For an understanding of how the Indiana law does more than just tweak the RFRA, Brooks should read today's NYT's main editorial. Nowhere does Brooks even acknowledge the tremendous damage to that 1993 law by the Supreme Court's Hobby Lobby decision. "Respectful politeness" is a fine cultural norm but it cannot and should not be used to justify "we reserve the right to refuse service" discrimination.
59
Really David? Given that you are certainly aware of the "religious" objections that have been voiced to serving Jews, Blacks, Muslims, etc., and given that I am confident you oppose such "religious" rights, why would you defend the right to use religion to refuse service to individuals based upon their gender orientation? You would compel a photographer to provide services (if asked) to an inter-racial couple. Why would you then defend that photographer who refuses to provide his/her normal services to gays?
42
Not using somebody's cutlery or no shaking hands is not equivalent to have a public business and not serving a section of society for reason of religion, race, ethnicity or sexual orientation. If you are going to have a bakery or a store you must serve everybody otherwise is plain discrimination. No matter what Mr. Brooks writes or says on NPR or PBS would cut for me.
33
The gay movement has learned well from the modern civil rights movement. It is all about ME, and other people be damned.
14
Mr. Brooks: Please substitute "African Americans" for "gays" in your argument, and the utter nonsense of your position is revealed. I'm sure African Americans would be willing to give up their civil rights for "politeness." Get real.
66
I've got to say that Mr. Brooks very nearly managed to turn himself into a pretzel with this column! I've never seen outright bigotry so cleverly polished before. Why he makes it seem almost normal to be able to refuse service to those one dislikes by citing religious grounds. Almost. Sorry, Mr. Brooks, but this column is one big Fail.
72
You start the column by saying that tolerance towards all is one approach, be they straight, gay, whatever and then go on to tell us that "on the other hand, this nation was founded on religious tolerance … " as if the idea that both notions of tolerance were mutually exclusive, with either one or the other but they are not.
no one ever said that religious tolerance was limited to only other religions. the bible never said "turn the other cheek if a religious person offends you, but all others are to be destroyed …"
if someone is so upset buy the sexual preferences of another human being as to make a law excluding those people from buying a cake (or whatever), i'd suggest that those people have much deeper issues than their religious beliefs …
no one ever said that religious tolerance was limited to only other religions. the bible never said "turn the other cheek if a religious person offends you, but all others are to be destroyed …"
if someone is so upset buy the sexual preferences of another human being as to make a law excluding those people from buying a cake (or whatever), i'd suggest that those people have much deeper issues than their religious beliefs …
32
Is it okay for a baker to refuse to bake a wedding cake for a mixed race couple because it violates his or her religion? Is it okay for a florist to refuse to arrange flowers for an African American couple because of his or her religious beliefs? And why all of a sudden are Republicans, who have for decade decried laws giving 'special rights' to minorities, championing laws that give 'special rights' to religions. Tim Cook is right. These laws are dangerous for the republic.
57
David I always appreciate you point of view but you have swung and missed this one. Groundwork for hate is groundwork for hate, businesses should not be allowed in the public square if they want to define what that public is according to their personal concordance. Belief is not a caveat for willful ignorance, something you have preached yourself.
29
The markets will decide and it will be business as usual after the hollering. When a business opens in public it is agreeing, I think, to serve all of the public, not just those you like and agree with their beliefs. Just smile, nod and cash their check as you would others you have other disagreements with about sports, faith, or life styles.
14
Brooks frequently misinterprets America, threw the colored glasses of misunderstanding the difference between right to believe and promulgate that belief and the right to act in accordance to that belief. God's laws, as interpreted by individuals and by their religious community simply come in in second place to the secular laws passed by the legislatures and in third place when put against the First Amendment. If your religion tells you to kill the infidel and you commit murder you are guilty of murder. God will love you but the people will punish you. If your religion tells you gay and lesbian people are the greatest offense to God ever imagined and you refuse to serve them you have deprived those people of their right to equal protection of the laws. You have broken the civil rights acts. You are a criminal. God may well love you, but the people will punish you. All men are created equal. Their Gods and goddesses are not created equal, some gods are interpreted to be vicious bigoted self-serving killers and war mongers. Some are less hateful. Some have drowned every human being on the planet except for one 'righteous' family.
21
Bear in mind, religious institutions can refuse to accept gay people into their clergy, can refuse to marry same-sex couples, can refuse to baptize their children. THAT is the exercise of religious freedom. I support the rights of religions to set their own religious terms.
But explain again the damage to religious practice if you sell a cake to a gay person? I am having some difficulty understanding this. I mean, bakeries probably sell to adulterers (it's not as if people walk around with scarlet As pinned to their clothes these days) and people who do other things their religion might not approve of. That STILL doesn't interfere with their religious practices and beliefs.
But explain again the damage to religious practice if you sell a cake to a gay person? I am having some difficulty understanding this. I mean, bakeries probably sell to adulterers (it's not as if people walk around with scarlet As pinned to their clothes these days) and people who do other things their religion might not approve of. That STILL doesn't interfere with their religious practices and beliefs.
56
Its safe to say that this law is NOT the same as the 93 law or other laws passed by states which pertain the government this law pertains to for profit business
6
Mr. Brooks you are a reasonable man, but this sophistry, in case you missed it. Religious liberty does not mean that you bring your religious values into the transactions you undertake in public space. A better example of a community that has made a choice to uphold its religious values without impacting civil rights of others is the Amish. They keep there values within their community and avoid bringing it in the public space when they transact with others.
16
Is comparing an immutable part of my humanity to unclean cutlery an example of the "politeness of the soul" Mr. Brooks expounds?
14
I am curious, David. Have you been consistently making the same argument against absolutist positions and for responsible use of power when discussing the hard Christian right, or is this a new found concern?
13
The GOP wins hands down when it comes to creating legislation that is not needed. This smacks of their efforts to enact voter fraud laws, based on NO evidence there was voter fraud.
19
The problem with this 'analysis' opinion is that it fails to take into consideration the "fact" that LGBT children exist everywhere and religious based anti-gay preaching is driving these children to suicide or to lives as adults suffering "minority stress". Homophobia is not about individual religious freedom, because it affects the children who are everywhere. What about these children, living in isolation in religious families teaching them to hate themselves, destroying their self-esteem and relationship with the Divine? Is that the "religious belief" we're protecting here?
Human rights law has long held that cultural and religious traditions must bend to individual human rights. LGBT people have a HUMAN RIGHT to grow up in a society free of discrimination against them - where ever they exist - is that is in every church, every religion, every family and community. You can't separate out religion from LGBT children's lives. Stop this absurd accommodation speak. Homo/transphobia and the religious ABUSE that underpins it must END. It's barbaric and harmful. Like female genital mutilation or forced child weddings. Children have human rights. And that means adult religious rights must bend to protect the children. Not the other way around. Given that these ideas are killing our children, at least the NYTimes could get more sophisticated opinion writers who know international human rights law - not just their own myopic and uneducated "opinions".
Human rights law has long held that cultural and religious traditions must bend to individual human rights. LGBT people have a HUMAN RIGHT to grow up in a society free of discrimination against them - where ever they exist - is that is in every church, every religion, every family and community. You can't separate out religion from LGBT children's lives. Stop this absurd accommodation speak. Homo/transphobia and the religious ABUSE that underpins it must END. It's barbaric and harmful. Like female genital mutilation or forced child weddings. Children have human rights. And that means adult religious rights must bend to protect the children. Not the other way around. Given that these ideas are killing our children, at least the NYTimes could get more sophisticated opinion writers who know international human rights law - not just their own myopic and uneducated "opinions".
17
Two questions for Mr. Brooks:
Under current law would the baker in question be allowed to refuse to bake a cake for a black couple? Why or why not?
Under current law would the baker in question be allowed to refuse to bake a cake for a black couple? Why or why not?
17
A person operating a bakery isn't allowed to refuse to sell a cake to someone on religious grounds because she's African American. Why should she be able to refuse to sell a cake to someone on religious grounds because he's gay?
18
Does the photographer also have the right to refuse to shoot an interracial wedding if he has a religious objection to it, as many religions did not so long ago?
12
The only religion which is threatened here is one which endorses ignorance and bigotry. It has nothing to do with the teachings and example of Jesus Christ. This new American "religion" which Pence and his Hoosier cronies expound and hope to protect is essentially a cover for a culture that reflects this ignorance and bigotry. Brooks knows better, or he should. Shame on him.
24
I respect religious freedom. I don't respect religion.
18
I am very disappointed in the opinion expressed by Mr. Books. I have generally thought he was a "thinking" Republican. He is justifying the legalization of homophobia and shunning. Next he will be endorsing Mr. Cruz and his ilk.
15
If an evangelical Christian doesn't want to shoot a same-sex wedding, then perhaps he or she should be in a different business.
22
No group has ever won the right to be treated decently by being "polite."
22
You are conflating private behavior (not using the silverware, shaking hands) with acts of commerce in the public square. No one is saying anyone has to invite a gay couple over for dinner. But if you offer goods and services to the general public, you don't get to pick and choose who can purchase them based on their identity. Didn't we settle this in the 60s? If a restaurant owner has a religious objection to "race mixing," should he be allowed to refuse to seat an interracial couple? Or Black people, period?
17
Why is Mr. Brooks putting the burden of showing tolerance on the person being refused service? Why isn't on the person providing the service?
Why should the gay customer show tolerance when the christian copy-shop owner refuses to make copies of a gay dance flyer? Why shouldn't the owner be the one showing tolerance?
Let's make it a bit harder. Would Mr. Brooks ask a christian customer to show tolerance when a jewish owner of a copy-shop refused to make copies of a "jews for jesus" flyer; or should it be the other way around? This is a case of religious liberty vs. religious liberty, not religious liberty vs. equality.
I think the only consistent approach is to put the burden on the business person. When one decides to go into some kind of business venture that offers services to the general public, they should understand that means serving EVERYONE. If their religious beliefs make that a problem, then they should follow their religion and seek a different kind of job.
Why should the gay customer show tolerance when the christian copy-shop owner refuses to make copies of a gay dance flyer? Why shouldn't the owner be the one showing tolerance?
Let's make it a bit harder. Would Mr. Brooks ask a christian customer to show tolerance when a jewish owner of a copy-shop refused to make copies of a "jews for jesus" flyer; or should it be the other way around? This is a case of religious liberty vs. religious liberty, not religious liberty vs. equality.
I think the only consistent approach is to put the burden on the business person. When one decides to go into some kind of business venture that offers services to the general public, they should understand that means serving EVERYONE. If their religious beliefs make that a problem, then they should follow their religion and seek a different kind of job.
16
If you substitute "mixed-race marriage" for "same-sex marriage" in this article you get exactly the same set of rationales underlying the arguments. In both cases, people are acting out of bias because: 1) they were raised to feel revulsion about the couples, as being 'unnatural', and witnessing their 'happy day' made them uncomfortable 2) they had a religious belief that the unions were wrong -Southern Baptists, for example, believed that black and whites were put on different continents to keep them from mixing, 3) they had a deep underlying prejudice against both parties -gays and blacks, to the extent that dealing with them as equals in a financial exchange was undesirable and gave them a status they didn't deserve.
David -can you contrast your approach towards gay couples with your view of how mixed race couples should be treated before the law -your arguments would seem to apply equally to both cases. Should people be able to refuse accommodation to mixed race couples as well as gay ones? What about Jewish couples? What about women wearing the Hijab?
Just because it's still on the edge of socially permissible to be prejudiced against gays and shield it with "deeply held Christian, etc. beliefs" doesn't change the logical content of the argument. What you allow to be legally done to one unpopular group today you also license to be done to you at some future time.
David -can you contrast your approach towards gay couples with your view of how mixed race couples should be treated before the law -your arguments would seem to apply equally to both cases. Should people be able to refuse accommodation to mixed race couples as well as gay ones? What about Jewish couples? What about women wearing the Hijab?
Just because it's still on the edge of socially permissible to be prejudiced against gays and shield it with "deeply held Christian, etc. beliefs" doesn't change the logical content of the argument. What you allow to be legally done to one unpopular group today you also license to be done to you at some future time.
9
I admire David Brooks's columns enough to read each one. However, for some time I have suspected that his weekly requirement of numerical column inches exceeds his capacity for quality column inches.
Perhaps once a week?
Perhaps once a week?
10
The Christian bible explicitly proscribes homosexuality and seems to call for the execution of homosexuals.
Nobody can seriously deny that, even though there are homosexual overtones in the stories of Jesus and David.
So, if an omniscient omnipotent and omnibenevolent god cannot abide these people, who is a bible believing Christian to think otherwise and in any way tolerate anybody who is gay??
There is no room in "fundamentalist" belief systems for tolerance, co-operation or respect for the "rights" of gays.
Brooks knows this. He refuses to acknowledge it and refuses to acknowledge the true purpose of this Indiana offensive.
He is being deceptive. Deliberately.
Nobody can seriously deny that, even though there are homosexual overtones in the stories of Jesus and David.
So, if an omniscient omnipotent and omnibenevolent god cannot abide these people, who is a bible believing Christian to think otherwise and in any way tolerate anybody who is gay??
There is no room in "fundamentalist" belief systems for tolerance, co-operation or respect for the "rights" of gays.
Brooks knows this. He refuses to acknowledge it and refuses to acknowledge the true purpose of this Indiana offensive.
He is being deceptive. Deliberately.
11
Interesting that this is playing out during Holy Week.
Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?
Will you strive for justice and peace among all people, and respect the dignity of every human being?
8
I for one would like to know which businesses are using their religious beliefs to discriminate because then I can avoid patronizing them!
6
I think the term is "freedom of religion." "Religious liberty" suggests you can do what you want, under its protection, even deny the rights of others. Religion, in the hands of mankind, has been, and will continue to be, the most destructive force on the planet.
11
The bakery is in Washington state.
The fine was $1,000.
The fine was $1,000.
11
The 'marriage is only between one man and one woman" principle espoused by the anti-gay marriage crowd and correctly attributable to Jesus in Matthew 19. However Jesus was replying to a question from the Pharisees (who were always trying to trap him in theological error) about divorce, In his reply, Jesus cited the Adam and Eve story from Genesis, pointing out that God married them for life. Not discussed by either the Pharisees or Jesus is that once there were a few more folks around, polygamy was an accepted practice, indulged in by Abraham, Jacob, King David etc. The only Biblical justification for divorce was fornication i.e. adultery on the part of a woman with someone not her husband. Jesus was being asked to expand the reasons for divorce, not to define marriage itself. In other words, anti-gay marriage laws, whether straightforwardly declarative or cloaked in the banner of religious freedom, rest on an out of context literalist interpretation of Jesus' words. Rather than base laws on such distortions, legislators would be far better served to remember the far more important of Jesus' words: Do unto others as you would have done unto you, versions of which can be found in all 4 Gospels, in Corinthians and several other places.
9
If bigotry and intolerance are so essential to religious belief and practice, count me an atheist.
14
Oh how we scream when our own ox is gored.
I have a simple measure which I apply to actions like that taken in Indiana. If I detect that it is a law passed by a triumphant and powerful majority to protect their own interests I give it no slack at all.
As to how this law might be applied instead of how it is expected to be applied, please stand by Mr. Brooks for a big disappointment. Nothing in this law says that it is limited to protecting bakers or photographers from servicing gay marriages.
If you pass a law that says it is OK to gun down your neighbor if you think he is attacking you then you will have endless claims of attack and endless gun battles in your neighborhoods.
This law insures there will be claims of religious infringement of one free and private citizen against another in literally thousands upon thousands of cases.
Much can be expected from a law that can just as easily permit a landlord to refuse to rent to a single mother or an unmarried heterosexual couple as well as to a gay married couple.
Yes indeed, David, it should all be good. Or legally rude if you will.
I have a simple measure which I apply to actions like that taken in Indiana. If I detect that it is a law passed by a triumphant and powerful majority to protect their own interests I give it no slack at all.
As to how this law might be applied instead of how it is expected to be applied, please stand by Mr. Brooks for a big disappointment. Nothing in this law says that it is limited to protecting bakers or photographers from servicing gay marriages.
If you pass a law that says it is OK to gun down your neighbor if you think he is attacking you then you will have endless claims of attack and endless gun battles in your neighborhoods.
This law insures there will be claims of religious infringement of one free and private citizen against another in literally thousands upon thousands of cases.
Much can be expected from a law that can just as easily permit a landlord to refuse to rent to a single mother or an unmarried heterosexual couple as well as to a gay married couple.
Yes indeed, David, it should all be good. Or legally rude if you will.
10
"establishment of religion" = "faith-based belief"
"exercise of religion" = "religious services"
Congress shall enact no faith-based principle into law, nor any law that categorically prohibits the conduct of religious services.
"exercise of religion" = "religious services"
Congress shall enact no faith-based principle into law, nor any law that categorically prohibits the conduct of religious services.
3
David Brooks cannot bring himself to acknowledge the irreconcilable contradiction between true religion and open society. You can look at this contradiction sympathetically - we do look at the behavior of the fanatics that way as long as they're not Muslims - but "all getting along" is antithetical to the non-negotiable premises of any properly so-called religion.
So now Indiana hotels will be full of hererosexual couples pretending they are married, and gay couples pretending they are not....
So now Indiana hotels will be full of hererosexual couples pretending they are married, and gay couples pretending they are not....
5
It would be great to see someone open a chain of stores and use this statute to refuse to serve religious people!
5
"Morality is a politeness of the soul" has got to be the most spiritually barren sentence ever put to paper.
23
"The ways of the Lord are mysterious"? Perhaps, but the ways of human beings are much less so. If you feed people propaganda that they have a direct line to the creator of the universe and that they can secure a smooth passage to an eternal wonderland by strict adherence to received wisdom, and frighten them against ever doubting or rejecting this philosophy, then you habituate them toward a smugness and superiority that if not checked can only lead to an intolerant discriminatory attitude toward those not similarly inclined. "Religious Liberty," as I understand the phrase, is about being able to believe anything you wish, NOT being able to act however you wish and adversely affect other people's lives with impunity. If that is what your religion commands you to do, or at least allows you to do, then your religion is worth nothing. Before the issue of same-sex marriage gained traction nationally, do you think the good people of Indiana worried about their level of religious freedom? I dare say they did not. I dare say they were quite content with it. Only when it seemed inevitable that the LGBT community was making inroads toward securing a basic human right everyone else takes for granted (a legally and socially accepted union with the partner of their choice), was concern raised that there might not be enough safeguards for the devout.
10
Jesus didn't castigate prostitutes. He dined with them.
13
"We shouldn't just allow gay marriage. We should insist on gay marriage."
---David Brooks, 2003.
It sounds a little absolutist, but I miss that David Brooks. The new David Brooks could learn a thing or two from him.
---David Brooks, 2003.
It sounds a little absolutist, but I miss that David Brooks. The new David Brooks could learn a thing or two from him.
8
So it's OK to deny service to African-Americans if the denial is based on sincere religious belief?
8
Granted, the op-ed pages of any newspaper should encourage a diversity of views.
But, a defense of bigotry?
Shame on the New York Times and Mr. Brooks who think we should cloak bigotry under the guise of "religious tolerance."
But, a defense of bigotry?
Shame on the New York Times and Mr. Brooks who think we should cloak bigotry under the guise of "religious tolerance."
10
Mr. Brooks, do you seriously mean that if anti-semitism is my deeply held religious conviction, that it's OK with you for me to discriminate?
Because it sound like you, in this column, are making that point.
A point, by the way, with which I completely disagree. On both civil and religious grounds.
Because it sound like you, in this column, are making that point.
A point, by the way, with which I completely disagree. On both civil and religious grounds.
7
This new law is nothing more than Gov. Pence laying the ground work for his presidential aspirations. Jeb supports it too. It is about currying favor from the rightest wing of the republican party.
It is disgusting to see David Brooks defend it in any way. Disgusted, but not surprised.
It is disgusting to see David Brooks defend it in any way. Disgusted, but not surprised.
15
There is no balance...practice your religion, but keep it to yourself. What would be absolutely hilarious if it weren't so sad, is that Christians who believe they have the right to discriminate and want it codified into civil law, don't see how they are creating the equivalence of the Sharia law they supposedly hate. Your freedom of religion does not trump my freedom from your religion dogma.
18
I'm sorry Mr. Brooks, but if you work in the public sector, you do not have the right selectively discriminate. Unless you are operating a business with explicitly religious ties, e.g., a church business, you must serve all the people, and you deserve to be sued if you refuse based on people you don't like. . for any reason.
11
I realize the new conservative angle is to pretend that Indiana's law is no broader than the federal law and to call anyone who opposes it a liberal religious bigot or know-nothing, but Mr. Brooks you do yourself and your own intellect a disservice by just being the conservative mouthpiece on this issue. You know very well that the point of the law is to allow active discrimination. As several readers have mentioned, substitute gay for Black, Jew, Muslim, or even Christian, and I am sure you would have a different reaction. Can any restaurant deny service because a mixed race couple walks in and it is a sincerely held belief that mixing races is "against God's plan"? Should a bank be able to refuse to open an account for a muslim person? I think you and others realize you are being silly. No cloak of state's rights or fundamental beliefs will save from the open bigotry.
7
Religious liberty has always meant to me that a person has the freedom to choose the religion they want to believe in and to go to the place of worship of their choosing without fear of retribution or tyranny. Religious liberty should never be used for the justification for bigotry.
Some argue that they need to protect their faith. If you need a law to discriminate against others because they do not believe as you do then your faith cannot be strong.
Mr. Brooks argues that the gay rights movement needs to respect others who disagree with their lifestyle. But respect is a two way street. If you respect and do unto others as you would have them do unto you then you will gain respect back tenfold.
Some argue that they need to protect their faith. If you need a law to discriminate against others because they do not believe as you do then your faith cannot be strong.
Mr. Brooks argues that the gay rights movement needs to respect others who disagree with their lifestyle. But respect is a two way street. If you respect and do unto others as you would have them do unto you then you will gain respect back tenfold.
4
Never thought I would say this but Brooks is either a bigot or an idiot. Religious tolerance is one this. On religious grounds one can oppose Gay marriage, even hate Gays. You can say or, write about your opposition. What you cannot do is discriminate against Gay people in the market place.
Religious was used to discriminate or worst justify the enslaving of Blacks, and the discrimination against Catholics and Jews.
The United States is probably the most tolerant country in the Western World when it comes to religious practice. Using religion to be a bigot does not make you any less a bigot.
Religious was used to discriminate or worst justify the enslaving of Blacks, and the discrimination against Catholics and Jews.
The United States is probably the most tolerant country in the Western World when it comes to religious practice. Using religion to be a bigot does not make you any less a bigot.
11
I am surprised and saddened by the support Mr Brooks offers the bigots of Indiana. He believes that we're back to the 1940's where it was ok to post signs in hotels that required Jews to find other accommodations just because they were Jews. Why, Antisemitism was a permitted form of discrimination. The Indiana law is no different. It isn't about religious belief....in a country where religion & government are supposed to be separate...it specifically permits acts of hate so long as it's motivated by the haters religion. Companies that operate in the public arena are for the use of 'the public'. No more separate water fountains or lunch counters, no more sitting in the back of the bus...What does Mr Brooks believe was the real purpose of this legislation? It's clear to me...the purpose was to permit businesses to practice discrimination.
8
Really the equivalent case would be can an evangelical photographer or baker refuse to cater a black or Jewish wedding? Can they? I never thought of it. But, as Jew, believe it or not I would say fine, live and let live. I'll find another photographer.
I believe you can't force people to like you. You can't legislate people to like you. And if business suffers, well, often helps people to - grudgingly - like you. I agree with Brooks here.
I believe you can't force people to like you. You can't legislate people to like you. And if business suffers, well, often helps people to - grudgingly - like you. I agree with Brooks here.
2
"In the Jewish community, conservative Jews are generally polite toward Orthodox Jews who wouldn’t use their cutlery. Men are generally polite to Orthodox women who would prefer not to shake their hands. In the larger community, this respectful politeness works best."
Many conservative Jews are antigay. I wouldn't call them roll models.
Many conservative Jews are antigay. I wouldn't call them roll models.
4
Mr. Brooks your defense of the indefensible shows you to be a common bigot.
10
No bakery would be allowed to refuse to bake a cake for two atheists, for a black man and a white woman, or for a man and woman on their second marriage, no matter what their religious beliefs. And in fact, most orthodox Christian bakers would happily be willing to serve interracial, non-Christian, and divorced couples.
So why is it that Brooks and many orthodox Christians want a double standard for homosexuality? Let's face it: the difference with homosexuality is that you find it personally unsettling, much the way many people felt about interracial marriage 60 years ago. And just like interracial marriage, you're entitled to your personal belief, but if you want to participate in America's secular free market, you'll just need to get over it.
So why is it that Brooks and many orthodox Christians want a double standard for homosexuality? Let's face it: the difference with homosexuality is that you find it personally unsettling, much the way many people felt about interracial marriage 60 years ago. And just like interracial marriage, you're entitled to your personal belief, but if you want to participate in America's secular free market, you'll just need to get over it.
15
Once again Brooks gets it wrong. Freedom of religion began in this country so the state would not favor one religion over another, and to allow people to worship according to their beliefs. Freedom of religion does not mean a shopkeeper can discriminate against a class of people they disagree with, or against a color of skin they don’t like, or a gender they don’t respect.
If a person provides goods or services to the public, it means everyone; they don’t get to pick and choose. If the person providing these goods or service believes they have a license to discriminate, they are wrong, and should seek a livelihood that doesn’t involve the public, and not depend on a misguided law to give them cover.
If a person provides goods or services to the public, it means everyone; they don’t get to pick and choose. If the person providing these goods or service believes they have a license to discriminate, they are wrong, and should seek a livelihood that doesn’t involve the public, and not depend on a misguided law to give them cover.
5
I cannot discern from this muddled essay whether David Brooks is truly confused by the language and intent of the Indiana law, or whether he is merely “doing his job” which is to put a somewhat affable and sincere spin on the dark and reactionary side of American culture. Either way, the purported “burdens on religion” that this law supposedly corrects are pure nonsense. Give me ONE SINGLE example where the government has closed a church, burned a prayer book, imprisoned a minister or priest, taxed a religious community for the provision of public services, or in any manner “burdened” any religion so that its followers cannot worship as they choose. One’s religious beliefs cannot be used as a sword as well as a shield to act however one pleases irrespective of our nation’s laws as well as fundamental human decency.
138
I disagree with the arguments put forward by this columnist. Anyone engaged in a PUBLIC SERVICE PROFESSION should NOT be allowed to "opt out" of serving someone whom they view as undesirable of their services. No one is forced into the public service sector. I do not support forced integration of wholly private institutions both secular and religious. However, if I decide to be a baker of wedding cakes and advertise my services accordingly then I should not be allowed to pick and choose my clientele. What's the difference from saying that one "prefers not to" bake a cake for a same-sex wedding or choosing not to bake a cake for an African-American one? So-called "religious reasoning" can be found as an EXCUSE for all sorts of intolerance, bigotry and homophobia. IF one is a baker of wedding cakes then that person should be compelled to provide that service IMPARTIALLY. IF they feel that they might go straight to hell as a result of making a wedding cake for same-sex couples or African-American ones or Jewish ones or whomever else then they'd better close up shop and find another line of work because they're in the wrong profession.
10
David is skipping the point where the Indiana RIFRA is different than all the other RIFRA laws. The previous laws failed to rule for the Christian Photographers and bakers because there was no government interest shown. The ALEC crafted Indiana version was amended to remove the need to show government interest, tipping the balance in favor of the refusers of service.
13
I am sorry, Mr. Brooks, but supporting religious freedom to allow religious people to discriminate against others is NOT ok.
14
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...". What is religious about baking a cake or taking a photograph? There does not appear to be establishing or prohibiting of religion. Secular acts, e.g.; car washing ,setting a broken leg, giving legal advice, teaching reading,writing, and arithmetic, etc.,are not religious acts.Even if done inside a church! Give to Caesar that which is Caesar's and to God that which is God's.
5
As a liberal (gay) Democrat, I sometimes agree with David Brooks. BUT this time, he has really shown breath taking ignorance and privileged white male POV. Would he make the same statements if he was talking about African Americans? Are gays getting "uppity" because we demand the same treatment as anyone else in a civil society? How does baking a cake or taking a photo infringe on one's religious freedom? I spent many years in the work force and a large part of it was having do deal with people I would not associate with on a PERSONAL basis. But in the public sector, we are here to SERVE ALL. Even if we think they are "icky" and hurt one's religious fee-fees.
8
David politeness is not in the mindset of these ambitious politicians and their fanatic religious base. It's their way or the highway about all things. Consideration? Compassion? Compromise? these are the "C" words they don't intends to use against all those 'evil" enemies. Its very much like the ISIS mindset ,you think and act the way we do or else! We are doing this for God.
4
The detailed differences between the federal law of 1993 and the Indiana law of 2015 I'll leave to lawyers. But if there is no legal difference, why was a new law needed in Indiana? Many Americans pay little attention to laws until they come up against them. People under thirty, or even older, may not be aware of the federal statute. The climate has indeed changed since 1993, not least in the GOP’s rampage against women’s reproductive rights, voting rights, and gay bashing. Why should we take Pence at his word that, ah shucks, we’ll be nice to everyone?
Otherwise, it’s clear that we’re in another election season. David Brooks outdoes himself in shifting the terms of the debate. He describes the protests against Pence law “as a clash in of values… between religious pluralism and equality.” What religious pluralism? Un-American establishment of religious hegemony is what we’re witnessing. Brooks should be ashamed of shilling for that process.
Otherwise, it’s clear that we’re in another election season. David Brooks outdoes himself in shifting the terms of the debate. He describes the protests against Pence law “as a clash in of values… between religious pluralism and equality.” What religious pluralism? Un-American establishment of religious hegemony is what we’re witnessing. Brooks should be ashamed of shilling for that process.
10
Let's just cut to the chase, WHO REALLY OWNS THE BUSINESS and sets the rules, YOU the owner or THE GOVERNMENT the controller? Who actually owns and controls the business in a Free society, you or the Government? Who is the business designed to serve in a free society, you or the government? When the government runs things we always lose money to the assaults of emotion, soon followed by the similar loss of freedoms of our society.
Do you seek a Freedom of speech and worship that sometimes allows foolish people to get their prejudices exposed and corrected, or a situation where the stupid ideas just get hidden within the human psyche, never to be spoken, revealed, challenged or corrected? The truths that set men free in a free society must always be exposed to the light of day in debate. Shut down the debate, restrict the freedoms and what is left is a sick twisted society run by timid mind manipulated and mind twisted men of failure, too frightened to challenge let alone expose the destructive things done to others in the darkness, and to themselves at a subliminal psychological level.
Do you seek a Freedom of speech and worship that sometimes allows foolish people to get their prejudices exposed and corrected, or a situation where the stupid ideas just get hidden within the human psyche, never to be spoken, revealed, challenged or corrected? The truths that set men free in a free society must always be exposed to the light of day in debate. Shut down the debate, restrict the freedoms and what is left is a sick twisted society run by timid mind manipulated and mind twisted men of failure, too frightened to challenge let alone expose the destructive things done to others in the darkness, and to themselves at a subliminal psychological level.
1
While a religion might condemn homosexuality or same-sex marriage, is there a religion which condemns providing SERVICES to homosexuals and same-sex marriage partners? Is not a person's refusal to provide SERVICES to such persons actually a matter of personal objection rather than religious prohibition? So aren't statutes like Indiana's simply legalized discrimination?
6
Here is the simplest fix. Businesses ARE NOT people. Free speech IS NOT money. Businesses, by definition, CAN NOT practice a religion because....here it comes....they ARE NOT people. They do not have free speech, because....they ARE NOT people.
If this ridiculous notion had never been established, none of these things would be a problem. A business owner IS free to practice DOES NOT have that right, as it IS NOT a person.
See how easy this is when you don't have insane definitions of things. It does not matter how they try to spin this away, as long as they insist on calling businesses 'people', there will ALWAYS be problems, because that foundation is so logically flawed....no wonder the rest of the world laughs at us!
If this ridiculous notion had never been established, none of these things would be a problem. A business owner IS free to practice DOES NOT have that right, as it IS NOT a person.
See how easy this is when you don't have insane definitions of things. It does not matter how they try to spin this away, as long as they insist on calling businesses 'people', there will ALWAYS be problems, because that foundation is so logically flawed....no wonder the rest of the world laughs at us!
4
What is the "religious" basis of not being willing to serve a potential client who happens to be homosexual? One cannot point to "the Bible" or "the Koran"...what is the SPECIFIC prohibition against such a thing and HOW is it linked to a "religious" objection? The "religious" community picks and chooses which words from what supposed-divine sources to follow and which not to follow because of archaic origins. IT"S ALL ARCHAIC! REligion is just not a proper basis for discrimination....unless something absolutely critical to a person's "religious" observance is involved...like being forced to ingest something or perform a physical act on another person..something tangible, something actually involving a "religious" belief...not just avoiding selling a cake or washing a car or whatever. IT's discrimination pure and simple.
2
The history of the United States is one in which we honor people who don't "accommodate" the discrimination they face, but upend their lives in an attempt to challenge their discrimination by raising public awareness of injustice. When Mr. Brooks writes that "there are too many stories like the Oregon bakery..." as a sign that the those who suffer the discrimination are the ones who are being intolerant, he is demonstrating a blindness previously found among those we would say, today, stood on the wrong side of history.
5
Well, if the bakery wants to live by this conviction, God help them if they serve one whom The Lord deems unworthy.
This call for "politeness" was (and is) derided as "political correctness" and a threat to all America stands for when it was sought for minorities. We white people are a sensitive lot.
2
The issue is a simple matter of "public accommodations." No one's forcing anyone to forego their religious beliefs. It's a choice - if you choose to hold yourself out as a provider of goods or services to the public (i.e., a place of public accommodations), then you must do so without discrimination. If you don't feel comfortable providing goods or services to all members of the public, then find another profession.
7
Leaving the elementary-school-level pablum about "politeness" aside, Mr. Brooks' piece also tries to make its point (whatever that may be) relying on a few factual misstatements" that one would think a respected columnist for the New York Times would at least try to fact-check.
First, "Claims of religious liberty are covers for anti-gay bigotry." -As Mr. Brooks would have found out if he had dome a bit of research, this position is precisely what many of the Indiana RFRA's claim, and have vowed to fight ANY modification of the bill to include non-discrimanation provisions.
Second, "Indiana has passed a state law like the 1993 federal act" - no, not really: Indiana's bill is significantly different: again, Brooks has failed to Read The Whole Thing.
Third: "There are too many stories like the Oregon bakery that may have to pay a $150,000 fine": really, David? HOW many? (the actual number of cases, to date, is probably more like a dozen, and that Oregon case, hasn't, in fact, been finalized, but never mind)
Maybe David Brooks would like to go back to the era when travel choices for people like his (or my) grandparents were limited (does the phase "restricted" ring any historical bells?) due to the "religious liberties" of hotel-keepers?
First, "Claims of religious liberty are covers for anti-gay bigotry." -As Mr. Brooks would have found out if he had dome a bit of research, this position is precisely what many of the Indiana RFRA's claim, and have vowed to fight ANY modification of the bill to include non-discrimanation provisions.
Second, "Indiana has passed a state law like the 1993 federal act" - no, not really: Indiana's bill is significantly different: again, Brooks has failed to Read The Whole Thing.
Third: "There are too many stories like the Oregon bakery that may have to pay a $150,000 fine": really, David? HOW many? (the actual number of cases, to date, is probably more like a dozen, and that Oregon case, hasn't, in fact, been finalized, but never mind)
Maybe David Brooks would like to go back to the era when travel choices for people like his (or my) grandparents were limited (does the phase "restricted" ring any historical bells?) due to the "religious liberties" of hotel-keepers?
8
I'm disappointed that such drivel is allowed amplification in the New York Times.
In Mr. Brooks world view, there's equivalence, for example, between the Jim Crow laws (you know, actual laws) and the diner sit-ins meant to protest those laws.
There is a fundamental difference between passing laws that safeguard actual discrimination against an entire class of people and protesting those laws. And if Mr. Brooks doesn't have the capacity to understand that difference, then the New York Times should be embarrassed that he's on their payroll.
There is not equivalence between the gay movement (seeking to gain basic rights of participation in our civil society) and the anti-gay movement (seeking to bar civil participation through the force of law).
Shame on Mr. Brooks for pandering to bigots while trying to maintain a grasp on his fantasy of being a centrist. He's not. Apologists for bigotry are bigots.
In Mr. Brooks world view, there's equivalence, for example, between the Jim Crow laws (you know, actual laws) and the diner sit-ins meant to protest those laws.
There is a fundamental difference between passing laws that safeguard actual discrimination against an entire class of people and protesting those laws. And if Mr. Brooks doesn't have the capacity to understand that difference, then the New York Times should be embarrassed that he's on their payroll.
There is not equivalence between the gay movement (seeking to gain basic rights of participation in our civil society) and the anti-gay movement (seeking to bar civil participation through the force of law).
Shame on Mr. Brooks for pandering to bigots while trying to maintain a grasp on his fantasy of being a centrist. He's not. Apologists for bigotry are bigots.
16
This type of law is unnecessary. If the baker does not want to make a cake, then he is hurting himself. And there are other bakers too. We are a nation of laws and we have more than enough lawyers. We do not need anymore laws to tell us the basic difference between right and wrong.
1
Mr. Brooks. As usual your opinion is facially moderate and well reasoned. It, however, avoids the obvious -- a little like the voting suppression laws. Where is the problem that needs a solution? Not only do we have the federal statute (which you don't represent correctly), but we have the Constitution, to provide the necessary protection. And I am not aware of a single, let alone a pattern, of situations that give rise for a need for this legislation. So when something like this comes out of a very conservative constituency, its true purpose is revealed. It is to discriminate, and it is to appease intolerance sanctioned by government. You should know the difference, yet you pretend otherwise.
10
Pence gives a fine example of the difference between liberty and license.
3
Tolerance of religious intolerance in the public square is public intolerance, and most tolerant people are intolerant of such intolerance.
12
The main point is that if someone is engaged in a business, a place of public accommodation, than that person/business must be governed by the same laws as everyone else. Tell me how selling anyone a pair of shoes infringes on religious liberty!
12
This a reactionary movement that, terrified of the swing toward equality, is trying to enshrine discrimination in law, before it's too late. And despite Mr. Brooks protestations, it absolutely is because this RFRA is different than the federal law, and other state laws. It was written to specifically avoid the parts that are being litigated in courts that would prevent it from being used as a license to discriminate.
RFRA was created to protect majorities from creating generally applicable laws that had the affect of discriminating against minorities (e.g., outlawing killing cattle without first stunning them, which would prohibit kosher/halal meat), not to allow majorities to discriminate against minorities in spite of anti-discrimination laws to the contrary.
RFRA was created to protect majorities from creating generally applicable laws that had the affect of discriminating against minorities (e.g., outlawing killing cattle without first stunning them, which would prohibit kosher/halal meat), not to allow majorities to discriminate against minorities in spite of anti-discrimination laws to the contrary.
4
It is unclear to me what the Indiana Act intends to accomplish. I would suggest that many, if not most religions at their core violate the human rights of females because most religions are patriarchal. Many conservative religions believe in corporal punishment and corporal punishment violates the rights of children. Today, in Boston, defenders of the younger Boston Marathon bomber attribute his participation in the crime to the influence of his older radical Islamist brother. All religious based bigotry is handed down by elder to younger and what one person sees as bigotry, another labels "teaching." I've read Thomas Jefferson worried about so-called persecuted Puritans who fled European liberalism so Puritan leaders could have the freedom to discipline their people in stocks in the public squares of the New World. Shame and abuse spring from many religious teachings. The same conservative religious person who might be prohibited from denying service to same sex couples would probably still have the right to punish an homosexual child, a raped daughter or an intellectually curious child without any other seeming ungodly blemish. Anyone care?
4
Denial of service because of sexual identification is something that should not be acceptable, legally, morally nor out of politeness.
8
The examples Mr. Brooks uses to support his assertion that "if there is no attempt to balance religious liberty and civil rights, the cause of gay rights will be associated with coercion, not liberation" show the weakness in his position. Come on, Mr. Brooks: take any one of those three examples and mentally substitute "Jewish" or "bi-racial" or "muslim", and I think you'd see pretty quickly why Oregon bakeries and wedding photographers should in fact be forced by law not to discriminate, if force is needed, as it apparently still is. Indeed, legal force must be brought to bear just as long as people like Mr. Brooks seem to think the case of gay unions and gay and trans rights is somehow different from these others. The proposed dichotomy between liberation and coercion is vacuous when it comes to civil liberties, which I don't think anyone has ever thought were gained without finally winning the force of law to back them.
10
If a small business doesn't want to do business with a particular group or individual, quote them a ten-fold price and watch walk out door. It is simply as that.
1
I still believe in the separation of church and state. Religion has no place in the public square. Period.
15
I think it is the job of society and the government to protect people from bullies and bigots.
Even if some people feel that their religion justifies their bigotry.
Even if some people feel that their religion justifies their bigotry.
12
My objection is not to religious belief, but rather to the reliance upon religious belief to justify discriminatory behavior. The Indiana law can also grant individuals the right to discriminate against racial and religious minorities, and probably women, too, on faith-based grounds. God help us all.
