One of our favorite topics is back in the news. The gay and lesbian behaving folks are concerned that some religious behaving folks will not accept them as they are, or be willing to serve them. CNN What You Need to KnowAbout It
The LGBT and ACLU view is that any Law that ensures Religious folks can practice and live by their Beliefs is wrong. Of course I find this humorous and ironic... (ie let me live my life, while I force you to change your life...)
Thoughts?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
116 comments:
public opinion has shifted and does not support discrimination against lgbt people. Laws like the one in Indiana will result in bad pr, boycotts, negative economic effects, etc and will be voted down or repealed.
I don't disagree with your assessment that many more people are supporting LGBT "rights" and bashing religious "rights".
However the idea that those who want to be free to behave as they choose are fighting a law that ensures thst another group can behave as they choose is surreal.
I wonder if a Black business owner should be forced to cater a KKK meeting?
My belief is that individual businesses should be free to refuse service to those who believe and act aginst their beliefs. Then other customers can decided to support or avoid the business. If you are correct they will be out of business soon.
its easier and more efective to protest/boycott the state which passes a law to allow discrimination than it is to try to start a boycott of an individual business.
I think if your job or business is selling something you don't get to choose who to sell or not sell to.
There are all kinds of businesses that cater to specific groups.
So by your comment, you would force that Black man to cater the KKK meeting where they were discussing the superiority of white folks.
Or maybe you would force a PETA business owner to provide services to the mink farmers meeting where they are demonstrating better ways to kills the mink.
Why are LGBT folks so interested in forcing their behaviors on others that see them immoral?
Do they really want that Religious Right caterer cooking their food?
The LGBT and ACLU view is that any Law that ensures Religious folks can practice and live by their Beliefs is wrong.
Do beliefs supported by religion have a special status in our society? To what extent are people not of that faith bound by their views? If a religion recognizes slavery, would it be a violation of their faith to emancipate their slaves?
--Hiram
Hiram,
I don't see the connection that you apparently see.
1. Slaves were a proven "state of being". One was a slave or not, it was pretty clear.
2. Being a slave absolutely limited the personal freedoms of the person who was the slave.
In the case of LGBT.
1. Though many believe being LGBT is a "state of being", there is no science to prove this. Therefore people are free to judge it as a deviant behavior / choice / sin.
2. Not getting to have your wedding catered by Bob the religious right caterer does not terribly limit the freedoms of LGBT individual.
Forcing Bob to serve someone he believes is similar to a polygamist, incestual couple, etc does significantly impinge on Bob's freedom.
Slaves were a proven "state of being". One was a slave or not, it was pretty clear.
Slavery was a legal status. I am not sure what "state of being" means in this context. Pretty much every is a being which has a state.
There are lots of forms of religious law which have no secular legal status. Catholic canon law, the Torrah, Sharia law, all of these establish alternate systems of law, which while very nice, have no secular legal relevance. Should they? does religious liberty require secular courts and institutions to enforce these alternate legal systems? Are we interfering with the religious freedom of the members of these faiths when we don't?
--Hiram
The difference here is that the LGBT / ACLU crowd wants the state to force Bob to act against his will. So that the LGBT person can behave as they wish.
No one is trying legislate that the LGBT person must follow Bob's religion. They are just saying that the LGBT person may not force Bob to aid/abet in what he considers a grevious "sin".
"State of Being" to me means we can prove in some way that the individual has no choice regarding their behavior. I we can determine their state by unbiased means.
The way these transactions would normally work, were not the issue of "gay rights" the "trump all" card, is: Somebody would walk into the bakery and ask for a cake. That it was for a gay wedding might come up, but not necessarily. If not, the baker makes the cake and everybody's happy. If it does come up, and the baker has a religious objection (mind you, all sorts of other, non-protected objections might apply), the customer decides to take his business elsewhere and the baker loses the sale. Enough of those and the baker either compromises his principles or goes out of business. The gay couple, finding all 50 bakers in town going to the same church, has to bake their own cake but still gets "married." Nobody coerced, here, just the normal freedom of association and conscience. But apparently that's not allowed anymore.
"The difference here is that the LGBT / ACLU crowd wants the state to force Bob to act against his will."
As some folks were forced to act against their will when they were required to serve black customers at lunch counters. Would it made a difference if those folks had claimed serving black people was contrary to their religion?
