I’ll try to explain again:

The letter comes out against the discrimination that the government will allow.

In one of your columns or in an answer to a question, you noted that you support such a move because a private business should have the ability to choose whom to serve.

Seemingly, supporting the above letter on the one hand, and supporting permitted discrimination on the other, is contradictory.

Unless I didn’t understand the letter.

With God's help, 10 Tevet 5783

To M.A. — greetings,

A person’s refusal to take part in an act that contradicts his belief is not discrimination. If I refuse to treat a person or sell him something that does not contradict my beliefs — for example, selling a camera to an LGBT person — that is discrimination, since there is no halakhic prohibition involved. But publishing an ad for an LGBT gathering or renting out a hall for a same-sex wedding does involve assisting a transgression. On the contrary, freedom of religion requires that I not be forced to act against my beliefs.

And conversely, a refusal on pro-LGBT ideological grounds to print an ad saying, “A family is a father and a mother,” is legitimate, whereas refusing to print a “neutral” ad only because the customer is a religious Jew is invalid discrimination. Likewise, a Muslim hall owner may refuse to rent his hall for an event where wine will be drunk, since by doing so he would be participating in a violation of his religion.

The attempt to change the legislation is meant to rule out a distorted interpretation by certain courts, which in the name of banning discrimination require a person to provide a service contrary to his beliefs. That’s the whole story.

Regards, Yaron Fisch"l Ordner

Hi Yaron,

My personal opinion is that the business owner’s motive doesn’t matter at all. If he doesn’t want to provide his services to someone, it doesn’t matter whether that someone is LGBT, Arab, Jewish, or peels clementines — that is entirely his right.
I understood from the Rabbi’s words (unfortunately I don’t remember where) that he also holds this view, but the support for the rabbis’ letter seems to me to contradict that position.
Unless I didn’t properly understand what the protest is about.

Paragraph 1, line 4
… freedom of religion requires…

Paragraph 2, line 2
… because the customer is a religious Jew — that is invalid discrimination. Likewise, one may…

There’s a difference between a service given personally and, for example, banning entry to a store.
The “Master Cake” ruling in the U.S. is well known on this issue; see for example here:
https://www.ynet.co.il/articles/0,7340,L-5278625,00.html

I gave you another chance to think before asking, and it seems you didn’t take it.
I do indeed think that every person has the right not to provide a service that contradicts his beliefs and values (but it is not proper to refuse service to a person you simply don’t like, or even to someone who behaves improperly in your opinion). I’ll write about this in an upcoming column. But I fail to understand how this is connected to what was said in the letter.
The only words in it that I can see as having any connection to this issue are “institutionalized discrimination against minorities.” But when we’re talking about institutionalized discrimination, the intention is not service in a business establishment; and even if it were, it is certainly invalid discrimination when this is done because of the recipient of the service rather than because of the nature of the service itself. And of course this is only one clause among quite a few that appear in the letter.
So 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 brought in racism and the reduction of equality. (If there is something else they declared intentions about beyond allowing non-provision of service, then I’m not aware of it.)

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

Now, when you’ve explained the reading of the letter — that it’s not about opposition to A but to B — then the question is meaningless.

I still don’t quite understand, beyond opposition to institutional discrimination, which the Knesset members have already clarified their position on, what else the letter is talking about.
Will the topic of the letter become clearer in the future column?

No. My opinion about the government and the discourse around it will become clearer.

The distinction between refusing to provide a service that contradicts the service provider’s beliefs and a blanket refusal toward the recipient of the service was explained in column 296: “Discrimination in Providing Service and Biases in Discourse.”

Regards, Y.P.O.R.