18
Brooks misses the point about respect and the law. As others have pointed out, the legal equivalent would be refusing to serve an interracial couple because of religious belief. As far as "politeness" goes (I'm not sure that is the right word), evangelicals don't have to worry about hordes of gay people showing up at their shops, as most people select businesses they feel comfortable with (just as most Jews won't go to the florist with the big cross in the window, etc.). Will they occasionally have to serve someone they don't like? Sure, just like everyone. What is not tolerable or "polite" is inscribing the ability to discriminate into law.
9
Sorry, Mr. Brooks, but your argument comes down to "Gay rights supporters shouldn't be mean and point out the bigotry of Indiana's law because that will make them seem uncharitable and will cause religious conservatives to become even more intolerant."
There is no religious basis to refuse to serve customers in a business that is open to the public. None.
There is no religious basis to refuse to serve customers in a business that is open to the public. None.
18
As usual, Mr. Brooks tries to come down on all sides so as not to offend anyone. The intent of this law is clear--to allow conservative Christians to engage in discriminatory behavior. There is no way to put another spin on this, though Mr. Brooks tries mightily. There is a reason that Congress has passed many anti-discrimination laws, such as the Civil Rights legislation of the 1960s. Polite engagement might work with neighbors (sometimes), but it does not work in the larger political, social arena.
11
Do these same "Religious Businesses" also refuse service to Second Marriages after divorce? Third Marriages? How about Weddings where the couple has lived in sin previously? The answer, of course, is that they do not. If they were to actually only provide services to "Holy Couples" they would go out of business.
16
Mr Brooks, as is too often the case in the pages of the NY Times, you have not done any research into the law to justify your position. Tragic for you and a disservice to the readers of this paper.
"Some people have lost their jobs for expressing opposition to gay marriage."
And with this law, they will continue to do so because while the text of the law extends religious protections to profit-seeking businesses,which itself seems to bestow spirituality onto a faceless corporate entity, the law specifically exempts all employees.
"Sec. 11. This chapter is not intended to, and shall not be construed or interpreted to, create a claim or private cause of action against any private employer by any applicant, employee, or former employee."
My word you don't even have a basic understanding of what is happening here, so why are you spouting off an opinion that is demonstrable not backed by such inconvenient things as the actual text of the law. "Job creators" have become religiously enlighten beings with a power to use their religion to compel their employees without recourse.
"Some people have lost their jobs for expressing opposition to gay marriage."
And with this law, they will continue to do so because while the text of the law extends religious protections to profit-seeking businesses,which itself seems to bestow spirituality onto a faceless corporate entity, the law specifically exempts all employees.
"Sec. 11. This chapter is not intended to, and shall not be construed or interpreted to, create a claim or private cause of action against any private employer by any applicant, employee, or former employee."
My word you don't even have a basic understanding of what is happening here, so why are you spouting off an opinion that is demonstrable not backed by such inconvenient things as the actual text of the law. "Job creators" have become religiously enlighten beings with a power to use their religion to compel their employees without recourse.
11
Your readers are taking you to school you on this mainly regarding the importance of separating church and state in the public realm. That should an absolute, for which very few exceptions are granted, such as sticking in God into the national anthem sung in a public place, and even then, it's any god you want and nothing comes of it in the moment at hand. A discriminatory business open to the public is another matter entirely. This is because of the "slippery slope" problem. Once you allow such uncertain ground, it goes right out from under you. Religion is a terrible basis, right up there with race and ethnicity and (until recently) sexual preference, for practice of discrimination in workplaces and in service settings open to the public. You are soft-headed to think "respectful politeness" - sweet reason, proportion, good will, temperance, and other civilized forms of intercourse - can be practiced without the police powers of the state to protect us (the public) from prejudice, meanness, predatory and exploitative behavior.
8
This is simple. Religion belongs in church, in the home, in the heart. Not in government or business.
If the baker can refuse to provide a cake to homosexuals, why not to blacks or Jews? And if the baker can refuse to provide a cake, then can he put up a sign in his window that says gays (or blacks or Jews) are not welcome in his store?
And if a baker can do that, why not a gas station, grocery, restaurant or motel? And what if it is the only gas station, grocery, restaurant or motel around? Do those being discriminated against simply go without?
And if the baker can refuse service to those he dislikes then can he go to his government and demand official separation from those he dislikes? And, if that, can he simply ask that they somehow be done away with?
This was all settled long ago in the wake of WWII and Selma but we have a retrograde vocal minority in this country that is determined to turn back the clock and undo what most of view as the progress of the 20th century.
Make no mistake about it. No matter how David white washes this the Indiana law is about giving conservative Christians the right to discriminate against those they dislike. And they won't stop there. Because their ultimate goal is to impose their views on others. And perhaps be rid of those different from them.
We've seen it all before and its folks like David who see no big deal in the small discriminations who allow it to happen.
If the baker can refuse to provide a cake to homosexuals, why not to blacks or Jews? And if the baker can refuse to provide a cake, then can he put up a sign in his window that says gays (or blacks or Jews) are not welcome in his store?
And if a baker can do that, why not a gas station, grocery, restaurant or motel? And what if it is the only gas station, grocery, restaurant or motel around? Do those being discriminated against simply go without?
And if the baker can refuse service to those he dislikes then can he go to his government and demand official separation from those he dislikes? And, if that, can he simply ask that they somehow be done away with?
This was all settled long ago in the wake of WWII and Selma but we have a retrograde vocal minority in this country that is determined to turn back the clock and undo what most of view as the progress of the 20th century.
Make no mistake about it. No matter how David white washes this the Indiana law is about giving conservative Christians the right to discriminate against those they dislike. And they won't stop there. Because their ultimate goal is to impose their views on others. And perhaps be rid of those different from them.
We've seen it all before and its folks like David who see no big deal in the small discriminations who allow it to happen.
12
A dismaying defense of bigotry. But what got me was this:
If orthodox Christians are suddenly written out of polite society as modern-day Bull Connors, this would only halt progress, polarize the debate and lead to a bloody war of all against all.
Hate to tell you David, but it is the right-wing with its overwhelming wealth and media concentration that is polarizing the nation. They regularly use polarization and identity politics to confuse, misinform and re-write history (as they are clearly doing here). Sorry Dave, train of right-wing intolerance left the station a long time ago, helped along by commentators like you.
If orthodox Christians are suddenly written out of polite society as modern-day Bull Connors, this would only halt progress, polarize the debate and lead to a bloody war of all against all.
Hate to tell you David, but it is the right-wing with its overwhelming wealth and media concentration that is polarizing the nation. They regularly use polarization and identity politics to confuse, misinform and re-write history (as they are clearly doing here). Sorry Dave, train of right-wing intolerance left the station a long time ago, helped along by commentators like you.
18
Mr. Brooks, respectful politeness is very important in personal encounters and relationships, but the issue at hand is commercial establishments and access to services. I do not have to associate with people whose beliefs I do not share, but I cannot "lock them out" of my business because of those beliefs. That is not respectful politeness...that is the very opposite...rude, bigoted, and not good for our communities.
13
Mr. Brooks:
another lecture---again: too narrowly drawn.
the Oregon case is about a public business denying goods and services to fellow citizens who "did" nothing illegal in seeking that business' trade...they were denied participation by the business for "who" they are...in a public setting, this is clearly unacceptable in the 21st Century...the proprietors of the business need to either go private or serve "everyone".
or find another line of work.
as to Indiana:
i have not read or reviewed a copy of the "law"; but, last evening, the leaders of the Indiana legislature were telling the Press that they were going to add "explanatory" language to "clarify" the "practical-implementation" of the law just signed by the Governor---who did not seem to be able to discuss the law's potential-for-harm in any way (did he read it?).
such "clarifications" said to ward-off any discriminatory behaviors.
additionally, the first, loudest, and most persistent media statements calling the new Indiana law into question were from the business community...not the typical rabble-rousers in matters such as this.
toleration of another person's "religious-beliefs" is a necessary component of a civilized community....allowing any "religious-belief's-practice-or-action" that infringes on another person's lawful activities is equally unacceptable.
finally, in the concluding paragraph, while "religious pluralism" (whatever that is) may have conflicting "values" , equality surely does not.
another lecture---again: too narrowly drawn.
the Oregon case is about a public business denying goods and services to fellow citizens who "did" nothing illegal in seeking that business' trade...they were denied participation by the business for "who" they are...in a public setting, this is clearly unacceptable in the 21st Century...the proprietors of the business need to either go private or serve "everyone".
or find another line of work.
as to Indiana:
i have not read or reviewed a copy of the "law"; but, last evening, the leaders of the Indiana legislature were telling the Press that they were going to add "explanatory" language to "clarify" the "practical-implementation" of the law just signed by the Governor---who did not seem to be able to discuss the law's potential-for-harm in any way (did he read it?).
such "clarifications" said to ward-off any discriminatory behaviors.
additionally, the first, loudest, and most persistent media statements calling the new Indiana law into question were from the business community...not the typical rabble-rousers in matters such as this.
toleration of another person's "religious-beliefs" is a necessary component of a civilized community....allowing any "religious-belief's-practice-or-action" that infringes on another person's lawful activities is equally unacceptable.
finally, in the concluding paragraph, while "religious pluralism" (whatever that is) may have conflicting "values" , equality surely does not.
7
Then-state Sen. Barack Obama signed a Religious Freedom Restoration Act law in Illinois -- that passed the heavily Democratic Illinois Senate unanimously. RFRA laws exist in 20 states, and the federal government has a similar provision, signed into law by Bill Clinton.
Until those wailing and gnashing teeth over the Indiana law get a clue what they are talking about, I don't see the purpose of engaging with them.
P.S. None of this would be necessary if the people who sued wedding cake-bakers and photographers had simply moved on to another vendor. In other words, had some consideration for their neighbor's religious conscience. Oh, no, forget that! Society's a better place if we instead brand them bigots and haters! To the torches!
Until those wailing and gnashing teeth over the Indiana law get a clue what they are talking about, I don't see the purpose of engaging with them.
P.S. None of this would be necessary if the people who sued wedding cake-bakers and photographers had simply moved on to another vendor. In other words, had some consideration for their neighbor's religious conscience. Oh, no, forget that! Society's a better place if we instead brand them bigots and haters! To the torches!
38
When a member of the clergy presides over a marriage they are exercising a power of the State! When they sign that marriage license they are a duly empowered agent of the State. The legal binding of the couple is by operation of the law not the particular religious group to which the cleric belongs. If the clergy does not wish to be an agent of the state, fine but you better not usurp the powers of the state by singing that marriage license! You can do all the mumbo jumbo religious schtick till the cows come home,but the state cannot discriminate! Nor its agents.
4
I've often found it instructive to replace the words "same-sex marriage" with "mixed-race marriage" to help straight people like Mr Brooks better understand how their words sound to those who actually face the discrimination he bemoans us to tolerate.
So in the words of Mr Brooks, "There are too many stories like the Oregon bakery that may have to pay a $150,000 fine because it preferred not to bake a wedding cake for a [mixed-race] ceremony. A movement that stands for tolerance does not want to be on the side of a government that compels a photographer who is an evangelical Christian to shoot a [mixed-race] wedding that he would rather avoid."
So in the words of Mr Brooks, "There are too many stories like the Oregon bakery that may have to pay a $150,000 fine because it preferred not to bake a wedding cake for a [mixed-race] ceremony. A movement that stands for tolerance does not want to be on the side of a government that compels a photographer who is an evangelical Christian to shoot a [mixed-race] wedding that he would rather avoid."
7
But religious pluralism isn't at stake. Nowhere in scripture is it said that people of faith must avoid or refuse service to people they happen to feel are sinners. Indeed, my reading of Gospel says just the opposite. Following the teachings of the Redeemer, all people of faith ought to be going out of their way to help gays and lesbians. That is His second great commandment.
7
Don't think too hard. If this were about protecting religious minorities, they would be loudly supporting the law. Seems to me it's the majority christians who have spoken out in favor. (After all we've been "forcing" them to do sinful things for a long time, such as treating everyone the way JC would). That tells me what I need to know.
7
What can I say that hasn't already been said by the wise commenters below?
Mr. Brooks consistently defends the politics of respectability, defends the status quo, and advocates for a snail's pace of change, lest those who have traditionally been in positions of power be offended.
All are entitled to believe what they want, just don't rub my nose in it in public.
Mr. Brooks consistently defends the politics of respectability, defends the status quo, and advocates for a snail's pace of change, lest those who have traditionally been in positions of power be offended.
All are entitled to believe what they want, just don't rub my nose in it in public.
6
What if a religion condones multiple wives, or says blacks are inferior, or that live animal sacrifices are required? Should we impose those beliefs on general society? This is a shameful article.
11
Does Mr Brooks believe that the 1964 Civil Rights Act would have had better results if those opposed to "race-mixing" were allowed to do as they pleased?
It's invariably the most privileged people who are so comfortable with gradualism.
It's invariably the most privileged people who are so comfortable with gradualism.
13
If you open a business that serves the public, that means you're obligated to serve all of the public. We've gotten past the days when blacks were denied service because of their race. Why should it be any different for gays? One is of course free to practice his/her religious faith in any manner one pleases to do so, short of infringing on others' beliefs or rights under the law, but operating a public business carries with it an obligation to be non discriminatory, which has to take precedence over one's personal beliefs.
5
I am a solid progressive and gay democrat who reads and respects David Brooks columns when published. He has a valid point of view which I consider each time I take a position. However, in this column he talked about people who lost their job due to objection to gay marriage or who paid a huge fine for refusing to service gays. What he failed to do is talk about the numerous examples about how openly gay members have lost their jobs as a result of the overturn of the defense of gay marriage act. Look at Bruni's columns about example after example of teachers and staff at catholic schools or dioceses who have push their gay employees out the door after years of dedicated service.
7
Thomas Jefferson made it clear in his letter to the Danbury Baptists that man has a natural right to believe what he wants about God. That includes opinions, faith, worship, and conscience - not actions. Actions, he said, were covered under the legitimate powers of government, not natural rights. That is how he explained the separation of Church and State.
7
I don't agree our nation was founded on "religious tolerance". The colonies were divided based upon religious intolerance. Each wanted its own little theocracy and didn't want a federal government to be captured by any one sect. They were perfectly happy to be intolerant of other's religious views. About the only thing they agreed upon was their hate of atheists. That's why the "founding father's" gave up so much to the religionists and today we are stuck with some pretty crazy religions (scientology and mormonism come immediatley to mind) claiming 1st Amendment protection.
2
In other words, those annoying gays should should just "go along" is the message from David Brooks.
And, of course, he and the Indiana law's defenders are being disingenuous when they point to the 1993 federal law that - as they loudly proclaim - was signed by Bill Clinton and supported by Ted Kennedy. But that law was used to prevent discrimination against minorities, like native Americans, who were being arrested for using peyote in their religious ceremonies. The Indiana law was designed to hurt minorities and that's how it will be used.
And, of course, he and the Indiana law's defenders are being disingenuous when they point to the 1993 federal law that - as they loudly proclaim - was signed by Bill Clinton and supported by Ted Kennedy. But that law was used to prevent discrimination against minorities, like native Americans, who were being arrested for using peyote in their religious ceremonies. The Indiana law was designed to hurt minorities and that's how it will be used.
11
Jesus said we should go into our closets to pray in private from the sanctity of our souls. He said when fasting we were to don our happy faces and not revel in our personal sanctities. He said we were to love all of His children as we love ourselves. He said a lot of things most conservative American Christians seem to ignore; about the poor and the downtrodden and love of money.
Once again, Brooks uses (wastes?) a lot of nice words to say nothing at all.
Once again, Brooks uses (wastes?) a lot of nice words to say nothing at all.
10
Mr. Brooks is absolutely right. "Discrimination is always wrong." But honestly, show a little politeness, class, grace people. If it's disrespect we feel when that one baker in the entire state refuses to make our same-sex wedding cake due to religious objection or plain old bigotry, and we can bow out gracefully and easily find a baker who will, then surely our self respect is restored. And perhaps the grace of our response will be noted and respected. When the rejection can be easily accommodated, help heal the divide, don't widen it.
2
The problem with Mr. Brooks' analysis of this issue is his willful ignorance of the reality of the situation. While he writes about the hypothetical, it's fairly easy to understand that the reason for passage of this legislation in a red state by a Republican legislature. That reason is not to ease anything into gradual acceptance or help respect anyone's rights except the religious right.
Mr. Brooks asks for tolerance of an evolving situation. That situation has already evolved. Indiana, as a stalwart GOP state, clearly does not believe that evolution has occurred.
Mr. Brooks asks for tolerance of an evolving situation. That situation has already evolved. Indiana, as a stalwart GOP state, clearly does not believe that evolution has occurred.
6
Remember when Martin Luther King achieved major victories purely through "gentle persuasion?" He didn't need laws to prohibit discrimination... or did he? Wait. He did. Personally, I'm glad he and LBJ didn't wait until all racists realized they were being mean. Then as now, the gentle persuasion is the first part. The LGBT community has been doing that for decades now, and has persuaded the majority of the country of their case. It's time for a law to compel the stubborn ones, just like last time around.
8
Believe me , gay couples go through enough humilitiation just by being gay especially in certain parts of our country. (And most are humiliated by people with no strongly held religious view) So as a general rule these gay couples want nothing to do with a business that doesn't want to serve them. So,to avoid the humiliation of refusing business, how does a shop identify themselves as a business that will refuse to serve gay couples? A little sign on the door? Or should gay couples just wear a simple little lavendar star? Time will sort this out but until then how do we create a process that is rooted in respect and dignity for all? Issues like this require a broader discussion and Mike Pence only talked to one side.
Sometimes even David Brooks can exhibit a tin ear. I grew up in small town Florida where, in the 1950s, the main street clothing stores would not allow blacks to try on the goods "because other customers would be less likely to buy there". Took years for me to comprehend that what was "fair" to the store owners was not "fair" to all the customers, but most of us get it now. Brooks' concern for the Oregon bakery that refused to sell a cake for a gay wedding is even worse than what I saw 60 years ago (where at least purchases were allowed). This is a logical oddity where being "coerced" into more moral actions can serve to "liberate" non-bigoted people from intolerance their close associates, including coreligionists, may have.
4
When Mr. Brooks misses the point he really misses the point. The issue is not deeply religious people refusing to attend a gay wedding or not calling married gays "married" to their face. That is their choice. The issue is a business in the public sector refusing service to a gay or lesbian couple. Once you open your doors to the public you serve the public whether you agree with their lifestyle or not. The history of the debate that took place prior to the passage of this bill makes it clear that the driving force of the bill was the religious beliefs of its supporters. A clearer violation of the separation between church and state would be hard to find.
7
Mr. Brooks seems to forget is that the spirit of most religions is that one abides by strong ethical frameworks - tolerance and kindness being part of that. Any religion that "expressly" condemns a section of humanity is really not a religion at all - and Brook's point of this being an assault on faith and "heterosexual definitions of marriage" is ridiculous - it has nothing to do with it - it has everything to do with how as a country in the 21st century, we do not revert to "taliban-like" ways - if this law was passed in the middle east, it would have created a furor with the right. This piece purports to vilify the potential victims - geez. Discrimination - whether or not for a religious belief has always existed and will always exist - an individual who does not want to photograph a gay couple exchanging vows will always find a way not to do that - and can do so without a myopic law. The problem with Indiana is it codified discrimination in the name of religion - as a heterosexual Hindu, I find this appalling - and so do many of my Christian friends. Writing opinions for the sake of a counterpoint is disappointing Mr. Brooks.
5
"Some people have lost their jobs for expressing opposition to gay marriage" Seriously? So suddenly a conservative columnist is saying that businesses have no right to fire people for something they don't agree with, or worse, would interfere with their business? So the people who have been fired for posting stuff on social media that companies felt was anti the interests of their company were violating "Free Speech?".
Sorry, David, but what you are doing is trying to raise religious belief to being a level above all other things, and that doesn't fly. Someone speaking out against gay marriage, for example, brings negative impressions on the company, and also raises question if that employee will deal fairly with gay employees and customers. If I make public statements on facebook criticizing the company I work for, I can be fired for that.
What David is really arguing is that we shouldn't castigate bigots, and almost (but not quite) is doing what revisionist GOP types are using, that we shouldn't have gone after the Jim Crow bigots and let them "come to their own conclusion", and that is nonsense, to paraphrase John Adams, when you are fighting for your rights you have to antagonize somebody, otherwise nothing changes.
Sorry, David, but what you are doing is trying to raise religious belief to being a level above all other things, and that doesn't fly. Someone speaking out against gay marriage, for example, brings negative impressions on the company, and also raises question if that employee will deal fairly with gay employees and customers. If I make public statements on facebook criticizing the company I work for, I can be fired for that.
What David is really arguing is that we shouldn't castigate bigots, and almost (but not quite) is doing what revisionist GOP types are using, that we shouldn't have gone after the Jim Crow bigots and let them "come to their own conclusion", and that is nonsense, to paraphrase John Adams, when you are fighting for your rights you have to antagonize somebody, otherwise nothing changes.
5
Mr. Brooks,
Philosophically, it is almost always good form to say "that absolutism is neither pragmatic, virtuous nor true." Unfortunately, the answer to the question, "can you refuse service to homosexuals" is absolute. It can only be "yes" or "no."
Your article attempts to blame this conflict on individual's failure to accommodate foreign belief systems. This assertion is offensive to a group of people who are standing up and asking, simply, "can I be turned away from a business because of who I am?" They deserve to hear a yes, or a no, not to be told they do not understand "valid tension between religious pluralism and equality."
Philosophically, it is almost always good form to say "that absolutism is neither pragmatic, virtuous nor true." Unfortunately, the answer to the question, "can you refuse service to homosexuals" is absolute. It can only be "yes" or "no."
Your article attempts to blame this conflict on individual's failure to accommodate foreign belief systems. This assertion is offensive to a group of people who are standing up and asking, simply, "can I be turned away from a business because of who I am?" They deserve to hear a yes, or a no, not to be told they do not understand "valid tension between religious pluralism and equality."
4
Sine when has the right to hate been a part of religious
Liberty? According to some their religious liberty includes the right, if not the duty to kill those that insult their prophet. Should Indiana provide statutory cover for that "firmly held religious conviction" or is only Christian bigotry worthy? Indiana's law like the absurd Hobby Lobby" decision before it is all about the false utterly false premise that Christianity is under attack because Christians are compelled to tolerate views they don't agree with. Christians are not victims because they can't burn people at the stake to purify their souls or execute them because they rightly claim that the Earth orbits the sun. It's time for us all to stand up and denounce the claim that the constitution protects the right to hate and discriminate for strongly held religious reasons. Enough is enough already!
Liberty? According to some their religious liberty includes the right, if not the duty to kill those that insult their prophet. Should Indiana provide statutory cover for that "firmly held religious conviction" or is only Christian bigotry worthy? Indiana's law like the absurd Hobby Lobby" decision before it is all about the false utterly false premise that Christianity is under attack because Christians are compelled to tolerate views they don't agree with. Christians are not victims because they can't burn people at the stake to purify their souls or execute them because they rightly claim that the Earth orbits the sun. It's time for us all to stand up and denounce the claim that the constitution protects the right to hate and discriminate for strongly held religious reasons. Enough is enough already!
9
Brooks seems to be wearing blinders or is being hopelessly naive. The editorial board from his own newspaper states it well:
"But religion should not be allowed to serve as a cover for discrimination in the public sphere. In the past, racial discrimination was also justified by religious beliefs, yet businesses may not refuse service to customers because of their race. Such behavior should be no more tolerable when it is based on sexual orientation."
"But religion should not be allowed to serve as a cover for discrimination in the public sphere. In the past, racial discrimination was also justified by religious beliefs, yet businesses may not refuse service to customers because of their race. Such behavior should be no more tolerable when it is based on sexual orientation."
2
My courageous lesbian daughter came out in 9th grade; she is now a college junior. When I first learned that she was gay, my heart sank, because I knew what discrimination she would face, much of it at the hands of folks who would smilingly say "Oh, I'm not against homosexuals, I just don't think they should marry or raise children or teach or..." In other words, they should not have normal, happy, productive lives. In the intervening six years, we've seen a turnaround in laws and attitudes that borders on miraculous. I've come to believe that my gay daughter the have the same freedom to thrive as my straight one. I'm angry about the endeavor to reverse years of progress
represented in laws like the ones Brooks defends here, and I'm even angrier with his bland attempt to reduce the struggle for civil rights to one of mere courtesy. The early feminist slogan, "The political is personal," is so apt here. Do not defend those who would harm my child, Mr. Brooks.
represented in laws like the ones Brooks defends here, and I'm even angrier with his bland attempt to reduce the struggle for civil rights to one of mere courtesy. The early feminist slogan, "The political is personal," is so apt here. Do not defend those who would harm my child, Mr. Brooks.
180
The notion that exercise of religion includes the right to restrict a public business to activities approved by the individual owner and adherent of that religion on his interpretation is what is wrong with the Indiana law. Indiana has no anti-discrimination law protecting sexual orientation and the law itself was not needed to protect anyone's freedom. Brooks does his best to find an argument for it and against gays, but it doesn't wash anymore.
2
The 1993 Religious Freedom Act was put into place to protect religious sacraments (including a peyote ceremony, which is a religious ceremony.) That's fine. No priest in a Catholic church should be forced to marry a gay couple.
But explain to me how making a cake for a gay couple is a religious sacrament. It is not.
People used to use Christianity to justify slavery. The fact that people earnestly feel a certain way about something does not make it right.
But explain to me how making a cake for a gay couple is a religious sacrament. It is not.
People used to use Christianity to justify slavery. The fact that people earnestly feel a certain way about something does not make it right.
4
Really David, honoring sin? How we 'love' not making a difference? What you have is a society that has divorced itself from being judgmental. A society that in the end, has fallen into the pit of Nihilism, unable and not wanting to seek the 'truth', for it deny' s that such exist. There are no basic truths as you state, no right or wrong. Creative accommodation? I don't think you really believe there are any 'inalienable rights. So, in the end you are left with the ultimate evil, and that is the accommodation of evil.
1
David, David, David. It's really pretty simple: any business that offers its goods and services in a public arena that is paid for by taxes (think sewers, fire protection, police protection, water, etc.), must offer those services to everyone. Period.
1
It difficult to imagine that the all powerful, creator of the universe would be offended if a baker makes a wedding cake for a gay couple.
Religions are rife with silly bits of bigotry and behavior that make no sense.
In those areas where religion collides with civil society, its rights should end.
Religions are rife with silly bits of bigotry and behavior that make no sense.
In those areas where religion collides with civil society, its rights should end.
3
"The ways of the Lord are mysterious and are understood differently by different traditions." That's it! It all makes perfect sense now. We might otherwise be confused if not for so many reasonable religious leaders making sense of this mysterious Lord for the rest of us. Phew, I was blind but, now I see!
1
Mr. Brooks: The great advantage of our country is that religious law can not trump the Constitution and its interpretation. Religious law is competitive, isolating, non-democratic, and does not exist for an individual proponent beyond the members of his or her group. The current Supreme Court will create a Constitutional crisis this year in three areas not by virtue of the Constitution but by application of religious laws common to a majority of its members. These members have established a prior intent among themselves to apply their views without the application of a peer review of any constitutional issue brought to them. It is really time to understand that religious law of any kind must be subservient to the Constitution for this nation to remain strong.
3
It really is a no-brainer.
Equality can be achieved only if nobody gets to claim that they have special insight into what a putative creator of the universe had in mind for the creatures that would eventually evolve on this tiny planet orbiting one galaxy among uncounted numbers of other galaxies just like it.
Equality can be achieved only if nobody gets to claim that they have special insight into what a putative creator of the universe had in mind for the creatures that would eventually evolve on this tiny planet orbiting one galaxy among uncounted numbers of other galaxies just like it.
4
If all Biblical injunctions received the same response, e.g., adultery, divorce, hardly anyone would be served. On the other hand, if these strictures would be applied to the service providers, e.g., boycott them, there would be few service providers left.
1
The best way to deal with this issue is to keep the Government neutral but the "Gay" movement should not be able to force everyone to accept their lifestyle. Respect the rights of all involved here. There will come a time when we will once again become a truly Christian population and the "gays" will fall to such small numbers that this won't even be an issue anymore.
This is a civil rights issue, Mr. Brooks, and the Indiana "Religious Freedom Restoration Act" is a blatant attempt to restore the status-quo-ante which banned same-sex marriage in the state until the courts overturned it last October. This law is impolite and intolerant in permitting businesses operating in the public square to deny service based on discrimination something the federal law clearly recognized and prohibited. If we've learned anything from the 20th century we know that forcing people to wear gold, Jewish stars or drink from separate water fountains violates basic human dignity that religions supposedly embrace. It's disgraceful and shameful that in 21st century America that decries and fights wars against religious intolerance abroad we have a political party and media enablers who find it acceptable here at home. There is no excuse, no rationalization for religious bigotry and that is what the Indiana law is all about.
128
I do not think anyone would compel a photographer to photograph a same-sex wedding, People prefer those who are comfortable. Nor would anyone compel a minister to perform a same-sex wedding. Nor would sharing cutlery among Jewish groups ever amount to a legal conundrum. Those are not poorly chosen examples. On the other hand, a business with an "open" sign on its door should not turn people away because of sexual orientation, particularly in states where same-sex marriage is the law.
1
There is a difference between individual behavior (not shaking hands, not using another's cutlery, not attending a wedding, not inviting someone as a dinner guest) and businesses refusing service to certain groups. It also is not clear that Indiana law can't be extended to businesses refusing to hire members of certain groups.
This brings us dangerously close to the segregation mentality, with businesses not serving blacks, and realtors not showing houses in certain neighborhoods to blacks. .
This brings us dangerously close to the segregation mentality, with businesses not serving blacks, and realtors not showing houses in certain neighborhoods to blacks. .
6
Well, shouldn't someone suggest the business that denies gays cakes, should be denied the use of a portion of the road paid for in taxes by the gays. The federal government should determine what percentage of our tax paying citizens identify themselves as gay and then withhold this percentage from the states denying basic service to such. Personally, I think these religions and the people who inhabit them are back to the point where are Good Lord, decided to intercede. They are crucifying those more righteous than themselves ---- didn't The Lord himself say, "in that day, it will be more tolerable for Sodom and Gomorrah than for some?"
2
There is no LGBT rights movement. There is no religious liberty agenda. There is no racial rights movement. There is no ethnic rights agenda. There is no socioeconomic nor political nor educational movement.
There is only a human civil rights movement that must equitably deal with our diverse biological human nature and cultural human nurture. Beginning with seeing and accepting each other as brothers and sisters.
There is only a human civil rights movement that must equitably deal with our diverse biological human nature and cultural human nurture. Beginning with seeing and accepting each other as brothers and sisters.
5
I might actually respect the sensibilities of Indiana's religious conservatives if I thought for a moment that adulterers or divorcees might also face the possibility of being refused service. At least that would be consistent, traditional, and scripturally based. But, of course, that's not what any of this is about.
179
I am in the process of receiving revelations that will form the basis of the
"objective truth" of a new religion and codifies my preferences into holy writ.
It seems the only reasonable way to counter this intrusion of religious views into my own secular life. We will have 3 Sabbath days each week, with four days of feasting. I shall assert my religious rights of being left alone by all prosletutes, telemarketers, and fundraisers. And, this is just in- I am commanded to turn my body into a tax-exempt temple. Take that IRS!
"objective truth" of a new religion and codifies my preferences into holy writ.
It seems the only reasonable way to counter this intrusion of religious views into my own secular life. We will have 3 Sabbath days each week, with four days of feasting. I shall assert my religious rights of being left alone by all prosletutes, telemarketers, and fundraisers. And, this is just in- I am commanded to turn my body into a tax-exempt temple. Take that IRS!
3
Unfortunately, some religion's liberty is to foster inequality. But that is not the point. This is about business, and if these businesses are afforded public utilities, infrastructure and services in service to their business, then their selective choice of clients or customers is discriminatory and thus invalid.
8
Unfortunately we cannot have a meaningful debate when the opposing sides are using a different definitions of religious liberty. From my perspective, if someone does not believe in gay marriage, they simply should not marry someone of the same sex. However there are people who believe that it is an infringement of their religious liberty, if they engage in any activity that "condones" gay marriage. So their definition of religious liberty is my definition of discrimination and imposition of one's beliefs on others. So what is religious liberty?
6
Mr. Brooks tells us that there are "…far too many…" stories like the Oregon bakery that may have to pay a fine for refusing to bake a cake for a same sex wedding. Far too many, Mr. Brooks? Would that be thousands? Hundreds? Or only a few?
Mr Brooks to goes on to deplore the lack of tolerance in a group that he claims seeks tolerance. But does the LGBT movement seek tolerance or equal rights? Were those who led the movement for gays to join the military seeking tolerance or equal rights? Were those who led the movement for same sex marriage seeking tolerance or equal rights?
The 1993 Religious Restoration Act was a reactionary and needless law no matter who voted for it. There were no grave denials of religious freedom in the US, then and there are none now. The law recently passed in Indiana and up for passage in many other states was crafted by ALEC, is reactionary in its nature, and directed squarely at the LGBT community. Where are all these instances of harm to religious fundamentalists as a result of laws prohibiting discrimination against the LGBT community. Those laws are a solution in search of a problem.
Religious fundamentalists have as much freedom here in the US as they do anywhere in the world and when they enter the public marketplace they must abide by the laws governing that marketplace.
Mr Brooks to goes on to deplore the lack of tolerance in a group that he claims seeks tolerance. But does the LGBT movement seek tolerance or equal rights? Were those who led the movement for gays to join the military seeking tolerance or equal rights? Were those who led the movement for same sex marriage seeking tolerance or equal rights?
The 1993 Religious Restoration Act was a reactionary and needless law no matter who voted for it. There were no grave denials of religious freedom in the US, then and there are none now. The law recently passed in Indiana and up for passage in many other states was crafted by ALEC, is reactionary in its nature, and directed squarely at the LGBT community. Where are all these instances of harm to religious fundamentalists as a result of laws prohibiting discrimination against the LGBT community. Those laws are a solution in search of a problem.
Religious fundamentalists have as much freedom here in the US as they do anywhere in the world and when they enter the public marketplace they must abide by the laws governing that marketplace.
10
Discrimination is not always wrong. We try to discriminate between the good and the bad, the moral and the immoral.
What is wrong is racial discrimination, and discrimination of a few other categories enunciated in the Civil Rights Acts. Those kinds of discrimination are wrong because there is no relation between a person's race (or ethnicity, etc.) and his character or competence.
I hope airlines discriminate, when hiring pilots, between those with suicidal tendencies and those without, as well as between those with good eyesight and those without, and other categories important for safe flight.
What is wrong is racial discrimination, and discrimination of a few other categories enunciated in the Civil Rights Acts. Those kinds of discrimination are wrong because there is no relation between a person's race (or ethnicity, etc.) and his character or competence.
I hope airlines discriminate, when hiring pilots, between those with suicidal tendencies and those without, as well as between those with good eyesight and those without, and other categories important for safe flight.
1
If "Christian" bakers refused to bake a wedding cake for an inter-racial marriage citing a religious reason we wouldn't be having this discussion. The fact is that many conservative churches believe "race mixing" is unbiblical but they are not allowed to discriminate on the basis of race or color. If they did so they'd lose the tax exempt status because of Federal law. No one has complained about that. Frustrated by not being able to discriminate on the basis or race or color conservative "Christians" have declared a thinly veiled attempt to discriminate agaist gays. Apparently they feel it's open season on gays.
8
Some deeply held and sincere religious beliefs are wrong and harmful. This includes beliefs that race Indicates divine preference, that females are inferior creatures, that the suffering of animals does not matter because they have no souls. It's a long list. Religion is not inherently good and does not deserve legal enforcement.
13
Nowadays, as is evidenced again and again, tolerance is a human quality which is fast disappearing, even among groups who proclaim the loudest that tolerance is essential. Just look at the twitter-verse with its public shaming of any who dare to take a provocative stance on matters offensive to any interest group.
It's sad that no longer are those who have different views on complicated and fast evolving issues simply wrong, they should be forced to conform or face fine, sanctions and ignominy.
It's sad that no longer are those who have different views on complicated and fast evolving issues simply wrong, they should be forced to conform or face fine, sanctions and ignominy.
While I may not entirely agree with the piece, Mr. Brooks at least attempts to present a reasoned consideration of the topic. We need more of this type of dialogue and assessment rather than the simplistic and often equally bigoted commentary (especially vile on social media) we see on this issue.
Part of the problem is that some people cannot divorce conduct from opinion. Society's laws can establish some limits on the former (no discrimination in public accommodation) but has no place in establishing the latter (you MUST embrace same sex marriage or else). Too many today, on this and other topics, immediately decide that anyone who diverges in the slightest from a set orthodoxy are "haters", that only their own convictions are true and worthy or should be considered. Many of these people also seem motivated less by actual concern for the non-discrimination issue than their outright hatred of religion in general and Christianity in particular. We all know who I mean, those who would shout from the rooftops in anger at calling all Muslims terrorists see nothing wrong with calling all Christians hateful bigots. It reduces a complex and evolving social situation to a debased meanness.
Part of the problem is that some people cannot divorce conduct from opinion. Society's laws can establish some limits on the former (no discrimination in public accommodation) but has no place in establishing the latter (you MUST embrace same sex marriage or else). Too many today, on this and other topics, immediately decide that anyone who diverges in the slightest from a set orthodoxy are "haters", that only their own convictions are true and worthy or should be considered. Many of these people also seem motivated less by actual concern for the non-discrimination issue than their outright hatred of religion in general and Christianity in particular. We all know who I mean, those who would shout from the rooftops in anger at calling all Muslims terrorists see nothing wrong with calling all Christians hateful bigots. It reduces a complex and evolving social situation to a debased meanness.
3
Mr. Brooks cites the example of an Oregon bakery that was fined for discriminating as evidence of the gay rights movement's coercive element. That business would be fined if it refused to bake a cake for a mixed-race wedding or a Muslim wedding on religious grounds; why should the case of gay customers be any different? Such discrimination is illegal, and while gay people may choose to respect and tolerate the perpetrators (as many probably would in this case, by going to a different bakery), they should have no legal obligation to do so. If participating in the wedding of members of a protected class violates your religious beliefs, maybe you shouldn't be in the wedding cake business.
6
In other words, Mr. Brooks, gays shouldn't get all uppity about expecting the constitutional right to equal protection under the law.
No. The time for patience is over. Gays had to endure the soaring AIDS body count caused by Christians getting the vapors over the mere thought of homosexuality and fighting any health care initiatives that might have brought better treatment sooner. They have had to endure being demonized and treated as a political punching bag by conservatives and Christians desperate for power. They have had to endure fear of arrest, violence, and discrimination just for existing.
The root of all that pain for gays is religion. So, no, gays should not have to suck it up and play nice with the schoolyard bully that is Christianity.
No. The time for patience is over. Gays had to endure the soaring AIDS body count caused by Christians getting the vapors over the mere thought of homosexuality and fighting any health care initiatives that might have brought better treatment sooner. They have had to endure being demonized and treated as a political punching bag by conservatives and Christians desperate for power. They have had to endure fear of arrest, violence, and discrimination just for existing.
The root of all that pain for gays is religion. So, no, gays should not have to suck it up and play nice with the schoolyard bully that is Christianity.
10
What seems left out of the discussion is the "substantial burden" test that is at the core of the statute. The supporters of the bill have never answered how baking a cake poses a substantial burden on bakers exercise of religion. How does delivering some flowers substantially burden their exercise? Where do you stop - the cleaning the carpets? valeting cars at the reception?
The only people who can legitimately claim a substantial burden are ministers forced to personally perform a gay wedding service - a scenario no-one has ever suffered.
The only people who can legitimately claim a substantial burden are ministers forced to personally perform a gay wedding service - a scenario no-one has ever suffered.
7
To echo many of the comments, this reminds me so much of growing up in "polite" white southern society during the Civil Rights movement, when the "curse of Ham" was still mentioned in my Baptist church, when, well, it was one thing to allow "them" to go to school, but the government couldn't force "them" into my church, or home. You may recall that the 1964 Civil Rights Act excluded very small businesses from the public accommodations section for just the reasons that Mr. Brooks makes here -- that you better not take this equality stuff so far that you offend someone's personal beliefs about, you know, "them."
The context of the Indiana law is crucial to understanding it. It was passed as gay rights is ascending (much like a school choice act passed in a southern state in, say, 1962), and signed in the presence of anti-gay activists. It is clear who has gone off the rails here and it is not those pushing for equal rights.
The context of the Indiana law is crucial to understanding it. It was passed as gay rights is ascending (much like a school choice act passed in a southern state in, say, 1962), and signed in the presence of anti-gay activists. It is clear who has gone off the rails here and it is not those pushing for equal rights.
7
"The movement to champion gay rights is now in a position where it can afford to offer this respect, at a point where steady pressure works better than compulsion."
Brooks seems to ask that we accept the notion of discrimination against gays in every day commerce and life with this thought, but never seems to ask exactly why this heinous law in Indiana was passed. Should all gays be required to wear a Scarlet G to identify themselves? What has happened to tolerance and acceptance in Indiana and our country?