--Hiram
Part of the answer there is whether you think those folks CHOSE to be black, or whether they were born black. I would be hard pressed to find a religious argument in favor of racial discrimination, but finding one for discrimination against homosexuality is fairly easy, especially in the Koran. What if the baker is Muslim, rather than Christian?
about "Why are LGBT folks so interested in forcing their behaviors on others that see them immoral?"
I think if they did this it would be called rape.
The only religious exception that I can think of that I would allow is I wouldn't require a doctor to perform an abortion unless the mpother's life was in danger.
Think a little harder.
"Mr. Druggist, you are required to stock and sell the morning-after pill."
"Mr. bookshop owner, you have to sell porn."
"CVS pharmacies, you have to sell cigarettes."
And Laurie, I don't know of any pro-life person that would not permit an exception for the life of the mother. There is no religious objection on that score. There SHOULD be a religious exception for all other doctor services. Do you really want to force a doctor to operate on you? Bad plan.
"Part of the answer there is whether you think those folks CHOSE to be black, or whether they were born black."
Why would that make a difference? Is that a determination that the clerk at the lunch counter had to make back then, or is capable of making now?
Can we discriminate on the basis of religion? Can the lunch counter refuse service because the customer is Jewish, something that may or may not be a choice?
--Hiram
" I don't know of any pro-life person that would not permit an exception for the life of the mother. There is no religious objection on that score. "
Catholic religious doctrine provides no exceptions"
Thou shalt not kill". The embryonic child, as seen above, has a human soul; and therefore is a man from the time of its conception; therefore it has an equal right to its life with its mother; therefore neither the mother, nor medical practitioner, nor any human being whatever can lawfully take that life away. The State cannot give such right to the physician; for it has not itself the right to put an innocent person to death. No matter how desirable it might seem to be at times to save the life of the mother, common sense teaches and all nations accept the maxim, that "evil is never to be done that good may come of it"; or, which is the same thing, that "a good end cannot justify a bad means". Now it is an evil means to destroy the life of an innocent child. The plea cannot be made that the child is an unjust aggressor. It is simply where nature and its own parents have put it. Therefore, Natural Law forbids any attempt at destroying fetal life."
--Hiram
Conservatives like to talk about how logical they are, that logic is a sure pathway to truth, that sort of thing. For myself, I have never for a moment believed that. Logic is a tool that can help us understand things, but like just about any tool, it can be used well or badly, effectively or ineffectively. Logic as such is no more true than a hammer or a wrench. But something I will point out that if you accept the premises of Catholic teaching, the logic of their ultimate position on issues such as saving the life of the mother, is both inexorable and impeccable. That's why you don't hear about it much.
--Hiram
For pro-life advocates it has always been a strategic imperative for them to stay entirely focused on abortion issues. They have been willing to accept the one exception, to save the life of the mother, which however violative of principle it might be, has always been politically necessary. They avoid other potentially divisive issues such as the legal availability of birth control, both because it would be internally divisive, and politically unacceptable. You always hear of overturning Roe v. Wade, you never hear about overturning Griswold v. Connecticut which held state laws against contraceptives to be unconstitutional. The rationales for the two positions are similar, but the political consequences are not.
--Hiram
HIram, I think your observation is correct, but I think you are misinterpreting the actions and motivations behind it. I have spent years trying to find a common ground position among them, but a percentage (about 1/3) of those calling themselves "pro-life" claim no exceptions. There are more and more "pro-life" people as you add exceptions, and including "gross fetal deformity" gets you well over 50% of everybody. So I'm trying to get those folks closer together and what I find is that the "absolutists" ALL accept the "life of the mother" exception, but don't want to say so because then they will be pushed to make OTHER exceptions they don't want to make. Plus, they believe that the current law is so FAR from what they see as reasonable and proper that they state their beliefs more strongly to pull the debate their way. It's like an opening position in bargaining.
Laurie,
Does this mean the black and peta folks must serve the Kkk and mink farmers?
If they own a restaurant, yes.
What if they are caterers, photographer, florists, etc? Will you make them attend the meeting of their nemesis?
I am not sure why the KKK wants the services of a florist, but if I was a legislator the law I voted for wouldn't allow business owners to discriminate.
As it is, the only people I now compel to do anything are for 9 year olds to complete their reading comprehension worksheets.
We've come far from the point. The point is religious freedom that cannot be trumped by government diktat. Courts have long limited that freedom to cases in which a) the religious belief is sincere, b) the state has a compelling interest, and c) the state chooses the least coercive relief available. The RF law does not create discrimination, it protects religious people from oppression by government and law.
