The new rabbinical letter

I'll try to explain again:

The letter is against the discrimination that the government will allow.

In one of your columns or in response to a question that was asked, you stated that you support such a move because a private business should have the ability to choose who to serve.

Ostensibly, supporting the above letter on the one hand and supporting the permitted discrimination on the other is a contradictory move.

Or did I not understand the letter?

On the 17th of Tevet, P.G.

To the Lord, a person's refusal to take part in an action that goes against his faith is not discrimination. If I refuse to treat or sell a person something that does not go against my faith, for example, selling a camera to an LGBT person, then it is discrimination, since there is no halakhic prohibition in this. However, publishing an advertisement for an LGBT gathering or renting a hall for a same-sex marriage is an aiding and abetting offense. On the contrary, freedom of religion requires that I not be forced to act against my faith.

On the other hand, refusing, for reasons of pro-LGBT ideology, to print an advertisement: "Family is a father and a mother" is legitimate, while refusing to print a ‘neutral’ ad just because the client is a religious Jew. Thus, a Muslim hall owner may refuse to rent his hall for an event where wine is drunk, since in doing so he participates in an offense against his religion.

The attempt to change the legislation is intended to negate the distorted interpretation of certain courts, which in the name of the prohibition of discrimination – require a person to provide service that is contrary to his faith. That is the whole story.

Best regards, Yaron Fish” Ordner

Hello Yaron,

My personal opinion is that the business owner's motives do not change at all, he does not want to provide his services to anyone, no matter if he is LGBT, Arab, Jewish or a tangerine peeler, this is his full right.

I understood from the rabbi's words (unfortunately I don't remember where) that he also holds this opinion, but the support for the rabbis' letter seems to me to contradict this position.

Unless I misunderstood the subject of the protest.

Paragraph 1, line 4
… Freedom of religion is mandatory…

Paragraph 2, line 2
… Because the inviter is a religious Jew – is illegal discrimination. And so it is allowed…

There is a difference between a service provided in person and a ban on entering a store, for example.
There is a well-known ruling in the US, Master Cake, on the matter, see here, for example
https://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-5278625,00.html

I gave you another chance to think before you asked, and it seems you didn't take advantage of it.
I do think that it is every person's right not to provide service that contradicts their beliefs and values (but it is not right not to provide service to someone you don't like or even to someone who behaves inappropriately in your opinion). I will write about this in a future column. But I can't understand how it relates to what was said in the letter.
The only words that I can see any connection to this matter are “institutionalized discrimination of minorities”. But when it comes to institutionalized discrimination, it is not meant for providing service in a business, and even if it is – there is certainly improper discrimination if it is done by virtue of the recipient of the service and not due to the nature of the service itself. And of course, this is just one section out of several that appear in the letter.
Therefore, I still wonder about the logic of the question.

Okay, thanks for the clarification.

I understood that everything revolved around this issue because they also included the issue of racism and the reduction of equality. (If there is anything else they declared intentions about beyond enabling non-service provision, it has escaped my notice.)

The logic is actually understandable: I understood the letter as opposing A, while according to your answer to a previous question on the subject, you answered that you support A.

Now, when you explained the meaning of the letter, that it is not about opposing A but rather B, then the question is meaningless.

I still don't quite understand, beyond opposing institutional discrimination, which the MKs have already clarified their position on, what else the letter is talking about.
Will the subject of the letter be clarified in a future column?

No. My opinion on the government and the discourse surrounding it will become clear.

The distinction between a refusal to provide a service that contradicts the service provider's beliefs and a total refusal towards the service recipient is explained in column 296: "Discrimination in Service Provision and Bias in Discourse."

Best regards, Ya'far