Usually I find Brooks to be right on, persuasive and thoughtful. Not today.
Brooks seems to ask that we accept the notion of discrimination against gays in every day commerce and life with this thought, but never seems to ask exactly why this heinous law in Indiana was passed. Should all gays be required to wear a Scarlet G to identify themselves? What has happened to tolerance and acceptance in Indiana and our country?
Usually I find Brooks to be right on, persuasive and thoughtful. Not today.
5
Tolerance for those whose beliefs we personally reject is always hard to come by and an up-hill battle. When we use the power of the state and its laws to coerce those whose beliefs we reject to conform, we inevitably put our own right to act in conscience at risk, as well. For far too long, a majority of opinion opposed to gay life invoked the state and law to bludgeon gay men and women into conformity. But social and political opinion changes - and can change again. Our best defense for claiming tolerance always will be a willingness to extend that same tolerance to others.
The religious freedom law in Indiana was designed to give cover to Christian fundamentalists who make up a large part of the Indiana electorate. Absolutism is core to their belief system and is the bedrock of their faith. The fate of their very souls is contingent on maintaining an absolutist position.
The motivation of the Oregon baker and those who have taken a similar stance has little to do with their viewing marriage as male/female only although that is their absolute position. It has more to do with the preservation of their souls and their souls only. It is a toxic selfishness that cannot be compromised or debated. It is a loggerhead in American social and political life that cannot be resolved with logic or attempts to provide good faith resolution.
The motivation of the Oregon baker and those who have taken a similar stance has little to do with their viewing marriage as male/female only although that is their absolute position. It has more to do with the preservation of their souls and their souls only. It is a toxic selfishness that cannot be compromised or debated. It is a loggerhead in American social and political life that cannot be resolved with logic or attempts to provide good faith resolution.
2
Say we institute the converse of this law and give legal cover to businesses who refuse to provide their goods or services to people whose religious beliefs favor discrimination against homosexuals. Would Brooks or other supposedly well-intentioned, "pragmatic" conservatives support that? Of course not. But why not? I assume because a belief in sexual-orientation equality isn't grounded in religion, or because it would allow discrimination between prospective customers on the basis of their religious beliefs. Either way, it elevates a religious belief above my nonreligious belief in equality -- it favors religious belief over nonreligious belief. That is unacceptable.
3
I always look forward to David's pieces, but not this time. I was disappoint in how he fails to reconcile the need for a secular society not infringe on religious beliefs, but the emphasis needs to keep the secular society (economy) functioning. David touts that Ted Kennedy signed off on this bill in 1993, (as did Bill Clinton), but that is not an excuse for a bad law then or now. A case by case review is unwieldly which will give rise to confusion, litigation and more political upheavel. I see the law as no different than segregation, of which you can find support in the Bible. I would ask the simple question, what would Jesus do? The answer is simple.
3
I don't know if it's intentional, but David Brooks misrepresents the Indiana law. As Garrett Epps has pointed out in The Atlantic, (http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/what-makes-indianas-... the Indiana statute contains two key provisions not found in the federal RFRA. Quoting Epps, "The Indiana law explicitly allows any for-profit business to assert a right to 'the free exercise of religion.' The federal RFRA doesn't contain such language." Furthermore, "the Indiana statute explicitly makes a business’s 'free exercise' right a defense against a private lawsuit by another person, rather than simply against actions brought by government." The second provision can only be understood as an attempt to shield the proverbial baker or florist from discrimination claims brought by aggrieved individuals. And while some people may sympathize with the Christian baker who doesn't want to make a cake for a gay wedding, how about a Christian-owned corporation (think Hobby Lobby) who fires an employee when she marries her female partner? Under what interpretation of the Indiana statute is the first case a harmless business decision motivated by sincerely held religious belief while the second is impermissible employment discrimination?
7
When violations of human dignity are "housed" behind the curtains purporting to separate the sacred from the profane the devil is in how the wind blows. If, according to the word of my temple, your behavior constitutes a pollution, I cannot behave in a way that condones your behavior without violating my sense of the sacred.
In liberal society, however, the sacred does not trump civil liberties. It is, rather, the other way around: it is because religious practice is protected as a civil liberty that the sacred has its place in civil society. Thus, the burden of proof, in liberal society, is always upon those who would purport to deny the liberties of others. When this burden is purported on the basis of word of the sacred it becomes weighty indeed.
If a black man were denied coffee in some diner because the owner saw black person as a pollution we would not recognize the owner’s right to deny the man coffee even if this denial were placed upon the altar of some sacred.
In Indiana, then, we are being asked to see bigotry against gender preference and sexual identity as less fundamental than race.
It is an ill wind.
In liberal society, however, the sacred does not trump civil liberties. It is, rather, the other way around: it is because religious practice is protected as a civil liberty that the sacred has its place in civil society. Thus, the burden of proof, in liberal society, is always upon those who would purport to deny the liberties of others. When this burden is purported on the basis of word of the sacred it becomes weighty indeed.
If a black man were denied coffee in some diner because the owner saw black person as a pollution we would not recognize the owner’s right to deny the man coffee even if this denial were placed upon the altar of some sacred.
In Indiana, then, we are being asked to see bigotry against gender preference and sexual identity as less fundamental than race.
It is an ill wind.
3
There seems to be some confusion between what people feel is offensive or against their religious beliefs and what is freedom to live your life as you wish in a civil society. Because you are offended by or do not believe in a certain lifestyle but that lifestyle fits in with civil society, does not mean you can refuse to do business with those individuals. When someone opens a business, they are entering into civil society and they must conform to the rules of that civil society. In America, one of the rules is not to act with prejudice against blacks, Chinese or gays or the LGBT population. At home or in your church you have the right to believe your personal beliefs, but once in civil society, you abide by the rules of that society. This is also why businesses, even though owned by those who might not believe in abortion, should offer healthcare including coverage for family planning. Any other approach would lead to a splintered society allowing all sorts of personal prejudice in conducting business. In the past, black could not eat the same counter as whites because it offended some beliefs, people could not have long hair, etc. America is the land of liberty not just for your beliefs but for all or our beliefs and lifestyles that fit into civil society.. I am deeply disappointed by Mr. Brooks who usually writes thoughtful pieces.
90
Gay marriage is not about religion. It's about a secular society that grants tax advantages, health care rights, etc. to married couples. No church is required to perform a gay marriage. No religion is required to change their preaching to the subject of gay marriage. However, the issue being raised by this law in Indiana (and other states) is that refusing to provide the service your business advertises in the public (secular) sphere should not discriminate against a section of the population who are different than the majority Christian population. That is bigotry. Can they now refuse goods and service to people who are gay but not married? How will they know? Will they question anyone they think might be gay? There is no way to view this law as anything but a way to discriminate based on sexual preferences.
5
Whether or not Brooks is aware, the argument here is hardly one of gauging sincerity of belief as some kind of prerequisite for legal legitimacy. Both the right and the left have their causes in which the power of law would seek to intervene in the absence of a "moral majority": outlawing abortion for the right, outlawing discriminatory behavior for the left. Both sides, at least, recognize that sometimes the law must step in and mandate morally just behavior where otherwise we are not inclined to leave it up to the individual, an uncomfortable truth about "democratic society".
No, once you remove the ridiculous trappings, what we have here is a more fundamental issue where the rights of individuals are concerned in the legal arena: do we use the power of law to protect those that would punish or restrict access to an otherwise fair society based on individual beliefs not quantified or qualified by said framework of law? Or do we use the power of law to increase access to a fair society based on the legal framework already in place?
No, once you remove the ridiculous trappings, what we have here is a more fundamental issue where the rights of individuals are concerned in the legal arena: do we use the power of law to protect those that would punish or restrict access to an otherwise fair society based on individual beliefs not quantified or qualified by said framework of law? Or do we use the power of law to increase access to a fair society based on the legal framework already in place?
2
As the Times reported today, there is no equivalency between the federal law and the Indiana law. The former is designed to protect religious minorities from government coercion. The latter to shield violators of civil rights from liability for their bigotry, so long as their bigotry is motivated by religion.
There is no principled difference between refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple and refusing to bake a cake for an interracial couple. There is no difference between being unwilling to host a gay wedding and refusing to serve a black person at your lunch counter, so long as you really believe God would prefer that you didn't.
As to why it is not okay to ask gay and lesbian Americans to engage in polite dialogue and to otherwise stay in their lane, as Mr. Brooks' seems to encourage, I would direct him to read Dr. King's Letter from Birmingham City Jail. I think our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters have waited long enough for the full and equal protection of the laws.
There is no principled difference between refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple and refusing to bake a cake for an interracial couple. There is no difference between being unwilling to host a gay wedding and refusing to serve a black person at your lunch counter, so long as you really believe God would prefer that you didn't.
As to why it is not okay to ask gay and lesbian Americans to engage in polite dialogue and to otherwise stay in their lane, as Mr. Brooks' seems to encourage, I would direct him to read Dr. King's Letter from Birmingham City Jail. I think our gay and lesbian brothers and sisters have waited long enough for the full and equal protection of the laws.
7
This is a difficult case that David Brooks, as seems to be his wont, overly simplifies. It is a bad law, but the question of whether a cakemaker should be forced to make a cake for a gay wedding is complicated. A cake literally participates in the wedding, broadcasts, and implicitly endorses, the act. Serving someone at a lunch counter does not. Isn't there a difference between demanding equal treatment (reasonable) and forcing someone to participate in a celebration of your beliefs (unreasonable)? In other words, I don't think the lunch counter analogy holds, though I would be hard pressed to say how the Indiana law allows such a distinction. That it can't may be its most significant flaw.
39
No one who is bigoted, actually believes they are a bigot. No one who is intolerant actually believes they are being unreasonable. Mr. Brooks would like to believe he is a gentle, even-voiced purveyor of reason. He does so from his privileged position as a white heterosexual judeo-Christian male who has the luxury of never having been discriminated against due to the passive social compliance of his demographic. He describes a person who holds religious opposition to another persons lifestyle as someone who should be catered too and accommodated in their ignorance. He says its wrong to compare them to racists of the civil rights era because somehow their opposition is rooted in a deep abiding faith in "the Lord" and they must only have the best intentions behind their disgust. It is precisely this type of sideways bigotry that needs to be challenged directly and in most cases vociferously. Mr. Brooks would like to imagine a world where the misguided intolerance of some has no effect on the lives of most. People of this mindset have always been more than happy to delay the progress of civil rights because they find passionate debate grounded in the actual experience of oppression distasteful and unseemly. I for one would be proud to know I had offended the delicate sensibilities of men like Mr. Brooks and Gov. Pence because it would mean I was doing something that took actual courage and honor rather than convenient cowardice and complacency.
8
Frankly, I think the writer overestimates the dwindling power of religion. We are growing increasingly secular as a nation, which I suspect may ultimately be a good thing. The religious right has becoming increasingly strident in the face of this, concentrating on issues like abortion and gay marriage, less because of inherent conviction than because of their publicity value. It is a self-destructive tactic; no one is interested in interfering with the privately held religious beliefs of others. But that does not mean people will tolerate the intrusion of religion into government. This country was founded on the principle of separation of church and state, and with good reason.
3
We should not be confusing cultural standards of conduct with religious tenets being observed. Of course religion now has to moderate its demands that everyone be up to the standards their proponents advocate and would prefer to see everyone reflect and observe in their conduct.
But as religions proliferate, and demand they be respected even if offensive to some degree, something hit the nation which isn't right.
That is a kind of 'religion' that is a kind of anti-religion in that it thinks it can demand respect even if such respect for it would require that most any other religion besides it itself (meaning what amounts to almost pure hedonism), has to give into it.
That is requiring too much of most any other kind than that. That is like smashing a country, not only as to any religious rights, right of people to pray, to expect respect for their beliefs to any extent, but smashing the cultural norms that characterize civilized society itself.
When the very cultural norms are under attack, there can be left a terrible unbridgeable rift between those who used the hammer to try to smash with, and those whose whole lives and way of life are under attack, namely, all the rest of the people.
But as religions proliferate, and demand they be respected even if offensive to some degree, something hit the nation which isn't right.
That is a kind of 'religion' that is a kind of anti-religion in that it thinks it can demand respect even if such respect for it would require that most any other religion besides it itself (meaning what amounts to almost pure hedonism), has to give into it.
That is requiring too much of most any other kind than that. That is like smashing a country, not only as to any religious rights, right of people to pray, to expect respect for their beliefs to any extent, but smashing the cultural norms that characterize civilized society itself.
When the very cultural norms are under attack, there can be left a terrible unbridgeable rift between those who used the hammer to try to smash with, and those whose whole lives and way of life are under attack, namely, all the rest of the people.
The core problem with Mr. Brooks' editorial is found in the following sentence:
"If the opponents of that law were arguing that the Indiana statute tightens the federal standards a notch too far, that would be compelling. But that’s not the argument the opponents are making."
In fact, that is exactly the argument that opponents of the statute are making. The Indiana statute expressly covers transactions/interactions between "persons" to which the government is not a party, and goes on to define "persons" to include corporations or other organizations. This makes the Indiana RFRA much broader and more contentious than the Federal version or the versions adopted by the 19 other states. It's not "the same exact law" as many on the right have stated.
People clearly have a right to freely practice their religion (any religion) without having laws unduly burden that practice. People also have a right to engage in commerce and live their lives in the United States free from unfair discrimination. This law, while not directly endorsing discrimination, clearly opens the door to discrimination based on sexual orientation and that's what opponents are squawking about.
"If the opponents of that law were arguing that the Indiana statute tightens the federal standards a notch too far, that would be compelling. But that’s not the argument the opponents are making."
In fact, that is exactly the argument that opponents of the statute are making. The Indiana statute expressly covers transactions/interactions between "persons" to which the government is not a party, and goes on to define "persons" to include corporations or other organizations. This makes the Indiana RFRA much broader and more contentious than the Federal version or the versions adopted by the 19 other states. It's not "the same exact law" as many on the right have stated.
People clearly have a right to freely practice their religion (any religion) without having laws unduly burden that practice. People also have a right to engage in commerce and live their lives in the United States free from unfair discrimination. This law, while not directly endorsing discrimination, clearly opens the door to discrimination based on sexual orientation and that's what opponents are squawking about.
3
The comments I have read are thoughtful and useful. Brooks has misunderstood the effect of the Indiana law, and seriously misunderstood its intent, which the legislature is arm-waving to hide. This was aimed at allowing discrimination in public activity; that is clear and obvious. People are free, rightly, to act as they wish in private according to their religious believes, as long as they do not break the law--so drug use and violence are excluded from acceptable private practice in the same way that we do not tolerate violence against family members, children or women, in the home. It is not a sanctuary. Indiana wants to make the marketplace a sanctuary with special rules that will vary by individual belief with no standard for how that belief is to be established or proven. That way lies madness since proof of a personal belief is intrinsically impossible.
6
"While there are many bigots, there are also many wise and deeply humane people whose most deeply held religious beliefs contain heterosexual definitions of marriage. These people are worthy of tolerance, respect and gentle persuasion."
I am profoundly in agreement with Brooks's thesis, but only up to a point.
Where I part company is on what to do when deeply wise and humane people decide to act on their firmly held beliefs that marriage is for heterosexuals only. Because when you untangle Brooks's rhetoric, saying that someone's "most deeply held religious beliefs contain heterosexual definitions of marriage" very clearly means "no gays allowed."
Perhaps Brooks's idealized believers will never be in a position to act on their beliefs. But when someone decides to deny goods or services to a same-sex couple because to do so would substantially burden his or her religious beliefs, do the quality of the beliefs and the believer's character make any difference?
Of course not: to the same-sex couple, the denial of goods or services in the public sphere has the same marginalizing impact regardless of the source. It matters not whether the denial comes from a shallow bigot with only a superficial grasp of theology or from the most profound thinker of our times.
When it comes to providing goods and services to same-sex couples in the public, some level of coercion is necessary, just as restaurants in the South are now "coerced" into serving African American customers.
I am profoundly in agreement with Brooks's thesis, but only up to a point.
Where I part company is on what to do when deeply wise and humane people decide to act on their firmly held beliefs that marriage is for heterosexuals only. Because when you untangle Brooks's rhetoric, saying that someone's "most deeply held religious beliefs contain heterosexual definitions of marriage" very clearly means "no gays allowed."
Perhaps Brooks's idealized believers will never be in a position to act on their beliefs. But when someone decides to deny goods or services to a same-sex couple because to do so would substantially burden his or her religious beliefs, do the quality of the beliefs and the believer's character make any difference?
Of course not: to the same-sex couple, the denial of goods or services in the public sphere has the same marginalizing impact regardless of the source. It matters not whether the denial comes from a shallow bigot with only a superficial grasp of theology or from the most profound thinker of our times.
When it comes to providing goods and services to same-sex couples in the public, some level of coercion is necessary, just as restaurants in the South are now "coerced" into serving African American customers.
4
Does baking a cake or taking a picture constitute some form of religious belief or affirmation? The baker is not asked to believe in same sex marriage; he/she is just being polite and providing a service. The photographer is not asked to condone the wedding, they are simply memorializing a life-event. Is it polite to walk away from a neighbor in these circumstances. The person providing the service is not asked to be a believer. Nor do they have any reason to insist that the people receiving the service hold to other personal or religious beliefs.
Equality is under the law, not under religion. At least not here, not yet. It is perhaps a separate matter to fine a baker $150K for not baking a cake. That seems equally absurd. In the case of the Indiana law, that appears to run afoul of anti-discrimination laws, since the justification for refusal is predicated on religious belief and action. The baker or photographer is free to practice their religion. The people getting married should be equally free from it.
Indiana would be much better served to admit to an ill-conceived idea and rescind the statute, rather than trying to refine something that will lead to even more discord.
Equality is under the law, not under religion. At least not here, not yet. It is perhaps a separate matter to fine a baker $150K for not baking a cake. That seems equally absurd. In the case of the Indiana law, that appears to run afoul of anti-discrimination laws, since the justification for refusal is predicated on religious belief and action. The baker or photographer is free to practice their religion. The people getting married should be equally free from it.
Indiana would be much better served to admit to an ill-conceived idea and rescind the statute, rather than trying to refine something that will lead to even more discord.
5
While I always appreciate Brooks moderate tone and the way he models the politeness he advocates, his argument here is one of theoretical maxims that ignores the reality of human actions. Theorizing the need for balance between religious liberty and equality is fascinating. But it overlooks the realities of who is doing what to whom. The fact with Indiana's law is that conservatives are the ones doing something: they have passed a law, created *new* legislation, that is meant to assure them the legal defense strategy of "religious freedom" as an excuse to enact discriminatory practices in their businesses.
More than simply ignoring the realities of who is doing what to whom, Brooks' theoretical discussion actually misconstrues the point when he accuses the gay movement of "compelling" someone into anything. The gay movement is not compelling anyone into anything, but rather they bring civil cases against those who violate civil rights law through their business practices. No one is compelled; some people are punished after the fact for doing the wrong thing as defined by the law. That is simply called justice. If people want to avoid said punishment, they should obey the law by practicing the polite tolerance that Brooks advocates.
More than simply ignoring the realities of who is doing what to whom, Brooks' theoretical discussion actually misconstrues the point when he accuses the gay movement of "compelling" someone into anything. The gay movement is not compelling anyone into anything, but rather they bring civil cases against those who violate civil rights law through their business practices. No one is compelled; some people are punished after the fact for doing the wrong thing as defined by the law. That is simply called justice. If people want to avoid said punishment, they should obey the law by practicing the polite tolerance that Brooks advocates.
6
What is wrong about this law is that it assumes that providing services for a gay wedding is a violation of a religious belief and this is simply not true. While the religion holds that gay marriage is prohibited it does not hold that one is not permitted to bake a cake or provide and services for that wedding. This is basically a question of religious law, a catholic for example, should ask a priest and no priest would say that the religion prohibits it. And people are not free to make up their own religious rules.
In addition if this was a matter that was actually directly against ones religious beliefs, that is his religion holds that it that providing his services to a gay wedding is a violation of what his religion requires of him, he is protected under the federal constitution and does not need a state law to protect him.
So if providing services to a gay wedding qualifies for religous protection he is already protected under federal law, and if it is not then the state law is based on a false premise, and is simply wrong.
However the whole issue of discrimination against gays in the state of Indiana should be moot. And this is because gays are not a protected class in that state, just like gays are not a protected class under federal law.
So under both Indiana state law and under federal law it is perfectly legal to discriminate against gays. If people have a problem with discrimination against gays, they should lobby for a law against it.
In addition if this was a matter that was actually directly against ones religious beliefs, that is his religion holds that it that providing his services to a gay wedding is a violation of what his religion requires of him, he is protected under the federal constitution and does not need a state law to protect him.
So if providing services to a gay wedding qualifies for religous protection he is already protected under federal law, and if it is not then the state law is based on a false premise, and is simply wrong.
However the whole issue of discrimination against gays in the state of Indiana should be moot. And this is because gays are not a protected class in that state, just like gays are not a protected class under federal law.
So under both Indiana state law and under federal law it is perfectly legal to discriminate against gays. If people have a problem with discrimination against gays, they should lobby for a law against it.
I struggle to rationalize the first sentence, other than questions concerning sexuality, exactly what rights have been enacted that are proscribed by religion? After all, the civil rights movement embraced religion as an inspiration for their cause. I suppose the one simmering conflict we could draw on (although it's not really a civil rights case) is the teaching of evolution. The Federal government has made it quite clear, schools must teach evolution as a unifying concept in the life sciences, despite any religious objections. That's because we believe education is for the public good, that teaching certain concepts, even if they fly in the face of religious teachings, is essential for a modern, educated, society and we cannot pick and choose our education. Likewise, people should not be able to 'opt-out' of treating each other with dignity and respect, no matter what their race, beliefs or sexual orientation.
2
I see a difference between the baker and the photographer at a wedding. The baker is not intimately involved with the wedding ceremony; he or she does not have to witness it to bake the cake. The photographer, in contrast, must be intimately involved with the wedding and witness it first hand. The baker is not a participant in a ceremony that offends his or her religious beliefs while the photographer may be. I can see where the baker should be compelled to provide the product (the cake) but do not see the public interest in compelling the photographer to directly participate in--by attendance--a ceremony offending the photographer's religious beliefs.
The comment about not complaining about a baker who refuses to decorate a cake with a swastika is on point to this dichotomy. The baker must make the cake for the customer but need not offend his or her sensibilities in the artistic creation. By the way, why would anyone want to engage a baker or photographer who does not want the business for one of the most important moments of life ? The baker and photographer can be compelled to the serve the customer, but neither can be compelled to do their best, or even good, work. As to an argument that to do less than their best work would harm sellers' businesses is a risk borne only by sellers who decide to take such an approach and adverse consequences of such a decision is not a public concern.
The comment about not complaining about a baker who refuses to decorate a cake with a swastika is on point to this dichotomy. The baker must make the cake for the customer but need not offend his or her sensibilities in the artistic creation. By the way, why would anyone want to engage a baker or photographer who does not want the business for one of the most important moments of life ? The baker and photographer can be compelled to the serve the customer, but neither can be compelled to do their best, or even good, work. As to an argument that to do less than their best work would harm sellers' businesses is a risk borne only by sellers who decide to take such an approach and adverse consequences of such a decision is not a public concern.
2
Mr. Brooks would like to add the words "polite" to the phrase "separate but equal."
The American experience is about equality without the separate bit, and that includes an equal right to religious beliefs and practices, but also an equal limitation to discrimination against others. I echo so many of the comments here that my non-believer friends walk with more kindness, grace and compassion than many of the believers I know and also that doing business as a public accommodation is a decision to engage in social equality and access to your goods and services.
If gay and LGBT-supportive tax dollars could be segregated so they do not support any roads going to these businesses or subsidizing access to any public utility or tax benefits, or if these business want to form a private "We Disapprove" buying club accepting only customers who agree with them and are willing to buy a card that says so, then perhaps this bizarre plea for politeness would be interesting but America is only principled if my rights are best protected by ensuring the rights of others not like me.
Mr. Brooks: Separate but equal is still not equal.
The American experience is about equality without the separate bit, and that includes an equal right to religious beliefs and practices, but also an equal limitation to discrimination against others. I echo so many of the comments here that my non-believer friends walk with more kindness, grace and compassion than many of the believers I know and also that doing business as a public accommodation is a decision to engage in social equality and access to your goods and services.
If gay and LGBT-supportive tax dollars could be segregated so they do not support any roads going to these businesses or subsidizing access to any public utility or tax benefits, or if these business want to form a private "We Disapprove" buying club accepting only customers who agree with them and are willing to buy a card that says so, then perhaps this bizarre plea for politeness would be interesting but America is only principled if my rights are best protected by ensuring the rights of others not like me.
Mr. Brooks: Separate but equal is still not equal.
2
Indeed, America was founded on the fundamental values of tolerating all religions. However, we only support the personal activity of religious practices. Never, do we, as a nation, practice religious disciplines within our capitalistic system.
For decades, America has made progress in accepting LGBTQI members into our society, beginning to treat them as equals and allow them to fulfill our everyday tasks. Now, we see a potential threat to the continuis progress made. By giving store owners a legal right to deny service to Gay men and women, we are allowing bigotry to take place. This is intolerable.
We as a nation have become more and more accepting to new cultures and religions over the past couple of decades. Today, we see a Congress unwilling to continue our thriving quest for equality. Many Congressmen and Women are in favor of this legislation, in favor of the inevitable neglect and unfair hatred that this bill will cause. To all of our Congressmen and Women out there, I urge you all to neglect this bill. Otherwise, we face the neglect of all LGBTQI members nationwide, and our legal system will leave them trapped.
For decades, America has made progress in accepting LGBTQI members into our society, beginning to treat them as equals and allow them to fulfill our everyday tasks. Now, we see a potential threat to the continuis progress made. By giving store owners a legal right to deny service to Gay men and women, we are allowing bigotry to take place. This is intolerable.
We as a nation have become more and more accepting to new cultures and religions over the past couple of decades. Today, we see a Congress unwilling to continue our thriving quest for equality. Many Congressmen and Women are in favor of this legislation, in favor of the inevitable neglect and unfair hatred that this bill will cause. To all of our Congressmen and Women out there, I urge you all to neglect this bill. Otherwise, we face the neglect of all LGBTQI members nationwide, and our legal system will leave them trapped.
2
As a small business owner I occasionally refuse to do business with some people, but there is a big difference. On those occasions my decision is based, to the best of my ability, on sound business judgement (my experience)- for example my prospective customer may not demonstrate a willingness to pay (pretty obvious), or the customer is overly demanding (bit trickier). I reserve the right to choose who I sell to, and who I do not.
What I don't do is discriminate based on a blanket policy. It is not that I refuse to deal with women, or that I will not deal with one-legged Frenchmen, and so on... each decision is based on a case-by-case basis.
It is clear that the Law in Indiana was created to be provocative. It is clear that this Law can be abused to discriminate against certain groups. It is also clear that there is no overwhelming requirement for this Law whatsoever- there was simply no need for it.
Individuals wishing to exercise their religious rights are protected by the Constitution. This protection extends to their beliefs and opinions, but they are NOT necessarily protected in their practices. These practices may include discrimination on grounds articulated elsewhere in Law.
All religion, doctrine and practice is subjugated under The Law.
There exists already an abundance of unnecessary Laws on our books, the creation of even more is just a waste of resources. This Law and others similar should be fought on the basis of being wasteful and unnecessary.
What I don't do is discriminate based on a blanket policy. It is not that I refuse to deal with women, or that I will not deal with one-legged Frenchmen, and so on... each decision is based on a case-by-case basis.
It is clear that the Law in Indiana was created to be provocative. It is clear that this Law can be abused to discriminate against certain groups. It is also clear that there is no overwhelming requirement for this Law whatsoever- there was simply no need for it.
Individuals wishing to exercise their religious rights are protected by the Constitution. This protection extends to their beliefs and opinions, but they are NOT necessarily protected in their practices. These practices may include discrimination on grounds articulated elsewhere in Law.
All religion, doctrine and practice is subjugated under The Law.
There exists already an abundance of unnecessary Laws on our books, the creation of even more is just a waste of resources. This Law and others similar should be fought on the basis of being wasteful and unnecessary.
1
David, I agree in principle with your idea of deep politeness and respect toward others with different beliefs. But complications ensue when religious pluralism legislation begins to supplant the Establishment Clause, as I see happening here in Indiana. I'm Jewish and I've lived in Indiana for nearly a decade. I've encountered many people who are polite, respectful, and good-hearted. At the same time, with a Republican supermajority in legislature that can pass essentially anything it wants, "religious freedom" can mean serving the needs of the state's conservative majority first, and then adjusting the law to make it look universal. Thus, my children who go to public school are required to observe a moment of silence at the start of each day to guarantee "the free exercise of religion," with silence rethought to ensure "the least possible coercion from the state" and from other students (all direct quotes from IC 20-30-5-4.5): and although I've always seen the moment of silence as a Christian act, we now accommodate. Fine: but this kind of legislation also tints the way I see subsequent legislation, from the state's continually expanding school voucher program that includes (though not exclusively) parochial schools, to the passage of the RFRA along party lines. Respect for religious freedom is important; but when one's own personal freedom isn't needed to pass legislation, then an outside reminder can help to reassert that democracy involves more than vote counts.
2
If a business needs a PUBLIC licence to open, another for food, tax collection. ad infinitim, then the PUBLIC is paying to keep these available. Therefore, serve THE PUBLIC. David Brooks takes positions either to be a contrarian, because he is isolated from the real world, or he really believes some of the rubbish he writes.
Elitist???
Elitist???
5
David Brooks did not read the law. The law is based on extending the act to for profit corporations and private parties. This makes discrimination legal for all classes not protected. Gays are among those classes. You only have to look who is standing behind Mike Pence when he signed the law. That tells you everything you need to know.
6
I really only see a gray area for photographers, because they are quasi-participants in the actual marriage ceremony, but I still think that they should not be allowed to discriminate. On the other hand, if I were hiring a photographer for my wedding, and the photographer had strong religious objections to my marriage, I think that I would want to know. I wouldn't want someone who is not totally on board to be doing my wedding photos, and I wouldn't want to be thinking that my photographer is going to want to vomit at the moment: "You may now kiss."
If Brooks is looking for deep politeness, how about this, from the photographer: "I will of course do the photography for you, but before we sign a contract I want you to know that I have strong religious objections to gay marriage and I'm uncomfortable with being a participant in your ceremony. I know the celebration is important to you, and because of that you might want to consider a different photographer. I can refer you to someone good if you'd like.
It's still an ugly, discriminatory position, but there's no actual denial of service, and I think this information is important for the clients getting married to make an informed choice about the person they are hiring. For florists, bakers and caterers, I don't see the same concerns because they are not really participants in the actual ceremony in the way that a photographer is.
If Brooks is looking for deep politeness, how about this, from the photographer: "I will of course do the photography for you, but before we sign a contract I want you to know that I have strong religious objections to gay marriage and I'm uncomfortable with being a participant in your ceremony. I know the celebration is important to you, and because of that you might want to consider a different photographer. I can refer you to someone good if you'd like.
It's still an ugly, discriminatory position, but there's no actual denial of service, and I think this information is important for the clients getting married to make an informed choice about the person they are hiring. For florists, bakers and caterers, I don't see the same concerns because they are not really participants in the actual ceremony in the way that a photographer is.
105
"Some people have lost their jobs for expressing opposition to gay marriage." Maybe, but not many I'll bet. And in many states, a gay person can lose their job just for being gay, something they cannot change about themselves. Which is worse, I wonder?
7
Here's the problem as I see it. Replace gay/lesbian with african-american or inter-racial. If someone says their religion forbids inter-racial marriage, should they be allowed to deny service. I don't think anyone would ask for tolerance for those discriminating on the basis of anything other than sexual orientation, and my guess that Mr. Brooks would not be asking for tolerance and legal protection for those who discriminate on the basis of race, or religion, or national origin. Protecting against discrimination of all forms is of vital interest to the government, and to our society, and requiring businesses that serve the public to serve the entire public is one of the least intrusive ways the government can meet this interest.
8
Imagine a slightly different wording of one of the paragraphs in this article:
"Some people have lost their jobs for expressing opposition to inter-racial marriage. There are too many stories like the Oregon bakery that may have to pay a $150,000 fine because it preferred not to bake a wedding cake for an inter-racial ceremony. A movement that stands for tolerance does not want to be on the side of a government that compels a photographer who is an evangelical Christian to shoot an inter-racial wedding that he would rather avoid."
Is this still an acceptable compromise between religious freedom and the rights of others? I think most people would say it is not.
"Some people have lost their jobs for expressing opposition to inter-racial marriage. There are too many stories like the Oregon bakery that may have to pay a $150,000 fine because it preferred not to bake a wedding cake for an inter-racial ceremony. A movement that stands for tolerance does not want to be on the side of a government that compels a photographer who is an evangelical Christian to shoot an inter-racial wedding that he would rather avoid."
Is this still an acceptable compromise between religious freedom and the rights of others? I think most people would say it is not.
6
"While there are many bigots, there are also many wise and deeply humane people whose most deeply held religious beliefs contain heterosexual definitions of marriage. These people are worthy of tolerance, respect and gentle persuasion."
No, Mr. Brooks, those people are neither worthy of tolerance nor respect because they offer none in return.
No, Mr. Brooks, those people are neither worthy of tolerance nor respect because they offer none in return.
7
I'm about as liberal as they come on most issues, but I do believe that the civil rights of people to express their religious beliefs need to be balanced with other expressions of civil rights. I believe that this law would not allow people to refuse service to others simply because they ARE gay, nor should it. But the right to refuse to participate in a same-sex marriage seems does not seem outrageous.
Let's take established wedding vendors. When these people started their businesses, they could not be legally allowed to participate in a same-sex wedding, since same-sex weddings were illegal. Now, the law has changed around them, and it is illegal for them NOT to participate in same-sex weddings?
Instead of carving out religious exemptions to the law in perpetuity, why not use something as unrevolutionary as a grandfather clause? If your wedding-related business was established when same sex marriages were illegal, you can claim a religious exemption for PARTICIPATION in the ceremony. If you were a pharmacist before birth control, or morning after pills, were approved, you can claim an exemption, and if you were a health care provider before Roe v. Wade, you can claim an exemption for participating in an abortion.
If you join a profession, or establish a business, AFTER these laws took effect, then tough luck, you follow the law of the land just like everyone else.
And nobody is EVER allowed to refuse service simply for BEING gay.
Let's take established wedding vendors. When these people started their businesses, they could not be legally allowed to participate in a same-sex wedding, since same-sex weddings were illegal. Now, the law has changed around them, and it is illegal for them NOT to participate in same-sex weddings?
Instead of carving out religious exemptions to the law in perpetuity, why not use something as unrevolutionary as a grandfather clause? If your wedding-related business was established when same sex marriages were illegal, you can claim a religious exemption for PARTICIPATION in the ceremony. If you were a pharmacist before birth control, or morning after pills, were approved, you can claim an exemption, and if you were a health care provider before Roe v. Wade, you can claim an exemption for participating in an abortion.
If you join a profession, or establish a business, AFTER these laws took effect, then tough luck, you follow the law of the land just like everyone else.
And nobody is EVER allowed to refuse service simply for BEING gay.
2
Could the RFRA allow the eventuality that communities could set aside ghettos because they didn’t want to live next to a gay person and their life style? Would this allow separate water coolers for gays because Christians wouldn’t want to drink from the same fountain? Or separate seating in the back of the bus because they didn’t want to sit in proximity to a gay person. Backers of this law have a lot of history from which to draw their ideas.
4
If Jewish bakers are compelled to serve neo nazis and holocaust deniers (are they?), then why should the religious not be forced to put aside their own feelings on the matter and bake the gay wedding cake?
1
Neither a conservative nor a Republican, I think Brooks makes a good case here. There is something fundamentally wrong in forcing someone to do something that is contrary to his or her religious values. It seems to me the law's opponents are a little too anxious to cry foul. What harm has thus far been done?
"While there are many bigots, there are also many wise and deeply humane people whose most deeply held religious beliefs contain heterosexual definitions of marriage. These people are worthy of tolerance, respect and gentle persuasion."
Wrong. You can't be 'deeply humane' if you're a bigot, and "Because my god told me so" is no excuse. If your god tells you to be a bigot, you need to find a better god.
Wrong. You can't be 'deeply humane' if you're a bigot, and "Because my god told me so" is no excuse. If your god tells you to be a bigot, you need to find a better god.
7
I am disgusted and saddened by your column, David. Is it really okay for a business not to provide service to blacks or Jews do to a person's religious beliefs? This is what you are truly saying. If you say I am misunderstanding then why is it okay to discriminate against me as a lesbian?
I am not preventing anyone from their religious beliefs that I am a lesser person but I do require that their actions treat me as a full human being. I am astounded that people condone religions that say I am not worthy of living my life fully.
Jesus must be crying.
I am not preventing anyone from their religious beliefs that I am a lesser person but I do require that their actions treat me as a full human being. I am astounded that people condone religions that say I am not worthy of living my life fully.
Jesus must be crying.
8
(shakes his head sadly) David, you just don't get it. If you're in the business of serving the public, licensed by the state to do so, then you cannot practice unlawful discrimination. Against Jews, again women, against blacks, or against gays. It's not special pleading. It's not a matter of wisdom or tolerance or any other fudging. And if your "deeply held religious beliefs" absolutely require you to be a bigot, then I suggest you don't open your doors to the public. Find another line of work. Don't ask the Constitution to support your intolerance.
10
there seems to be a confusion between the right to having an opinion about gay issues (marriage, etc) and what it means to have a business that serves the public.
If a person has religious problems about baking a wedding cake for a homosexual couple, he should chose a different line of business.
This has nothing to do with wanting to change his mind. He can still think what he wishes about gays,.
The example of the orthodox Jews is an example of divergent among a single group. Or do you wish to imply that homosexuals should exercise this "politeness" when people refuse to greet them?
Living in a heterogeneous community is not always easy, but if you decide to work in the service sector, that is what you should do: serve the public.
If a person has religious problems about baking a wedding cake for a homosexual couple, he should chose a different line of business.
This has nothing to do with wanting to change his mind. He can still think what he wishes about gays,.
The example of the orthodox Jews is an example of divergent among a single group. Or do you wish to imply that homosexuals should exercise this "politeness" when people refuse to greet them?
Living in a heterogeneous community is not always easy, but if you decide to work in the service sector, that is what you should do: serve the public.
7
I don't know what problem the law is designed to remedy. It's proponents have been vague on its application suggesting its purpose is to legalize discrimination.
6
David,
On the eve of Passover, how could you write such a column?
The Indiana law is different from the others because the language provides a plausible defense for committing discrimination by including for-profit businesses. In most other versions of the law, for-profit is excluded from the right to exercise religion.
The law, as it was written for Indiana, is but a hair's breadth away from the Nuremberg Laws of 1935. It opens a door to discrimination whether or not the intent of the legislature was to do so. But all things considered, the text really does make one wonder about the actual intent of the authors.
To remain silent in the face of this slippery slope is to condone the possibility it can be used to deny service to _any_ group. It won't stop with the LGBT community. It will spread to others....interracial couples, Jews, Muslims...whatever the hate-flavor-o'the-day happens to be.
It's not okay.
http://wifelyperson.blogspot.com/
On the eve of Passover, how could you write such a column?
The Indiana law is different from the others because the language provides a plausible defense for committing discrimination by including for-profit businesses. In most other versions of the law, for-profit is excluded from the right to exercise religion.
The law, as it was written for Indiana, is but a hair's breadth away from the Nuremberg Laws of 1935. It opens a door to discrimination whether or not the intent of the legislature was to do so. But all things considered, the text really does make one wonder about the actual intent of the authors.
To remain silent in the face of this slippery slope is to condone the possibility it can be used to deny service to _any_ group. It won't stop with the LGBT community. It will spread to others....interracial couples, Jews, Muslims...whatever the hate-flavor-o'the-day happens to be.
It's not okay.
http://wifelyperson.blogspot.com/
280
Acknowledging someone's observance of Kosher law or respecting a cultural tradition are admirable traits of personal behavior. Being denied a business service is an entirely different matter.
If a for-profit enterprise is open for business it cannot deny service to anyone on the basis of personal beliefs -- and let's not follow the red herring of neo-Nazis or the KKK wanting to hire Holocaust survivors or African-Americans to publicize their rallies. There is no reason for anyone to fear gay people or to consider them threatening. "Different values" and religious scruples are just being used to enable another example of discrimination.
If a for-profit enterprise is open for business it cannot deny service to anyone on the basis of personal beliefs -- and let's not follow the red herring of neo-Nazis or the KKK wanting to hire Holocaust survivors or African-Americans to publicize their rallies. There is no reason for anyone to fear gay people or to consider them threatening. "Different values" and religious scruples are just being used to enable another example of discrimination.
95
As one who remembers seeing "No Dogs or Jews Allowed" signs on the Kenilworth Hotel in Florida, the so-called religions freedom laws are a giant step backward enabling businesses to discriminate against anyone for reasons of personal beliefs.
David Brooks, a so-called conservative who is usually against governmental intrusion, is, in this case, a supporter of laws legalizing religious bigotry in the marketplace. How pathetic!
