destroying religion. But that’s a means, not an end, which is exactly what Hana’as Atzman means.”
according to your new definition of a shaas hashmad, antiochus’s gezaros were not a shaas hashmad (read sefer chashmonaim). Or for that matter would Hadrians shaas hashmad which is the pinicile example of when chazal talk about a shaas hashmad (when they refer to a stam shaas hashmad)
“And an anti-Torah “Jewish” movement is Apikorsus. Goyim are not Metzuvim on things like Mach’chish Magideha and similar forms of Apikorsus. That’s why we have Torah Sheba’al Peh and they don’t.”
Goyim are mituva in accepting that there is a god and he gave them their mitzvos (the rambam says this explicitly), (which includes the concept of marriage) attempting to nullify it is apikorsus on a goyish level too.April 2, 2015 3:08 am at 3:08 am #1070215
I took this from Yeshiva World’s translation of Rav Hershel Shachter’s statement against women wearing tfellin (can’t find the original)
even if there is no issur (which I don’t agree with) for me to sell a “wedding” cake to 2 goyishi lesbos, according to the psak of R Yoshe Ber it’s still yehorag veal yaavorApril 2, 2015 3:09 am at 3:09 am #1070216
Divrei Hayamim: Please, enlighten me on what a homosexualist is. The Rambam says Maaseh Eretz Mitzrayim is two women “being” together. Not attempting to marry someone of the same gender.
“Marriage” is not part of their Mitzvos. Eishes Ish is. They have to accept Eishes Ish. That has nothing to do with any other form of “marriage”.April 2, 2015 3:34 am at 3:34 am #1070217
“The Rambam says Maaseh Eretz Mitzrayim is two women “being” together. Not attempting to marry someone of the same gender.”
I was reffering to the other 2/3 of the chazal
what lav is being included by saying men can’t “marry” men.
“”Marriage” is not part of their Mitzvos. Eishes Ish is. They have to accept Eishes Ish. That has nothing to do with any other form of “marriage”.”
how can you have Eishes Ish if you don’t have marriage (read the beginning of hilchos ishus)
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.