I thought of one other exception. I'd let ministers choose over which marriage ceremonies they are willing to preside.
Laurie,
On this one we will need to agree to disagree. Though I agree that business owners shall not refuse service based ones sex, race, handicaps, etc, I do support their freedom to associate or not asociate with those that believe differently.
Once someone finds that elusive gay gene, then this will change the situation. Then for sure sexual preference will be a state of being, just like male/female.
For now though, people are free to believe it is a belief/ behavioral choice or a genetic/hormonal mandate. The science can not prove otherwise.
I have spent years trying to find a common ground position among them, but a percentage (about 1/3) of those calling themselves "pro-life" claim no exceptions.
Yes, and I would assume that it is part of their ultimate agenda to ban abortion altogether. Do you think some them would then go on to try to ban birth control since they view it as a form of abortion?
--Hiram
"Though I agree that business owners shall not refuse service based ones sex, race, handicaps, etc, I do support their freedom to associate or not asociate with those that believe differently."
How does one square these two sentences? There are some people who have a religiously-based belief that women or certain races are inferior. Why is their bigotry less acceptable to you than those who wish to discriminate against homosexuals?
My position is that we give corporations and their shareholders certain benefits (immunity from personal liability, for instance) -- and one of their obligations to society in return is that they don't discriminate. Is it a loss of liberty in some sense? Sure.
But there are lots of places where we make such judgments as a society. The fact that I can't legally yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater that isn't on fire infringes on my liberty, too, for instance. But we deem it best for society as a whole that you can't do that.
Don't want to serve the public? Fine. Give up your corporate benefits and discriminate away.
(Within the usual caveats, of course, related to actual religious organizations.)
Sean,
So sole proprietorships, partnerships, etc can do as they wish?
Without the religious freedom law, they could be sued. That is why it was passed. To allow them to be free from persecution.
Sean,
There is no disagreement that Black, female, disabled, etc are a "state of being". No one has proved conclusively that LGBT is a "state of being".
Therefore people are free to have different perspective whether it is "SOB" or a behavior.
By that yardstick, should businesses be free to "discriminate" (i.e. not serve) rapists or pederasts or prostitutes? Can I kick a "lady of the evening" out of my Starbucks franchise for plying her wares there?
"Therefore people are free to have different perspective whether it is "SOB" or a behavior."
Doesn't matter. Religion isn't a state of being, yet we include it under most-anti discrimination laws.
If I go to a bakery, someone can't refuse to sell me a cake because I'm Lutheran.
And if it is behavior, then it can be considered sinful, good, bad, wonderful, etc.
Do you really want to be forced to associate with those that behave poorly or harmfully per your beliefs?
Maybe those who torture small animals.
"So sole proprietorships, partnerships, etc can do as they wish?"
I don't have a problem with sole proprietorships taking such action, no. Partnerships are different, though, because each form comes with certain advantages.
"...someone can't refuse to sell me a cake because I'm Lutheran."
a) How are they going to know?
b) If you were accused of it, would there be enough evidence to convict you?
c) Why shouldn't they be free to refuse service to anybody? They're the ones losing the business because of what we assume are their prejudices. That should be penalty enough.
Religious freedom is uniquely protected since our country was founded on it.
Can you think of any other behavior / belief that is protected like the LGBT folks want to be?
Or do you think LGBT is a religion?
"Do you really want to be forced to associate with those that behave poorly or harmfully per your beliefs?"
No one is forcing you to open a business that serves the public.
"c) Why shouldn't they be free to refuse service to anybody?"
Because we shouldn't be giving government support to discrimination.
" Can I kick a "lady of the evening" out of my Starbucks franchise for plying her wares there?"
Sure, because she's engaging in illegal behavior.
"Or do you think LGBT is a religion?"
We've determined as a society through democratic processes that LGBT are one of the categories where discrimination causes harm to society.
"harm to society"
You must be kidding.
Let's take it out of the gay sphere for a moment. In Oklahoma, a police officer claimed "religious freedom" as a defense when his commanding officer assigned him to represent his shift at a community event hosted at a local mosque. OK or not?
"You must be kidding."
No, I'm not. What makes you think so?
Police officer paid for with public dollars shall protect and serve all law abiding citizens. Fire them if they refuse.
50% of population still sees LGBT behavior as harmful to our society.
"50% of population still sees LGBT behavior as harmful to our society."