David Brooks, a so-called conservative who is usually against governmental intrusion, is, in this case, a supporter of laws legalizing religious bigotry in the marketplace. How pathetic!
9
Freedom of religion provides that the government cannot impose religions on people. But, when someone opens their business to the public, they are open to all of the public. They cannot decide who they will serve (within reason, as with bartenders serving the severely inebriated.) When someone enters your place of business, you serve them. If you don't like their politics, their color, their ethnicity, etc., you must serve them. If your religion prevents you from acting that way, you should find another way of making a living.
5
In over thirty states, it's legal to tell someone from the LGBT community, "You're gay, you're fired." In over thirty states, it's legal to to tell someone in the LGBT community, "You're a lesbian and we don't rent to lesbians." This isn't imaginary prejudice; this is legal bigotry. Mr. Brooks is arguing for tolerance for the intolerant; worrying about the jobs of a very few religious fanatics at the expense of an entire demographic group who have been - for centuries - marginalized, bullied, beaten and murdered because they were different from the majority.
Personally, I don't want the baker who hates gay people to mix their wedding cake. Nor am I taken aback by the hyper religious who believe its okay to deny venues to lesbians because their idea of Jesus allows them to treat some other members of their species as less than human. Our community has always dealt with these people, and will continue to do so, because no one is suggesting we repeal hate, ignorance and cruelty: it can't be done. But I don't believe we should continue to empower those who would practice exclusion based on their idea of God with state sponsored legislation. At some point, shouldn't that stop? Does Mr. Brooks have a date in mind?
That permission to hate has been codified before does not mean it should be done again.
Personally, I don't want the baker who hates gay people to mix their wedding cake. Nor am I taken aback by the hyper religious who believe its okay to deny venues to lesbians because their idea of Jesus allows them to treat some other members of their species as less than human. Our community has always dealt with these people, and will continue to do so, because no one is suggesting we repeal hate, ignorance and cruelty: it can't be done. But I don't believe we should continue to empower those who would practice exclusion based on their idea of God with state sponsored legislation. At some point, shouldn't that stop? Does Mr. Brooks have a date in mind?
That permission to hate has been codified before does not mean it should be done again.
10
If the Indiana law is "like the 1993 federal act", what is the point of it? Unfortunately, it is not. What is at issue here is very simple and specific. If someone offers goods and services to the general public, he or she is not entitled to decide which members of the general public can be served. Refusing service to someone who is able and willing to pay for it is discrimination by definition. We are not talking about who will shake hands with whom, or who will mingle socially with whom.
3
First, Lord should be pluralized to Lords, because there are so many different ideas of what this means. Second, wise and humane people of faith probably have no problem with LGBT people because they are wise and humane. They should not be confused with the smaller percentage of narrow minded religious bigots. Third, in this day of rapid change across all spheres, should we really be saying that a law enacted in 1993 in the direct aftermath of the HIV plague and at a time of heightened fear and mistrust justifies these awful bills? Nobody has been denied religious freedom. But if you are a business and you take business deductions on your tax returns, if you advertise in the public sphere, if you attempt to make a strong presence in a public space, you cannot then define who among the public are worthy to be designated as consumers. Leave that to the churches, where no one has been forced to compromise any religious idea. When it comes to fighting bigotry and injustice, it helps nothing when a man with your reach and influence tells people to back off from this terrible struggle.
7
This is David Brooks at his all-time worst. In effect, he is balancing the right to be treated fairly with the right to treat people unfairly. In what world are those equivalent? In no way do the non-religious extend themselves to affect the lives of the religious. But the reverse is obviously not the case. How dare Mr. Brooks declare that the Oregon bakery denial of services is a mere preference. As for people losing their jobs for expressing opposition to same-sex marriage, give me a break. Would you, if gay, expect fair treatment from an employer who opposed your "lifestyle"? Please stop Me. Brooks. You are on the wrong side of this issue - you are on the wrong side of history. You are also on the wrong side of basic decency, compassion, and humanity.
9
When social policies are made to look religious and religions seek to then force those policies on other people tolerance ends and the legitimate views of disagreeing people are lost. Gay marriage or even abortion policies should not be considered religious. They sit in the realm of individual consciences. Roe vs. wade was decided under this premise. But it seems there are always those wh hide under the banner of a religion to dictate the best for the rest of society.
6
"...if there is no attempt to balance religious liberty and civil rights, the cause of gay rights will be associated with coercion, not liberation."
Really? Coercion? Tell that to the the thousands of men and women whose lives were ruined - and often snuffed out - by one hundred years of laws and socially sanctioned hostility against homosexuals. Let's call a spade a spade, shall we, and identify the semantics in play with Indiana's protection of "religious liberty." Mr. Brooks' reach for pluralism is at best, shortsighted, and shortsighted should be intellectually insufficient for the Paper of Record.
Really? Coercion? Tell that to the the thousands of men and women whose lives were ruined - and often snuffed out - by one hundred years of laws and socially sanctioned hostility against homosexuals. Let's call a spade a spade, shall we, and identify the semantics in play with Indiana's protection of "religious liberty." Mr. Brooks' reach for pluralism is at best, shortsighted, and shortsighted should be intellectually insufficient for the Paper of Record.
7
I realize that as a columnist Mr. Brooks can say what he likes without respect to the facts, but it would strengthen any argument he makes if he would pay attention to them. Several lawyers have explained in detail online how the Indiana law differs both from the federal & other state laws. Could Brooks really not find out the facts before writing? If this law does not differ from the federal law, why are large corporations upset? Does Brook know more than Eli Lilly's lawyers?
The federal & most state laws do not apply to private businesses; this law explicitly does. Second, the law equates for-profit businesses with churches & individuals, which neither the federal law nor most state laws do. If Brooks cared about the truth he could Google "Epps The Atlantic" for the details.
I grew up in a Methodist church that was next door to a seminary. In its top notch Sunday school, I learned that honesty is a virtue Christians must cultivate. Perhaps we sought to be known first by our love, but nearly as importantly by our integrity. Intellectual honesty is a moral issue. To assert something that is factually false or that largely misrepresents the truth for the sake of scoring rhetorical points should be beneath any moral actor. To fudge facts in a world with the internet, where more accurate information is a click away, is an insult to readers' intelligence. Unlike homosexual sex, perpetrating falsehoods goes against one of the Ten Commandments. Read before your preach.
The federal & most state laws do not apply to private businesses; this law explicitly does. Second, the law equates for-profit businesses with churches & individuals, which neither the federal law nor most state laws do. If Brooks cared about the truth he could Google "Epps The Atlantic" for the details.
I grew up in a Methodist church that was next door to a seminary. In its top notch Sunday school, I learned that honesty is a virtue Christians must cultivate. Perhaps we sought to be known first by our love, but nearly as importantly by our integrity. Intellectual honesty is a moral issue. To assert something that is factually false or that largely misrepresents the truth for the sake of scoring rhetorical points should be beneath any moral actor. To fudge facts in a world with the internet, where more accurate information is a click away, is an insult to readers' intelligence. Unlike homosexual sex, perpetrating falsehoods goes against one of the Ten Commandments. Read before your preach.
9
Mr. Brooks, the overwhelming majority of commenters implore you to stop writing narratives that sugarcoat bigotry and public shaming under the guise of religion.
Let's assume you move to a state like Indiana, and you are surprised one day to walk into a store that posts this sign: "We Will Not Serve Jews, or Others Who Fail to Accept Christ". Then as the weeks and months go by, you see more and more of these signs popping up, in different stores. I'm sure you wouldn't congratulate yourself for having been "polite" in defending this despicable law.
Let's assume you move to a state like Indiana, and you are surprised one day to walk into a store that posts this sign: "We Will Not Serve Jews, or Others Who Fail to Accept Christ". Then as the weeks and months go by, you see more and more of these signs popping up, in different stores. I'm sure you wouldn't congratulate yourself for having been "polite" in defending this despicable law.
12
This column is just ridiculous. "Be quiet!" Mr. Brooks says to gays, "You're lucky we've given you this much!"
The column is intellectually dishonest. One, the 1993 Federal law is not the same as the Indiana law. Two, to suggest that the Indiana law is not animated by naked bias against gays is to suggest that tomorrow the sun will rise in the West. For goodness, sake, do Mr. Brooks and Gov. Pence think we're idiots? There is one reason, and one reason alone, this law was passed: to legalize discrimination against gays. Ask it's principal supporters!
For conservatives like Mr. Brooks, there is always one answer to those seeking equal rights: wait. Wait and things will change on their own. Things never change on their own. Things change only by energetic action over the opposition of conservatives like Mr. Brooks.
The column is intellectually dishonest. One, the 1993 Federal law is not the same as the Indiana law. Two, to suggest that the Indiana law is not animated by naked bias against gays is to suggest that tomorrow the sun will rise in the West. For goodness, sake, do Mr. Brooks and Gov. Pence think we're idiots? There is one reason, and one reason alone, this law was passed: to legalize discrimination against gays. Ask it's principal supporters!
For conservatives like Mr. Brooks, there is always one answer to those seeking equal rights: wait. Wait and things will change on their own. Things never change on their own. Things change only by energetic action over the opposition of conservatives like Mr. Brooks.
13
Is comparing an immutable part of my humanity with cutlery an example of Mr. Brooks's "politeness of the soul"?
9
Now take each and every instance of "gay" and replace it with "African American" and each instance of "gay marriage" and replace it with "inter-racial marraige"
Now do you see the problem?
We, as a society, have said that we will not tolerate exclusion based on race. Why do you think that it is OK to exclude based on sexual orientation?
Now do you see the problem?
We, as a society, have said that we will not tolerate exclusion based on race. Why do you think that it is OK to exclude based on sexual orientation?
14
Interesting column, but you make a basic category error: there is no conflict of rights regarding the civic membership of LGBQT people. The fact that LGBQT people have the full measure of civil rights means, by definition, there is no right to discriminate against them in the public square.
The protection of religious freedom works both ways: LGBTQ people have no right to claim full membership in churches that choose, within their congregations, to discriminate. While members of churches might advocate for marriage equality, that decision is made within the church. Similarly, if the Roman Catholic and LDS churches choose to continue to teach that women are inherently unworthy of priesthood in their denominations, that is entirely their business.
However, no one is entitled to extend such discrimination to the public square. When I choose to open a public business, I do not have the right to read LGBTQ people (or women, or people of color, or, for that matter, people who want to discriminate against LGBTQ people) out of that public. I may want to do so, and I may want to do so for reasons that have to do with deeply held religious beliefs, but most of us who have reached the age of five have learned that wanting to do something does not give me the right to do it.
I have no moral obligation to open a wedding-related public business, but, having done so, I have both a moral and legal obligation to treat members of the public equally.
The protection of religious freedom works both ways: LGBTQ people have no right to claim full membership in churches that choose, within their congregations, to discriminate. While members of churches might advocate for marriage equality, that decision is made within the church. Similarly, if the Roman Catholic and LDS churches choose to continue to teach that women are inherently unworthy of priesthood in their denominations, that is entirely their business.
However, no one is entitled to extend such discrimination to the public square. When I choose to open a public business, I do not have the right to read LGBTQ people (or women, or people of color, or, for that matter, people who want to discriminate against LGBTQ people) out of that public. I may want to do so, and I may want to do so for reasons that have to do with deeply held religious beliefs, but most of us who have reached the age of five have learned that wanting to do something does not give me the right to do it.
I have no moral obligation to open a wedding-related public business, but, having done so, I have both a moral and legal obligation to treat members of the public equally.
15
David, you see to be missing a central point in this issue. When I refuse to bake you a cake, or take your picture, because of my misguided religious beliefs, I am forcing you to adhere to my religious precepts.
If the only doctor for hundreds of miles around refused to treat a gay person based on religious beliefs , would you feel that justified? Why then is the Baker any different?
If the only doctor for hundreds of miles around refused to treat a gay person based on religious beliefs , would you feel that justified? Why then is the Baker any different?
13
So, should a taxi driver be able to refuse service to a homosexual couple? How about a couple of mixed race? I know the mixed race couple is considered a protected class, and, in Indiana, the gay couple is not, but that is not the argument Brooks makes. He is simply saying we should tolerate that type of discrimination if it comes from a place of conscience, not bigotry. Really?
17
Nice try, but it just doesn't wash. Just as we need to maintain a separation of church and state, we need a separation of church and cash register. What's to keep evangelical business owners from denying service to anyone who commits what they regard as a sin? Why not allow Catholics, Lutherans, Jews, etc. to do the same?
Religion just doesn't mix well with the other ingredients of a civilization.
Religion just doesn't mix well with the other ingredients of a civilization.
3
"Gays and lesbians should not only be permitted to marry and live as they want, but be honored for doing so."
Did I miss the part where gay people are demanding a free cupcake with their wedding cake?
Or perhaps the word "honored" simply means not being shamed and treated with the same basic respect as everyone else. In that case, yeah, we want to be honored, just as we'd honor you.
Did I miss the part where gay people are demanding a free cupcake with their wedding cake?
Or perhaps the word "honored" simply means not being shamed and treated with the same basic respect as everyone else. In that case, yeah, we want to be honored, just as we'd honor you.
2
Disingenuous claims of non-discriminatory aspects of Indiana law is no different than the events trying to halt the inevitable march of civil rights in the south of the 1960s. When an enlightened public comes to accept and embrace the rights of infringed parties there are always reactionaries that use all available tools to resist change. In this case, emboldened by Supreme Court conservatives, the tool of choice has become the religious rights of "citizen" corporations. It is a shame the high court of this land has chosen to be on the wrong side of history. In using the twisted logic of historical precedence of corporate citizenship, this court has chosen to promote a corporate social war against human citizens. The concentration of power gifted to corporate interests by these actions are, as to be expected, impeding the liberty of citizens at large. This corruption is accentuated with the inclusion of religious rights of business entities. When an individual exercises their religious rights, systemic issues of prejudice are not widely applied as with corporate application. One can look at the Hobby Lobby case as an example of a business having infringed on the rights of a large class of citizens. The infringement far exceeds what a single individual could inflict. Unless, one considers a justice of a high court.
2
Looking for backers for my Christ-inspired Coffee House that will refuse to serve anyone who is a registered Republican.
Just a ridiculous column.
Just a ridiculous column.
10
The Indiana law forbids law suits challenging the actions of business to discriminate as they see fit. So when the Moslem couple can't get their wedding cake from the only baker in town - tough. Just what part of the First Amendment is the government undertaking to prop up supposed religious rights but not the rights of others to be treated equally?
2
"... the argument seems to be that the federal act’s concrete case-by-case approach is wrong."
It only seems that way if you totally ignore the arguments that are actually being made against Indiana' new law.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/what-makes-indianas-...
It only seems that way if you totally ignore the arguments that are actually being made against Indiana' new law.
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2015/03/what-makes-indianas-...
3
The point is that the Indiana state legislature passed this law in reaction to the rulings by the Federal courts last year overturning the 1986 and 1997 Indiana statutes restricting the state's recognition of marriage to a "man and a woman." Why would the state legislature suddenly feel a need to pass a law reaffirming the Federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act, if not out of a motive to sanction anti-gay bigotry? I'm preparing myself for Mr. Brooks's column explaining that it was overreach by the Federal courts in the decades after World War II that caused many "wise and deeply humane people" to retain their fervent beliefs in the inferiority of African-Americans and the moral depravity of Jews, thereby contributing to the stubborn resilience of racism and anti-Semitism in our country today. In particular, the theme of "gentle persuasion" was sounded by generations of moral cowards in the South as an argument against judicial action against Jim Crow.
3
Mr brooks is concerned that gay rights will be associated with coercion not liberation if laws like thus are not allowed.
If coercion was not used there would be no African Americans at ole miss or sitting at lunch counters in Greensboro.
Our ugly history of discrimination has instances medical care being denied on the basis of race. And people claimed religious justification for these actions.
Thus kind of hostility would not be directed at gays in this day and age? Keep in mind that in 2001 Jerry Falwell pronounced to his millions of followers that gays were responsible for 9/11.
We decided as a nation that we would not use the religious freedom card to discriminate against African Americans. Will we allow it for gays? That's the question.
If coercion was not used there would be no African Americans at ole miss or sitting at lunch counters in Greensboro.
Our ugly history of discrimination has instances medical care being denied on the basis of race. And people claimed religious justification for these actions.
Thus kind of hostility would not be directed at gays in this day and age? Keep in mind that in 2001 Jerry Falwell pronounced to his millions of followers that gays were responsible for 9/11.
We decided as a nation that we would not use the religious freedom card to discriminate against African Americans. Will we allow it for gays? That's the question.
5
The deep logical flaw in your reasoning is that you confuse rank bigotry for religious expression. The Indiana law was intended to serve but one purpose. That purpose was to give expression to anti-gay hatred as evidenced by who was most vocally advocating passage of the legislation. In your gentle pursuit of persuasion would you be fine with businesses denying service to black Americans on grounds that their religion forbade the mixing of the races? Religious tolerance Is certainly a bedrock American value which is why when those church doors close if you want to rant and rave against the "homosexual lifestyle" knock yourselves out. But if you want to interact with the larger community and enjoy the benefits of trade and commerce than you serve everyone. Period. Equality and human dignity demand it.
5
Mr. Brooks - can you please provide me with one example of a person who has lost their job, been refused service, or been physically intimidated or assaulted because they oppose marriage equality? I’d really like to know.
Your specious argument uses coded language that rehashes age-old justifications for bigotry and discrimination. These same “religious freedom” and “liberty” arguments were formerly made by business owners who refused service to non-whites and non-Christians during the Jim Crow era, and by racist parents who did not want to send their children to integrated schools. Should Indiana’s new law also be interpreted to allow for that?
Civil rights struggles are designed to even the playing field - not to protect and preserve the privileged status of those in power. So I would not hold your breath that the LGBT community will to heed your advice to stop loudly and proudly advocating for overdue equal rights and justice. If anything, your column’s deafness to social progress proves that the volume needs to be turned up even more.
Your specious argument uses coded language that rehashes age-old justifications for bigotry and discrimination. These same “religious freedom” and “liberty” arguments were formerly made by business owners who refused service to non-whites and non-Christians during the Jim Crow era, and by racist parents who did not want to send their children to integrated schools. Should Indiana’s new law also be interpreted to allow for that?
Civil rights struggles are designed to even the playing field - not to protect and preserve the privileged status of those in power. So I would not hold your breath that the LGBT community will to heed your advice to stop loudly and proudly advocating for overdue equal rights and justice. If anything, your column’s deafness to social progress proves that the volume needs to be turned up even more.
5
The flat errors (less politely, lies and omissions) in the logics of Brook's column render it useless.
First, the Indiana law differs in a core way from the Federal law, RFRA: it allows private citizens to discriminate, to determine the "balance" between their religious convictions and another's inherent human qualities (sexual orientation). This is a far cry from the judicial standard (compelling reason, less intrusive means) by which a government's law may be considered as abridging religious freedom.
Second, the assertion that "Fewer people have to face the horror of bigotry, isolation, marginalization and prejudice" in the wake of RFRA is unsupported and untrue. Instead, that terrible law (long since rejected by its original progressive supporters in light of the unforeseen damage it wrought to our country) has made in fact governing greatly difficult: any law of general applicability can now flaunted by the "religious."
Finally, given that bright lines are appealing for the purpose of being conciliatory (Brooks' is "respect bigotry if it comes from a self-claimed religious person"), consider another bright line: doing business. If you are making money by offering any goods or services, you may not discriminate. Full stop.
First, the Indiana law differs in a core way from the Federal law, RFRA: it allows private citizens to discriminate, to determine the "balance" between their religious convictions and another's inherent human qualities (sexual orientation). This is a far cry from the judicial standard (compelling reason, less intrusive means) by which a government's law may be considered as abridging religious freedom.
Second, the assertion that "Fewer people have to face the horror of bigotry, isolation, marginalization and prejudice" in the wake of RFRA is unsupported and untrue. Instead, that terrible law (long since rejected by its original progressive supporters in light of the unforeseen damage it wrought to our country) has made in fact governing greatly difficult: any law of general applicability can now flaunted by the "religious."
Finally, given that bright lines are appealing for the purpose of being conciliatory (Brooks' is "respect bigotry if it comes from a self-claimed religious person"), consider another bright line: doing business. If you are making money by offering any goods or services, you may not discriminate. Full stop.
3
I must be missing something in this debate. I thought the courts were for showing some harm harm had been done and determining the costs. In the case of a baker not wanting to bake a cake then unless a deposit was involved no harm was done. Whether he was too busy, or didn't like the choice of icing he could refuse. More odious is the case of a pharmacist who denies his services to someone because of personal animus. Real damages could result and that is what the courts are for. This is more a case of misuse of the judicial process than coercion and that argument has been going on for decades.
1
"On the other hand, this was a nation founded on religious tolerance."
Really, David? While the Pilgrims came seeking freedom to practice their strain of Calvinism they were quick to reserve that freedom unto themselves alone. And for many generations Roman Catholics and Jews faced choking restrictions and discrimination. And then there are the Mormons who posed their particular threat to majority sensibilities by practicing plural marriage. And lets remember Utah was not allowed statehood until polygamy was legally sanctioned there.
The fact is that tolerance of all stripes has usually been achieved by gradual incorporation, assimilation and - most importantly - through agitation and confrontation. The situation in Indiana will most likely be resolved over time and, I'm betting, be resolved in light of economic rather than religious interests. When it comes to planning nuptials I'm pretty sure that most couples - gay and straight - will choose to buy goods and services from businesses that appreciate their spending power rather than their political power or how they show their love and devotion.
The only clear cut case that can be made for such laws would be a clergyman's inability to perform a service where religious rules stand in the way.
Really, David? While the Pilgrims came seeking freedom to practice their strain of Calvinism they were quick to reserve that freedom unto themselves alone. And for many generations Roman Catholics and Jews faced choking restrictions and discrimination. And then there are the Mormons who posed their particular threat to majority sensibilities by practicing plural marriage. And lets remember Utah was not allowed statehood until polygamy was legally sanctioned there.
The fact is that tolerance of all stripes has usually been achieved by gradual incorporation, assimilation and - most importantly - through agitation and confrontation. The situation in Indiana will most likely be resolved over time and, I'm betting, be resolved in light of economic rather than religious interests. When it comes to planning nuptials I'm pretty sure that most couples - gay and straight - will choose to buy goods and services from businesses that appreciate their spending power rather than their political power or how they show their love and devotion.
The only clear cut case that can be made for such laws would be a clergyman's inability to perform a service where religious rules stand in the way.
5
What Brooks misses here is the nature of what we do and do not protect with our laws when we protect religious freedom. We have always protected the liberty of personal religious practice and acts of observance - growing facial hair or dreadlocks, the need to pray at regular intervals in certain ways, the collection of artifacts or the wearing of certain garments. When these practices of observance conflict with generally applicable rules, we must analyze whether an exemption makes sense to uphold the free exercise of religion. These are personal acts of observance and adherence, the rules for which derive from texts of the faith. The sale of cake or a flower arrangement is not an act of observance - it is an act of commerce, and commerce is not a right - it is a privilege to which every merchant must submit to the regulation of the state for the legitimate protection of the greater public good. When, as here, the public good requires that commerce be conducted without discrimination with respect to the nature of the buyer, the seller's preference to discriminate on religious grounds must yield. While the seller's conscience may suffer in the conduct of their commerce, our regulation of the transaction does not unreasonably burden their religious freedom because we have not denied them an act of prayer or observance.
3
“Organized religion is a sham and a crutch for weak-minded people who need strength in numbers. It tells people to go out and stick their noses in other people's business. I live by the golden rule: Treat others as you'd want them to treat you. The religious right wants to tell people how to live.”
― Jesse Ventura
I am all for politeness and I do not find crutch-dependency morally reprehensible per se. However, when crutch-dependent people use their crutches to hurt the crutch independent, we have to question their morality. And I find it morally indefensible for people going to war because they think their crutch is better than the other person's crutch.
― Jesse Ventura
I am all for politeness and I do not find crutch-dependency morally reprehensible per se. However, when crutch-dependent people use their crutches to hurt the crutch independent, we have to question their morality. And I find it morally indefensible for people going to war because they think their crutch is better than the other person's crutch.
5
Using David Brooks' s logic, African Americans would have found it very hard to get served in any form of public accommodation in the overwhelming Mormon state of Utah prior to 1978, when the church changed its mind on its willingness to accept black members.
Does he think that a church-going white supremacist ER doctor refuse to treat any patient that wasn't caucasian? What if the ER is in a remote area, and there are no other doctors available?
Can separatist polygamist sects use this move to Indiana now and marry child brides?
Does he think that a church-going white supremacist ER doctor refuse to treat any patient that wasn't caucasian? What if the ER is in a remote area, and there are no other doctors available?
Can separatist polygamist sects use this move to Indiana now and marry child brides?
1
It takes a strongly developed moral code to know what parts of the bible to ignore. And every religion that uses the bible ignores huge parts of it. Conservative Christians routinely ignore the parts about helping the poor. Reform Jews ignore the part about observing the Sabbath. All the history about enslavement, taking the spouse of a deceased sibling - all ignored. For us to choose what to ignore, there needs to be an external reference that is not the bible. Our morality does not come from the bible. When conservatives place the ten commandments on a civil buildings, their stated belief system violates half of them!
Therefore, there is no religious problem with ignoring the Levitican statements about homosexuality: we decide what to ignore from sources outside the bible itself.
This law is about discrimination, plain and simple.
Therefore, there is no religious problem with ignoring the Levitican statements about homosexuality: we decide what to ignore from sources outside the bible itself.
This law is about discrimination, plain and simple.
3
Where does this guy get his news?
The Indiana law is different, because it is the 1st that protects bigots from discrimination claims by private parties. Other laws protect against religious persecution by the gov't (think drug prosecution of peyote-using native Americans). So please, drop the straw man argument.
The marriage we are talking about in the US is civil marriage. Each religious group may still bless (or not) any marriage. My religious group blessed my heterosexual marriage, but it would give a pass to a heterosexual couple who promoted bigotry against gays, blacks, jews or muslims. Your religious group may not want to bless my marriage, and I honestly don't care. But, in the public square, our civil institutions must recognize all marriages, even those your or my religious group wouldn't bless. This is nothing new. I've been married in the eyes of the state and everyone else for years, but I've never asked the blessing of any religious group other than my own.
The public square is not got my religion. Everyone must be treated with dignity, even those we disagree with. Blacks, gays, jews, muslims... all are welcome at the lunch counter. Those who chooses to operate businesses are leaving their homes and churches, and entering the public square. Leave your bigotry behind you, no matter how bigoted are your deeply held religious beliefs.
This is the essence of America. To proclaim a right to bigotry in the public square is to misunderstand America.
The Indiana law is different, because it is the 1st that protects bigots from discrimination claims by private parties. Other laws protect against religious persecution by the gov't (think drug prosecution of peyote-using native Americans). So please, drop the straw man argument.
The marriage we are talking about in the US is civil marriage. Each religious group may still bless (or not) any marriage. My religious group blessed my heterosexual marriage, but it would give a pass to a heterosexual couple who promoted bigotry against gays, blacks, jews or muslims. Your religious group may not want to bless my marriage, and I honestly don't care. But, in the public square, our civil institutions must recognize all marriages, even those your or my religious group wouldn't bless. This is nothing new. I've been married in the eyes of the state and everyone else for years, but I've never asked the blessing of any religious group other than my own.
The public square is not got my religion. Everyone must be treated with dignity, even those we disagree with. Blacks, gays, jews, muslims... all are welcome at the lunch counter. Those who chooses to operate businesses are leaving their homes and churches, and entering the public square. Leave your bigotry behind you, no matter how bigoted are your deeply held religious beliefs.
This is the essence of America. To proclaim a right to bigotry in the public square is to misunderstand America.
7
Look at the photo taken of Mike Pence signing the law. Behind him is a who's who of outspoken anti-gay bigots. Watch the news coverage. The proponents of this law laughably dodge the straightforward questions asked by journalists on whether they would support laws protecting gays against discrimination. They won't answer them because they in fact believe that discrimination against gays is an acceptable expression of their religious faith! Give me a break Mr. Brooks. Your column is intellectually dishonest.
4
No offense to my Indiana friends, but this law seems designed to bring us back to the days of lunch counter bullying and sit-ins (see NYT Anne Moody obituary 2/17/15).
It's all as reasonable as you say, Mr. Brooks, until a traveler is refused roadside assistance, fuel, medical care, restrooms, or food because of a pro-choice bumper sticker, yarmulke, headscarf, haircut, or perceived gender non-conformity.
It's all as reasonable as you say, Mr. Brooks, until a traveler is refused roadside assistance, fuel, medical care, restrooms, or food because of a pro-choice bumper sticker, yarmulke, headscarf, haircut, or perceived gender non-conformity.
6
I wonder why Mr. Brooks is blaming the victims? All of us who love equality have not constructed laws that allow discrimination, but some state legislatures have done so. It is a matter of history, and so is the Indiana law. An ugly dark history.
4
I'm still waiting for one of these salad-bar Christian businesses to refuse service to a Rich Sinner. You know, the "It is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God." thingy that Jesus talked about.
3
This is NOT about Orthodox Jews, the KKK or wedding cakes. This is about mostly rural Indiana, where the one diner in town can now tell those two gay dads there isn't a table available, even though the place is half-empty. Where the gas station can put a hand-lettered sign in the window saying, "We are a Christian establishment. Please take your homosexual dollars somewhere else." Where the day care center can politely ask the lesbian mom to find another place for her toddler. Where the dance studio, the coffee shop, the feed store, and the thrift store, the convenience store and the auto body shop and the vet and the nail salon can all FINALLY express their proudly held "faith-based" beliefs without fear of repercussion. Finally, David, the oppressed white Christian conservatives have won the day! Next time their way of life is threatened by the Gay agenda (or the "hands up don't shoot agenda" or the Jews have all the power and money agenda, or the all-Muslims-are-terrorists agenda or the godless Atheist agenda), they can fight back with the law on their side. Thank you Gov. Pence for defending their freedom. This is America, right?
13
So what happens when the Muslim gyro shop owner refuses to serve me because I'm an atheist? Or worse, what if he refuses to serve Christians because he does not want to do business with infidels? Can my uncle refuse to do business with a racially mixed couple on the pretext that their union offends his strongly held religious beliefs? What is the standard, sir, for determining which beliefs are strongly held and which are just whims or out and out bigotry? Your argument of tolerance for the, let's face it, eternally oppressed American Christians, is so shallow I can't believe the NYTimes paid you to write it. Governor Pence and other electeds making excuses and rationalizations about what these laws intend are liars. They know exactly what these laws are for, and they only should have look at at the outcry in Arizona last year and Gov Jan Brewer's veto of SB 1062 to predict the response nationally.
6
Yes, to force a person to accept what that person's conscience compels to consider contrary to what seems right is contrary to that person's rights. It cuts both ways in considering this issue, for both the religious believer who considers homosexuality as contrary to what is right and to the homosexuals who are treated unfairly by people holding those beliefs as well as those who simply are unwilling to respect people who are different from themselves. In our society we must be tolerant of behavior which is contrary to our beliefs as long as it does not infringe upon people's peaceful and full participation as members of our civil society. We are obliged as believers or as skeptics to respect differences which may be contrary to our particular set of beliefs, to not make our business to police other people's perceptions of reality to make them conform with ours, it's the only way we can assure ourselves of being free and safe anywhere we happen to go in such a huge country. There are two components to any widely practiced religion or group of believers, the old hard wired group affiliation behaviors which ensured survival and successful procreation for humans since we evolved, and the search for spiritual enlightenment or oneness with something representing eternity to us. The group behavior accepts the worst behavior of our group with a cold indifference to the strangers affected and the spiritual side compels us to empathize those same strangers and to respect their lives.
The ONLY reason the orthodox Christians and Jews and Muslims are respectful of others is because they are a very small minority and would be squashed like bugs if they try to impose their primitive superstitious beliefs on others( as they would really like to do). Religion represents tradition to most people- people who take religion literally like the orthodox are very scary and crazy people!
1
David Brooks, usually a thoughtful columnist, is dead wrong on this one. His example of the Oregon bakery "preferring" not to make a cake for a gay wedding is seen for exactly what it is if you substitute "black wedding" or "Muslim wedding" for "gay wedding". This is not about an individual's sensitivities. It is about rising above them as a core responsibility of a citizen in a pluralistic society. Mr. Brooks, please rethink your logic here. Under these odious laws, the pre-1978 Mormon Church could have refused service to blacks, superceding the Civil Rights Act of the 60s. This in not where we want to go as a nation.
3
In America, it has ALWAYS been the case that:
one person’s religious freedom stops at another person’s rights.
one person’s religious freedom stops at another person’s rights.
4
This article is vacuous and the gentle examples are cherry picked to avoid reality. If my religion tells me that Jews murdered Jesus and therefore are condemned by my god, am I allowed to refuse them service in my establishment? As a fundamentalist Muslim, am I allowed to refuse service to women who aren't wearing a burkha? And as a gentle, sincere and devoted atheist, can I tell Christians to get out of my cab because I'm not taking them anywhere?
3
David, you are dead wrong today. Religious "liberty" is undeserving of any respect when it leads to discrimination -- whether that is against gay couples wanting to sit at a lunch counter, or women who want to wear sleeveless dresses on Saturday and sit in the front of the bus. The writers of our Constitution did not want government meddling with religion - but they never said that religion gets to trump all other values of a civil society. Far from it. I don't care how "nice" you are; just keep your religion to yourself and we'll get along fine.
5
As a gay man who proudly received an undergraduate education in Indiana, I am surprised by Mr. Brooks admonition that advocates for LGBT rights should endeavor to be more polite in their public discourse, specifically with respect to legislation to protect "religious freedom." Of course, politeness in public discourse seems like a good policy in general, but hardly seems to apply in this case.
For generations, lesbian and gay individuals raised in conservative Midwestern states have had the choice to either leave for more progressive regions or to stay and politely accept the anti-gay discrimination that reminds them daily that they are not truly welcome to participate in many institutions and organizations within their communities. I applaud the brave Midwesterners who are now politely demanding that businesses who seek to operate in the public sphere should be open for all.
For generations, lesbian and gay individuals raised in conservative Midwestern states have had the choice to either leave for more progressive regions or to stay and politely accept the anti-gay discrimination that reminds them daily that they are not truly welcome to participate in many institutions and organizations within their communities. I applaud the brave Midwesterners who are now politely demanding that businesses who seek to operate in the public sphere should be open for all.
3
The great lie is that conservative Christians are an endangered species and that they live in constant fear of discrimination, if not quite the fear that eastern European Jews had of pogroms and Hitler. In the world of the most deranged, Obama is about to impose sharia law on the US. These laws are intended to allow discrimination. Remember the whites who opposed desegregation used their interpretation of the Bible as bulwarks of their racism. This nonsense remains what it always was: a dog whistle for the faithful who want to continue to discriminate. Just because you paint feces a different color doesn't change the basic nature of the item.
2
The truth of this entire argument is that laws such as these are merely answering the need of America to have an "enemy." Someone against whom they can judge (and come out superior) their own "Americanness." Religious rhetoric is all too often invoked in the effort to do this. Most of the individuals who vote for these laws are not necessarily religious, but they are true blue "American" through and through and its proven through propping up their own identity by voting for laws such as these. I hazard to say (from a pragmatic perspective) that when it really would come down to serving or helping a trans, queer, lesbian, or gay person, many of the folks who voted for this law would probably do so. The LGBTQ community has a long way to go before eradicating homophobia from our nation, but I think Brooks is right in that I (as a queer) would want to be no part of forcing someone to do something that they felt went against their own faith. But the reality is as Brooks identifies: we can afford respectful politeness in these debates; in a live and let live kind of way. The question is: do both sides truly respect and grant the other the pursuit of the "good" life?
3
Thank you David Brooks for bringing more light than heat to this important issue. It is striking that so many readers believe the state should compel its citizens to violate their religious principles. Should evangelical ministers who are licensed by the state be forced to perform gay weddings? That is the implication. I should add that the hypocritical and self-righteous posturing of corporations and the NCAA is disgusting. Let them work on pulling the planks out of their own eyes.
It needs to be said: David Brooks is an amateur thinker. Does the NY TImes vet his columns? By that I mean, does anyone point out that what he says is silly? For example, do the men who surrounded Governor Pence at the signing of this legislation show politeness of soul? Is the disinclination to shake hands on the part of an orthodox Jewish woman comparable to being denied service at a public business? Shouldn't Brooks' colleagues give him a break and point out the obvious flaws in his columns?
4
How am I as a gay man supposed to know who is going to deny me goods and services because my being gay offends their "sincere religious beliefs?" Is it a game of roulette every time I go into a store etc. ? Is that fair to me as a consumer and as a citizen?
To me religious liberty is all about one's personal practice of their religion, free from government interference. When the practice of your faith means wholesale discrimination, it ceases to be religious liberty and is nothing more than bigotry.
Religion is a system of values and rituals. Not a weapon. Sad that Mr. Brooks can't tell the difference.
To me religious liberty is all about one's personal practice of their religion, free from government interference. When the practice of your faith means wholesale discrimination, it ceases to be religious liberty and is nothing more than bigotry.
Religion is a system of values and rituals. Not a weapon. Sad that Mr. Brooks can't tell the difference.
5
Mr. Brooks, your smug acceptance of (or is it an apology for) rank bigotry is manifested well in this piece, although I have cpome to expect that from you.
3
How in the world is asking a publicly-licensed business to sell you a cake a possible infringement on the religious liberty of the business owners? How is asking that they serve a gay couple equally any different than asking that they serve a black couple, mixed-race couple, Jewish couple, etc.equally? Businesses are not licensed to serve only customers they agree with, they are licensed to serve the public, which may include some people they disagree with, or whose sexual orientation, skin color, religion, or ethnicity is not to their liking.
If our history has shown us anything, it has shown us that allowing discrimination against whole classes of people in the simple provision of goods and services, based solely upon the owner's personal beliefs and bigotries ,is wrong. And can very often lead to a blanket denial of that service to the people of those classes.
The only ones whose liberty was being infringed on in the Oregon cake case is the lesbian couple. They are being discriminated against by a publicly-licensed business solely on the basis of the owner's bias against them. Now Indiana and other states are ready to take a step backward in our history and enshrine that bias as a matter of law, essentially removing the right of customers to expect to be served equally by public businesses under state license. Would Mr. Brooks have also been on the wrong side, sided with the bigots and called for just more tolerance towards their position, back in 1964?
If our history has shown us anything, it has shown us that allowing discrimination against whole classes of people in the simple provision of goods and services, based solely upon the owner's personal beliefs and bigotries ,is wrong. And can very often lead to a blanket denial of that service to the people of those classes.
The only ones whose liberty was being infringed on in the Oregon cake case is the lesbian couple. They are being discriminated against by a publicly-licensed business solely on the basis of the owner's bias against them. Now Indiana and other states are ready to take a step backward in our history and enshrine that bias as a matter of law, essentially removing the right of customers to expect to be served equally by public businesses under state license. Would Mr. Brooks have also been on the wrong side, sided with the bigots and called for just more tolerance towards their position, back in 1964?
3
The Times's editorial today on religious liberty well covers this subject. It seems quite evident that the Indiana right wing figured it could get away with this expression of bigotry -- and the outcry is li9kely less about the practical effects --- a "Florists" Liberation Act?" -- that to heap on Indiana the opprobrium it so richly deserves. I would appreciate some reporting from The Times as to why this law was passed at this time --- the coverage so far has focused mainly on the reaction. It woudl be useful to know h ow all of this started off.
1
How is religious liberty relevant to doing business with a couple who are having a *civil* marriage celebration? Civil marriage has nothing to do with religion. An atheist couple can go to the local marriage bureau and get married in a completely non-religious ceremony. Why should an evangelical Christian feel bad about baking a cake for a civil wedding reception? I don't get it.
7
The analogy to Jewish community behavior is specious. Businesses operate with a governmental franchise; for them to refuse service to customers is not a matter of "politeness" it is a denial of rights. I'm sure ol' Llster Maddox had his faith based reasons to refuse to serve African Americans at his restaurant in the 60's. Have we regressed to that.
8
How do you determine who is gay and to whom, exactly, you will refuse service in Indiana? Is it simply "gaydar" that informs your bigotry? Do you refuse service in Indiana to all Catholic priests because many of them are gay? If a heterosexual bride goes dress shopping with her butch lesbian sister, do you refuse her service, or do you ask her to fill out a form about her sex life? How does discrimination work, exactly, Mr. Brooks? I am disappointed in you.
6
Sorry David, but the very concept of Christianity based bigotry is an oxymoron, since their 'fundamental' book notes that one has dined with 'publican and sinners', made a point to upbraid those who would stone an adulteress, praised those who visited the sick and those imprisoned (if truly criminals then in fact sinners).
Who then are the righteous?
Who then are the righteous?
4
How is it different when business A refuses to serve a gay person and business B refuses to serve a black person?
It's not different. The gay person cannot change his gayness anymore than the black person can change his blackness. That's why this law is discriminatory.
It's not different. The gay person cannot change his gayness anymore than the black person can change his blackness. That's why this law is discriminatory.
