@ISIDEWITHQuestionsSocial IssuesStarted 10yrs agoActive 1 day ago

Should a business be able to deny service to a customer if the request conflicts with the owner’s religious beliefs?

In 1993 the federal government passed the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act. The law was intended to protect Native Americans in danger of losing their jobs because of religious ceremonies that involved the illegal drug peyote. In 1997 the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that Congress overstepped its bounds in passing RFRA in 1993, and that the law applied only to federal laws, not to those passed by the states. Since then 22 U.S. states have passed their own versions of the “religious freedom” laws. Supporters of the law argue that the government shouldn’t force religiou…  

Read more
+
Expand
+ Settings x  State Senate District 7 (Wisconsin)

Toggle voterbase

Statistics are shown for this demographic

Answer Overview

Response rates from 10.3k State Senate District 7 voters.

38%
Yes
62%
No
27%
Yes
58%
No
5%
Yes, but only for small businesses
4%
No, all customers deserve to be treated equally
3%
Yes, any business should be able to deny service for any reason
3%
Yes, but the owner must post a sign stating their beliefs and what they refuse

Historical Support

Trend of support over time for each answer from 10.3k State Senate District 7 voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Historical Importance

Trend of how important this issue is for 10.3k State Senate District 7 voters.

Loading data...

Loading chart... 

Other Popular Answers

Unique answers from State Senate District 7 voters whose views went beyond the provided options.

 @8HJR3JT from Colorado  answered…4yrs4Y

No, but they may deny a requested service that goes against their beliefs

 @8DRTPH8 from Indiana  answered…4yrs4Y

No, all customers deserve to be treated equally & they signed up for a job where they would have to interact with all people, which includes someone who disagrees with you& your beliefs

 @5L48S8Zfrom California  answered…4yrs4Y

There's a fine line here - refusing service at a restaurant to a gay couple is not okay. Requesting a different seat on an airplane because you're forbidden to touch women you're not related to should be accommodated.

 @5L8MPRKfrom New York  answered…4yrs4Y

Yes so long as the denial is based solely upon the request and not the customer. I would not expect a devout religious baker to consent to baking "dick" cakes.

 @4YSDTVQfrom Maine  answered…4yrs4Y

It depends whether they're against the person and their beliefs or the thing they're asking- saying no because someone's gay would be bad, saying no because someone's asking you to carve a swastika in a locket and you're Jewish (or a decent human being) is acceptable

 @9C9QDCC from Louisiana  answered…2yrs2Y

No, but they should have the right to refuse a requested service

 @9FF84MW from Indiana  answered…1yr1Y

Any private owned business should be able to do whatever they want as long as it stays legal. Their personal belief shouldn't be restricted.

 @5D675PPfrom Illinois  answered…4yrs4Y

If it doesn't involve Healthcare, then yes

Latest News

Stay up-to-date on the most recent “Religious Freedom Act” news articles, updated frequently.

Active 4wks ago

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…9mos9MO

Canada Proposes Life Sentences For Free Speech Crimes

The Online Harms Act, or Bill C-63 increases the potential penalties from five years to life imprisonment. It also increases the penalty for the willful promotion of hatred (a dangerously ill-defined crime) from two years to five years. The proposed changes constitute a doubling down on Canada’s commitment to reducing free speech for citizens despite criticism from many in the civil liberties community.There is also a chilling option for house arrest if a judge believes a defendant “will commit” an offense. In other words, if a judge thinks that a citizen will be undeterred and try to speak freely again.Justice Minister Arif Virani employed the same hysteria to convince citizens to surrender their freedoms to the government. He expressed how terrified he was with the potential of free speech, stating that he is “terrified of the dangers that lurk on the internet for our children.”It is not likely to end there. Today the rationale is genocide. However, once the new penalties are in place, a host of other groups will demand similar treatment for those with opposing views on their own causes. This law already increased the penalties for anything deemed hateful speech.The law comes after Canada blocked a Russian dissident from becoming a citizen because of her violation of Russian anti-free speech laws. In a telling act, the government said that the same conduct (i.e., free speech) could be a crime in Canada. Indeed, it may now be punished even more harshly.