I don't think that's true anymore. Check your polling on that.
Or conduct your own poll. What % of parents would prefer their kids to become Gay?
"What % of parents would prefer their kids to become Gay?"
That's a pretty telling question.
telling what to whom?
Telling that you think that question is germane.
Seems a fair question, if a bit off track.
I would prefer my girls be heterosexual.
If the gay marriage / relationships were resolved so democratically, it is interesting that so many answers have been reliant on court decisions.
So if you prefer heterosexuality, it makes it OK to discriminate against homosexuals?
So if you disapprove of gay marriage for religious reasons (there are others) you must be forced to act and speak as if you do? Why isn't tolerance a two-way street?
I am happy to let LGBT folks do as they wish.
And I am happy to let religious right business owners do as they wish.
Must be the libertarian in me showing.
Nothing perks up a society like a little discrimination!
Somehow you seem to think that discrimination is a bad thing. Time was when one of the good things you could say about someone was that they had "discriminating taste" or "discriminating judgment." Somehow the notion that we had to accept everybody, and everything, as equal to our own moral framework got swept aside in a thoroughly lopsided idea of "tolerance." Why don't we remember that MLK ONLY succeeded because he successfully pointed out that our actions did not square with our Christian moral values. Now we are asked to trample those moral values, by law?
Nothing perks up our society like a little fascism / government over reach.
John, I think your love of your own logic has blinded you on this issue. It seems business leaders agree with me:
Dear Governor Pence:
Laurie,
The politicians in the State need to answer to all the business owners and citizens, not just the politically correct outspoken ones. Isn't it ironic that a Liberal like yourself wants the Indiana government to do as a few big businesses wish.
It will be interesting to see if these businesses will have enough clout to blackmail the politicians into making changes, or if the politicians will stand by their constituents and their personal belief in personal freedom.
What do you think, will these big businesses win? Or will the will of the citizens of Indiana win?
I am also interested to see how these businesses fair going forward. They came out in support
of LGBT freedoms over supporting Religious freedoms. It will be interesting to see if that is good or bad for business.
I hope for their sake that not too many of their customers are from the religious right.
By the way, I think it is silly for good business people to turn down any good paying customer. However I do think it is important that they have the legal option to do so.
As always, I really do not care what LGBT people do as long as they do not force their life choice on others that do not want to be exposed to it on their private property.
I wonder if you would support if a couple started some heavy over the clothing petting and making out at Chuckie Cheeses? You know, right there on the bench where the 3 year olds could watch. Should the management ask them to stop or leave? Or are they free to behave as they wish in the Private business.
This is a fascinating topic... When does the freedom of one party impinge too much on the freedom of another?
However I do think it is important that they have the legal option to do so.
Pretty much the standard line here is that you can discriminate for lots of reasons, but not the wrong reason. You can't do things like turn down business or hire and fire people because of their race for example, no matter what your religion says. If someone's religion, for example, provides that they can't serve a doughnut to a black person at a lunch counter, it's pretty much settled law that the religion will have to lump it.
==Hiram
Fascism? Really? Good to see you're keeping this in perspective...
The point of this comment:
"Nothing perks up a society like a little discrimination!"
... is to point out that this is exactly what the Indiana law allows. Now, if you want to make the judgment that a for-profit company's religious beliefs (even though I find that an absurd concept) is more important than an individual's right to be serviced by a business that is ostensibly supposed to serve the public, fine. Just say so, and admit that you're OK with this sort of discrimination.
If gays have the "right" to get legally (not just ceremonially) married (I don't think there is any such right, BTW), they still do not have the right to a reception, with cake, nor to force the baker to materially participate in the event, against his sincerely-held beliefs. The State has no "compelling interest" in the cake, so there should be no "compelling."
I can assume, then, that you all are in solidarity with the airport cab drivers who don't want to have booze in their cabs and the Target employees who don't want to handle pork?
Allowing for the vast world of difference between the two cases, yes. Your examples involve the relationship between employees and a private employer as to what "work rules" will be followed. I believe the two cases were resolved differently. In one case, the employer made a "reasonable accommodation" and in the other, the employer permitted the employee to give up pay to satisfy his convictions. The issue under discussion here is whether the =State= can compel a private individual to violate their sincerely-held religious beliefs. A private business can, but is free to choose not to.
Actually, the issue at the airport was the MAC threatening to pull the licenses of taxi drivers that refused to carry alcohol.