6
Citizens in the United states have freedom of religion until they attempt to shed their religious light through the passage of laws that infringe on my rights. Religion attempts to interfere not only in the affairs of gays, lesbians, and transgender citizens but also in the reproductive rights of all couples in the nation. When it comes to my rights and the rights of all citizens it is best that religion hide its lights under a bushel. Religions never accept that they cannot make people believe as they do and by acting on that non-acceptance they step into the realms of prejudice, discrimination, and bigotry.
2
The law cannot not provide special protection to belief systems such as McCarthyism, Communism, Fascism, Racism, Nazism, Chauvinism, Misogyny, or Anti-Semitism. Neither can it provide special protection to belief systems such as Islamism, Judaism, Christianity, Paganism, Voodoism or any religious belief system. We protect only the right to believe, we do not protect the right to act on those beliefs when those acts come in conflict with others.
To have legitimacy, beliefs must be constantly judged in the bright light of day and afforded no shelter from question and analysis. The law cannot be used to shield illegitimate belief systems in the cover of darkness.
In the final analysis, Religious Freedom legislation is nothing more than Jim Crow in sheep’s clothing.
To have legitimacy, beliefs must be constantly judged in the bright light of day and afforded no shelter from question and analysis. The law cannot be used to shield illegitimate belief systems in the cover of darkness.
In the final analysis, Religious Freedom legislation is nothing more than Jim Crow in sheep’s clothing.
3
What a baffling brew of blather.
In what way has any evangelical Christian in America ever, even once, been inhibited in the practice of his religion? The shopkeeper can recite the Lord's Prayer while baking a wedding cake for a gay couple and go to church thrice daily. He can preach hellfire and damnation from the street corner and vote for Ted Cruz.
How on Earth does acting civilly and decently to other human beings constitute a violation of one's right to practice religion? Unless, of course, it's a religion that has a requirement to practice cruelty, exclusion and bigotry among it tenets. Oh . . . maybe that.
In what way has any evangelical Christian in America ever, even once, been inhibited in the practice of his religion? The shopkeeper can recite the Lord's Prayer while baking a wedding cake for a gay couple and go to church thrice daily. He can preach hellfire and damnation from the street corner and vote for Ted Cruz.
How on Earth does acting civilly and decently to other human beings constitute a violation of one's right to practice religion? Unless, of course, it's a religion that has a requirement to practice cruelty, exclusion and bigotry among it tenets. Oh . . . maybe that.
7
Perhaps the time is right for rational state governments pass laws “clarifying” the 2nd Amendment. Why should business owners be obligated to do business with gun owners, especially the bravado open carry owners, if it's against their "religious beliefs"?
5
I usually try to give at least some deference to Mr. Brooks' opinion, but this piece is just too much for me. First, he downplays the difference between the Indiana and US RFRA laws. The US law deals with the governments interaction with individual exercise of religion (specifically the right of indigenous people to practice their minority religion), the Indiana law allows for an individual's religion to exempt them from the law. This is no small difference.
He misses a crucial fact about bigotry. It is no longer enshrined specifically in the law, but permitted by the law through round-about means (think the municipal court in Ferguson), or exercised by private individuals. The Indiana law falls firmly into this cynical camp.
I deal with people I find morally repugnant every single day at my job. Why should religious people get a special right to avoid this same discomfort?
He misses a crucial fact about bigotry. It is no longer enshrined specifically in the law, but permitted by the law through round-about means (think the municipal court in Ferguson), or exercised by private individuals. The Indiana law falls firmly into this cynical camp.
I deal with people I find morally repugnant every single day at my job. Why should religious people get a special right to avoid this same discomfort?
2
Why not call the law the Superstition Freedom Act? After all, it supports prejudice against gays based on unfounded superstitions.
6
In all the discussion of this law, I don't see anyone answering the question of who defines what are valid religious beliefs and which people sincerely hold those beliefs. The law only has meaning if there are people who are asking for an exception from some existing law or regulation. If someone says they should be allowed not to follow the law because it is against their religious beliefs, they should be required to explain those beliefs and show that they sincerely hold and practice those beliefs.
1
Another way of looking at the issue is freedom of choice. A baker or photographer can choose not to offer services at all - no weeding cakes or photos - if they cannot offer it for all. Religious freedom does become a code word for discrimination, not just for gender issues, but for broader discrimination as well. As a society, we need to decide whether we will tolerate some people and groups being intolerant of others so that the latter are denied what the larger population readily enjoys or we won't tolerate it. Our laws have to reflect this policy decision.
Doctors treat both criminals and cops who need care. What is so hard about making a cake?
Doctors treat both criminals and cops who need care. What is so hard about making a cake?
4
Some thoughts re marriage and religion:
In the US church and state are all mushed up together in this matter and in other matters as well. I suggest that we need a governmental marriage, which means a license like a driver’s license, needing no religious blessing whatsoever. That governmental marriage could be defined so that only one spouse was a legal beneficiary for Social Security and other governmental programs. If those so married wished a spiritual blessing, let them seek it. If churches wanted to have “religious” marriages, let them, and I think it is not the government’s role to interfere with, say, a church’s permission for plural marriages. That woman with six husbands could then enter into a governmental marriage with one of them. The government’s role is only with governmental marriage. Along with this, I’d like to see all the religious stuff removed from governmental matters, like “In God We Trust” on money and the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and “so help me God” from oaths at trials. And while we’re at it, let’s remove all those tax exemptions granted to religious organizations. Wouldn’t it be great if the Supreme Court would take this direction!
In the US church and state are all mushed up together in this matter and in other matters as well. I suggest that we need a governmental marriage, which means a license like a driver’s license, needing no religious blessing whatsoever. That governmental marriage could be defined so that only one spouse was a legal beneficiary for Social Security and other governmental programs. If those so married wished a spiritual blessing, let them seek it. If churches wanted to have “religious” marriages, let them, and I think it is not the government’s role to interfere with, say, a church’s permission for plural marriages. That woman with six husbands could then enter into a governmental marriage with one of them. The government’s role is only with governmental marriage. Along with this, I’d like to see all the religious stuff removed from governmental matters, like “In God We Trust” on money and the phrase “under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance to the Flag and “so help me God” from oaths at trials. And while we’re at it, let’s remove all those tax exemptions granted to religious organizations. Wouldn’t it be great if the Supreme Court would take this direction!
2
"christian business" at best means a business run by people that call themselves christians
i've been ripped off and lied to by so many "christian businesses" that i'm convinced that pastors are preaching theft
if muslims can stone a woman to death for doing the neighbor, why shouldn't people that call themselves, "christians" be able to discriminate against gays?
cake is poison anyway
i've been ripped off and lied to by so many "christian businesses" that i'm convinced that pastors are preaching theft
if muslims can stone a woman to death for doing the neighbor, why shouldn't people that call themselves, "christians" be able to discriminate against gays?
cake is poison anyway
3
If the federal RFRA is so successful and hits just the right note, as Brooks says, then we do we need any state RFRAs at all? And, why especially, does he support Indiana's RFRA which goes much further and is more imbalanced that the federal act?
4
Mr. Brook’s politeness program is at best disingenuous. All should have the protection of law, of civil rights and the ordinary everyday civilities of everyday intercourse in public space. The idea that you can open to the public a business but at the same time turn away from your door any citizen whom you think is an insult to some belief you have is without merit. Yes Brook’s is right politeness in the public space is to be encouraged but not if purchased at the price of one class having its rights abrogated by religious beliefs or prejudices. The honest facts are these laws are related to the many disenfranchisement laws that are the darlings of the right wing politicians. They are all designed to curry favor with the elements of the republican party of a time and place that is in decline but still has that Zombie ability to new life in many forms. This resurrection is to no purpose but to deny various classes of their rights as citizens to the power and satisfaction of being a citizen…
2
One of the misleading statements that governor Pence repeats over and over is that this is just the same as the federal RFRA law, and that Clinton signed it and Schumer introduced it, etc. This is also repeated here by some commenters.
This is simply not true. I would be so helpful if people, just for once, read these laws and then commented on it.
“The federal RFRA law contains this essential clause: “Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion ….”
The Indiana law very substantially expands the definition of person:
“As used in this chapter, "person" includes the following: (1) An individual. (2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes. (3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that: (A) may sue and be sued; and (B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by: (i) an individual; or (ii) the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes”
Still think this Indiana law is the same as the federal law?
Why do you think this very elaborate definition was included?
To allow businesses to discriminate, that is why.
This is simply not true. I would be so helpful if people, just for once, read these laws and then commented on it.
“The federal RFRA law contains this essential clause: “Government shall not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion ….”
The Indiana law very substantially expands the definition of person:
“As used in this chapter, "person" includes the following: (1) An individual. (2) An organization, a religious society, a church, a body of communicants, or a group organized and operated primarily for religious purposes. (3) A partnership, a limited liability company, a corporation, a company, a firm, a society, a joint-stock company, an unincorporated association, or another entity that: (A) may sue and be sued; and (B) exercises practices that are compelled or limited by a system of religious belief held by: (i) an individual; or (ii) the individuals; who have control and substantial ownership of the entity, regardless of whether the entity is organized and operated for profit or nonprofit purposes”
Still think this Indiana law is the same as the federal law?
Why do you think this very elaborate definition was included?
To allow businesses to discriminate, that is why.
8
From the The Times' Editorial Board: "... religion should not be allowed to serve as a cover for discrimination in the public sphere. In the past, racial discrimination was also justified by religious beliefs, yet businesses may not refuse service to customers because of their race. Such behavior should be no more tolerable when it is based on sexual orientation."
5
The new Indiana ‘Religious Freedom’ law elicits visceral reactions from most of America, yet the bigots in Indiana defend their law in terms of the federal 1993 Religious Freedom law. Huge differences
The federal law was passed to stop any governmental interference in religious beliefs and activities. The Indians smoking peyote, and other rites that are inherent to religions should not be oppressed by the government. OK – that does not conflict with the Constitution or any Amendments. Whereas a church does NOT have to perform a gay marriage based on that particular (intolerant) version of Christianity, public entities licensed by the state must adhere to all the equal protection granted by the Constitution.
The Indiana law turns this upside down. It extends the ‘protection’ beyond the religious entity (church, Temples) to private, for profit, state licensed businesses. A business owner may now decide their own social policy – even though they are a state licensed business. If not SPECIFICALLY covered by protected class legislation (not in Indiana), businesses can discriminate at will.
White Right Wing Christians can always twist scriptures to exclude any ‘others’ they perceive as sinful. This may not just include LGBT, but certainly Muslims, Hindus, Scientologists, and any other group this individual owner decides are apostates.
This is Religious Intolerance in a free society.
The federal law was passed to stop any governmental interference in religious beliefs and activities. The Indians smoking peyote, and other rites that are inherent to religions should not be oppressed by the government. OK – that does not conflict with the Constitution or any Amendments. Whereas a church does NOT have to perform a gay marriage based on that particular (intolerant) version of Christianity, public entities licensed by the state must adhere to all the equal protection granted by the Constitution.
The Indiana law turns this upside down. It extends the ‘protection’ beyond the religious entity (church, Temples) to private, for profit, state licensed businesses. A business owner may now decide their own social policy – even though they are a state licensed business. If not SPECIFICALLY covered by protected class legislation (not in Indiana), businesses can discriminate at will.
White Right Wing Christians can always twist scriptures to exclude any ‘others’ they perceive as sinful. This may not just include LGBT, but certainly Muslims, Hindus, Scientologists, and any other group this individual owner decides are apostates.
This is Religious Intolerance in a free society.
2
Mr. Brooks, you state that "Indiana has passed a state law like the 1993 federal act." Yes, I know you said "like" but the sentence is misleading at best.
In an article in today's NY Times by Erik Eckholm, "Eroding Freedom in the Name of Freedom", Katherine M. Franke, the faculty director of the Public Rights/Private Conscience Project at Columbia Law School clearly states that the Indiana law is different from the 1993 federal act in three significant ways:
1."the Indiana law expands the parties who could ask for relief on religious grounds to include a wider range of corporations",
2. "The Indiana measure also grants parties the right to bring legal action to prevent a “likely” burden on religious belief, even before any burden is imposed", and
3. " it expands the situations in which the protection could be invoked to include disputes between private parties engaged in lawsuits, even if they do not involve any direct actions by a government agency."
I am sure that opponents of the law are arguing that against those tightening of the federal standards as well, contrary to what you state.
In an article in today's NY Times by Erik Eckholm, "Eroding Freedom in the Name of Freedom", Katherine M. Franke, the faculty director of the Public Rights/Private Conscience Project at Columbia Law School clearly states that the Indiana law is different from the 1993 federal act in three significant ways:
1."the Indiana law expands the parties who could ask for relief on religious grounds to include a wider range of corporations",
2. "The Indiana measure also grants parties the right to bring legal action to prevent a “likely” burden on religious belief, even before any burden is imposed", and
3. " it expands the situations in which the protection could be invoked to include disputes between private parties engaged in lawsuits, even if they do not involve any direct actions by a government agency."
I am sure that opponents of the law are arguing that against those tightening of the federal standards as well, contrary to what you state.
3
"Discrimination is always wrong." Then don't defend your pals on the Christian right, David, who just passed a law that lets them do it.
14
Mr. Brooks, you have written a sentence which baffles me. "Some people have lost their jobs for expressing opposition to gay marriage. There are too many stories like the Oregon bakery that may have to pay a $150,000 fine because it preferred not to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony". Really? "Some people"? 2? 3? And the scores of bakeries paying fines! Imagine the firestorm if a fundamentalist Christian couple were refused a wedding cake from a gay-owned bakery. Let's see where this has occurred. Not buying your argument.
4
Indeed, this is a nation built on religious tolerance. However, and this should be well noted, it should not be practiced within our laws. Religion varies personally throughout individuals across our nation, and I understand the devotion that many must follow in order to remain sacred and blessed. Only, religious individuals should only have the right to practice their religion within their own personal boundaries, NOT within our capitalistic system. It is America after all, the land of refuge and acceptance, that will effortlessly continue to try and give political and social freedom to Gays. We have made major advancements in our efforts, and giving people a right to neglect Gays will only further delay our progress. So, Congressmen and Women, I urge you to neglect this bill. Otherwise, our citizens will be neglected, and the consequences are endless.
Brian Silverstein
Eighth Grader
Brian Silverstein
Eighth Grader
2
"While there are many bigots, there are also many wise and deeply humane people whose most deeply held religious beliefs contain heterosexual definitions of marriage. These people are worthy of tolerance, respect and gentle persuasion."
Religious beliefs that discriminate against gays are most certainly not "deeply humane." There were once many upstanding, respected leaders of southern communities who were members of the KKK and who supported Jim Crow laws.
These views are not worthy of anything but full-throated condemnation. The people who hold these discriminatory views, whether for religious or other reasons (why is religion always given a pass for its bigotry?), deserve to be ignored, not given "gentle persuasion" (which is useless against such deeply held views).
Discrimination must not be tolerated, legally or in everyday life.
As a Jew David Brooks should know better.
Religious beliefs that discriminate against gays are most certainly not "deeply humane." There were once many upstanding, respected leaders of southern communities who were members of the KKK and who supported Jim Crow laws.
These views are not worthy of anything but full-throated condemnation. The people who hold these discriminatory views, whether for religious or other reasons (why is religion always given a pass for its bigotry?), deserve to be ignored, not given "gentle persuasion" (which is useless against such deeply held views).
Discrimination must not be tolerated, legally or in everyday life.
As a Jew David Brooks should know better.
5
Sobering thoughts. It sounds bazaar that any given religion, intolerant of others, as it follows specific 'pre-ordained' dogma, demands freedom from the state and from any other thought, if different from its own. So, bigotry remains at issue, a thorn in a pluralistic society, based on a clearly thought- out secular constitution. And for very good reasons. No more persecutions and war and destruction in the name of religion. Secular societies are the most progressive, inclusive and peaceful and tolerant, and where freedom can be exercised at will (as long as we do not do to others what we wouldn't want them do to us).
3
Yeah, well, I remember the restrictive covenants (covenants!) which excluded blacks, Jews, Italians and god knows who else. I don't care who or what happens to be today's 'other'. Today's bigots must not be allowed to discriminate against them Oh, and it time to tax the churches.
5
I have an acquaintance who complains, each time I see him, about the government telling him who he has to rent to. His biggest complaint has been a couple who were "defying God's will", because they were not of the same race. He would like nothing better than to use a "religious freedom" law to refuse to rent to any persons who failed to meet his "morality" tests. Can people be denied shelter, food, water, clothing, etc. based on "religious freedom"? Religious institutions can practice what they want within their authority, but they have no right imposing their will on society. And businesses are NOT people, and have no right to religious freedom.
7
If we put this column into a time machine and transport it back to the 1960s, it comes out as: "And why can't those civil rights activists just politely leave and eat at some other lunch counter?"
7
This isn't an issue full of delicate nuances or an assault on anyone's religious freedom. It is a bumper sticker that says we hate gays and lesbians. It is a law enacted by small minded, petty bigots to protect other bigots and deny the rights of others.
This is Jim Crow aimed at another group. The businesses who think they need this "protection" may as well put up separate drinking fountains for gays and straights.
This is Jim Crow aimed at another group. The businesses who think they need this "protection" may as well put up separate drinking fountains for gays and straights.
5
The case of the photographer and the case of the wedding cake are foolish distractions. Laws against discrimination should apply to any business that provides accommodation to the general public. If I own a retail bakery I cannot forbid any particular class or group of people from entering the premises or purchasing any of the goods on display that are for sale.
Likewise, if I own a camera shop, or a hair dressing salon, or a pharmacy, or a Woolworths lunch counter. If I am open for business to the general public I cannot pick and choose my customers based on my own prejudices or peculiarities.
On the other hand, if I am in the business of providing custom work for individual clients, I should have the right to pick and choose my clients. A database management consultant should not have to hire herself out to the KKK to update their mailing list or risk getting sued. However small minded the service provider might be they should be free to accept or refuse a particular job for any reason or for no reason at all.
Likewise, if I own a camera shop, or a hair dressing salon, or a pharmacy, or a Woolworths lunch counter. If I am open for business to the general public I cannot pick and choose my customers based on my own prejudices or peculiarities.
On the other hand, if I am in the business of providing custom work for individual clients, I should have the right to pick and choose my clients. A database management consultant should not have to hire herself out to the KKK to update their mailing list or risk getting sued. However small minded the service provider might be they should be free to accept or refuse a particular job for any reason or for no reason at all.
2
The absolutist postion is the one that allows religious conviction to trump rights. Why does Brooks support this view as pragmatism or good manners?
Essentially he prefers the property rights of business owners to civil rights, as does Rand Paul, and so many other Republicans.
It is as if the civil rights era never happened and Brooks expects people to rely on the kindness of strangers rather than law for their rights to equal protection.
Essentially he prefers the property rights of business owners to civil rights, as does Rand Paul, and so many other Republicans.
It is as if the civil rights era never happened and Brooks expects people to rely on the kindness of strangers rather than law for their rights to equal protection.
6
Once again, Mr. Brooks false equivalencies are at work here. Take his article, replace all "Gay" or "Lesbian" words with either "Blacks" or "Jews" and you would see that Mr. Brooks would be singing a different tune this morning. Freedom to practice religion is meant to take place in the intimacy of your households or private places of worship, not on the public square and certainly not in our governments. There is no such a thing as separation of church and state in this country.
4
I see a lot written about laws passed in various jurisdictions in the 1990s (e.g. the 1993 congressional action).
But I think society has come A LONG WAY since then. I know I have.
If Gov. Pence had supported civil rights protections for the GLBT in connection with this law maybe this would not be as big a controversy as it is. But he's made it clear he has no interest in extending those protections.
So his protestations that this law is being misinterpreted ring hollow.
But I think society has come A LONG WAY since then. I know I have.
If Gov. Pence had supported civil rights protections for the GLBT in connection with this law maybe this would not be as big a controversy as it is. But he's made it clear he has no interest in extending those protections.
So his protestations that this law is being misinterpreted ring hollow.
2
"religious liberty is a value deserving our deepest respect"...really? Cloaking all manner of bigotry in religion has been going on for thousands of years, and in fact bigotry would probably have a much smaller footprint without religious "fervor". Lets protect the rights of our citizens first, and worry about the various aberrant and abhorrent ideas masquerading as deeply held religious values a distant second, if at all. The Bull Connor analogy is more apt than you admit...I don't know if I'd fine someone $150k for refusing to bake a cake, but I'd sure call them out on it....
4
Mr Brooks, you could do a "find & replace" on your essay, substituting "civil rights" for "gay rights" and "black" for "gay," and your column would fit perfectly into any anti-civil rights newspaper in 1962. The arguments have not changed, only the identity of the group which seems to make your political allies profoundly uncomfortable.
8
I forget what past Brooks' opinion piece prompted me to stop reading his column nor why I resumed. Perhaps this time I will remember. Adieu, Brooks.
8
.
.
Mr. Brooks cites the alleged case of an "Oregon bakery that may have to pay a $150,000 fine because it preferred not to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony", and says there "are too many stories" "LIKE" that one (emphasis mine).
Is he serious? "May have to pay"? Who is really going to impose such a fine for such an offense; and what are the chances that the bakery would not receive outside donations to defray its costs?
But more important, not only does a bakery lack PREFERENCES (being a business rather than a sentient being); but also, cakes are not used in wedding ceremonies. More likely, someone wanted the cake for a party celebrating a legal wedding. Do bakeries no longer provide cakes for parties?
What else is the bakery willing to give up, besides the revenue from certain parties? Its right to advertise outside of a bigoted inner circle? Police and fire protection? Will it refuse to bake cakes for children's birthday parties if a birthday boy/girl has a First Amendment right to advocate for antibigotry laws?
And what of all the other stories "LIKE" that one? Equally flimsy, more flimsy, or entirely fictional?
Let's be honest here: You open a bakery and use Internet, telephone, ingredient-suppliers, delivery people, etc., for the purpose of selling things such as wedding-celebration cakes. In return, you get revenue. In the process, gay people will be part of your revenue stream. Get used to it, or give up your revenue.
.
Mr. Brooks cites the alleged case of an "Oregon bakery that may have to pay a $150,000 fine because it preferred not to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony", and says there "are too many stories" "LIKE" that one (emphasis mine).
Is he serious? "May have to pay"? Who is really going to impose such a fine for such an offense; and what are the chances that the bakery would not receive outside donations to defray its costs?
But more important, not only does a bakery lack PREFERENCES (being a business rather than a sentient being); but also, cakes are not used in wedding ceremonies. More likely, someone wanted the cake for a party celebrating a legal wedding. Do bakeries no longer provide cakes for parties?
What else is the bakery willing to give up, besides the revenue from certain parties? Its right to advertise outside of a bigoted inner circle? Police and fire protection? Will it refuse to bake cakes for children's birthday parties if a birthday boy/girl has a First Amendment right to advocate for antibigotry laws?
And what of all the other stories "LIKE" that one? Equally flimsy, more flimsy, or entirely fictional?
Let's be honest here: You open a bakery and use Internet, telephone, ingredient-suppliers, delivery people, etc., for the purpose of selling things such as wedding-celebration cakes. In return, you get revenue. In the process, gay people will be part of your revenue stream. Get used to it, or give up your revenue.
7
So let me get this straight. If I am a Catholic doctor I can refuse to treat a woman who had an abortion or practices birth control?
9
David Brooks, in his desire to please his GOP masters, deliberately turns the original Federal law upside down.
LGBTQ people are NOT asking to be married in religious institutions that demonize them, they are asking to be treated like anybody else in businesses and institutions that serve the public. This includes stores, restaurants, medical offices, and hospitals.
A statute of this sort is hardly new. One can look back at the 1934-5 German Nuremberg Race Laws, intended to remove Jews from German public and economic life, and which in turn were based on a study of America's own Jim Crow laws.
If a person--or business holding itself as open to the public at large--can discriminate against one group of people, it can discriminate against all--especially if the statute enabling it takes precedence over local or even federal laws and acts as an absolute shield to anti-discrimination lawsuits.
Just remember the signs of yore here in the U.S.: NINY ("no Irish need apply") and "No Jews or dogs served here." I don't think David Brooks would appreciate the latter.
Hopefully we have evolved from those times--but the only thing that seems to have changed is the victim class and how craftily the animus has been hidden.
LGBTQ people are NOT asking to be married in religious institutions that demonize them, they are asking to be treated like anybody else in businesses and institutions that serve the public. This includes stores, restaurants, medical offices, and hospitals.
A statute of this sort is hardly new. One can look back at the 1934-5 German Nuremberg Race Laws, intended to remove Jews from German public and economic life, and which in turn were based on a study of America's own Jim Crow laws.
If a person--or business holding itself as open to the public at large--can discriminate against one group of people, it can discriminate against all--especially if the statute enabling it takes precedence over local or even federal laws and acts as an absolute shield to anti-discrimination lawsuits.
Just remember the signs of yore here in the U.S.: NINY ("no Irish need apply") and "No Jews or dogs served here." I don't think David Brooks would appreciate the latter.
Hopefully we have evolved from those times--but the only thing that seems to have changed is the victim class and how craftily the animus has been hidden.
10
Good try-but we all know what this law is intended to do. It is not intended to protect individuals from government interference in religious practice, but allows individuals to hide behind religion to cover their intolerance.
6
I am gay (knew it at the age of 6) and I was raised in an Evangelical household & community. I can say with some authority that this law did not create the problem nor would it's repeal make it go away. We shouldn't and really can't legislate the way a person thinks.
I have no interest in causing a moral dilemma for anyone. There are more than enough businesses and services around for me to conduct the commerce of my life without ever having to come up against anyone's deeply held religious beliefs. My only problem is that these beliefs are rarely applied across the board. People of faith love to cherry pick and I don't like being singled out
So I say let the law stand with one amendment. If you are conflicted about serving those who do not share your beliefs then you need to put a sign in your window and a notice on all your advertising stating that. Don't be shy the law is with you on this. No gays? OK. No unmarried couples? Go for it. No Goyem? Live it up. Just be upfront about it and please be specific.
That way no one will challenge your deeply held religious convictions and I won't have to waste my time & money dealing with someone who doesn't want my business or the very real pain & humiliation of wandering into the wrong establishment and being told to my face that "We don't serve your kind here."
I'm happy to leave you to your world view but y'all need to stand up and own it.
I have no interest in causing a moral dilemma for anyone. There are more than enough businesses and services around for me to conduct the commerce of my life without ever having to come up against anyone's deeply held religious beliefs. My only problem is that these beliefs are rarely applied across the board. People of faith love to cherry pick and I don't like being singled out
So I say let the law stand with one amendment. If you are conflicted about serving those who do not share your beliefs then you need to put a sign in your window and a notice on all your advertising stating that. Don't be shy the law is with you on this. No gays? OK. No unmarried couples? Go for it. No Goyem? Live it up. Just be upfront about it and please be specific.
That way no one will challenge your deeply held religious convictions and I won't have to waste my time & money dealing with someone who doesn't want my business or the very real pain & humiliation of wandering into the wrong establishment and being told to my face that "We don't serve your kind here."
I'm happy to leave you to your world view but y'all need to stand up and own it.
14
I might be ok with this if business owners who deny service to gays beacuse of their Christian beliefs were also required thereafter to deny service to anyone who has ever violated one of the 10 commandments. Ever skipped church on a Sunday? Coveted your neighbor's house and wife? Stole a pack of gum when you were 12? Cheated on your spouse? Taken the Lord's name in vain? Then sorry, bud, take your money elsewhere.
5
"In cases of actual bigotry, the hammer comes down."
Why don't you ask the victims of bigotry how often that hammer has meaningfully come down on the bigots, over the course of their lives?
Why don't you ask the victims of bigotry how often that hammer has meaningfully come down on the bigots, over the course of their lives?
5
This country is drunk on religion. We have made moral principle into an idol. But morality is not a self-consistent discipline like mathematics; one valid moral principle (here, religious freedom) can conflict woth another valid moral principle (here, non-discrimination). The only way out is compromise: everyone agrees to be "a little bit wrong" so that we can all agree. This is what the Federal RFRA attempts to do, if I understand correctly.
But too many people see compromise as betrayal, as surrendering your righteous convictions to the forces of error. To me, this seems the result of learning the wrong thing from religion, that "God's will" is absolute and allows no deviation. (Reminds me of the phrase from Lincoln's Second Inaugural: "Both sides prayed to the same God ...".) This is IDOLATRY - turning God into an idol, absurd as that may sound.
But too many people see compromise as betrayal, as surrendering your righteous convictions to the forces of error. To me, this seems the result of learning the wrong thing from religion, that "God's will" is absolute and allows no deviation. (Reminds me of the phrase from Lincoln's Second Inaugural: "Both sides prayed to the same God ...".) This is IDOLATRY - turning God into an idol, absurd as that may sound.
1
Mike Pence just spoke at the IN Statehouse on all the hoopla. The kernel here is the expansion of the 1993 federal law in Indiana's law to include private parties. So that's to say, in the case of a private party's religious beliefs being burdened by another private party's actions (see florist/gay wedding example) the party believing they're burdened (eg, the florist) has a legal framework to attempt to preserve their right to practice their religious beliefs. It can be addressed by the courts whether they were burdened or not. The federal act only addresses a burden imposed by the federal government, not individual parties. Now, you might think that is a perfectly acceptable inclusion in the Indiana law.
Pence is still characterizing the Indiana law as mirroring the Federal law and that's absolutely not the case. It vastly expands it.
Pence is still characterizing the Indiana law as mirroring the Federal law and that's absolutely not the case. It vastly expands it.
4
Dear Mr. Brooks,
You wrote:
"In the Jewish community, conservative Jews are generally polite toward Orthodox Jews who wouldn’t use their cutlery. Men are generally polite to Orthodox women who would prefer not to shake their hands. In the larger community, this respectful politeness works best."
Not according to the New York Times. In 2002, Randy Cohen, then the paper's "Ethicist", said it was ethical for a woman to refuse to do business with an Orthodox man who would not shake her hand. See
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/27/magazine/the-way-we-live-now-10-27-02-...
You wrote:
"In the Jewish community, conservative Jews are generally polite toward Orthodox Jews who wouldn’t use their cutlery. Men are generally polite to Orthodox women who would prefer not to shake their hands. In the larger community, this respectful politeness works best."
Not according to the New York Times. In 2002, Randy Cohen, then the paper's "Ethicist", said it was ethical for a woman to refuse to do business with an Orthodox man who would not shake her hand. See
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/10/27/magazine/the-way-we-live-now-10-27-02-...
1
It is disappointing that a NYT columnist provides such a tired and poorly reasoned argument. Religious liberty is not infringed by demanding that religious people follow universal laws and morals. These religious persons are free to not practice homosexuality or not to practice contraception or to not do these things they abhor. However, they are living in a world in which others do such things and it is a better world because of these people. The state should not pass thinly-veiled religious laws, which is the situation in Indiana. They can try to couch it as a 'freedom' law, but it is out and out bigotry. Nice try, Mr. Brooks, but your mysterious Lord doesn't give you the right to harm other people.
3
Mr. Brooks, I strongly suspect that sometime soon you will reflect on your piece today and say, "What on God's green earth was I thinking? "
I read your piece many times; for flow, logic, underlying principles, alternative approach to examine the same issue...
You managed to make a reprehensible behaviour sound almost honourable.
I wish you the time to mindfully reflect on your words because I can't believe you meant to say what you did say.
I read your piece many times; for flow, logic, underlying principles, alternative approach to examine the same issue...
You managed to make a reprehensible behaviour sound almost honourable.
I wish you the time to mindfully reflect on your words because I can't believe you meant to say what you did say.
3
Does anyone believe that this law is motivated by concern for the rights of Muslim women to cover their heads? Why do they need a state law if there is already an identical federal law? I hope they do "clarify" the law because the "clarification" will either crystallize their bigotry and hatred, or be more convoluted than the original and make them look even dumber.
1
You might want to look at how Indiana's statute differs from the federal one before making these sweeping claims. The Indiana statute doesn't just address governmental action, as the federal statute does. it creates new rights to sue and a new defense to lawsuits brought by private individuals this isn't about protecting people from governmental overreach at all.
2
I assume the Indiana law is designed to protect persons from serving sinners. Since, under any of the definitions of Christian doctrine, "All have sinned..." can we assume that deeply religious Indiana service providers will no longer be able to conduct business with anybody? The alternative is to judge which sins are worse than others and to serve only those with lesser sin. Unfortunately, that kind of judgment is forbidden by Scripture.
1
Do these people refuse service to people with tattoos? Do they conduct business on the Sabbath? What if one of their clients takes the Lord's name in vain, or has failed to honor her or his Father and Mother? For some reason, religious objections only seem to apply to dealing with gay people--a key reason why so many people find such objections insincere. Brooks tells us we must be polite to a group of people who think they're in a holy war. In effect we're witnessing efforts to establish a de facto Christian theocracy in this country--an effort that Brooks asks us to "respect." Frankly, Mr. Brooks, you can't have it both ways: if religions want to engage in politics they are going to have to accept criticism as expressly political entities.
2
"Deep politeness means we make accommodations." Translation: "Gay people shouldn't make trouble." This carefully crafted polite talk is masking the plain fact that the Constitution doesn't allow our Government to make laws sanctioning unequal treatment. It sounded the same when polite folks made similar polite arguments about racism 100 years ago. And it's just as wrong now as it was then.
3
If we are going to expand the body of religious laws to the detriment or discrimination of any particular group, then perhaps we should also require some objective measure of religious conviction of the persons or groups raising religious belief as a defense to their discriminatory acts. For example, does the business close its doors on the day of rest or sabbath? If on the other hand a business cherry picks its religious practices to benefit its commercial operation, then the "religious" defense of discrimination should be denied. Imagine the Jewish wedding photographer who refuses to photograph weddings on Saturdays, or the bakery that refuses to deliver cakes on Saturday or Sunday. Imagine the Christian retail business that closes its doors on Good Friday and Easter.
1
"The opponents seem to be saying...claims of religious liberty are covers for anti-gay bigotry."
Yes. It is indeed an odd notion of spirituality that encourages us to judge our neighbors and cheer intolerance. This type of thinking led to segregation and worse. Equal protection under the law means just that. This law seeks to perfume the stench of bigotry. It fails and must be struck down.
Yes. It is indeed an odd notion of spirituality that encourages us to judge our neighbors and cheer intolerance. This type of thinking led to segregation and worse. Equal protection under the law means just that. This law seeks to perfume the stench of bigotry. It fails and must be struck down.
1
I am dumbfounded by your utter lack of historical sense when it comes to the use of religion to justify political, social and economic control of one group of people over another in America. In the words of George Santayana, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
1
What on earth is so difficult about this for you, David? Why, oh why, do you ask a group of people to be polite about being discriminated against? And what's this about the major clout gay and lesbian people suddenly have? We finally get a few rights we should have had an aeon ago, and you think that nothing but deference and gratitude are the appropriate responses?
So far, I don't think I have seen one comment from readers that supports any of what you're putting forward. Do you actually read comments here? You might learn something.
So far, I don't think I have seen one comment from readers that supports any of what you're putting forward. Do you actually read comments here? You might learn something.
1
If atheists can bake a giant Star of David on your cake or listen to adoration for Christ while photographing your evangelical wedding, then I think the reverse applies. "Deep politeness means we make accommodations." Absolutely! This is textbook customer service and business ethics in real practice. Be a professional, treat the client right and take their money.
In American government and political culture, Christians have the biggest voice in the seat of power. Yet, ironically, nonbelievers always get caught in the role of devil's advocate. Let's be logical about this.
In American government and political culture, Christians have the biggest voice in the seat of power. Yet, ironically, nonbelievers always get caught in the role of devil's advocate. Let's be logical about this.
1
David,
What is overlooked in this debate is just plain good or bad business. I'm a contractor (liberal Democrat not religious) in business for 38 years. Where I come from if I only worked for like minded people I'd be in trouble financially. Its just as important to know what jobs not to take and the reasons for not taking a job are many.
The reality is that I might work for an Evengellical Christian conservative and turn down a job from a liberal Democrat who isn't religious. Who I work for is a job by job decision with so many variables but that decision has to be made by me. The idea that the government to tell me that I have to work for everyone who wants my services is just ludicrous.
To turn down a good job just because you don't agree with a person's life style is just bad business.
What is overlooked in this debate is just plain good or bad business. I'm a contractor (liberal Democrat not religious) in business for 38 years. Where I come from if I only worked for like minded people I'd be in trouble financially. Its just as important to know what jobs not to take and the reasons for not taking a job are many.
The reality is that I might work for an Evengellical Christian conservative and turn down a job from a liberal Democrat who isn't religious. Who I work for is a job by job decision with so many variables but that decision has to be made by me. The idea that the government to tell me that I have to work for everyone who wants my services is just ludicrous.
To turn down a good job just because you don't agree with a person's life style is just bad business.
Let's imagine for a moment this sentence from Mr. Brooks reads thusly:
"In the first place, if there is no attempt to balance religious liberty and civil rights, the cause of blacks will be associated with coercion, not liberation."
George Wallace could've said it no better.
"In the first place, if there is no attempt to balance religious liberty and civil rights, the cause of blacks will be associated with coercion, not liberation."
George Wallace could've said it no better.
2
There's nothing sadder than the spectacle of an intelligent and well informed columnist providing a rationale for a law that protects people who are hate filled bigots. When you talk this way, David, we are aware that your need to parrot the party line has overridden your intelligence and humanity. The law is not supposed to protect bigots; it's supposed to protect people from bigots.
2
Mr. Brooks seems to argue - Yes this law does defend discrimination against you based on "religious freedom", but this "religious liberty" is deserving our "deepest respect" and should be met with "deep politeness" and "creative accommodation". After all, "(Jewish) Men are generally polite to Othodox women who would prefer not to shake their hands. In the larger community, this respectful politeness works best." Really Mr. Brooks? Try denying them service because they are Orthodox Jews and see how polite they are.
2
"Politeness" has nothing to do with religious beliefs which seek to marginalize and lessen GLBT Americans in our society and in our laws. No one is attacking people's right to religious expression. What is at stake is equal participation in society by GLBT Americans, whether that be in legal matters, the employment environment, or through commerce and transactions.
I am a gay man who grew up in a very "religious" part of this country. I have seen "religious belief" used as a cudgel with which to beat (sometimes literally) those who differ from restrictive, and bigoted social definitions. I have also seen "faith" employed as a smokescreen or barrier behind which people will hide bigotry and hatred.
The legislation in Indiana fools no one. This is a desperate over-reach by fearful, ignorant individuals who cannot face the reality that our society is growing more diverse and inclusive. Denying service to GLBT Americans is no different than barring service to African Americans. Didn't we already have this conversation in the 1960's?
I am a gay man who grew up in a very "religious" part of this country. I have seen "religious belief" used as a cudgel with which to beat (sometimes literally) those who differ from restrictive, and bigoted social definitions. I have also seen "faith" employed as a smokescreen or barrier behind which people will hide bigotry and hatred.
The legislation in Indiana fools no one. This is a desperate over-reach by fearful, ignorant individuals who cannot face the reality that our society is growing more diverse and inclusive. Denying service to GLBT Americans is no different than barring service to African Americans. Didn't we already have this conversation in the 1960's?
3
Religious discrimination is protected by the constitution. Therefore, it is illegal for people to descriminate because they feel someone lacks certaint religious beliefs. It works both ways. Also, people have the right to be free from sexual and racial harrasment, like porn in the work place and nazi klan symbols. Being a certain race, male, female, straight, or gay is not harassment. People cannot be descriminated due to who they are, this is the protected constitutionial right prohibiting discrimination.
1
Unbelievable. In Brooks's upside down world, the marchers on Selma are now the Bull Connors.
If all the Indiana law is trying to do is what the federal RFRA does, then why didn't just adopt the language of the federal law. They did not. They created the Indiana law in order to subvert the understanding that people should be treated equally.
If all the Indiana law is trying to do is what the federal RFRA does, then why didn't just adopt the language of the federal law. They did not. They created the Indiana law in order to subvert the understanding that people should be treated equally.
6
Let's not mince words here. David Brooks is arguing that right-wing Evangelical religious bigotry is not only acceptable, but protected speech that federal and state law must protect from liberal do-gooders. Gay people who would like to enjoy the same rights as everyone else should stop using every tool at their disposal and instead somehow rely on "politeness" to slowly win the bigots over. In case you're wondering, that strategy does not work and has never worked - which Brooks surely knows.
If you replaced the word "gay" with the word "black" this column would perfectly fit into the pantheon of "respectable" arguments advocating Jim Crow segregation in the 1960s. Shame on Mr. Brooks for making this incredible argument, and shame on the Times for printing it.
If you replaced the word "gay" with the word "black" this column would perfectly fit into the pantheon of "respectable" arguments advocating Jim Crow segregation in the 1960s. Shame on Mr. Brooks for making this incredible argument, and shame on the Times for printing it.
2
my understanding of civil rights is that it's about how you must, at a minimum, be treated, not the freedom of others to treat you however they want. likewise, my understanding of religious freedom is that it's about your being able to practice your religion, and not about you being able to impose your beliefs on others. therefore, as a customer, you must be served regardless of your personal qualities on both counts. the baker who makes the cake is not forced to enter into a gay marriage himself, and that's the end of their religious rights in this case.