▲  2646 replies

Popular Conversations

Join in on the most popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3wks3W

Donald Trump nominates Pam Bondi as the next Attorney General

Former President and 2024 Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump has announced his intention to nominate former Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi as the next Attorney General of the United States, should he reclaim the presidency in the upcoming election.Bondi, a prominent figure in Republican politics, served as Florida's Attorney General from 2011 to 2019. She gained national attention for her legal battles on issues such as health care reform, consumer protection, and opioid abuse litigation. Known for her steadfast support of Trump during his presidency, Bondi also served as a key adviser during his first impeachment trial, where she defended his administration against accusations of abuse of power.In a statement released by his campaign, Trump praised Bondi’s “unwavering commitment to justice” and her “track record of standing up for everyday Americans against the abuses of Washington’s elites.”“Pam Bondi has been a fearless advocate for the people, and she embodies the principles of fairness, accountability, and the rule of law that are sorely needed to restore trust in our justice system,” Trump said. “She is the right person to lead the Department of Justice into a new era of integrity and excellence.”While Bondi’s nomination has been met with applause from conservative circles, it has also reignited criticism from Democrats and ethics watchdogs. Her acceptance of a $25,000 donation from the Trump Foundation in 2013, which coincided with her decision not to pursue an investigation into Trump University, has drawn scrutiny in the past and resurfaced following the announcement.Democratic leaders have already voiced opposition, questioning Bondi’s ability to lead the Department of Justice independently. Senator Amy Klobuchar (D-MN) called the nomination “a political power play” and urged a focus on “restoring integrity, not entrenching partisanship.”

▲  2317 replies

Active 3 days ago

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3wks3W

Kamala Harris is considering running for president again in 2028

Kamala Harris has been lying low since her defeat in the presidential race, unwinding with family and senior aides in Hawaii before heading back to the nation’s capital.But privately, the vice president has been instructing advisers and allies to keep her options open — whether for a possible 2028 presidential run, or even to run for governor in her home state of California in two years. As Harris has repeated in phone calls, “I am staying in the fight.”She is expected to explore those and other possible paths forward with family members over the winter holiday season, according to five people in the Harris inner circle, who were granted anonymity to discuss internal dynamics. Her deliberations follow an extraordinary four months in which Harris went from President Joe Biden’s running mate to the top of the ticket, reenergizing Democrats before ultimately crashing on election night.“She doesn’t have to decide if she wants to run for something again in the next six months,” said one former Harris campaign aide. “The natural thing to do would be to set up some type of entity that would give her the opportunity to travel and give speeches and preserve her political relationships.”“She doesn’t have to decide if she wants to run for something again in the next six months,” said one former Harris campaign aide. “The natural thing to do would be to set up some type of entity that would give her the opportunity to travel and give speeches and preserve her political relationships.”Harris concedes: 'We must accept the results of this election'SharePlay VideoMost immediately, Harris and her advisers are working to define how and when she will speak out against Donald Trump and reassert her own role in the Democratic Party. Closing out her term as vice president, she’s set to preside over certifying the November election she lost to Trump, and then appear at the once-and-future president’s inauguration on Jan. 20.“There will be a desire to hear her voice, and there won’t be a vacuum for long,” a person close to Harris said.At the same time, Harris and her husband, Doug Emhoff, will have a long checklist to plow through before they leave the Naval Observatory for good.They have to decide whether they’ll take up permanent residence at their home in Los Angeles, or establish a base elsewhere. No matter where Harris and her family live, some around her have expressed concerns about safety, as her Secret Service protection expires six months after stepping away.

▲  1023 replies

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…3 days3D

Elizabeth Warren Walks Back Murder Comments

Congressional Democrats broadly denounced the murder of UnitedHealthcare CEO Brian Thompson Friday morning, after Republicans started accusing Sen. Elizabeth Warren of excusing violence.“No one's condoning this,” said Rep. Brad Schneider (D-Ill.). “Violence never is the right answer for anything. And it was a horrible murder, a tragic loss for his family.” Warren this week condemned the shooting, but added that people “can be pushed only so far.”"We'll say it over and over," Warren said on MSNBC’S “The ReidOut.” " Violence is never the answer. This guy [Luigi Mangione] gets a trial who's allegedly killed the CEO of UnitedHealth, but you can only push people so far, and then they start to take matters into their own hands."In a statement to POLITICO, Warren said, “Violence is never the answer. Period. I should have been much clearer that there is never a justification for murder.” Top Republicans denounced Warren's comments and the walked-back rhetoric, with House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) calling it “inappropriate and dangerous.”Some House Democrats asked about the incident on Thursday pivoted the conversation to discuss policy options on health care or gun safety.“I don't really know that this is really a space that Congress normally weighs in on,” said Rep. Jasmine Crockett (D-Texas). “But at the end of the day, I think it’s an opportunity, because now people are talking about health care and to talk about the fact that this industry has honestly not been as helpful as it could be.”“Violence is never the answer,” said Rep. Troy Carter (D-La.). “We know that there are people suffering, there’s great challenges in healthcare. There's great challenges, and people have, in fact, been wronged, but a process of governance is the way to address that, not violence.”And Rep. Ted Lieu (D-Calif.) who denounced the murder, said the killer should be prosecuted and that “I do know that allegedly a ghost gun was used, and we should also ban ghost guns. There's no reason for them beyond the streets.”

▲  1614 replies