OK, the MAC is arguably a government agency. So how did that case turn out? I'm not sure I agree with the Muslim drivers-- that their religious principles are violated just by having alcohol in the car-- on that one, but if they were asked to give up the fare and go to the back of the line, it seems to me the "least restrictive" solution.
Sean, I found my own answer, thanks.
http://www.danielpipes.org/blog/2006/10/more-on-those-alcohol-shy-minnesota-taxi
Apparently the government (MAC) has a compelling (public safety) interest in people getting cab service, and the "reasonable accommodation" of going to the back of the line was refused. Now you lose your license for 30 days on first refusal, and two years for the second. So-- the opposite of the wedding cake situation.
Alcohol Shy Cabs
I think the MAC solution makes sense. If the personal business wants the airport business and license, they need to play by the airport's rules.
Being devout can be hard...
Now if a private cabbie wants to turn down a fare on a typical public street... More power to them.
Now if a cabbie works for an open minded business and turns down a fare on a typical public street... That is something the cab company's management needs to resolve.
Maybe "totalitarian" is a better word for folks who want the government to remove the freedom of association from it's citizens.
fascism "an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization."
totalitarian "of or relating to a political regime based on subordination of the individual to the state and strict control of all aspects of the life and productive capacity of the nation especially by coercive measures (as censorship and terrorism)"
Is it totalitarian to force businesses to serve blacks or women or Jews?
Not "totalitarian" since the "total" of human activity is not being coerced, but this one-by-one transaction IS coerced absent some "compelling public interest" that overrides religious freedom. It is worth noting that these religious freedom laws have never been found to support discrimination based on "state of being." But in one case, the business had served the gay customer openly and frequently, but refused only to take part in the wedding. Rather than respect the rights of the proprietor, they were sued and further persecuted by the government. Who is engaged in harmful discrimination, in this scenario?
Or as somebody in another forum said, "You don't understand. You have to get your mind right on these issues, and it is not permitted for you to hold the views that you do. You must comply."
"If the personal business wants the airport business and license, they need to play by the airport's rules."
that sure sounds like a double standard to me.
If a photographer wants to engage in wedding photography maybe they should play by society's rules. Someone who objects to gay marriage could just have a policy of "I don't do wedding photography."
How about if the sign said?
"I refuse to take wedding photos of people who fornicate with others of the same sex because I don't want to support their choice to be eternally damned in the after life.."
"Society's rules"
"We are the Borg... Prepare to be assimilated..."
You didn't explain your double standard of why it is okay for Christians to discriminate according to thier religious beliefs but not Muslims (i.e cab drivers who don't want to transport people with alcohol).
and what about people who could claim a wide variety of strange religious beliefs such as unwilling to serve obese people in their restaurant because they view gluttony as sinful. Are we going to have the govt deciding which religious beliefs are valid or worthy of protection?
Laurie, you are completely missing the three-part test that is the essential of the law (federal plus 30 other states). First, the religious belief must be sincerely held, Second, the State must have a "compelling interest" that requires overriding the religious practice, and the remedy must be the least restrictive available.
SO... the state has a compelling interest in non-discrimination, so gay people cannot be denied a cake. BUT, asking a religious baker to "actively participate" in a gay wedding crosses the line and invokes the religious freedom principle. Then, government action must be the "least restrictive" means of getting the gay couple a cake, namely, go to another baker!
In the case of the cab drivers, the religious belief that alcohol could not be transported by a Muslim driver was found to be unfounded, as nowhere is that stated Muslim law. Second, the State (who controls MSP) has a vested interest in NOT having people stand out in the cold for hours with a legal product in their hand, waiting for a cab or, as in some cases, kicked out of a cab on dark and lonely roads. That's a public safety issue. The less restrictive solution of having a cabbie that refused go to the "end of the line" was found ineffective, since 70% of the cabbies were apparently Muslim, creating huge backups and lack of service. The current rule, requiring cabbies who refuse to give up their airport license for 30 days, is all perfectly legal and sensible, and within the RFRA law.
Let's remember that the original law, passed by Congress unanimously and 97-3 in the Senate, and signed by Democrat Bill Clinton, was for the relief of Native Americans wanting to use peyote in their religion. Since then many religious groups have used it to gain exception to one or more laws, but in 25 years there has never been a clear case of discrimination that was allowed under the law. In simple terms, the people pounding the table are just making stuff up.