2
David, you use a writer's "slight of hand" to make your point, but I'm sorry, I'm not buying it. The Oregon Bakery did not "prefer" not to bake the wedding cake for the gay couple, they "refused" to bake the cake. Would you feel the same way if the Oregon Bakery refused to bake a cake for a African American couple, or a mixed race couple? I doubt it. And the photographer wasn't "rather avoid"ing shooting the same sex wedding, he was "refusing" to shoot the same sex wedding. Again, would you feel the same way about a photographer who refused to shoot an African American wedding, or a mixed race wedding? It's easy to frame bigotry as "preferring not to" grant equal rights to all Americans, but bigotry is still ugly and still not our better selves.
2
If you want to buy a cake or buy flowers, you should not have to pass a test to do so. Conversely, if you sell cakes or sell flowers, you do not have the right to judge your customer's intentions or life circumstances.
Suppose I am a Baptist and strongly believe that Catholicism is a terrible religion. Do I have the right to refuse to sell sheet cakes in honor of Catholic first communions? (In Catholic culture, a sheet cake is extremely important to first communion celebrations.) Suppose I sell flowers and a bi-racial couple or a couple who live together unmarried want to buy flowers -- do I have the right to refuse to sell my flowers because I believe that couples must be married or must be the same race?
Our culture is built upon the right of every person to be a customer within reason. Obviously, I cannot demand the right to smoke cigarettes in your shop or to play my stereo very loudly in your shop. But I don't need to pass whatever test that a religious person may feel is important to him/her in order to be a customer.
This is a condition of being American. It is also a condition of being Christian. I do not recall Jesus ever teaching by word or example that you put other people through some sort of test to determine whether you will deal with him. I do recall Jesus saying, "Judge not lest ye be judged."
Suppose I am a Baptist and strongly believe that Catholicism is a terrible religion. Do I have the right to refuse to sell sheet cakes in honor of Catholic first communions? (In Catholic culture, a sheet cake is extremely important to first communion celebrations.) Suppose I sell flowers and a bi-racial couple or a couple who live together unmarried want to buy flowers -- do I have the right to refuse to sell my flowers because I believe that couples must be married or must be the same race?
Our culture is built upon the right of every person to be a customer within reason. Obviously, I cannot demand the right to smoke cigarettes in your shop or to play my stereo very loudly in your shop. But I don't need to pass whatever test that a religious person may feel is important to him/her in order to be a customer.
This is a condition of being American. It is also a condition of being Christian. I do not recall Jesus ever teaching by word or example that you put other people through some sort of test to determine whether you will deal with him. I do recall Jesus saying, "Judge not lest ye be judged."
1
I completely agree with Reader in Cleveland. Mr. Brooks' column seems sensible enough, but substitute skin color for sexual orientation and then re-read the column. Is there any question? A set of beliefs justified by a few paragraphs in a several thousand year old document is no more valid than those supported by the "three-fifths" clause in the Constitution, foundational and otherwise wise (in so many respects) that each document is. It is all-too-easy to disguise prejudice under the mantle of religious belief, and critical that we are vigilant in distinguishing one from the other.
"While there are many bigots, there are also many wise and deeply humane people whose most deeply held religious beliefs contain heterosexual definitions of marriage. These people are worthy of tolerance, respect and gentle persuasion."
No they do not. If you are ignorant enough to actually believe in history books and laws written 5000 years ago then you deserve zero respect. Would you give a scientist respect that claimed the world is flat and the sun revolves around the earth.
No they do not. If you are ignorant enough to actually believe in history books and laws written 5000 years ago then you deserve zero respect. Would you give a scientist respect that claimed the world is flat and the sun revolves around the earth.
2
David your entire argument does not hold water. Running a business is not the same thing as believing what you want in your own home. In your own home if you are a racist you are free to not have black people over. But if you run a restaurant you are legally required to serve them. And so it should be with gay marriage.
307
So far as I know, any business can refuse services to anyone under the guise of being "too busy"...this would be a simple out for people who want to discriminate, rather than telling potential customers that they refuse to serve them due to the color of their skin or their sexual preferences.
Dear Mr. Brooks,
I totally agree with all your comments in your article, It's easy for me to accept your argument describing the Indiana Law as Discriminatory, because I do not take the scriptures literally, as I believe they were made Four thousand years ago by men who were imaginative & superstitious, However, I do understand the Indiana law & the people who support it. When a person who excepts all the scriptures as Gods words, & it is clearly written that Homosexuality is an abomination, not to come away with intolerance for the Gay community, takes a leap away from faith which is
an impossible feat for the Orthodox of any religion.
A secular person like myself can evolve with changes in Society, an orthodox religious person cannot.This is a serious impasse, that is not easily resolved.
I totally agree with all your comments in your article, It's easy for me to accept your argument describing the Indiana Law as Discriminatory, because I do not take the scriptures literally, as I believe they were made Four thousand years ago by men who were imaginative & superstitious, However, I do understand the Indiana law & the people who support it. When a person who excepts all the scriptures as Gods words, & it is clearly written that Homosexuality is an abomination, not to come away with intolerance for the Gay community, takes a leap away from faith which is
an impossible feat for the Orthodox of any religion.
A secular person like myself can evolve with changes in Society, an orthodox religious person cannot.This is a serious impasse, that is not easily resolved.
Mr. Brooks, the difference between the 1993 federal law and the Indiana law is that the new one in Indiana doesn't require a government compelling interest to block a suit. It doesn't even require a government entity to be a party to a suit. This also makes differs from most of the other state laws with similar titles. Considering the Supreme Court decision in the Hobby Lobby case, this is entirely about discrimination against gays and same-sex couples. Other grounds for discrimination are already prohibited by prior state law. This is what's left, and the legislators and the governor have no intention of including that in their planned 'clarifications'. There is no moral high ground other than that taken by the opponents of the law.
1
David, You fail to make the connection that all of these issues involve the public realm and not the private one. Since we are now allowed to discriminate for religious reasons where do we draw the line? I can literally single out any group I'm not happy with and choose not to serve them with the full backing of the supreme court. Lets turn the tables. Pretend a Vegan cafe in Berkley refuses to serve evangelical Christians for "deeply held beliefs". One can envision storefronts with placards indicating whom can and cannot be served (ok I'm exaggerating here but you get the point). Is this really the sort of society we want? Didn't we go through this exercise during the 50-60's during the civil rights struggle? The defenders of segregation often brought up religion as a reason for their laws. All people have inalienable rights whether you think they deserve it or not. Luckily American capitalism cares more about money than religion so I expect these cases of overt discrimination to be rare.
It was not so long ago at all -- two generations perhaps -- when white Americans brandished the "Household Codes" of the New Testament to justify the continued unequal treatment blacks in this country. Skittish moderates (not unlike the mode of their latter day descendant, David Brooks) urged non-violent black southern revolutionaries to go more slowly, to be more gradual in their approach to change. Most influential secularists understood the equality principles but that the religious people could be more helpful if all of this moved more gradually. That was the plea of the white clergy to Rev. Martin Luther King to which he responded in his now legendary April 1963 Letter from a Birmingham Jail (portions of which will be read as a capstone to many a contemporary Passover Seder each year). Like the ministers, Brooks establishes and recognizes the moral rectitude of the equality principle -- no discrimination for LGBT couples who wed -- but wants the moral gradualism rule to overshadow fundamental rights in the name of religion. And like Dr. King, the LGBT community says, "No". God made us, man and woman, as everyone else, and our Judeo-Christian traditions call upon us to first love God, and love one another. There are no asterisks. Our Constitution does not give any business the right to slam doors in anyone's or any undesirable "element's" face in the name of some religion -- today or later.
3
Are you ready to defend genital mutilations, Mr. Brooks?
How about "honor" killings?
No?
How about "honor" killings?
No?
4
Evangelical "Christians" seem to studiously ignore Jesus' teachings, notably "Love they neighbor as thyself." Rather they cherry-pick the Bible, choosing to observe a few verses from Leviticus and studiously ignore other Old Testament laws having to do with matters execution for adultery and treatment of slaves, which does not include freeing them.
St. Paul did rant about homosexuality (and many other things), but there is some debate about exactly what he meant in the context of his time. But St. Paul, although firmly ensconced in the New Testament, was not Jesus.
Jesus insisted on that messy love of neighbor business. The Pharisee asked, "Who is my neighbor?" And Jesus spoke the parable of the good Samaritan, proclaiming again a very difficult task. We are supposed to care generously even for someone despised by the larger culture. That is very, very hard. I fail over and over again. I imagine most of us do. Jesus wasn't calling us to do what was easy. Taking on the Roman Empire and his own religion was insanely brave and he paid the ultimate price. I am trying to imagine this man hearing that "Morality is the politeness of the soul."
In this Holy Week that ends with the memorial of the crucifixion of Jesus, we might contemplate his ministry and his culture. He was killed because he was a revolutionary, a very real threat to the status quo. His radical message of love and inclusion seems to me to be a worthy subject for contemplation in these somber days.
St. Paul did rant about homosexuality (and many other things), but there is some debate about exactly what he meant in the context of his time. But St. Paul, although firmly ensconced in the New Testament, was not Jesus.
Jesus insisted on that messy love of neighbor business. The Pharisee asked, "Who is my neighbor?" And Jesus spoke the parable of the good Samaritan, proclaiming again a very difficult task. We are supposed to care generously even for someone despised by the larger culture. That is very, very hard. I fail over and over again. I imagine most of us do. Jesus wasn't calling us to do what was easy. Taking on the Roman Empire and his own religion was insanely brave and he paid the ultimate price. I am trying to imagine this man hearing that "Morality is the politeness of the soul."
In this Holy Week that ends with the memorial of the crucifixion of Jesus, we might contemplate his ministry and his culture. He was killed because he was a revolutionary, a very real threat to the status quo. His radical message of love and inclusion seems to me to be a worthy subject for contemplation in these somber days.
3
The problem is the tension between expected politeness and ensuring a legal repercussion for bigotry. The problem with personal belief exemptions is that they enshrine the right to discriminate.
Example one: A restaurant owner does not like African Americans in his restaurant. If he refused to serve them, we expect legal repercussions. If he merely said to his customers that he preferred they go elsewhere, but would serve them as legally required if they insisted, we would not expect legal repercussions (the fact that his restaurant would then close in a wave of negative publicity over his bigotry is another story).
Example Two: an engaged homosexual couple requests a wedding photographer to chronicle their wedding. If he refused his service, we would expect legal consequences (sadly this is not the case). If he merely ask them to reconsider because he felt their union was immoral, but would provide service if they insisted, we would expect no legal repercussions (though again, few business owners would like the social repercussions).
Religious exemption laws take away the requirement of non-discriminatory service. Letting people express their opinions and take the consequences (resentful table service, unfriendly wedding photographs, business loss through publicity) merely ensures that everyone can receive service. It is absolutely foreseeable that in many places there may be only one service provider nearby. That provider can express bigotry, but must provide service.
Example one: A restaurant owner does not like African Americans in his restaurant. If he refused to serve them, we expect legal repercussions. If he merely said to his customers that he preferred they go elsewhere, but would serve them as legally required if they insisted, we would not expect legal repercussions (the fact that his restaurant would then close in a wave of negative publicity over his bigotry is another story).
Example Two: an engaged homosexual couple requests a wedding photographer to chronicle their wedding. If he refused his service, we would expect legal consequences (sadly this is not the case). If he merely ask them to reconsider because he felt their union was immoral, but would provide service if they insisted, we would expect no legal repercussions (though again, few business owners would like the social repercussions).
Religious exemption laws take away the requirement of non-discriminatory service. Letting people express their opinions and take the consequences (resentful table service, unfriendly wedding photographs, business loss through publicity) merely ensures that everyone can receive service. It is absolutely foreseeable that in many places there may be only one service provider nearby. That provider can express bigotry, but must provide service.
Brooks does not make a point when he uses as his only example one of Orthodox Jews respecting conservative Jews about cutlery. Really? That's an individual respecting another individual; that's not a business refusing to serve an individual or couple because they're homosexual. If you run a business, you serve your customers or do we want to put the person you don't like for their beliefs in the back of the bus or not serve them at the lunch counter? It's still bigotry and it's been codified once again in the United States by state legislatures that are driven by small mindedness. Brooks?
4
How amusing to see the bigots' reaction when their dog whistle is heard by people outside their bubble. They scurry to deny the obvious intent of their law, showing they are both bigoted and lack the courage of their "convictions". And let's not forget how this would play out in many small and medium size towns, where there are limited numbers of event spaces, bakers, florists, etc. It's easy to see small towns effectively banning gay marriages locally by their exercise of their intolerant beliefs. And they could do the same to Jews and other religious minorities if they wanted to. All in the exercise of their faith based on love, so they tell us.
2
"A movement that stands for tolerance does not want to be on the side of a government that compels a photographer who is an evangelical Christian to shoot a same-sex wedding that he would rather avoid."
Here's the problem with statements like this: substitute "ugly person" for "same-sex wedding" and voila, discrimination. a public business is "public" and in the public arena you compromise your personal stuff for the opportunity to trade and engage in commerce and reap your fortune. the public arena is where we live, all of us. it is not supposed to be composed of little fiefdoms of belief, as in, i can shop there, i can't shop there.
Brooks is consistently arrogant and royalistic, and it's condescending.
Here's the problem with statements like this: substitute "ugly person" for "same-sex wedding" and voila, discrimination. a public business is "public" and in the public arena you compromise your personal stuff for the opportunity to trade and engage in commerce and reap your fortune. the public arena is where we live, all of us. it is not supposed to be composed of little fiefdoms of belief, as in, i can shop there, i can't shop there.
Brooks is consistently arrogant and royalistic, and it's condescending.
4
Mr. Brooks:
This column is beneath you. Let's take your argument back to a Woolworth's lunch counter in the '60's. Not much difference.
This column is beneath you. Let's take your argument back to a Woolworth's lunch counter in the '60's. Not much difference.
6
Mr. Brooks is so off base it's mind blowing. First of all if there already exists a federal law to address his premise so why is there a need for additional state laws? Second if one looks at the context of the states passing this type of legislation it's beyond obvious that these laws are happening in religiously conservative red states where legislatures are unhappy about federal courts striking down marriage laws which prohibit same sex couples from the same equal rights as heterosexual couples. And finally one can look at the organizations, like ALEC, which are writing the templates and promoting these laws. These laws have very little to do with religious freedom and much to do with bigotry. Remember Mr. Brooks that when the first African Americans went to get a seat on bus, or served in a restaurant similar false arguments were made. Or when the first interracial couples went for marriage licenses and were refused. Your argument is that religious freedom would have allowed those injustices to continue in some way and I just can't buy it. When I look around I don't see any problem with an orchestrated effort to prevent people from practicing their faith. I don't agree with many of them, and I'm straight, but I certainly wouldn't expect to not be served in any business establishment based on my differences. Period.
While David thrashes around in the branches looking for answers, I'll take the axe directly to the root of the problem. Religions survive only through the indoctrination of children, before their brains have developed enough for reason and critical thinking.
What a sorry indictment of religions, that the only way they can survive is by polluting their children's minds. Without it, all religions would wither and die. And our world would be much better off without it.
What a sorry indictment of religions, that the only way they can survive is by polluting their children's minds. Without it, all religions would wither and die. And our world would be much better off without it.
1
It's one thing for my Orthodox friend to refuse to eat at my home because, to her, it's not kosher enough. It would be something else entirely if that same Orthodox friend forbid me to shop in her bakery with a claim that my progressive brand of Judaism somehow infringed on her religion! Can you understand the difference, Mr. Brooks?
305
Once again, Mr. Brooks shows us the limitations of his thought process. According to his analysis, we all need to be respectful of others' religious beliefs, even when we don't share them. I suspect, however, that he'd change his tune if the religion we were respecting were something less "American", like Islam or, to be extreme, Satanism. There's an underlying position in Mr. Brooks essay that Christian beliefs are worthy of respect. Can anyone claim the right to discriminate now based on "religious belief"? Can Muslim-owned businesses discriminate against women? I'd like to see Mr. Brooks defend a Muslim baker who refused to sell a cake to his wife because she doesn't wear a hijab. You can't allow the government to decide which beliefs are worthy of legal exemption and which aren't. When you open a business, you are implicitly accepting all the laws and regulations on the books. We can't say "Well, this baker is discriminating against gays because of religious beliefs and not because of secular bigotry, therefore it's ok." That attitude privileges religiosity in a way that seems in direct conflict with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment. Mr. Brooks may sympathize with those who practice religion, but he ought to be able to see the danger in exempting those people from generally applicable legislation.
316
Have we come to the point where stores can practice the same restricted admissions policies as certain country clubs? It's time we invoke the supremacy law. If federal laws against discrimination cannot stand up to the bigoted tactics of states like Indiana, we are headed back to the 19th century.
1
Mr. Brooks, running a business is not the same as shaking or not shaking someone's hand. This conversation is driving me crazy because we would not be having it if we were talking about race. Why this resistance to accepting the idea that discrimination based on sexual orientation and behavior, and on gender identity and expression, should not be allowed? Certainly, there are plenty of people who feel burdened by laws that force them to not discriminate in the public square against African-Americans - but that is the price they have to pay. Just as I, as a gay man, pay a price for low-level, individual, invidious prejudice that I might feel as I walk around the mall with my husband and two children. The least I can expect, it seems, that I not face that prejudice when trying to buy a sandwich, or find some flowers for my wedding, or rent an apartment, or hold down a job. For crying out loud, we are not asking for the moon here - we are just asking to be treated fairly - and we know, from experience, that a religious exemption is unnecessary for those who do not feel prejudice and simply gives tacit approval for those who do.
5
ah the lord works in mysterious ways. as does mr. brooks. well, not actually since his columns typically play out the same time and again. the lord doesn't work in mysterious ways and neither do the humans who invented him. rather and like this disgraceful law, intent is fully on display for anyone who cares to use their eyes, ears and just a bit of critical thinking. it's one thing to believe in ones faith, it's yet another to foist that belief on others. christians are now the majority and a good swath of them want to foist their narrow and very un-christian views on others. david, why is that? a column about that would be quite welcome provided you don't start out by saying that the lord works in mysterious ways.
3
I knew it…I knew you would do it. "Actual" bigotry vs. "sort of" bigotry. Shame on you.
5
If "[f]ewer people have to face the horror of bigotry, isolation, marginalization and prejudice" as Mr. Brooks opines, then why are we hearing of more acts of anti-semitism? Sorry, you cannot have it both ways, sir. No one deserves to be discriminated against because of religion or any other characteristic and it falls on society as a whole not to allow ANYONE to do so and those who are discriminated against owe NOTHING to the bigots. Remember that when you next write about Israel and/or anti-semitism.
2
Operating a business is not the practice of religion. People who are against gay marriage may express that all they want within the practice of their religion, but in a free market, it will be regulated by the consumer. That is what is happening now with Indiana.
I think the best thing to happen is to have states and municipalities pass this kind of law, and then experience the reaction of those who find bigotry distasteful. It looks as though some in the business world are getting a taste of how the free market REALLY works.
I think the best thing to happen is to have states and municipalities pass this kind of law, and then experience the reaction of those who find bigotry distasteful. It looks as though some in the business world are getting a taste of how the free market REALLY works.
3
What a crock. Does someone with Brooks' education not know that a cake isn't part of a religious ceremony? It's part of a meal that's eaten afterwards. No one practices religion in a bakery.
Has Brooks not noticed that these same business owners don't have a problem providing services for divorced people or people who live in sin? I'm sure there are a few embezzlers etc. getting married. Isn't it interesting that these "Christian" business owners don't have a problem with other types of sin?
Brooks wants gay people to behave the same way he wants women and minorities to behave, like second class citizens who know their place and don't step out of line.
Has Brooks not noticed that these same business owners don't have a problem providing services for divorced people or people who live in sin? I'm sure there are a few embezzlers etc. getting married. Isn't it interesting that these "Christian" business owners don't have a problem with other types of sin?
Brooks wants gay people to behave the same way he wants women and minorities to behave, like second class citizens who know their place and don't step out of line.
2
The problem of Sematic religion is in its core theology - the concept of the SIN does not support the message of LOVE. The message of love has to sustain on its own emotional weight - there is no support from theological ideas and too many people are not able to develop that emotional quotient.
Throughout the history, Sematic religions are struggling to accomodate the message of love in their society and events like inquisition, crusade, ISIS, destruction of Egyptian Temples and Buddhist statues, massacre of Aboroginals and American Indians, slavery, .... are common and supported by the religious institutions and religious people.
Only after Enlightment, the European countries tried to change this tendencies by adopting constitutions that can support the message of LOVE. The battle then became between the compassionate legal system and bigoted religious interpretation. Today, politicians are showing their color at Indiana in this battle. Luckily, society has changed and many corporations and communities understand the subtle interplay of bigotry and compassion. This is not an issue of brain, it is a matter of heart.
Throughout the history, Sematic religions are struggling to accomodate the message of love in their society and events like inquisition, crusade, ISIS, destruction of Egyptian Temples and Buddhist statues, massacre of Aboroginals and American Indians, slavery, .... are common and supported by the religious institutions and religious people.
Only after Enlightment, the European countries tried to change this tendencies by adopting constitutions that can support the message of LOVE. The battle then became between the compassionate legal system and bigoted religious interpretation. Today, politicians are showing their color at Indiana in this battle. Luckily, society has changed and many corporations and communities understand the subtle interplay of bigotry and compassion. This is not an issue of brain, it is a matter of heart.
1
If you read about politics in America from a historical perspective, you'll see that David's plea fits a right-left pattern that goes back to the beginning of the country. Blacks, gays, suffrage, unions, New Deal, Great Society - the advice from the right is always the same if these groups appear to be winning. "We're on your side, just slow down a little."
3
Exactly. When I was young, black Americans demanding the full rights and obligations of citizenship were often told, blandly, by the smug suburban moralists of the day, "Of course you should have your 'rights,' but you're not ready yet--rights have to be 'earned' rather than 'given:' and besides, you need to be careful not to give offense to the good white people of this country by behaving in an angry or confrontational way, or they won't want to listen any more."
Also back in the early 1960s, many voting rights activists--preparing to go into the lethal South to register American citizens to vote--had to go through training sessions in which they were taught to endure being spat on, cursed, having cigarettes ground out on their heads, etc.--all without reaction or protest, because to react would be to give the segregationists just the excuse they needed (as if they ever really needed an excuse).
The coddling of bigots made me sick then. And it still does, even though the form of coddling David Brooks prescribes here is more genteel and less overtly threatening.
Also back in the early 1960s, many voting rights activists--preparing to go into the lethal South to register American citizens to vote--had to go through training sessions in which they were taught to endure being spat on, cursed, having cigarettes ground out on their heads, etc.--all without reaction or protest, because to react would be to give the segregationists just the excuse they needed (as if they ever really needed an excuse).
The coddling of bigots made me sick then. And it still does, even though the form of coddling David Brooks prescribes here is more genteel and less overtly threatening.
2
They know perfectly well that we are all dead in the long run.
*) As has been pointed out, only a few decades ago Christians in America were appalled at sinful miscegenation. How can Mr Brooks honestly claim what they did was not OK, and this is?
*) How does religion or defense of heterosexual marriage have anything to do with refusing service to a presumtive paying customer? That is, how does a homosexual person who, say, wants to buy a cake prevent a deeply religious and pro-heterosexual-marriage baker from excercising his religion? The customer isn't forcing the baker to marry someone of his own sex; the baker is still free to go to church and pray that everyone should only marry people of the opposite sex. How is that not enough? How does selling the cake infringe on the baker's _religious_ freedom?
*) http://autoblopnik.com/2015/03/30/penske-to-use-rfra-to-win-indy/
*) How does religion or defense of heterosexual marriage have anything to do with refusing service to a presumtive paying customer? That is, how does a homosexual person who, say, wants to buy a cake prevent a deeply religious and pro-heterosexual-marriage baker from excercising his religion? The customer isn't forcing the baker to marry someone of his own sex; the baker is still free to go to church and pray that everyone should only marry people of the opposite sex. How is that not enough? How does selling the cake infringe on the baker's _religious_ freedom?
*) http://autoblopnik.com/2015/03/30/penske-to-use-rfra-to-win-indy/
3
I don't believe the Indiana statute protects a legal right, it shields intolerance. Generally speaking, people do not have a legal right to be offended, and the law shouldn't tbe used to establish one -- especially when it so clearly denies the rights of a minority.
One more thought: rarely does this discussion include the idea that a religious photographer always has the right to find another line of work. If she is so deeply fragile, she can make a living taking pictures of cats.
One more thought: rarely does this discussion include the idea that a religious photographer always has the right to find another line of work. If she is so deeply fragile, she can make a living taking pictures of cats.
1
Discrimination is wrong, but we should be polite and tolerant of bigots. That didn't work with race and it won't work with gay weddings. Eventually, we will get to a point where gay weddings are unremarkable. Are the feelings of those who oppose gay marriage, and it's debatable that those feelings are really religious, more important than gays wanting to be married with all the accoutrements of the ceremony?
I suspect that the information network would allow gays to find businesses that would serve them with respect, but that's putting a burden on them to avoid being insulted. Writing a law to "empower" people to discriminate seems distasteful at best and encouraging in-your=face rudeness at worst. Money talks so maybe boycotts are the answer. I know people who avoid Hobby Lobby and Chick-a-fil because of their religious-political positions. Using economic clout to protest injustice may have an impact.
I suspect that the information network would allow gays to find businesses that would serve them with respect, but that's putting a burden on them to avoid being insulted. Writing a law to "empower" people to discriminate seems distasteful at best and encouraging in-your=face rudeness at worst. Money talks so maybe boycotts are the answer. I know people who avoid Hobby Lobby and Chick-a-fil because of their religious-political positions. Using economic clout to protest injustice may have an impact.
2
This argument is logical and very well constructed however it has the tensile strength of a spider web. This law was written, passed and signed into law to expressly allow invidious discrimination to be raised as an affirmative defense. Its no coincidence that the Governor who signed the bill into law thinks he may have a chance at the Republican nomination for President. Its nothing more than a blatant, pandering action to the homophobic portion of the base of the Republican party. Unfortunately for the Republicans (and fortunately for the Democrats) that group seems to have the final say on who gets the nomination.
1
Religion should be between a person and his/her god. Instead, it's manipulated by people who want to control or impress others. This is why some government officials can't say a prayer before entering a government meeting, but would rather have all the people being coerced into prayer. I guess if they prayed beforehand, God would forget by the time the meeting was opened.
If a person, or other entity, owns a store, they are in business to serve the public, not just those they like.
If a person, or other entity, owns a store, they are in business to serve the public, not just those they like.
2
No, Mr. Brooks, the Indiana law is not just like the federal one. My goodness, with all of the money the NYT pays you, do some research! Professor Epps at The Atlantic has actually read the laws, and will explain the differences to you. You do the public a disservice by misstating "facts" and building on your own mistaken statements. That, sir, is respectfully giving you the benefit of the doubt.
2
Mr Brooks states "At their best, Americans have always believed that people should have the widest possible latitude to exercise their faith as they see fit or not exercise any faith." Wrong! Many Americans have believed, and do believe, that their faith is the one and only true faith, and that therefore it is their duty to do everything possible to convert those of other faiths, or those of no faith (non-believers, infidels, atheists, etc) to their way of thinking and believing. This is the fundamental problem with espousing the concept that all religions should and do happily coexist. It is impossible. In fact, we even see evidence every day all over the world that apostasy, or abandonment of one's religion, invites persecution or physical harm. Those who believe that all religions happily coexist in a given region or country are deluded.
The grave danger in the line of thinking embedded in this and similar laws is their potential scope. Their logical conclusion is that I can disobey any law, any time, if I merely state that it offends my religious beliefs. I'm thinking of the guy in California who wants a ballot initiative that will have gay people executed for their sexuality. Different in degree but not in kind.
The belief that homosexuality is an abomination is a religious belief, not a scientific conclusion. Evidence presented in many recent court cases increasingly reveals that neither is it a civic good deserving to be enforced by law: it simply can't be shown to harm anyone. The government should not be in the business of enforcing religious dogma of any kind. Such laws insert the government into people's private lives on the grounds that religious beliefs trump the civil rights that make it possible for us to live together. Supporting the beliefs of a particular religion over equal treatment under the law is most definitely not a government function endorsed by the Constitution. The government's job is to promote the general welfare, and when religious beliefs endanger the general welfare--as would the belief that some group of citizens are infidels and deserve destruction--then for government to enable such beliefs is to betray its constitutionally mandated role.
The belief that homosexuality is an abomination is a religious belief, not a scientific conclusion. Evidence presented in many recent court cases increasingly reveals that neither is it a civic good deserving to be enforced by law: it simply can't be shown to harm anyone. The government should not be in the business of enforcing religious dogma of any kind. Such laws insert the government into people's private lives on the grounds that religious beliefs trump the civil rights that make it possible for us to live together. Supporting the beliefs of a particular religion over equal treatment under the law is most definitely not a government function endorsed by the Constitution. The government's job is to promote the general welfare, and when religious beliefs endanger the general welfare--as would the belief that some group of citizens are infidels and deserve destruction--then for government to enable such beliefs is to betray its constitutionally mandated role.
2
Reading Brooks' column I am reminded of Martin Luther King's letter from Birmingham jail and the white politicians who told King "Look, we agree with you about this whole civil rights issue, but it's just too soon. We don't want any trouble." This argument that this is a balancing act between religious liberty and civil rights is a flawed one. If a Christian baker or florist were compelled to offer their services to a gay couple on the grounds that to refuse would be discrimination, doing so in no way infringes on their religious liberty. Said person still has the freedom and right to believe in God, go to church, pray, etc. They would even have the right to dislike and disagree with gay marriage. Everyone is compelled to do things they don't like and disagree with everyday, yet most of us don't feel the need to sanctify our views in law.
2
There is no religious "right to do business," Mr. Brooks.
The right to do business is granted by the State.
The right to do business is granted by the State.
4
What happened to the idea that the rights of the minorities must be protected from the majority. I believe that much of our law has been based on this idea which is also in our Constitution as well. When we start nit picking and trying to please all sides then this is left lying in the dust of extreme discrimination. These religious liberty laws are another idea of the extremists to keep out the "others" or keep them in their place while they are demeaned and derided by the religious extremists. You see the problem with religion is that it never gets enough. It always wants more of society and wants to control us all. There are moves in this group against alchohol use, marijuana laws, gay marriage, abortion, books, sex, etc. Anything they can use the book to justify bad behavior they use to the outer limit. We have to say "NO" at some point or face civil war like the middle east.
2
What if a baker does not like evangelical Christians and won't make a cake with bible verses on it? Would that be legal under this new law? If discriminating against one group is legal for religious reasons it should apply to all religions, faiths, and lifestyles. Of course, capitalism gets in the mix too. Now there is a business opportunity in Indiana for a baker to market themselves as a "freedom of expression" baker. If everyone's flour, sugar, butter are pretty much the same, this might be a way to stand out in a competitive environment. Still, it is sad.
6
If a baker told me that he didn't like Catholics and refused to make a cake for me, you know what I would do? Find another baker. Taking these things to court is absolutely absurd. No one will have any freedom when people are coerced to do what they do not believe in just to survive...as a baker would be.
Since when is selling flowers, or cakes, to the public a religious act? Kick gays out of your "Christian" church, fine, and rewrite your holy writ to suit your prejudices while you're at it. But participation in commerce is subject to secular laws that require everyone be served high-carb food at your lunch counter, regardless of race and yes, regardless of what they do in their bedrooms. Let Hoosiers be hicks in their thoughts and speech; it's their birthright; but that doesn't extend to public accommodations.
12
The Bible and Koran justify and glorify a whole host of behaviors most modern societies consider repugnant (polygamy, slavery, stoning, child killing, mass murder, human sacrifice, etc). They also demand severe punishment for behaviors no longer prohibited.
It's the 21st century.
Are we to allow any "true believer" of any ideology the leeway to enforce their esthetics (called "what the Lord demands") on a "case by case basis"?
So, it's OK that a florist doesn't sell flowers to a gay couple? Is it also OK for a pharma patent holder to prevent lifesaving medicine to go to gay people, Jews, omnivores?
Apparently, only members of large cults (called religions) get to give the finger to others with the outrageous expectation that their tender sensibilities will be coddled by the law.
It's the 21st century.
Are we to allow any "true believer" of any ideology the leeway to enforce their esthetics (called "what the Lord demands") on a "case by case basis"?
So, it's OK that a florist doesn't sell flowers to a gay couple? Is it also OK for a pharma patent holder to prevent lifesaving medicine to go to gay people, Jews, omnivores?
Apparently, only members of large cults (called religions) get to give the finger to others with the outrageous expectation that their tender sensibilities will be coddled by the law.
8
I don't think it makes sense to carve out any exceptions for people whose justification for otherwise illegal behavior is that they adhere to an irrational belief system (what else is religion?) which condones such behavior. Does this not make their arguments self-refuting?
3
There is, "a great struggle to balance civil rights and religious liberty," but it overlooks the broader and more important personal liberty we each have to determine and live our life in a moral way. Attorneys and medical professionals have a right, independent of religion, to decline work on cases or procedures which violate personal ethics. The right to turn down work, particularly professional service work, for ethical reasons is not the same as discrimination. Even when the refusal of service has an adverse impact on a protected class or interferes with lawful activity of others there must be a right to decline service for subjective ethical reasons or professional standards.
No business or worker should be forced to promote or celebrate LGBT relationships, artistic expressions, abortion or other partisan positions. If we don't have a right to say no we are no more than slaves. Businesses may legitimately cater to ethnic, sexual, and other lifestyle preferences and this freedom involves saying, "no thank you," to other choices.
No business or worker should be forced to promote or celebrate LGBT relationships, artistic expressions, abortion or other partisan positions. If we don't have a right to say no we are no more than slaves. Businesses may legitimately cater to ethnic, sexual, and other lifestyle preferences and this freedom involves saying, "no thank you," to other choices.
1
You'll have to explain to me how selling something to an LGBT person "promotes or celebrates" LGBT relationships.
1
Mr. Brooks is using the time honored white, Protestant American Tradition of wait until "we" want to give you your rights as an American. If woman waited, they would still be waiting for their rights today. If Blacks waited, they would still be waiting for their rights the Constitution gave them 250 old years ago. If gays wait, they will wait forever; because, these bigots and racists do not want, have no plans or desire to give gays anything but abuse, intolerance and bigotry.
16
I think the Indiana law COULD be fair but is ripe for abuse.
I don't doubt that there is a SMALL number of people out there who truly believe that homosexuality is a sin, and that they will be in way big trouble with god if they bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. (Just as there are Orthodox Jewish men who honestly believe it is a sin to shake a woman's hand.)
OK, I think they're nuts, and I hope they come to their senses, but I'm not sure that forcing them to shake hands or bake a wedding cake they don't want to make is going to improve the situation for anyone. ("Now that the courts have made me bake this cake, why, I see how misguided my opinions were...")
I fear that while the law could justly accommodate this small group of folks who I think deserve a pass, it will be used by bigots as a cover. "I won't serve your kind because... uh... I'm religious! Yeah, that's it!"
More to the point, why would I WANT to make someone bake a cake if they don't want to? I'd much rather boycott the homophobic baker and give my business to a gay-friendly business.
I don't doubt that there is a SMALL number of people out there who truly believe that homosexuality is a sin, and that they will be in way big trouble with god if they bake a wedding cake for a gay couple. (Just as there are Orthodox Jewish men who honestly believe it is a sin to shake a woman's hand.)
OK, I think they're nuts, and I hope they come to their senses, but I'm not sure that forcing them to shake hands or bake a wedding cake they don't want to make is going to improve the situation for anyone. ("Now that the courts have made me bake this cake, why, I see how misguided my opinions were...")
I fear that while the law could justly accommodate this small group of folks who I think deserve a pass, it will be used by bigots as a cover. "I won't serve your kind because... uh... I'm religious! Yeah, that's it!"
More to the point, why would I WANT to make someone bake a cake if they don't want to? I'd much rather boycott the homophobic baker and give my business to a gay-friendly business.
6
And tell all of my social media and yelp and other reviewers, that they are intolerant of SSM, LGBT and possibly other folks, and let the chips fall will they may.
"These people [Christian bigots] are worthy of tolerance, respect and gentle persuasion." Christian bigots have been tolerated way too long; they don't follow the teachings of Jesus, they bend Jesus to serve their prejudices.
People of all religions are free to worship as they see fit so long as their worship does not impinge on the rights of other citizens of the USA. When Christians attempt to force intolerant views on others there is going to be push-back and Indiana deserves its notoriety as a state of bigotry and its economic punishment for electing bigots to office.
People of all religions are free to worship as they see fit so long as their worship does not impinge on the rights of other citizens of the USA. When Christians attempt to force intolerant views on others there is going to be push-back and Indiana deserves its notoriety as a state of bigotry and its economic punishment for electing bigots to office.
11
If we are so fired up about "religious freedom" then it must apply across the board to the wiccan, the native american, the buddist and muslim, Not just conservative christian. I don't think we are in the business of chosing which is the "true" religion, derserving of protection.
8
Blame it on the uppity! If they weren't so uppity, we wouldn't require new laws to enable us to push them back down, just a bit. The powerful and the majority are always oppressed by any need to accommodate. If they can't use laws to ease that discomfort, what is government for?
11
One wonders how polite Mr. Brooks' soul would remain were he to replace the adjectives "gay" and "same-sex" with "Jewish" or "African-American" and re-read his column in that light.
11
At some point, David, your logic doesn't hold water.
If the essence of your beliefs is directly tied to any formal religious text(s), practices and/or traditions, we can agree to respect each others' devotion to those as a desire to adhere to a particular dogma. No problem.
But when any of those previously mentioned documents and/or practices directly cause one to act in a discriminatory manner, it should be challenged and given a thorough test of intellectual soundness and its impact on humanity.
Interestingly, these are the discussions evangelicals and other religious conservatives are least likely to engage, as they pose a threat to their established dogmatic principles.
If the essence of your beliefs is directly tied to any formal religious text(s), practices and/or traditions, we can agree to respect each others' devotion to those as a desire to adhere to a particular dogma. No problem.
But when any of those previously mentioned documents and/or practices directly cause one to act in a discriminatory manner, it should be challenged and given a thorough test of intellectual soundness and its impact on humanity.
Interestingly, these are the discussions evangelicals and other religious conservatives are least likely to engage, as they pose a threat to their established dogmatic principles.
7
No matter what flowery language one tries to use to hide it, the fact is conservatives have seized upon a tactic that gives them an end around the law.
Jesus said render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render unto God that which is God's. Even the Son of Man understood the difference between life in the secular world and in the faith based world.
Why do so many have trouble understanding His word today?
To claim that baking a wedding cake for a gay couple violates ANY religious freedom is absurd. Then get out of the bakery business. To say filling a prescription for birth control pills violates religious freedom is absurd. Find another job.
Christians seem to have no problem shoving their faith into government all the while bemoaning the supposed encroachment of government on their religious freedom.
Only to a conservative does that logic make sense.
When they claim they are under attack for their faith, ask a Christian to cite ONE example of a Christian who has been denied his civil rights because he or she is a Christian.
Jesus said render unto Caesar that which is Caesar's and render unto God that which is God's. Even the Son of Man understood the difference between life in the secular world and in the faith based world.
Why do so many have trouble understanding His word today?
To claim that baking a wedding cake for a gay couple violates ANY religious freedom is absurd. Then get out of the bakery business. To say filling a prescription for birth control pills violates religious freedom is absurd. Find another job.
Christians seem to have no problem shoving their faith into government all the while bemoaning the supposed encroachment of government on their religious freedom.
Only to a conservative does that logic make sense.
When they claim they are under attack for their faith, ask a Christian to cite ONE example of a Christian who has been denied his civil rights because he or she is a Christian.
15
Before opining, Mr. Brooks should get his facts straight. The Indiana law is similar to, but not identical to the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 or most other state statutes of the same name. It contains extra wording that protects religious freedom not only from state action but against purely private lawsuits alleging discrimination. This difference in language, as the NY Times Editorial Board recognized today in its own editorial, is critical to understanding the widespread opposition to Indiana's statute, which by its express terms authorizes private discrimination against the gay and lesbian communities, which are not adequately protected by existing civil rights laws. Mr. Brook's assertion that the firestorm of protest is simply a matter of changing interpretations of Religious Freedom statutes by the gay and lesbian communities is factually incorrect. A deliberately slight and subtle addition to the wording of the law itself is the cause. It would be appropriate for Mr. Brooks to retract this column or at least write another column explaining his error.
8
And yet the next Presidential election will still be 52-48 either way as the TP-OP will again plead (successfully) this kind of right wing reactionary malarkey is some sort phantom limb pain already severed from their TP-OP body politic.
1
The Supreme Court found the state could deny benefits to a person fired for violating laws against the use of peyote, even though the drug was part of a religious ritual.
Because the law was not directed at the Native Americans' religious practice, but rather everyone, it was deemed constitutional.
Justice Scalia said:
"To make an individual's obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious beliefs, ...permitting him 'to become a law unto himself,' contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense."
"To adopt a true 'compelling interest' requirement for laws that affect religious practice would lead towards anarchy."
I agree with Justice Scalia in this case. Let's see if he agrees with himself.
The laws that banned African-Americans from certain public accommodations were cloaked in a religious belief in the separation of races.
My husband and I will fight any legislation that give public accommodations the right to deny services to us and our children, or anyone else based on bias, no matter how such bias is cloaked.
No one is asking a specific religion to perform a blessing with which they disagree.
But to say a professional baker, photographer or hall can deny services just to gay people when they serve people who violate a raft of religious tenants is simply legalized bigotry and discrimination.
Even Justice Scalia should have the decency to see that such violates constitutional tradition and common sense.
Because the law was not directed at the Native Americans' religious practice, but rather everyone, it was deemed constitutional.
Justice Scalia said:
"To make an individual's obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious beliefs, ...permitting him 'to become a law unto himself,' contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense."
"To adopt a true 'compelling interest' requirement for laws that affect religious practice would lead towards anarchy."
I agree with Justice Scalia in this case. Let's see if he agrees with himself.
The laws that banned African-Americans from certain public accommodations were cloaked in a religious belief in the separation of races.
My husband and I will fight any legislation that give public accommodations the right to deny services to us and our children, or anyone else based on bias, no matter how such bias is cloaked.
No one is asking a specific religion to perform a blessing with which they disagree.
But to say a professional baker, photographer or hall can deny services just to gay people when they serve people who violate a raft of religious tenants is simply legalized bigotry and discrimination.
Even Justice Scalia should have the decency to see that such violates constitutional tradition and common sense.
8
When I read the first paragraph, I thought, "Great, but what will be the 'on the other hand ...'?" Sure enough, it came in the second paragraph. By the end, it's the gays who are told the onus of accommodation lies on them.
The people fighting for rights are not the ones to be told to sit back and nod politely at the possessors of privilege, while the possessors guard their privilege.
Brooks contradicts his own newspaper when he folds the Indiana law together with religious protection laws of 20+ years ago, as though they are the same. Those earlier laws did not extend religious protection to discrimination practiced by businesses that serve the public. Brooks also ignores the fact that in Indiana, unlike the case in many other states, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is not illegal.
The people fighting for rights are not the ones to be told to sit back and nod politely at the possessors of privilege, while the possessors guard their privilege.
Brooks contradicts his own newspaper when he folds the Indiana law together with religious protection laws of 20+ years ago, as though they are the same. Those earlier laws did not extend religious protection to discrimination practiced by businesses that serve the public. Brooks also ignores the fact that in Indiana, unlike the case in many other states, discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation is not illegal.
6
And if a Muslim taxi driver refuses to pick up women who have not to his way of thinking properly covered their faces, should we respect his sensitivities? This writer always disarms his readers with a reasonable, rational tone. He is the only thoughtful man in the room. He then throws on a fine white fleece of sensitive theological gimcrackery over the conservative wolf lurking below.
12
Religion has been used to justify abuse, war, destruction and oppression for hundreds of years. Isn't it time to stop this hypocrisy?
8
I shall try to help clarify this debate by quoting one of the sentences in Mr. Brooks' column as a straightforward declaration of reality in the legislative forum of Indiana. "Claims of religious liberty are covers for anti-gay bigotry," for that's exactly what this totally gratuitous, unnecessary law is, pure and simple.
Government has no right to control what people, even bigots, believe or how they "worship." Just as with our Jim Crow atrocities of recent history, however, it has the obligation to confront discrimination in the public market of ideas and goods, including wedding cakes.
For further reading, http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/indiana-defines-stupidity...
Government has no right to control what people, even bigots, believe or how they "worship." Just as with our Jim Crow atrocities of recent history, however, it has the obligation to confront discrimination in the public market of ideas and goods, including wedding cakes.
For further reading, http://www.newyorker.com/humor/borowitz-report/indiana-defines-stupidity...
6
At one time in this country owners of businesses had the right protected by the law to refuse to serve anyone they chose to. (Check out the diner scene in the film Giant). Blacks and other minoriities were routinely refused services for food, shopping, restrooms and drinking fountains not to mention the right to vote and be free in their persons. Thankfully those bigoted acts of discrimination are for the most part now prohibited by law. One's religious freedom should not be protected to the extent that it permits discrimination and persecution of others. What is disappointing in David's column is his failure to condemn persecution and discrimination of others by the "religious" right.
7
"In the Jewish community, conservative Jews are generally polite toward Orthodox Jews who wouldn’t use their cutlery. Men are generally polite to Orthodox women who would prefer not to shake their hands. In the larger community, this respectful politeness works best."
This a a very weak analogy because it totally blurs the line between personal behavior and business behavior. There are no laws requiring individual nondiscrimination -- at it's worst, I am free to refuse to invite any blacks into my home or invite them to join my family for dinner. On the other hand, the laws are clear that a restaurant owner can not refuse to allow blacks to enter the restaurant or refuse to serve them dinner in a nondiscriminatory manner.
The same principle should apply to gays. Despicable or not, an individual is free to refuse to interact with homosexuals, but businesses are (or should be) required to treat them in a nondiscriminatory manner.
If you want the economic and legal benefits of becoming a business, then you must accept the legal requirements on how the business conducts itself.
This a a very weak analogy because it totally blurs the line between personal behavior and business behavior. There are no laws requiring individual nondiscrimination -- at it's worst, I am free to refuse to invite any blacks into my home or invite them to join my family for dinner. On the other hand, the laws are clear that a restaurant owner can not refuse to allow blacks to enter the restaurant or refuse to serve them dinner in a nondiscriminatory manner.
The same principle should apply to gays. Despicable or not, an individual is free to refuse to interact with homosexuals, but businesses are (or should be) required to treat them in a nondiscriminatory manner.
If you want the economic and legal benefits of becoming a business, then you must accept the legal requirements on how the business conducts itself.
8
I agree with Mr. Brooks that many on the religious right, at least in this southern (red)neck of the woods, sincerely believe that homosexuals are unrepentant sinners condemned to hell for all eternity. They also hold this "sincere" view of mixed race families, Jews, Catholics, liberals, and women who do not "submit" to their husbands (admittedly, this is an incomplete list of the "other" that they look down upon). What "freedoms" does Mr. Brooks advocate must be allowed in the public sphere to fully exercise these beliefs?
On the other hand, I always have found it useful to have these folks air their self-perceived moral superiority in public so I can clearly know who to avoid in my daily commerce.
On the other hand, I always have found it useful to have these folks air their self-perceived moral superiority in public so I can clearly know who to avoid in my daily commerce.
5
Here's the kind of freedom most businesses have: not to serve me if I come in shoeless and shirtless and that is listed in their rules, not to serve me or to ask me to leave if I'm behaving in a disruptive manner, or I'm underage, to recommend another place if they don't have what I'm looking for, to offer to order the item for me, to accept my money or decline it if they want to give me the item for free, to be unpleasant to me so I don't ever return, or to be courteous and offer to serve me. And I am equally free to accept or decline their services. I'm free to behave myself or not and suffer the consequences. However, when a person opens up a business they are expected to serve the public and that public, whether some of the extremists like it or not, includes members of the LGBT community. It includes atheists, Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, Jainists, athletes, intellectuals, and people of different skin colors.
7
The opening line in this states clearly the fallacy in the argument to come - there has been no assault on religious liberty in the United States. Instead, as the society develops along the lines of Christ's admonition to "love your neighbor as yourself", and society as a whole begins to drop the bigotry and fear of earlier times, those who feel threatened by these developments wrap their prejudices and bigotry in "religion", and seek to assert their "right" to their bigotry in the name of religious liberty. Once, I thought Mr Brooks was above the sort of sophistry embodied by this piece, but he has proven to be an apologist for the right too often...
2
What David does not do is tell us why, when Indiana does not even recognize gay civil rights, that Republicans decided that now was the time the Indiana needed this new law. Indiana's small towns are a mess. Once solid communities of workers (mills. machine shops and the like) they are dens of drug dealing, and now AIDS. Yes they decided to do this.
In 1993 the state of gay rights was far different than now. Things have moved fast. The Indiana law deserves only condemnation.
In 1993 the state of gay rights was far different than now. Things have moved fast. The Indiana law deserves only condemnation.
4
Indiana moved in anticipation of a probable Supreme Court decision making marriage equality a constitutional right. (I am with you all the way, of course.)
What religious conservatives have right on a secular level is that the fight for traditional marriage is ultimately a fight for the survival of our nation as a free society. Collectivists realize they must break down the nuclear family in order to destroy our freedoms. Same sex marriage -- as well as divorce and single motherhood-- advances that goal because it gives the opportunity for children to be reared in a transient relationship, without the benfit of the strong bonds of a natural mother and natural father. In 2012, forty-two percent of all children were born out of wedlock. Over half of all children born toda will spend much of their childhood without their natural mother and natural father. These chidren and their single mothers are all too happy to become wards of the state because they have no other choice. Big government steps in to enslave the industrious because "we are all in this together." Liberty is then branded as neglect and bigotry. Marxism has never died. It is subtle but inexorable.
The examples of the baker and the photographer don't do service to your argument. Neither is really critical. But change them just a bit to the fundamentalist motel or restaurant owner in the middle of nowhere who doesn't want to serve LBGT's and you have a much more serious issue. The real tension between rights comes with essential services. Generally, commerce is a public function for which a bright line rule is appropriate. The right to run a business implies the duty to do so fairly. Having said that, those who enforce such fairness should be sensitive to the lesser right and seek solutions rather than examples.
2
Yes, we are engaging in a balancing act David, and the reason the Religious Freedom Restoration Acts at the federal and many state levels are tolerable is that the sexual and gender orientation are protected classes in those cases, while they are not in Indiana. Therefore, most of the places where this law is in play have found a balance, while Indiana is not in balance. Indiana is not a bellweather, it is an outlier. Shame on you for not providing us with that information in your article.
In a broader sense, I interpret your argument as part of the broader assault on the public sphere, or the public realm. The public sphere is a place where we encounter everyone, including The Other. The public sphere is a great invention of free and democratic societies. In your argument, those of us who may be The Other must accept politely that our Otherness is frowned upon by the dominant culture, and behave accordingly. Your public sphere is a place where the tyranny of the majority reigns, not a place of polite accommodation of difference. It is not a public sphere that encourages the free, vibrant, democratic society that conservatives in other ways say they champion.
In a broader sense, I interpret your argument as part of the broader assault on the public sphere, or the public realm. The public sphere is a place where we encounter everyone, including The Other. The public sphere is a great invention of free and democratic societies. In your argument, those of us who may be The Other must accept politely that our Otherness is frowned upon by the dominant culture, and behave accordingly. Your public sphere is a place where the tyranny of the majority reigns, not a place of polite accommodation of difference. It is not a public sphere that encourages the free, vibrant, democratic society that conservatives in other ways say they champion.
3
So Brooks is saying that gays and lesbians should show Christian charity towards the Christians that never showed them any.
The Christian in me says this is the charitable thing to do. The sinner in me says turnabout is fair play. It's time to even the score.
The Christian in me says this is the charitable thing to do. The sinner in me says turnabout is fair play. It's time to even the score.
The religious test should be very narrowly construed as was the decision in Yoder v Wisconsin, which involved the Amish community's objection to Wisconsin's compulsory education laws.
The Yoder case was very specific in that it did not involve the community at large, and thus the petitioner was able to successfully argue their religious practices were confined to a small group and did not involve the broader public policy issues the Supreme Court relied upon in their previous "free exercise" decisions.
The recent court's Hobby Lobby decision dispensed with the rationale behind Yoder and decided a for-profit employer had the right to impose their religious beliefs on their employees, which, at least IMO, violates their employees constitutional religious protections.
It should be noted that the Orthodox Jewish community of NY's Kiryas Joel lost their Free Exercise case in 1994 under the Establishment Clause, a year after passage of the RFRA.
The Yoder case was very specific in that it did not involve the community at large, and thus the petitioner was able to successfully argue their religious practices were confined to a small group and did not involve the broader public policy issues the Supreme Court relied upon in their previous "free exercise" decisions.
The recent court's Hobby Lobby decision dispensed with the rationale behind Yoder and decided a for-profit employer had the right to impose their religious beliefs on their employees, which, at least IMO, violates their employees constitutional religious protections.
It should be noted that the Orthodox Jewish community of NY's Kiryas Joel lost their Free Exercise case in 1994 under the Establishment Clause, a year after passage of the RFRA.
1
Miraculously the Churches have only been hip to these modern day interpretations of the Bible within roughly the last 10 years. How is a ~2000 yr. old document suddenly so amendable to the whims of present day theologians?
The bottom line is Churches want to seem "with it" or hip & trendy, they care very little about the sanctity of the text. The Episcopal Church recognizes abortion and same sex marriage. Other churches are following suit. Don't worry left, soon every Western Church will be lockstep in your thinking and fire all white male pastors while opening abortion clinics.
I'm sure you'll make the same demands of your Muslim, black organizations and other groups too, right? Or does the demand for change only come down on mainstream Christian groups?
What happened to letting private groups/businesses serving or not serving whoever they want?
The bottom line is Churches want to seem "with it" or hip & trendy, they care very little about the sanctity of the text. The Episcopal Church recognizes abortion and same sex marriage. Other churches are following suit. Don't worry left, soon every Western Church will be lockstep in your thinking and fire all white male pastors while opening abortion clinics.
I'm sure you'll make the same demands of your Muslim, black organizations and other groups too, right? Or does the demand for change only come down on mainstream Christian groups?
What happened to letting private groups/businesses serving or not serving whoever they want?
Businesses are ruled by the laws of the land and in the U.S. it's illegal to discriminate against someone because of the way they were born.
There is no war on Christians, just on intolerance of a group of people (in ths case gays) . I don't care what denomination a bigot is, I don't want to see discrimination in the provision of services.
But to stay with the 2000 year old opening you gave. The church has adapted throughout the ages, starting with Paul reducing the various restrictions of Leviticus in order to improve the spreading of Christianity to Gentiles, who perhaps didn't want circumcision as part of their induction into the church. Women and other races being equal was another set of advances.
But to stay with the 2000 year old opening you gave. The church has adapted throughout the ages, starting with Paul reducing the various restrictions of Leviticus in order to improve the spreading of Christianity to Gentiles, who perhaps didn't want circumcision as part of their induction into the church. Women and other races being equal was another set of advances.
Substitute the word "black" for "gay" and reread this column. I suppose Mr. Brooks would have preferred that Rosa Parks politely accept sitting in the back of the bus. Jews should have politely accepted rejection from Christian country clubs, they simply weren't wanted there. Yessir, Mr. Brooks, those gays sure are acting uppity.
6
"Some people have lost their jobs for expressing opposition to gay marriage." Really? Who? And how does that compare with the number of people who have lost their jobs, or not been hired, because they.were gay?
6
Many people used their deep religious beliefs to justify, or at least explain, their support for racism. According to the Bible, some said, God separated the races and, therefore, required segregation. These beliefs were as deeply, honestly, and firmly held as the beliefs today that homosexuality is wrong. But would you support a baker who refused to make a cake for a black couple or a mixed race couple? Would you support a hotel refusing to rent rooms to a black couple or a mixed race couple? Would you support anyone in public accommodation refusing to serve someone based on race? No. This is the same thing.
2
A very wise column, and David Brooks is to be commended. However, the cynic in me whispers, "These days, what difference does wisdom make? Who respects wisdom?"
I don't think "morality is a politeness of the soul," But, rather a courageousness of the soul that is willing to stand up when something is profoundly wrong, willing to cross the line of "politeness," and break the rules for the good of future generations. Individuals may wrestle with gay marriage, and neighbors may find a way to politely lead them down a the right path, but here we have a State acting in a bigoted way, elected leaders twisting a law that allows business to refuse service to people because of their sexual orientation. This is no a time to be "polite", but for our country to draw a very clear line, to say a collective "no!" Send a message to the kids: This will not stand. No time for politeness; a time for boycott, protest, marching, banning, confronting, civil disobedience. Kudos to the leaders in Seattle and San Francisco for leading the way in formal protest.
3
Isn't it time for religious conservatives to admit that The Bible and God simply got this one wrong? All of the ickiness that religious conservatives feel about LGBT people comes from their belief in the Bible––in which God clearly and explicitly states how he feels about gays: He thinks they should be stoned to death.
So what religious conservatives are saying is that they want the liberty to continue their wrongheaded, anachronistic belief that love between gays and lesbians is not acceptable to them.
It's hard to admit it when we get something wrong. It can be a painful thing. But sometimes it just has to be done. Yet David is right, we should be polite and gentle about helping religious conservatives come to this painful realization.
So what religious conservatives are saying is that they want the liberty to continue their wrongheaded, anachronistic belief that love between gays and lesbians is not acceptable to them.
It's hard to admit it when we get something wrong. It can be a painful thing. But sometimes it just has to be done. Yet David is right, we should be polite and gentle about helping religious conservatives come to this painful realization.
2
Or perhaps they could just admit to being hypocrites? I don't see them denying services to divorced people, people who have premarital sex etc.
1
This new bill is different from the 1993 RFRA, because it allows for cases between private citizens. The 1993 bill only allows for a religious freedom complaint between a citizen and the federal government, this Indiana bill is a different beast all together and can only be seen as a cover for bigotry.
People who are against same sex marriage can voice that point of view by not having same sex marriages themselves, but just as strict religious sects can't stop the secular world from showing their ankles, drinking, and having pre-marital sex. They also cannot use their religion as a cover for their hatred.
People who are against same sex marriage can voice that point of view by not having same sex marriages themselves, but just as strict religious sects can't stop the secular world from showing their ankles, drinking, and having pre-marital sex. They also cannot use their religion as a cover for their hatred.
3
There is no tension between religious pluralism and equality as David contends. If there ever was one thing religion ever agreed upon, it is the idea that each member of the human species, is to be included into any and all of what being humans mean. What does this mean for this debate? It will be and is necessary for the law to distinquish between religious fanaticism and genuine belief. You can not cut ff the gentials of a girl against her will in the name of your faith. Native Americans can not smoke peyote while in prison. It does not matter if large majorities believed once that Blacks should be excluded, and that is the problem here. You have a certain class, we will take business owners, that have so benefited from our economic structures, that they feel they live in their own world, forgetting how much they owe to the system for their gains; "it is my right to refuse service to some" No it is not. You can not take, say the ability to receive income that is not subject to Social Security taxes, (small business owners can take loans and draws and then defer income until taken as dividends which are not taxed as wages; you get benefits because you create jobs), and believe you are "on your own," and do not have to play by all the rules, which include not excluding others. This is just religious fanaticism, and the law of the land will impose it's will on you. End of story.
3
Perhaps, humanity's greatest gift, our ability to reason, often becomes our greatest flaw, our ability to rationalize.
People exploit the most minor differences for personal gain, or to resolve some internal conflict, in an irrational way. Religion, sexual orientation are two, major differences.
One person's religion, becomes another person's weapon. Unfortunately, this is the way psychotic leaders like Hitler, gained power. With that weapon, they were able to manipulate huge populations into committing great atrocities.
People exploit the most minor differences for personal gain, or to resolve some internal conflict, in an irrational way. Religion, sexual orientation are two, major differences.
One person's religion, becomes another person's weapon. Unfortunately, this is the way psychotic leaders like Hitler, gained power. With that weapon, they were able to manipulate huge populations into committing great atrocities.
7
Substitute race or religion for sexual orientation in this article, and it would never have seen the light of day. What about people whose "deeply held religious beliefs" would prohibit them from serving African-Americans or Jews or Native Americans? Someone who is "wise and deeply humane" does not refuse service to others, period. This type of discrimination should be prohibited in the public sphere, and so-called religious tolerance should not be allowed to serve as a smoke-screen..
5
Sorry, but you're entirely on the wrong track. Substituting "black" for "gay," would you think we all ought to politely accept photographers or bakers refusing to serve black people?
No, the problem here is precisely that society has realized that it was largely wrong about a moral issue: that there's no good reason to discriminate against gays. Religion is being used as an excuse to perpetuate discrimination. This is never a good idea. You are suggesting we coddle conservatives out of respect for their rights to their prejudices, really. I put it to you that this is a moral error, and we would be better telling them -- politely -- that whatever convictions they may have society requires them to act in what it considers, for rational reasons not religious ones, to be a decent fashion.
No, the problem here is precisely that society has realized that it was largely wrong about a moral issue: that there's no good reason to discriminate against gays. Religion is being used as an excuse to perpetuate discrimination. This is never a good idea. You are suggesting we coddle conservatives out of respect for their rights to their prejudices, really. I put it to you that this is a moral error, and we would be better telling them -- politely -- that whatever convictions they may have society requires them to act in what it considers, for rational reasons not religious ones, to be a decent fashion.
8
The standard is discrimination based on gender, race, religion or sexual orientation is not tolerated and should be enforced by the weight of law.
I would argue that one's religious convictions do not take precedence over this simple and just principle.
But, in examining the case for religious objections to homosexuality and same sex marriage, particularly from a Christian perspective, I see a remarkably flimsy case. What distinguishes a Christian from a Jew is the New Testament and the belief that Jesus is the Messiah and Savior. Jews follow the Hebrew bible only and I suppose they could strain to find antigay rationales from Leviticus . Also specific dietary laws, tattoo denouncement, etc.
But for Christians, Jesus does not condemn homosexuality or gay people. Not a whit, not a peep from Christian's Lord and Savior about the evils of same sex marriage or homosexuality. One would think he would have mentioned it were it so fundamentally important.
The bottom line is laws protecting religious freedom are red herrings to codify and enshrine prejudice and bigotry under the guise of conscience and piety. Using God as a cover for one's hatred of gays and homosexuality is the epitome of venality and cowardice.
I would argue that one's religious convictions do not take precedence over this simple and just principle.
But, in examining the case for religious objections to homosexuality and same sex marriage, particularly from a Christian perspective, I see a remarkably flimsy case. What distinguishes a Christian from a Jew is the New Testament and the belief that Jesus is the Messiah and Savior. Jews follow the Hebrew bible only and I suppose they could strain to find antigay rationales from Leviticus . Also specific dietary laws, tattoo denouncement, etc.
But for Christians, Jesus does not condemn homosexuality or gay people. Not a whit, not a peep from Christian's Lord and Savior about the evils of same sex marriage or homosexuality. One would think he would have mentioned it were it so fundamentally important.
The bottom line is laws protecting religious freedom are red herrings to codify and enshrine prejudice and bigotry under the guise of conscience and piety. Using God as a cover for one's hatred of gays and homosexuality is the epitome of venality and cowardice.
403
It is clear to all what Indiana lawmakers -- and its governor -- are doing. Paint it however you will, it is blatant discrimination. Unless it is corrected, we all have an obligation to do the right thing -- don't go to Indiana and don't do business with those who do.
3
Indeed, Jesus ate with everyone. He washed the feet of all. Even Judas, his betrayer!
1
Some people have lost their jobs for expressing opposition to gay marriage, says this columnist.
A thousand times more people have lost their jobs by coming out as LGBT, but David Brooks doesn't give a damn about them.
A thousand times more people have lost their jobs by coming out as LGBT, but David Brooks doesn't give a damn about them.
6
I confess - I refuse to serve Republicans and evangelical bigots - it is my religious beliefs as an atheist to discriminate against them.
5
This is a civil rights issue and the Indiana"Religious Freedom Restoration Act" is a blatant attempt to restore the status-quo-ante which banned same-sex marriage in the state until the courts overturned it last October. This law is impolite and intolerant in permitting businesses operating in the public square to deny service based on discrimination something the federal law clearly recognized. If we've learned anything from the 20th century we know that forcing people to wear gold, Jewish stars or drink from separate water fountains violates basic human dignity that religions supposedly embrace. It's disgraceful and shameful that in 21st century America that decries and fights wars against religious intolerance abroad we have a political party and media enablers who find it acceptable here at home.
1
If you rewrote Brooks article substituting slavery for homosexual, you would find many instances of it popping up in antebellum newspapers and pamphlets (the Op-ed "column" of its day) in the 19th century, most often from God-fearing apologists who just happened to live mostly in the South, and were convinced, I say convinced, that gradualism was, at best, the only course for abolishing slavery.
Brooks' intern could have gotten a nice rundown of the issue here:
http://www.ushistory.org/us/27f.asp
With deep deep arguments like the following:
"Defenders of slavery noted that in the Bible, Abraham had slaves. They point to the Ten Commandments, noting that "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, ... nor his manservant, nor his maidservant." In the New Testament, Paul returned a runaway slave, Philemon, to his master, and, although slavery was widespread throughout the Roman world, Jesus never spoke out against it."
Is anti-gay bigotry, on whatever irrational grounds, as pernicious as slavery?
Of course not.
And Brooks would conclude from that what? That gays should accommodate Mike Pence's presidential ambitions in 2020 just a bit longer?
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1448/abolitionism
Brooks' intern could have gotten a nice rundown of the issue here:
http://www.ushistory.org/us/27f.asp
With deep deep arguments like the following:
"Defenders of slavery noted that in the Bible, Abraham had slaves. They point to the Ten Commandments, noting that "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, ... nor his manservant, nor his maidservant." In the New Testament, Paul returned a runaway slave, Philemon, to his master, and, although slavery was widespread throughout the Roman world, Jesus never spoke out against it."
Is anti-gay bigotry, on whatever irrational grounds, as pernicious as slavery?
Of course not.
And Brooks would conclude from that what? That gays should accommodate Mike Pence's presidential ambitions in 2020 just a bit longer?
http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1448/abolitionism
1
Mr. Brooks: You see the elephant standing before you and you insist on describing it as a mouse. The issue is not "religious liberty." The two-word phrase is the merest gloss for the inalienable right to draw from scripture (of whatever belief system) and employ it as a lance-point against another individual or group. It's really quite simple. Your lines about "deepest respect" and "bring the hammer down on bigotry" reflect a very naive worldview about how racism, sexism, and "other-ism" succeed in a pluralistic society. The Right merely wish to protest against progressivism and take up the stick at any perceived slight to their "freedom" to worship. No one bothers them; it's they who belabor the rest of us with their single-minded purpose of exclusion while wielding the Bible as a weapon against justice and decency.
1
Nonsense! If this nation was founded on the principle of "religious tolerance" why do Evangelical Christians insist on imposing their moral views on all Americans? Being gay is not a "lifestyle" but rather than an identity born with the individual. Science has determined that gays are not choosing their sexuality any more than heterosexuals are choosing theirs. Old Testament issues with homosexuality are easy to explain in terms of the harsh struggle for existence faced by nomadic Jewish tribes. "Be fruitful and multiply" was essential for survival as well as a primitive form of 401K. Religions have always blocked the advance of science when science contradicted dogma. Are civil rights to be determined by laws enacted by the state, or religion promulgated by the pulpit?
4
No one should have to worry about the religious convictions of the businesses they happen to utilize. If someone opens a BNB that BNB has to be available to anybody, Black or white, Jewish or Muslim, straight or gay. It is part of one's obligations as a business owner.
In one's private capacity one is free to exclude anyone from personal hospitality, but businesses do not enjoy that latitude. If a kosher baker offers wedding cakes for sale, they have to offer them to the LGBT customers that come into their business.
But honestly, I'm a lot more concerned about how they treat their LGBT children than whether I can get a cake. Mr. Brooks, why help a bunch of bigots (dangerous to those under their control) set themselves up as victims?
In one's private capacity one is free to exclude anyone from personal hospitality, but businesses do not enjoy that latitude. If a kosher baker offers wedding cakes for sale, they have to offer them to the LGBT customers that come into their business.
But honestly, I'm a lot more concerned about how they treat their LGBT children than whether I can get a cake. Mr. Brooks, why help a bunch of bigots (dangerous to those under their control) set themselves up as victims?
1
David,
You seem to be using or accepting a paradigm where you want the reader to accept the premise that businesses and people are to be treated the same.
People should have the right to worship as they choose . But when they open the door to the public as a business they have a moral , ethical and social compact to serve all regardless of their religious beliefs, sexual orientation or lifestyle.
The slippery slope starts when we as s society allow ourselves even a moment of "tolerance" to accept that businesses can pick and choose their customers based on religous beliefs,
Worse in the case of the Induans law is we institutionalize it.
Making the burden shift from the business to the person to prove intolerance.
If you believe we all are created equal then perhaps the endorsement of this Induans law should be reconsidered.
The thin red veil doesn't fool the intended victims of this law. No more then Jim Crow laws, anti Semitic property covenants pre 1980's or men only club houses.
I would hope you someday make the paradigm shift.
Your powerful voice can help allow all people of all races, religion, lifestyles to be serviced with equal dignity and respect.
You seem to be using or accepting a paradigm where you want the reader to accept the premise that businesses and people are to be treated the same.
People should have the right to worship as they choose . But when they open the door to the public as a business they have a moral , ethical and social compact to serve all regardless of their religious beliefs, sexual orientation or lifestyle.
The slippery slope starts when we as s society allow ourselves even a moment of "tolerance" to accept that businesses can pick and choose their customers based on religous beliefs,
Worse in the case of the Induans law is we institutionalize it.
Making the burden shift from the business to the person to prove intolerance.
If you believe we all are created equal then perhaps the endorsement of this Induans law should be reconsidered.
The thin red veil doesn't fool the intended victims of this law. No more then Jim Crow laws, anti Semitic property covenants pre 1980's or men only club houses.
I would hope you someday make the paradigm shift.
Your powerful voice can help allow all people of all races, religion, lifestyles to be serviced with equal dignity and respect.
3
Mr. Brooks should actually study this political situation instead of sitting back and philosophizing. Mike Pence made his name on the radio as a polite-sounding Gay-hater. It got him to the governor's office, though not by much. He failed last year to get his pet project, an anti-Gay marriage constitutional amendment, through the state legislature. If he'd succeeded, it would have been quite a coup, reversing the overwhelming trend in favor of marriage equality in other states. If he'd succeeded, he may have won the Republican nomination for president as the man who reversed the trend. But he failed, despite having Republican super-majorities in both houses of the legislature.
This year's "religious freedom" law was born in that failure. He wanted to go into Iowa crowing, "I turned back the tide." He was sure he had it this time. That's why he was so shocked at the national uproar.
His latest claim is that he "abhors discrimination." Funny, he's promoted it for his entire working life; but I guess David Brooks doesn't know that. Christians are not oppressed in Indiana; LGBTs are oppressed in Indiana. Learn the facts before defending this year's Lester Maddox. This uniquely broad "religious freedom" act is the new axe handle meant to intimidate minority customers.
This year's "religious freedom" law was born in that failure. He wanted to go into Iowa crowing, "I turned back the tide." He was sure he had it this time. That's why he was so shocked at the national uproar.
His latest claim is that he "abhors discrimination." Funny, he's promoted it for his entire working life; but I guess David Brooks doesn't know that. Christians are not oppressed in Indiana; LGBTs are oppressed in Indiana. Learn the facts before defending this year's Lester Maddox. This uniquely broad "religious freedom" act is the new axe handle meant to intimidate minority customers.
2
Reduce the fine to the price of the wedding cake!
Agreed, "politeness of the soul" is a laudable thing. I accept that my orthodox relatives won't shake hands with my wife, to preserve family harmony, with the old maxim, "not a hill I wish to die on" ringing in my ears. That said, this issue is about the difficult intersection between religious liberty, civil rights and economic freedom. I'm reminded of the storefront sign, seen so often in my childhood, "no shoes, no shirt, no service". When I was a petulant youth I took umbrage: "you can't tell me how to dress!"; "this is a free country!", etc., etc. Later I came to feel more sympathy for the store owners. They had a right to control the atmosphere inside their store, for the sake of all customers - to request a "politeness of the soul" from those who would enter. So here's the difference: the situation in Indiana and elsewhere is not an issue about how people act in a business transaction. It's about who they are as human beings and that, Mr. Brooks, is discrimination. No less than if the store owner, on religious grounds, refused to serve a mixed race couple. We are, alas, always required to tolerate degrees of personal bigotry and ignorance, but they should not be enshrined in law.
2
Sigh. All this philosophizing about how "morality is a politeness of the soul" and whatnot adds up to pure gobbledygook. I can only conclude this column comes from Mr. Brooks not getting out enough.
For goodness sake, history, observation and ordinary common sense experience all teach that for every occasion where morals and politeness are aligned, there are occasions where they are at complete odds with one another.
Mr. Brooks could have put his "politeness of the soul" idea to use had he not been so intent on finding a philosophical defense for the religious right to discriminate against people who do not share their beliefs. All he had to do was talk about the oftentimes stressful implications, for all of us, of living according to the rule of law.
It should be simple: The law applies to all of us. Any business open to the public--whether owned by atheists, fundamentalist Christians devout Orthodox Jews, devout Muslims or devout Zeppists (I made that last one up) must do business according to laws forbidding discrimination.
How about then taking that "morality is a politeness of the soul" notion and applying it to all enterprises "open to the public"? Don't they have a moral obligation (if a business can be said to have morals) to exercise "politeness of the soul" in all their doings? If the answer is yes, this means politely welcoming any customer walking through the door.
For goodness sake, history, observation and ordinary common sense experience all teach that for every occasion where morals and politeness are aligned, there are occasions where they are at complete odds with one another.
Mr. Brooks could have put his "politeness of the soul" idea to use had he not been so intent on finding a philosophical defense for the religious right to discriminate against people who do not share their beliefs. All he had to do was talk about the oftentimes stressful implications, for all of us, of living according to the rule of law.
It should be simple: The law applies to all of us. Any business open to the public--whether owned by atheists, fundamentalist Christians devout Orthodox Jews, devout Muslims or devout Zeppists (I made that last one up) must do business according to laws forbidding discrimination.
How about then taking that "morality is a politeness of the soul" notion and applying it to all enterprises "open to the public"? Don't they have a moral obligation (if a business can be said to have morals) to exercise "politeness of the soul" in all their doings? If the answer is yes, this means politely welcoming any customer walking through the door.
3
Brooks pretends to see more in this law than a plan to exploit, for the sake of winning votes, a hate button built into some American brains. Wait. He IS pretending - isn't he??? Anyway, the plan has flopped, and the Indiana politicians responsible for it will backpedal and try some other strategy for staying in office. Here's one worth a try: governing well on behalf of all Indiana residents.
2
David, what if the baker refused to bake a cake for a mixed race wedding, or refused to shoot pictures for a mixed race wedding, saying it was against their religion that a black person should marry a white person? Would that be OK with you? This is no different.
3
Too many people have been murdered, imprisoned, tortured and abused in the name of religion. We should not codify religious preferences since we then codify the above. Those who choose to work in civil jobs cannot bring their religious beliefs to work with them. They serve all citizens not just those who share their beliefs. That is called bigotry and since when does the state codify bigoted behavior as acceptable behavior. They have now in Indiana and right wing evangelicals would like to enact similar laws in other Bible belt states I'm sure.
1
On certain topics, lines can't be blurry or left to interpretation, and gay rights are one of them.
If society allows gays to be denied certain services or access to different places because of the religious views of others, gays will be at the mercy of very subjective rationales that determine certain outcomes. Or is it OK to open a suit store and say: I will sell everyone suits, but if I find out you will wear it to a gay wedding I can't let you purchase one. Where do you draw the line? Can the gay person come in the store at all? Or can I also prohibit him from doing so because of my religious beliefs?
It just becomes too much of a slippery slope. I think you have to be absolutist in matters like this one, specially when it is still such a delicate matter. I wonder what would happen if a gay baker opposed to selling a cake to someone because they were Christians? Would Brooks then say that the gays have every right to politely disagree with religion and not sell the cake? I highly doubt it.
If society allows gays to be denied certain services or access to different places because of the religious views of others, gays will be at the mercy of very subjective rationales that determine certain outcomes. Or is it OK to open a suit store and say: I will sell everyone suits, but if I find out you will wear it to a gay wedding I can't let you purchase one. Where do you draw the line? Can the gay person come in the store at all? Or can I also prohibit him from doing so because of my religious beliefs?
It just becomes too much of a slippery slope. I think you have to be absolutist in matters like this one, specially when it is still such a delicate matter. I wonder what would happen if a gay baker opposed to selling a cake to someone because they were Christians? Would Brooks then say that the gays have every right to politely disagree with religion and not sell the cake? I highly doubt it.
2
Wow. Try substituting "African Americans" for "gays and lesbians" throughout this column, and see how it reads. Religious arguments were used against the Civil Rights Movement in the 60's. Does Brooks agree that racist white business owners then should have had the right to pick and choose who they served lunch to?
5
The sad part of all this and no one will ever admit to it is that the LGBT lobby and activists encouraged by politicians who seek out votes from the LBGT community deliberately select merchants whom they know are serious about living out their religious beliefs in the market place from among many other choices which are available to them. When those merchants express their reasons for being unable to serve members of the LBGT community for their expressed reasons based upon their religious beliefs,they are labelled bigots or worse. Let's look at the contrivance and deliberate plotting behind the selection of certain merchants by members of the LBGT community whom they select knowing that those merchants will be unable to provide the services they seek based upon their religious beliefs. Where is the acceptance and recognition that everyone has rights in our democracy?
1
The discussion does ignore the fact that Indiana does not have a law that protects LGBT persons as a defined group from blatant discrimination. From what I have read that is part of the motivation for the pushback on the law.
I am very wary of these laws on religious freedom. It seems to me that in a pluralistic secular society we don't need laws about religious freedom if we keep government entirely out of religion and religion completely out of government. Too many of the individuals most engaged in these battles have less concern about religious scruples than they do about the advancement of political issues and eventual political successes.
I am very wary of these laws on religious freedom. It seems to me that in a pluralistic secular society we don't need laws about religious freedom if we keep government entirely out of religion and religion completely out of government. Too many of the individuals most engaged in these battles have less concern about religious scruples than they do about the advancement of political issues and eventual political successes.
3
Brooks says " Indiana has passed a state law like the 1993 federal act, and sparked an incredible firestorm." But the RFRA act in Indiana is NOT like the 1993 federal act in that it explicitly includes the right for persons to refuse service to other persons if they believe their religious beliefs will be burdened by doing so. The 1993 act only focused on the relationship between government and religious institutions. So while David likes moderate, incremental change, this is one attempt at incremental change that moves in the wrong direction.
7
This seems to be as thoughtful a defense as any of the new RFRA initiatives across the states. What David doesn't say, but knows, is that these laws are intended specifically to allow discrimination against LGBT persons, and that the justification--religious beliefs--while possibly sincerely held, is really an excuse to practice homophobic animus.
However, I appreciate David's point that a triumphant hammering of the opponents of LGBT rights through laws and censure is regrettable.
However, I appreciate David's point that a triumphant hammering of the opponents of LGBT rights through laws and censure is regrettable.
1
Reading this makes me want to fight for my equal rights more fiercely. Really, religious liberty is a problem in the US? Really?
7
Unbelievable that Mr.Brooks continues to masquerade as an esoteric intellectual while peddling such poorly reasoned defenses of bigotry.
7
His argument falls apart when any analogy is made to race. Substitute African American for Gay and David Brooks would not be on this side of the argument.
3
Mr. Brooks, what are you getting at?
"The opponents seem to be saying there is no valid tension between religious pluralism and equality. Claims of religious liberty are covers for anti-gay bigotry."
Well, yeah. They are. We're talking about secular life versus religious life. Nobody is asking Christians to stop believing that marriage should only be for a man and a woman. Nobody is asking Christians to profess their faith, and worship as they please.
But to carry one's religious beliefs into the public square and legislate a civic (eg governmental) secular law that enshrines a particular religious tenet into public behavior is anti-American. To take your example of Orthodox Jews: would we allow NY state to declare Saturday as holy, allowing no commerce? Would Boston be able to enact a law requiring mandatory observation of Holy Week?
Sure these examples are absurd. But they point out the transparency of your main argument: religious liberty means just that. The freedom to worship as one chooses. Not the freedom to demand that those who don't share those beliefs are second class citizens unable to negotiate the norms of civic life, like entering a restaurant and ordering a meal.
"The opponents seem to be saying there is no valid tension between religious pluralism and equality. Claims of religious liberty are covers for anti-gay bigotry."
Well, yeah. They are. We're talking about secular life versus religious life. Nobody is asking Christians to stop believing that marriage should only be for a man and a woman. Nobody is asking Christians to profess their faith, and worship as they please.
But to carry one's religious beliefs into the public square and legislate a civic (eg governmental) secular law that enshrines a particular religious tenet into public behavior is anti-American. To take your example of Orthodox Jews: would we allow NY state to declare Saturday as holy, allowing no commerce? Would Boston be able to enact a law requiring mandatory observation of Holy Week?
Sure these examples are absurd. But they point out the transparency of your main argument: religious liberty means just that. The freedom to worship as one chooses. Not the freedom to demand that those who don't share those beliefs are second class citizens unable to negotiate the norms of civic life, like entering a restaurant and ordering a meal.
6
We are a secular society where approximately 85% of the citizens believe in God. However, most citizens believe that the Constitution should govern, not religious beliefs. This is where we are different from many other countries, which are ruled by religious elders who can and will supercede secular laws.
Once you pass and accept the incorrectly named "Religious Freedom Act", laws are secondary. If a taxi driver does not believe that women should travel alone, he can refuse to pick her up. Same thing for a banker who does not believe that a woman should be independent and receive a loan without her husbands approval. If a person believes that people outside of his religion should not be given an apartment in his buliding, this law allows him to refuse to rent it.