Hi Laurie,
I think you misunderstood, I am okay with Christians, Muslims, Jews, Hindu, etc business owners honoring their conscience and refusing to serve "sinners" in their business.
However I am ok with the MAC making tolerance a requirement of the cabbies being licensed to do business at MSP.
It is then up to the business owner to decided if their conscience will let them work by the MAC's rules. (ie owners free choice)
Otherwise the business owner will need to look else where for paying "acceptable" customers.
I don't think you understand the term double standard
My smart alec answer above triggered an interesting thought.
Sean and Laurie seem to want to compare LGBT to race, sex, special needs, age, etc. And they seem to keep thinking that the far religious right is biased against "LGBT people". Just like the KKK is biased against Black people.
Now the reality is that people on the far religious right do not see "LGBT people". They see people who are sinning and possibly doomed to hell. This likely makes many of the RR people very sad, since they like to save God's children from dark paths. And they sure don't want to contribute to harming these souls further.
Now let's say that there was a law that forced Laurie and Sean to buy alcohol whenever a suffering alcoholic asked them to. Even though Sean and Laurie feared for the customer's health, family,etc, they had to buy that bottle and hand it over to the drunk. (because it would be unfair to discriminate based on their personal belief that alcoholism was harmful)
This of course would make little sense, yet people want to force the RR people to give that sorry soul a drink, and demand they watch as it is swallowed. All the while the RR isn't just worried about that person's short life, but their eternal life.
Of course, this may make no sense if you don't believe in heaven and hell. Or if you think same sex intercourse is acceptable in the eyes of God. But what if you did believe that those who choose the LGBT life style were doomed to eternal damnation... How would you see this situation differently?
Would you encourage them to embrace their urges or would you try convince them to resist?
Would you happily take photos of the drunk as they nearly killed themselves with the bottle you bought them?
I hope they find that "LGBT test" soon. That way we can prove once and for all that that they are "LGBT People" and not "Sinners". Then we can have some fun with the RR by explaining to them that LGBT people were of God's making.
The RR should keep their worry to the state of their own souls. One of my third grade students informed me not too long ago that I am damned to hellfire because I eat pork. I haven't lost any sleep over this.
If I ran a liquor store I would sell alcohol to drunks (as long as they weren't driving.) If I was the photographer at their party I would set down my camara to call 911 if someone was passed out and non responsive.
and as long as were back to doing dumb analogies what about the person who claims religious beliefs as grounds for refusing to serve the obese person in their restaurant because of the sin of gluttony and also its ill health effects? This seems as reasonable to me as refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple.
I hope for both our sakes that the kids are wrong.
I am fine with the restaurant refusing to serve the obese person. Of course the owner needs to be willing to live with the lost customer and bad word of mouth.
Of course if they are that health conscience, they will probably be running a healthy dining establishment and they would want to try to help the obese person learn to eat healthier.
And the obese person probably would not be at the healthy restaurant unless they wanted to change.
Maybe that is why people seem to think LGBT folks want RR Photographers, florist shops, caterers, etc. Maybe they want a last minute intervention / lecture with their meal, flowers, photos, etc...
"I am fine with the restaurant refusing to serve the obese person"
But a Muslim that tries to live up to their religious beliefs is forced to deny them?
These analogies sure get us into trouble, don't they? Being gay is not the same as being black and never will be. John, that "gay gene" is never going to be found because there are too many players switching teams in the middle of the game. It's a behavioral choice, like obesity.
Laurie, would you require churches to perform gay weddings? Then why would you require individual church members to "participate" in one? Can you find me a single case in which a religious freedom law has been used to support any illegal "discrimination"?
Let us, not as an analogy, take gluttony as an example. Most Bible-believers can cite chapter and verse decrying gluttony as sinful. So if a restaurant takes that "as Gospel" and an obese man enters the establishment, what is their obligation? First, I would think they would take his order. He might want just a salad. Second, they might act shocked when he ordered 2 of everything on the menu, but otherwise comply-- it's his sin, not theirs. Third, they might suggest a salad, probably losing a customer, or fourth, refuse service on the same basis a responsible bartender would-- to avoid the man "harming himself." What do you think the obese person would or should do? Sue the restaurant and demand the government drive it out of business? Or just never go to that restaurant again?
"In the case of the cab drivers, the religious belief that alcohol could not be transported by a Muslim driver was found to be unfounded, as nowhere is that stated Muslim law."
No, that's not true. The decision was based on the compelling public interest factors.