Why have a constitution and bill of rights at all?
Once you pass and accept the incorrectly named "Religious Freedom Act", laws are secondary. If a taxi driver does not believe that women should travel alone, he can refuse to pick her up. Same thing for a banker who does not believe that a woman should be independent and receive a loan without her husbands approval. If a person believes that people outside of his religion should not be given an apartment in his buliding, this law allows him to refuse to rent it.
Why have a constitution and bill of rights at all?
5
Very well made thoughts but it is obvious that was not the intent in Indiana. It would be very easy for them to merely pass the law in the form it exists in other states
1
No argument, if religious nature or other should lead to the exclusion of jews, blacks (and I'm using these terms to make a point), or gays. History should have taught us this lesson.
2
Substitute homophobia for antisemitism in your previous column and meditate on your personal bias, then consider writing as though all of us deserve lives free of overt bigotry.
8
Let me get this straight (no pun intended). Mr. Brooks is calling for LGBT tolerance of behavior that were it racially motivated would be rightly condemned across the country, including likely by Mr. Brooks. Tolerance of behavior by individuals who support criminalizing LGBT people, denying them certain types of employment, demonized their families and even helped champion "kill or imprison LGBT" bills in other countries. While I am sure their discomfort is pure, in a pluralistic society, were aren't allowed to use US laws to carve out mini-spaces for ourselves where we are able to refuse interactions with people we don't like or disagree. What we need to do instead is develop something called tolerance. Or really just suck it up.
4
Nonesense!
David Brooks clearly doesn't know the soul crushing experience of being discriminated against. He should have never written this article. It's not okay for him to tell those who have been injured that they should lighten up and acommodate intolerance. Rights against discrimination and religious liberty aren't in conflict. They need not be balanced. They are foundationally different types of rights.
Religious liberty is a private right. The government should not interfere with your religion as you practice it in your mosque, your church, your home, your synagogue, your medicine lodge. Those private rights cease being private when you apply them to a place of business or the public sphere. You can't not serve people food because you don't like who they are if they sit down at your publicly open lunch counter. You just can't do that. This is settled civil rights law, which people fought and died for. I'm so sick of the aggrieved sense of persecution that Christians (who are not under any form of legal threat whatsoever) seemed compelled to articulate.
Rights against discrimination are public rights. There is a world of difference (that clearly Brooks doesn't understand) between an orthodox rabbi not shaking a woman's hand in his personal life or a church not agreeing to marry people they consider living in sin, and refusing to serve someone who sits down in your restaurant. There just is. Indiana is rightly reaping the worldwind for conflating the two.
David Brooks clearly doesn't know the soul crushing experience of being discriminated against. He should have never written this article. It's not okay for him to tell those who have been injured that they should lighten up and acommodate intolerance. Rights against discrimination and religious liberty aren't in conflict. They need not be balanced. They are foundationally different types of rights.
Religious liberty is a private right. The government should not interfere with your religion as you practice it in your mosque, your church, your home, your synagogue, your medicine lodge. Those private rights cease being private when you apply them to a place of business or the public sphere. You can't not serve people food because you don't like who they are if they sit down at your publicly open lunch counter. You just can't do that. This is settled civil rights law, which people fought and died for. I'm so sick of the aggrieved sense of persecution that Christians (who are not under any form of legal threat whatsoever) seemed compelled to articulate.
Rights against discrimination are public rights. There is a world of difference (that clearly Brooks doesn't understand) between an orthodox rabbi not shaking a woman's hand in his personal life or a church not agreeing to marry people they consider living in sin, and refusing to serve someone who sits down in your restaurant. There just is. Indiana is rightly reaping the worldwind for conflating the two.
9
"If denying gays and lesbians their full civil rights and dignity is not wrong, then nothing is wrong. .."
That, in a nutshell, is the crux of the problem. Those on the Right will never submit to this simple truth.
That, in a nutshell, is the crux of the problem. Those on the Right will never submit to this simple truth.
2
You are not entitled by right to what I produce. You and I should be free to decide whether I will produce something for you to purchase, and whether you will purchase what I produce at a price we can agree on. Government intervention is only required if either of us violates any contractual agreement - if I do not deliver the agreed-upon product, or if you do not deliver the agreed-upon price.
I would not choose to bake bread for a neo-Nazi, or a member of the KKK. I also would not choose to bake bread for Mormons or Christian Scientists or Scientologists or the followers of Reverend Sun Myung Moon. Any Act of Congress dictating that I must do so is a violation of my rights - specifically, my right to pursue happiness. No one else has a higher "right" to my productive effort.
The rights to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness govern here. No other expressed rights do.
I would not choose to bake bread for a neo-Nazi, or a member of the KKK. I also would not choose to bake bread for Mormons or Christian Scientists or Scientologists or the followers of Reverend Sun Myung Moon. Any Act of Congress dictating that I must do so is a violation of my rights - specifically, my right to pursue happiness. No one else has a higher "right" to my productive effort.
The rights to life, liberty, property, and pursuit of happiness govern here. No other expressed rights do.
2
What if you chose not to sell your baked goods to black people, would that be ok? What if your bakery had a public restroom, would it be ok to only allow white people to use it?
A tolerant society does not mean we tolerate the intolerant.
But apparently that is what Brooks is suggesting. Orthodox Jews don't want to touch women, or see them in the paper, but that's okay because we get a peaceful society if we tolerate people's right to be sexist. Why would we cater to the likes of racists, homophobes, and fanatics? That's not how we got where we are.
Remember Eric Foner's fantastic piece on the modern era's similarities to Reconstruction from yesterday? If we take anything from that comparison, it is that change doesn't come when everyone is willing for it to happen. It comes when it is forced on the bigots and they surrender.
But apparently that is what Brooks is suggesting. Orthodox Jews don't want to touch women, or see them in the paper, but that's okay because we get a peaceful society if we tolerate people's right to be sexist. Why would we cater to the likes of racists, homophobes, and fanatics? That's not how we got where we are.
Remember Eric Foner's fantastic piece on the modern era's similarities to Reconstruction from yesterday? If we take anything from that comparison, it is that change doesn't come when everyone is willing for it to happen. It comes when it is forced on the bigots and they surrender.
2
I think a simple maxim works best: when equality and religion are at odds, equality trumps religion. None of the parallels that Mr. Brooks tries to elaborate are valid, since they are in fact merely customs no different from giving an old woman your seat in the subway. He tries to blur a line that is in fact stark.
4
This is hateful nonsense. The federal law protects individual's abilities to engage in activities that are essential for the practice of their religion So, the law has protected Native Americans's right to use peyote as an integral part of a religious ceremony and a Muslim prisoners' right to have a beard in prison. There is nothing in the Bible that says that a Christian cannot bake a cake for a gay couple. The state law is not simply a mirror of the federal law as Brooks falsely claims. What is most disturbing is the contortions he goes through to defend blatant discrimination. Shame on you.
6
So this part is hateful nonsense? "We are to be judged by how we love, not by whom we love. If denying gays and lesbians their full civil rights and dignity is not wrong, then nothing is wrong. Gays and lesbians should not only be permitted to marry and live as they want, but be honored for doing so." Ridiculous statement by you.
As David's many shrill commenters continue to exhibit, tolerance is fine so long as you agree with me...
No, tolerance and respect for opposing points of view are the hallmarks of enlightenment and humanity.
We can argue that gay marriage does not threaten hetero-marriage and, largely, I agree. But similarly, questions of it's propriety are no threat to the current realities.
If you want respect, respect. If you want fairness, be fair. If you want justice, step beyond self-interest.
Love your neighbor, and turn the other cheek whenever possible. Those are effective strategies for promoting true human progress.
No, tolerance and respect for opposing points of view are the hallmarks of enlightenment and humanity.
We can argue that gay marriage does not threaten hetero-marriage and, largely, I agree. But similarly, questions of it's propriety are no threat to the current realities.
If you want respect, respect. If you want fairness, be fair. If you want justice, step beyond self-interest.
Love your neighbor, and turn the other cheek whenever possible. Those are effective strategies for promoting true human progress.
3
I have a complete aversion to hunting. To me, the act of killing for the sake of killing is repugnant. Therefore, when seeking the services of several contractors, I chose the people who would not use my payment as an opportunity to go out and kill more innocent animals. Now because I feel strongly about this issue, I think I have the right personally to make choices predicated on not supporting those that would go out and harm animals. Is that bigotry or my exercising a kind of religious freedom?? If I were in Indiana at this moment, I should think I could very comfortably say no, I won't serve a hunting party.
1
There is a big difference here, and it is not so subtle. Hunters are not an inate thing, hunting is a voluntary activity, that while it enjoys legal rights, is not a protected class of citizen, nor is it fundamental to who someone is. If you discriminate against a gay person, you are discriminating against them for who they are, you can claim that an LGBT person is a choice, but it is again just your belief, ensconced in religion. The other problem isn't the photographer that refuses to do a gay wedding, or the baker that refuses to do a cake, ti is that this can be used to discriminate in a lot more than that, and that is the problem. That same baker if they suspected a person was gay could refuse to serve them, the photographer whose religious beliefs feel that interracial marriage is a sin could refuse to take pictures of a bi racial family...where does it stop? You are saying that same sex marriage is a sin, but this law could be used to discriminate against anyone. If someone belonged to a white racist church, and owned a bar, they could refuse to serve blacks, claiming it was against their beliefs. A moral objection to hunting is very different than discriminating against someone simply for who they are, hunters are not born that way.
"where steady pressure works better than compulsion." wow, just wow, a very new low in apologist language. I am sure that every business owner in the South who had to let everyone use the same restroom where thinking the very same thing. After all there was some sort a facility for "those people". Surely somewhere some doctor or shop keeper will serve a gay or minority (lots of religous issues there too). And just where is wedding cake written in this law, really where? What it means is that a person is going to have to pass muster (or gaydar as it were) from a business owner, risking humilitation and belittlement *PUBLICLY* before the business guy decides to serve or sell. Isn't that just swell.
2
"On the one hand," one movement is based on empirical, unequivocal scientific fact; while the other movements is based on the canonization of the fears/prejudices of people at the dawn of civilization who believed, for example, that a rock falling and killing someone was the result of the spirit inside the rock deciding to do so. Somehow, that attempt by the ancients to explain an event has gone by the wayside, yet the same people, following the same process, and coming up with an equally inane, by current understanding, explanation for those among them that were different is continuously presented as equally viable to scientific fact by many pontificaters.
Clearly, there're many examples like this throughout the conservative world, but each one brings me back to the man whose word's are professed to be the guide for all of religious conservative action/belief: “beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?" Throughout the contradictions in the book so often presented by fundamentalists as equipollent to peer reviewed scientific literature, the one constant is the nature Jesus. That nature is displayed most profoundly in his treatment and testament of the most vulnerable. As he said, to truly know a man is to judge his fruits; how that's the one aspect of Jesus that so many fundamentalists ignore is beyond me.
Clearly, there're many examples like this throughout the conservative world, but each one brings me back to the man whose word's are professed to be the guide for all of religious conservative action/belief: “beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits. Do men gather grapes from thornbushes or figs from thistles?" Throughout the contradictions in the book so often presented by fundamentalists as equipollent to peer reviewed scientific literature, the one constant is the nature Jesus. That nature is displayed most profoundly in his treatment and testament of the most vulnerable. As he said, to truly know a man is to judge his fruits; how that's the one aspect of Jesus that so many fundamentalists ignore is beyond me.
2
Mr. Brooks you seem to be afflicted with the same mental astigmatism as the proponents of the legislation in Indiana. Their desire is to use of the mantel of religious freedom to be a mendacious veil of legitimacy for discrimination.
5
Once upon a time, not so long ago, there were "also many wise and deeply humane people whose most deeply held religious beliefs contain" definitions of marriage that did not permit inter-racial vows. It is past time that we no longer allow religious excuses for bigotry and harm.
5
The conflict between gay people and religion (Monotheism in particular) and the solution to the problem?
This is one of those easy problems which bore artists and thinkers and any number of people engaged in arts and science know the solution to be just another classic example of triangulation, synthesis in overcoming an intellectual problem. Only an ignorant or partisan or shilly--shallying person is ignorant of the drive of history which has already solved this problem.
Our time is one of modern science, an age of increasing exactitude which has diminished not only private fantasies but entire group beliefs about existence such as religion and has led to the conception of the person able to occupy own private world of opinion and belief provided such is not too harmful for other people. Physics can probably be said to have led the way, but biology and chemistry have probably laid the foundation for view of the human being (along with entire process of humanities).
What this means is society with diminished religion/private fantasy and increasing recognition of human difference (whether we speak of race, talent, sex orientation and so on) and superior methods of raising human beings to capitalize on difference with total view being a multifarious humanity engaged in project of increasing depth of sense and capacity for existence. We do not jump to conclusions about who and what we are--we study ourselves, gather ourselves, raise ourselves and hope to be more...
This is one of those easy problems which bore artists and thinkers and any number of people engaged in arts and science know the solution to be just another classic example of triangulation, synthesis in overcoming an intellectual problem. Only an ignorant or partisan or shilly--shallying person is ignorant of the drive of history which has already solved this problem.
Our time is one of modern science, an age of increasing exactitude which has diminished not only private fantasies but entire group beliefs about existence such as religion and has led to the conception of the person able to occupy own private world of opinion and belief provided such is not too harmful for other people. Physics can probably be said to have led the way, but biology and chemistry have probably laid the foundation for view of the human being (along with entire process of humanities).
What this means is society with diminished religion/private fantasy and increasing recognition of human difference (whether we speak of race, talent, sex orientation and so on) and superior methods of raising human beings to capitalize on difference with total view being a multifarious humanity engaged in project of increasing depth of sense and capacity for existence. We do not jump to conclusions about who and what we are--we study ourselves, gather ourselves, raise ourselves and hope to be more...
"Morality is a politeness of the soul."
You want politeness, Mr. Brooks? Politeness isn't legislated.
If certain Christians who find themselves aggrieved wish to be treated politely, I'd suggest they act politely. There is a polite way to refuse to do something. Polite people accept polite refusals.
Do note there are many Christians, who I'd wager would be quite put out if one suggested they were somehow "lesser" Christians than those who feel they need legislative protection, who do not feel their Christianity threatened in any way by those who do not share their beliefs.
The examples you cite today, particularly the deference shown Orthodox Jewish men and women by Conservative Jews in respecting Orthodox law and custom, proceeds, as you yourself point out, without legislation or litigation.* If only such politeness were reciprocated in certain Orthodox neighborhoods, but that's for another day.
Passing a law to "enforce politeness" is not particularly polite. We've only needed, and had to fight for, laws to "enforce politeness," after we've observed, and many of us have suffered, from years, decades, centuries, even, of "impoliteness." ("Too many" bakery stories? Really?)
*(Wow, Mr. Brooks. Congratulations. You've actually cited real world examples to make an argument. How refreshing. Too bad they serve to unmake your own argument. But I encourage you to keep going in the direction of providing examples, even evidence. You may yet achieve critical reasoning.)
You want politeness, Mr. Brooks? Politeness isn't legislated.
If certain Christians who find themselves aggrieved wish to be treated politely, I'd suggest they act politely. There is a polite way to refuse to do something. Polite people accept polite refusals.
Do note there are many Christians, who I'd wager would be quite put out if one suggested they were somehow "lesser" Christians than those who feel they need legislative protection, who do not feel their Christianity threatened in any way by those who do not share their beliefs.
The examples you cite today, particularly the deference shown Orthodox Jewish men and women by Conservative Jews in respecting Orthodox law and custom, proceeds, as you yourself point out, without legislation or litigation.* If only such politeness were reciprocated in certain Orthodox neighborhoods, but that's for another day.
Passing a law to "enforce politeness" is not particularly polite. We've only needed, and had to fight for, laws to "enforce politeness," after we've observed, and many of us have suffered, from years, decades, centuries, even, of "impoliteness." ("Too many" bakery stories? Really?)
*(Wow, Mr. Brooks. Congratulations. You've actually cited real world examples to make an argument. How refreshing. Too bad they serve to unmake your own argument. But I encourage you to keep going in the direction of providing examples, even evidence. You may yet achieve critical reasoning.)
6
Mr. Err. while you are right some Christians do over do their fear of homosexuality most don't. First let me examine the bakery example that was used. When the gays were fighting for marriage rights on the west coast, we were told it would be any trouble. We would never know that it took place. Wrong. A month after it was allowed a bakery was sued because the baker said she couldn't in conscience provide for that wedding. Instead of going down to the next shop or letting WalMart take care of it, the baker was sued for several hundred thousand dollars. It wasn't about rights it was extortion. Legal extortion since the courts agreed. These new laws are to stop such acts. Every one should be able to go into a clothing store or a restaurant and be served. Not every one should have too partake in sin.
I have a friends that are homosexual. Most know how I feel. We agree to disagree. I knew 3 in high school. 1 died of aids, one committed suicide, the other is doing well. He is still a friend. Jesus said to love your neighbors, all of them, but we are never to condone sin.
I have a friends that are homosexual. Most know how I feel. We agree to disagree. I knew 3 in high school. 1 died of aids, one committed suicide, the other is doing well. He is still a friend. Jesus said to love your neighbors, all of them, but we are never to condone sin.
What? We now call evangelicals "orthodox Christians?" Seriously? This piece of writing is as specious as the legislation it attempts to defend.
2
As an extension of an old Gloria Steinem test, try rewriting your column. Except, in place of gay, or same sex, etc. replace those words with "black" "African-American", or "mixed race" and see what your comfort level is.
If you are not comfortable with the result, you should not be comfortable with the original.
If you are not comfortable with the result, you should not be comfortable with the original.
5
This not even close to the civil rights being denied blacks. If you do then you have no idea of history that the blacks had to go through. It is a fact that most homosexuals are better educated and make more money than most other minorities. Doesn't sound like they are being denied equal education or jobs. They are only 4% of the population but on television and the movies they get as much more time than Hispanics a group that has more people than the blacks now in the US. So to equate this with the civil rights movement of the 60's is just wrong.
Mr. Brooks, the 1993 Religious Freedom Restoration Act gave religious organizations power over people. It needs to be stricken from our laws at all levels and people must be protected FROM religion through a constitutional amendment that cannot be manipulated. Unless, of course, we want the talibanization of America. Women - and the men who love them - must also demand that attempts by all religions to suppress women must be stopped. The time is NOW. Keep your religious ideas in your home and place of worship and leave the rest of us alone. That is the America the vast majority of us want.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Freedom_Restoration_Act
7
How can it possibly be made more plain than "Congress shall make no law respecting and establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"?
In actual fact, the Indiana law does not mirror the federal one. The Indiana law goes much further, and gives privately owned, for-profit corporations the right to "exercise" religion and refuse service to anyone they choose as long as they say they have a religious reason. It is, by design, a license to discriminate. While this was obviously targeted at the LGBT community, It will be interesting to see what happens the first time someone uses this law to refuse service to a woman or minority. Or what if someone refused service to an Evangelical Christian, saying those practices were against their religious belief? While that wouldn't be any more right than an evangelical Christian business refusing service to an LGBT couple, it would be amusing to hear the screams from the right wing noise machine.
357
Having actually read the wording of the law, I can honestly say that it is totally meaningless and unenforceable. Why was it enacted? To make a political statement.
But here's the sad part: the law opens a most slippery slope, namely the proof of belief. In my family, there is an ordained minister, a baptized Catholic, a member of the Society of Friends (Quakers), a bar-mitzvah boy, and a Taoist.
All of these people are ME, at various times in my life. The only one that I can prove is the first - I have a document of ordination in the Church of Secular Humanism - cost, $10 - that allows me to officiate at weddings and funerals. All the other religious affiliations existed to one extent or another at various times in my life, but I reserve the right to say I believe in something if it suits me to do so, and my belief can never be proven "true" or "false".
There lies danger: I can defend any action I take as consonant with my religious belief at the moment, and need do nothing beyond making that statement...which turns belief into a judicial issue.
But here's the sad part: the law opens a most slippery slope, namely the proof of belief. In my family, there is an ordained minister, a baptized Catholic, a member of the Society of Friends (Quakers), a bar-mitzvah boy, and a Taoist.
All of these people are ME, at various times in my life. The only one that I can prove is the first - I have a document of ordination in the Church of Secular Humanism - cost, $10 - that allows me to officiate at weddings and funerals. All the other religious affiliations existed to one extent or another at various times in my life, but I reserve the right to say I believe in something if it suits me to do so, and my belief can never be proven "true" or "false".
There lies danger: I can defend any action I take as consonant with my religious belief at the moment, and need do nothing beyond making that statement...which turns belief into a judicial issue.
7
"If denying gays and lesbians their full civil rights and dignity is not wrong, then nothing is wrong." Thank you for that; it disagrees with the rest of this column. If denying business services to gay people on religious grounds is not wrong, then denying services to black people, Jews, the disabled, women, etc. on religious grounds is also not wrong. And all of those forms of discrimination are as real as anti-gay discrimination.
6
Mr. Brooks, you stand the situation on its head. No one is being intolerant of religious people. The issue is that religious people can and do feel the need to shame or control others. Gays are not the only case. Take Hobby Lobby where the owners felt a compelling desire to deny employees access to birth control, a common view among those who feel they are members of a religion superior to the religions of others.
This reminds me of the saying, "Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose." No one is denying the right of members of a religion to shame, punish, or deny services to consenting members of their religions. It is when members of religions demand the privilege of shaming and denying services to members of other religions, preventing them from practicing their views.
Traditional Christians and Muslims stoned adulterers and Muslims still do. We have centuries of religious wars in Europe where one religious group felt it had the right to punish others.
Brooks is right that it comes down to a matter of politeness and tolerance. It goes both ways though, religious people need to treat gays, women, members of other religions, atheists, and members of other races and cultures with respect, just as those people should respect the religious.
This reminds me of the saying, "Your freedom to swing your fist ends at my nose." No one is denying the right of members of a religion to shame, punish, or deny services to consenting members of their religions. It is when members of religions demand the privilege of shaming and denying services to members of other religions, preventing them from practicing their views.
Traditional Christians and Muslims stoned adulterers and Muslims still do. We have centuries of religious wars in Europe where one religious group felt it had the right to punish others.
Brooks is right that it comes down to a matter of politeness and tolerance. It goes both ways though, religious people need to treat gays, women, members of other religions, atheists, and members of other races and cultures with respect, just as those people should respect the religious.
9
Those who have a working knowledge of the life of Jesus of Nazareth
know that the Gospel is outrageous as a principle.
One day, the priest in our church said that in counseling with many homosexuals, he had realized that homosexuality is not a sin.
The Bible proclaims one way of how one lives successfully - holding hands with God. The Life Plan is too seek, to be open to God, to do things that
give a sense of living and life. Churches which do this have a sense of self - as peaceful, compassionate, empathetic.
know that the Gospel is outrageous as a principle.
One day, the priest in our church said that in counseling with many homosexuals, he had realized that homosexuality is not a sin.
The Bible proclaims one way of how one lives successfully - holding hands with God. The Life Plan is too seek, to be open to God, to do things that
give a sense of living and life. Churches which do this have a sense of self - as peaceful, compassionate, empathetic.
1
Sorry, the only reason republican state government politicians are passing legislation like Indiana's is to agitate their conservative base among the electorate.
Since Reagan, the republican party has seen fit to align themselves with the most intolerant strains of our society in exchange for their political support.
Republicans are just another sad chapter in American history as they use the language of Orwell's 1984 to explain the reasoning of their political actions.
The one bright spot in this sorry story is the immediate reaction of businesses to denounce this legislation and threaten to avoid the state.
Since Reagan, the republican party has seen fit to align themselves with the most intolerant strains of our society in exchange for their political support.
Republicans are just another sad chapter in American history as they use the language of Orwell's 1984 to explain the reasoning of their political actions.
The one bright spot in this sorry story is the immediate reaction of businesses to denounce this legislation and threaten to avoid the state.
6
What "horror of bigotry, isolation, marginalization, and prejudice"? Gimme a break. Any actual examples other than imagined horror? Right-wing religious conservatives are hardly on the receiving end of the horror they're intent on inflicting on others.
5
"Politeness"? Where has Brooks been the last 20 years? The gay rights movement has faced vicious Christian opposition since Stonewall that has been anything but polite... Equating sexual orientation with beastiality; suggesting gay men are pedophiles; and that homosexuality can and should be "cured". Now, on the verge of the Supreme Court's expected legalization of gay marriage, an evangelical push in the provinces to essentially expand the right to discriminate against the LGBT community and Brooks is seeking "politeness"? Get a grip David. This train left the station and you're apparently not on board. So long.
6
"... if there is no attempt to balance religious liberty and civil rights, the cause of gay rights will be associated with coercion, not liberation." Why isn't it the cause of religious liberty rather than civil rights that will associated with coercion?
A reasonable interpretation of Indiana's law will make it defensible for almost anyone and any business to openly discriminate as long as this discriminatory behavior can be linked to some nebulous "deeply held" religious belief. It was not so long ago that "deeply held" religious beliefs were the basis for Jews being held personally responsible for the crucifixion and death of Jesus -- would Indiana's law permit a "No Jews Allowed" policy in establishments whose owners held to the biblical interpretation that Jews were Christ killers?
A reasonable interpretation of Indiana's law will make it defensible for almost anyone and any business to openly discriminate as long as this discriminatory behavior can be linked to some nebulous "deeply held" religious belief. It was not so long ago that "deeply held" religious beliefs were the basis for Jews being held personally responsible for the crucifixion and death of Jesus -- would Indiana's law permit a "No Jews Allowed" policy in establishments whose owners held to the biblical interpretation that Jews were Christ killers?
6
Actually, it seems that deeply held religious beliefs were the primary reason for the execution of Jesus, himself.
This illustrates again the impropriety of government interference in private affairs. If one florist or cake store doesn't want a same sex couple's business, there are others down the street that do, unless the florist and baking industries are more rabid cesspools of hysterical homophobia than is generally understood.
1
Thomas....and what if there isn't another baker or candle stick maker? And is public service determined by the whim of the vendor? Would you say the same thing if I substituted "black" for gay, or "white" male for lesbian? Inequality practiced by the small -middle sized vendor is as odious if practiced by the too big to fail businesses. We don't modify the public good based on individual whim whether that whim is framed by the Torah, the Gospels, the Quran or the B'hagada Gita. It's time to place religious belief into the pool with the rest of the beliefs --some of which are pedestrian, some quite noble but all the private.
1
I agree with Mr. Brook's assertion this is a complicated issue and that we should all be more considerate of one's belief's, as long as they fit within a broad definition of the norm. We wouldn't, for example, want to condone anyone who uses religion as an excuse to refuse to do business with a black, a Jew, or a "fallen woman". At least that's my secular belief.
My issue with the RFRA is that it is like putting a big sign in your storefront "No gays". It's disingenuous to say that the passage of these acts is not an overt, public declaration of belief. Whether that belief is sincere or just a screen for prejudice is fodder for another column. What I object to is the very public flag-waving that these acts represent.
My issue with the RFRA is that it is like putting a big sign in your storefront "No gays". It's disingenuous to say that the passage of these acts is not an overt, public declaration of belief. Whether that belief is sincere or just a screen for prejudice is fodder for another column. What I object to is the very public flag-waving that these acts represent.
2
Had this column been written in 1964 and "gays" substituted by "blacks", the message would have been that the blacks were getting too uppity and needed to be more "polite".
10
"Morality is a politeness of the soul."
Oh, I guess that's what every religious leader in history really meant. Thanks for clearing that up for us, sir.
Oh, I guess that's what every religious leader in history really meant. Thanks for clearing that up for us, sir.
2
One cannot pick and choose basic rights guaranteed under the U.S. Constitution, depending upon the cause. You cannot say in this case, the 1st Admendment does not apply. Otherwise, you will regret the day it is trumped by another social cause.
3
Nice try Mr. Brooks but you cannot let businesses that engage the public and get the advantages of our federal tax code to offset and shift income to simultaneously practice bigotry. These cake places etc. are not someone's aunt cooking for friends or using their cell phones to take pictures. I guess Eli Lilly can refuse to sell drugs to gays ala HobbyLobby
6
If it's OK to use religious beliefs to refuse service to same sex couples then surely it follows that it's OK to use religious beliefs to refuse service to the "Sons of Ham"
So, yeah, hang that "No Gays Allowed" sign right next to the "No Blacks Allowed" sign - or better still, condemn them both to the trashcan where they belong.
So, yeah, hang that "No Gays Allowed" sign right next to the "No Blacks Allowed" sign - or better still, condemn them both to the trashcan where they belong.
7
This issue, thankfully, has been resolved. A business open to the public, must serve the public. The public includes everyone. Notwithstanding the dictates of one's imaginary friend or one's magical book. David is wrong again. And, what is worse, he seems not to realize that his argument is logically equivalent to the one used by Southern states to justify the Jim Crow laws that took more than seventy years to overturn.
8
The Jim Crow laws were just that - they used the power of government to force segregation. This is a different scenario, in which Indiana is forswearing the use of government force in these cases. Yes, that opens the door for individuals to discriminate, but a free society allows that. A free society is also judicious in the use of government power.
David,
Your point seems to be that the LGBT community should now be tolerant of those whose religious beliefs may cause them to be intolerant of the LGBT community. And the LGBT community, after being on treated so poorly for so long by so many, including some with deeply held religious beliefs, should now be held to a much higher standard of tolerance than those who still disapprove of them, sometimes on religious grounds. David, did you write an article in 2004, when anti-gay sentiment was used for political gain in a national election, chastising the conservatives and the religious for not being more tolerant? If not, you should keep your advice on tolerance to yourself.
Your point seems to be that the LGBT community should now be tolerant of those whose religious beliefs may cause them to be intolerant of the LGBT community. And the LGBT community, after being on treated so poorly for so long by so many, including some with deeply held religious beliefs, should now be held to a much higher standard of tolerance than those who still disapprove of them, sometimes on religious grounds. David, did you write an article in 2004, when anti-gay sentiment was used for political gain in a national election, chastising the conservatives and the religious for not being more tolerant? If not, you should keep your advice on tolerance to yourself.
4
Say I am married & want to buy condoms, but my drug-store guy is a strongly believing Catholic who abhors artificial birth control. No sale, right? A Christian man wants to buy a Hsppy Easter card from a Jewish storekeeper but the whole idea of Easter offends the storekeeper and he won;t sell. And this os what Mr. Brooks calls "neighborliness"? This, and the hyper-sensitivity Mr. Brooks mentions toward the salesperson who can't bear the idea of providing flowers for someone else's (gay) wedding, ignores the neighborly way a society decides that selling a legal item (which is available to be sold to the general public) to a specific someone whose life-path the seller doesn't like does not attack one's own conscience. And Mr. Brooks asserts that defending not one's own religious practice but extending one's own into a penumbra to control and insult someone else -- the ability to degrade someone else's religious beliefs & lawful practices -- should be defended in the name of "neighborliness"? Phooey! Shalom, salaam, peace, Earth! -- Rabbi Arthur Waskow
13
Aside from the opinions already expressed, I do not see any provision in the law to make exception for essential services or monopolies. In New York, it's very likely that there is another baker or photographer available, but it's easy enough to envision a town with no other professional photographer within 50 miles. Similarly, there are services which might be deemed essential to some or all of the population such as health care or transportation for the visually impaired. In a small town, the presence of one professional might keep a second professional from attempting to open a practice.
At a minimum, the law might require businesses that are exerting their right to discriminate for religious reasons to state both their own sexuality or other factors which might be grounds for religious discrimination, as well as those groups which will be denied service.
At a minimum, the law might require businesses that are exerting their right to discriminate for religious reasons to state both their own sexuality or other factors which might be grounds for religious discrimination, as well as those groups which will be denied service.
1
David, your defense of accommodation, balance, mutual respect may be the best working principle here for now and for the foreseeable future, but it sounds mealy-mouthed because it is. Religion, based on revealed truth, is absolutist. It is fundamentally incompatible with democracy.
8
Exactly the same argument could have been--and in fact was--made in the South fifty years ago about restaurant owners who didn't want to serve black people.
6
I believe this law is intolerant and discriminatory, but i believe it should be allowed, at least for now as a fairness to a group of people who hold beliefs different then mine. Long term, but probably not too long considering how they keep shooting themselves in the foot it will erode the hold that organised religion holds over our society, it continues to prove the deep seated intolerance imbedded in religion.
1
Mr. Brooks, I rarely agree with you, but this editorial is so thoughtful that I can't find any fault. I completely agree, and I'm tired of people in this country trying to force other people into opinions, when social change - if it is to succeed solidly without years of recriminations and hostility - must be offered as a more appealing and practical choice. It must be demonstrated and taught, not hurled at people like rocks.
79
No one is asking for opinions to be changed. What they are demanding is that people of all categories be offered public services without regard to their sexuality, and other features. Businesses are not people. They should not have the right to refuse service to other citizens based on their religious convictions. Hold the religious beliefs you wish to. Just don't expect the law to support bigotry in provision of public services.
1
If MLK was alive today, fighting against the repeal of voter protection acts, would you tell him the same? How many must be beaten, denied, killed before waiting for the bigots to "come around"?
1
So what are you saying? Who is throwing things at people like rocks? Someone who want access to a publicly available service, or someone who selectively refuses to provide a service on the basis of some privately held belief?
In ways large and small, our country and our economy financially favors married couples. From Social Security survivor benefits to employer provided health benefits to something as small as renting a car (where your spouse is an approved driver but you pay extra for anyone else), married couples have so many financial advantages, it is truly discriminatory to deny those benefits to gay people.
3
The anti-miscegnation laws which were once widespread in the US were justified on the basis of biblical authority.
Indeed the last laws against inter-racial marriage were only struck down in Virginia in 1967-yes, 1967.
Should inter-racial couples have been more polite to the religious bigots who were determined to stop them getting married?
Indeed the last laws against inter-racial marriage were only struck down in Virginia in 1967-yes, 1967.
Should inter-racial couples have been more polite to the religious bigots who were determined to stop them getting married?
3
Separation of church and state. Period.
4
Where in the Bible does it say to discriminate against people who think differently than you? It doesn't. You are just using your "religious" beliefs to uphold institutional discrimination against people that are different. It took no more than 3 sentences to undermine the basis of this column.
1
I think that Mr. Brooks has finally jumped the shark with his twisted logic in this column. My wife and I have a letter in today's Times about this topic also.
On the one hand, David Brooks starts his columns sounding somewhat reasonable.
On the other hand, he always seems to end up supporting the hard line conservative positions.
Don't be fooled.
On the other hand, he always seems to end up supporting the hard line conservative positions.
Don't be fooled.
3
Brooks function: cover for bigotry, endless war, the 1%, with reasonable nonsense.
3
It is not at all clear to me, as David Brooks suggests, that lesbians and gays are obligated to be polite in demanding civil rights afforded to everyone else in our society. After centuries of being cast as criminals and persecuted as perverts, they don't need to say "please" in their struggle for equality.
5
The same conservative evangelical groups that resisted LGBT civil rights and same-sex marriage every step of the way are now suddenly willing to accommodate those rights as long as we grant them exceptions. But perhaps Mr. Brooks is being reasonable in suggesting that we grant them those exceptions. Perhaps those exceptions will serve as training wheels to a future when everyone will wonder what all the controversy was about and no one would even think of such discrimination.
You say "Some people have lost their jobs for expressing opposition to gay marriage." Allow me to remind you that some people lost their lives for expressing opposition to racism, and their tormentors also claimed biblical righteousness. Religious liberty ensures that you can practice and espouse any superstitious nonsense you choose; it does not ensure that you can impose those beliefs in the public sphere.
5
Civil liberties would not exist without the support of religious values. Consider, for example the civil liberties available in atheistic nations such as today's China or yesterday's Russia. The more religious values are suppressed to advance civil rights, the more those civil rights will eventually be replaced by a level of state control that tramples on everyone's rights. This is not conjecture, this is history.
Or, perhaps our moral values were part of the impetus to invent God!
Oh, how very circular and and smug and weary this argument is. It simply doesn't hold up.
Yes, through a series of troubling, constitutionally-incoherent decisions culminating in Hobby Lobby, the Roberts Court has established a set of predicates that allow very right-wing legislatures to exploit a re-imagining of "religious freedom" for transparently (contemptibly) political reasons.
So yes, legislatures in right-wing states have set out, not to protect the religious rights of all citizens, but to erode and even, ultimately, to nullify our nation's long-standing, vibrant, and inclusive body of civil rights law.
They are doing this from covert,appealing to the crudest and and most bigoted elements of their political base under cover of the worst sort of sanctimony.
In this instance, the attack is being waged against gay men and women. But the implications of the Indiana law (and similar laws in other right-leaning states) are clear: the skids are being greased for political operatives to use "religion" as a proxy (and a weapon) throughout the political arena.
This is where we begin to see that the real aim of such laws is, bluntly, nullification.
It's deeply radical, deeply dangerous, and something no American of conscience can possibly support.
Right-wing evangelicals may speak for the far fringes of the Republican Party, but they do not speak for the great arc of the evangelical movement, much less for Christianity. Faith requires us to be better than this.
Yes, through a series of troubling, constitutionally-incoherent decisions culminating in Hobby Lobby, the Roberts Court has established a set of predicates that allow very right-wing legislatures to exploit a re-imagining of "religious freedom" for transparently (contemptibly) political reasons.
So yes, legislatures in right-wing states have set out, not to protect the religious rights of all citizens, but to erode and even, ultimately, to nullify our nation's long-standing, vibrant, and inclusive body of civil rights law.
They are doing this from covert,appealing to the crudest and and most bigoted elements of their political base under cover of the worst sort of sanctimony.
In this instance, the attack is being waged against gay men and women. But the implications of the Indiana law (and similar laws in other right-leaning states) are clear: the skids are being greased for political operatives to use "religion" as a proxy (and a weapon) throughout the political arena.
This is where we begin to see that the real aim of such laws is, bluntly, nullification.
It's deeply radical, deeply dangerous, and something no American of conscience can possibly support.
Right-wing evangelicals may speak for the far fringes of the Republican Party, but they do not speak for the great arc of the evangelical movement, much less for Christianity. Faith requires us to be better than this.
5
"If the opponents of that law were arguing that the Indiana statute tightens the federal standards a notch too far, that would be compelling. But that’s not the argument the opponents are making." Actually, it is. Federal law sets a floor, below which states may not go when advancing 'religious liberty' at the expense of another person's constitutional rights. There was no other valid legislative purpose: Indiana seeks to immunize commercial discrimination, as opposed to private belief. Try this: You have to serve gay people when they sit at your lunch counter, along side of black people. You don't have to approve.
1
"We are to be judged by how we love, not by whom we love.
I seem to recall, Mr. Brooks, having once been told, "Judge not lest ye be judged."
I seem to recall, Mr. Brooks, having once been told, "Judge not lest ye be judged."
2
For those who are actually interested in what the law says, see below:
"Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."
So, David, this means that those Shias and Sunnis who consider each other apostates can refuse to serve each other in Indiana?
"Sec. 8. (a) Except as provided in subsection (b), a governmental entity may not substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability. (b) A governmental entity may substantially burden a person's exercise of religion only if the governmental entity demonstrates that application of the burden to the person: (1) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and (2) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest."
So, David, this means that those Shias and Sunnis who consider each other apostates can refuse to serve each other in Indiana?
1
This effort from David is so disappointing. It's clear he didn't show it to anyone else before he filed it.
He's right that religious liberty deserves our "deepest respect", but all the examples he cites are ones where a religious person is not trying to impose their beliefs or values on anyone else. When that occurs, which it does far too often in our country, those instances deserve our complete and total rejection.
He's right that religious liberty deserves our "deepest respect", but all the examples he cites are ones where a religious person is not trying to impose their beliefs or values on anyone else. When that occurs, which it does far too often in our country, those instances deserve our complete and total rejection.
2
Thank you Mr. Brooks. You brought some sanity to a very polarized debate. I don't think balancing religious and civil liberty is easy, but too many now condemn religious liberty simply because they don't like religion in most forms - itself a form of bigotry. We need to be careful when balancing freedoms, in order to not inadvertently deny some people theirs. There are services required of small business owners to gay people that conflict with their religion, and the gay community seems intent on pressing those business owners legally. Ultimately, this may cause greater conflicts and will likely be subject to a Supreme court decision. Given Hobby Lobby, there may be upset at the court's conclusion. The one percent of gay couples that feel they must have a fundamentalist Christian caterer fro their wedding might want to stop and take stock before they push that envelope. I support gay rights, but I don't see asking people to perform in a service they have personal issues with just because, either.
Lately David brooks is drifting aimlessly, in the last two opinions he was shallow in his advise of how to counter anti-semetism, now he use the opposite argument to protect the religious freedom. Something profoundly happening with David Brooks
The rub comes with distinguishing between an honest committed believer and a homophobic liar. I suggest that there are probably as many of the latter as there are of the former. The Indiana law would protect both.
The 2015 Cake Decorator Protection Act simply states that straight men who decorate cakes cannot be forced to participating in gay weddings. If Apple's CEO cancels his plan to move the corporate headquarters from Silicon Valley to downtown Gary, Indiana, then so be it.
4
Best to avoid temptation, eh?