Courts usually try to avoid judging if it's a sincere religious belief because it's almost impossible to discern.
Here is the appeals court decision:
http://mn.gov/web/prod/static/lawlib/live/archive/ctapun/0809/opa071657-0909.pdf
"If I ran a liquor store I would sell alcohol to drunks...."
Yes, you would. I would not. Would you demand that government revoke my license because of my religious belief (assuming I profess one as my reason)? And how is that "discrimination" prohibited by law in the first place? More cases of analogies leading us astray. The central question, again, is "why isn't tolerance a two-way street?"
"Now the reality is that people on the far religious right do not see "LGBT people". They see people who are sinning and possibly doomed to hell. This likely makes many of the RR people very sad, since they like to save God's children from dark paths. And they sure don't want to contribute to harming these souls further."
Your sermon here may all in fact be true, but it's completely irrelevant to the legal question.
It doesn't matter if they see them as "souls not to be hurt more" or "the spawn of hell" or something else. They are people with the same rights as everyone else.
"The central question, again, is "why isn't tolerance a two-way street?""
A great question. Why can't LGBT people get served like everyone else?
Baking a cake is not participating in a wedding. A wedding has three people participating; the couple getting married and the person performing the ceremony. Guests have an extremely minor role, sometimes, if they affirm they will support the marriage. The guy taking picture would not have to respond if the minister invites an affirmation of support.
"No, that's not true. The decision was based on the compelling public interest factors." -- Sean
You are correct that the decision was that the public interest overrode the religious objection, but that decision was made easier by the lack of a "sincere" (i.e. widely-accepted and documented) religious belief.
If Minnesota had a religious freedom law like Indiana's, they would have been using that in their court argument, but the outcome would have been exactly the same. They can't discriminate against their customers.
"Why can't LGBT people get served like everyone else?"
They can. I the baker would happily sell them cupcakes or birthday cakes, whether I knew of their "status" or not. I would sell to pimps and prostitutes and Nazis and Jews and Black Panthers and KKKs, all on the same basis. But if any of them ask me (as an "artist") to create a cake celebrating what I consider their "sin," I have to decline, do I not? Why should gay weddings receive the extraordinary consideration-- that I would be forced to violate my religious belief or go out of business-- that none of these others get?
"Why should gay weddings receive the extraordinary consideration-- that I would be forced to violate my religious belief or go out of business-- that none of these others get?"
It's not at all clear that baking a cake for a gay marriage is any more a violation of Christian beliefs than a Muslim having to carry alcohol in their cab is.
"A wedding has three people participating; the couple getting married..."-- Laurie
There you go again, imposing your rigid religious morality on everybody. Who says it has to be a couple? Why not 3, 4, or 6 people? :->
If I were invited to a wedding I would consider that I was "participating" in it. But you are right, baking a cake is not "participating" in the wedding. The cake is at the reception CELEBRATING the wedding, which is worse. If there is no cake, there can still be a reception, and there can be a wedding with or without a reception. If one baker refuses a cake, nothing is stopped except the baker's participation in the affair. If somebody else bakes the cake, the whole thing can go on exactly as planned, so why so much time and fury turned on this single insignificant "[non-]participant"?
"It's not at all clear that baking a cake for a gay marriage is any more a violation of Christian beliefs than a Muslim having to carry alcohol in their cab is."
Odd. It's clear as a bell to me. Opposition to gay marriage is wide-spread and commonly associated with religious belief. Transporting alcohol has been accepted by almost every Muslim scholar and nowhere else is it taught as contrary to Muslim law. (And by the way, they will ferry drunks.) Having a cake for your gay wedding reception is not a public safety or public service issue, like having an airport cab is.
To second Jerry's point and try again to clarify mine. The Muslim owner / driver can refuse to carry alcohol. They just won't be able to pick up customers at the MAC property. Because MAC as its own entity can set its own rules.
Just like RR drivers would need to pick up LGBT riders at MAC facilities.
Jerry,
Never say never. I am pretty certain that we will figure out what drives our attraction to men, women, other within 10 years.
And there will be less flip flopping as people are more comfortable being who God created them to be. In a society that accepts them as God made them.
"And there will be less flip flopping as people are more comfortable being who God created them to be."
Nope, sorry. If God makes them gay, they should be physically incapable of "playing for the other team," and the inherited genetic trait would long ago have been driven out of the gene pool by natural selection. Now, if you want to look for a gene for sadomasochism, that might be useful.
I personally do not think it will be a gene. I think it will be hormone timing / concentration issue that some how impact brain / physiological development.
Sorry, again, but that science is already established, that there is a "tendency" that is environmentally determined. But of course, we can probably prove that about criminals and other dangers to society, too, especially if we can reliably predict their =behavioral choices= based on their womb environment. We just kill them at birth, right? Or do we let them make their choice first?
Maybe we should kill the likely mass murderers and pedophiles at birth, I don't think the LGBT folks pose a threat.
I think understanding brain / physiology development in detail is just starting. The equipment didn't even exist to study it in detail until 15 years ago.
I will give you a little credit, John, for at least being honest in acknowledging your support for religious based discrimination. That is better than what most republican leaders are saying.
The Self-Contradictory Argument All Republicans Are Making on the Indiana Discrimination Law
I belive the Indiana governor may support amending this new law to clarify that it does not allow for religious based discrimination. So if that happens he will get more credit than you and your rationalizations.
So do you have limits in how much discrimination you would allow. Would cab drivers and restaurant managers be able to turn away a gay couple holding hands?
No limit.
Business owners should be free to do business with who they wish. (ie except protected classes)
Just like consumers are free to do business with the businesses they want to.
I'm still puzzled by this "discrimination" argument. I'm gay and I want to have a splashy anniversary party or something in a local restaurant. The owner, rightly or wrongly, refuses based on his religious belief (and perhaps commercial considerations). I insist that the owner give up his religion, rather than simply finding another restaurant where my business is welcome. Does anybody want to claim an equivalence here? Why am I not guilty of discrimination on religious grounds? Isn't the "least restrictive" solution to just go somewhere else?
Scenario 2. I want to have a quiet dinner with my partner in the restaurant. The owner has no idea what my orientation or relationship is. I get served. Where is the problem?
It seems to me that though science has no answers yet, public opinion is shifting to accept that these are LGBT people. Not just people who choose to behave in an LGBT manner.
Based on this view LGBT people are a unique class like Black/White, Man/Woman, Healthy/Handicapped, etc.
Therefore based on their belief, not science, they want to add LGBT people to the protected class list. And they want to label anyone who disagrees with their non-scientific belief as bigots, discriminators, etc.
With this in mind, the LGBT and Religious folks are both showing a lot of FAITH in something that can not be proven. And they both like to apply negative labels to the other group.
Now the restaurant owner could not turn down a customer based on sex, race, religion, handicapped, etc.
Now if society or science ever confirms that LGBT is a type of human, the owner will not be able to turn down that protected class.
The reality is that society decides what is acceptable within it's ranks and what is taboo.
Slowly but surely LGBT, sodomy, pornography, unwed Motherhood, deadbeat Fathers, abortion, dependence on government/ other tax payers, etc have or are moving from the taboo list to the socially acceptable list.
I am somewhat curious and concerned about what else will become acceptable in our society.
Here is a clear, objective description of the law that steers clear of our flawed analogies and emotional confusions.
http://dailysignal.com/2015/04/01/qa-on-indiana-would-restaurants-be-allowed-to-turn-away-lgbt-customers/?utm_source=heritagefoundation&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=morningbell&mkt_tok=3RkMMJWWfF9wsRoju6rOZKXonjHpfsX56uwpW6OxlMI%2F0ER3fOvrPUfGjI4GTMdmI%2BSLDwEYGJlv6SgFQrLBMa1ozrgOWxU%3D
The dissolution of our moral society can have one of two ends-- a rigid moralistic dictatorship or the fall of Rome into decadence and destruction. I'm in favor of something much milder, like live and let live, but I'm not in charge of everybody. I think if you want me to respect your choices, then you have to accept that I don't approve of it. We seem to have lost that ability to disapprove of things.
Daily Signal QA On Indiana
I see Indiana is "modifying" the law to state that discrimination is not one of the exemptions that can be allowed for religious reasons. Of course, it never was, so what are the gay activists going to claim now, to justify their intense hatreds and discrimination?
Of course it was, that is why the RR folks are unhappy with the watering down of the law.
LGBT is one step closer to being a protected class / behavior.
No, it wasn't. The religious freedom laws have never been accepted as a basis for discrimination based on race, for example, and should not be. The "change" is meaningless in reality, but huge symbolically, where this battle was always being fought. There was never a REASON for the outrage, other than the "gay-stapo" needing a new target.
Post a Comment