Mike Pence is elected Governor of Indiana with a conservative values agenda in a Republican state that is the economic wonder of its neighbors with a tolerant, personable and conservative in manner citizenry. Its a state that does not need to codify values into law because in general its citizens are generous and decent. Never the less Indiana enacts a Religious Freedom Law giving the right for business to discriminate, an LGBT exception that every other state, including Texas, had avoided and that Democrats in Indiana’s Legislature had noted would be contentious if left out. Never the less the partisan majority’s will was to prove a point rather than serve the people. In the end this episode turn out to be a huge embarrassment and a waste of time for Indiana. Hopefully the lesson learned is that laws are meant to serve the people and not to facilitate bad manners.
2
If a business that serves the public refuses to serve same sex couples but willingly servers fornicators, adulterers, murderers and thieves, that business is picking and choosing which sins of the Bible to express moral outrage over.
If business owners are going to refuse service based on religious objections, then they must either turn away all sinners or serve all sinners. To do otherwise is nothing but blatant discrimination! Businesses that practice discrimination will ultimately find themselves on the losing end of numerous lawsuits.
If business owners are going to refuse service based on religious objections, then they must either turn away all sinners or serve all sinners. To do otherwise is nothing but blatant discrimination! Businesses that practice discrimination will ultimately find themselves on the losing end of numerous lawsuits.
3
Religious liberty has always had something to with 2 things. History and the Bible for Christians. On segregation you could pull up history and the South tried to use the Bible. It was wrong and the courts got that right. There is nothing in the NT to support that. But the question of Sexual immorality it is very clear in both Testaments that it is wrong. Mark 7:20-23 ESV / 147 helpful votes
And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”
That is Jesus Himself speaking. Some people have tried to say homosexuality doesn't apply here but you can't explain that from the rest of the Bible. Bottom line is the government has no business saying what is sin or not. If an Indian tribe can use drugs then we should be able to say what is sin.
And he said, “What comes out of a person is what defiles him. For from within, out of the heart of man, come evil thoughts, sexual immorality, theft, murder, adultery, coveting, wickedness, deceit, sensuality, envy, slander, pride, foolishness. All these evil things come from within, and they defile a person.”
That is Jesus Himself speaking. Some people have tried to say homosexuality doesn't apply here but you can't explain that from the rest of the Bible. Bottom line is the government has no business saying what is sin or not. If an Indian tribe can use drugs then we should be able to say what is sin.
1
Texas saying county clerks can refuse to record a marriage based on personal conscience is silly. Such personal conscience could equally well refuse to recognize marriage between man and woman, and thereby refuse a license. Silly all around.
2
Why is it so hard to understand that people's views on marriage can be based on their faith ... the author makes a strong argument about religious liberty exemptions, from release from conscription to allowing Muslim women to wear headscarves at work. If one's understanding of marriage is rooted in one's holy book, one's worldview, one's conscience, why is that so hard to understand that in that case, you cannot condone and participate in what you believe your faith prohibits?
Although some Christians may be homophobes or bigots, many are not.
We understand marriage to be created by God, not courts. We understand it to be a picture/symbol of Christ and his church, which is why the church is often called the Bride of Christ. Are there two Christs joined or two brides? No! I have no problem being friends with LBGT people; I have several. I have no problems with them having legal protections vis a vis inheritance, hospital visitation, health care. What I do have a problem with is a marriage defined as a set of legal benefits. To me it is a physical picture of a spiritual reality, rooted in my understanding of God, and his intent. And please stop high-jacking the black civil rights movement. Race is not the same as sexual orientation.
For example, the Bible nowhere prohibits inter-racial marriage, although it was misused by some without any biblical proof. It does in several places define -rand understand marriage to be between one man and one woman.
Although some Christians may be homophobes or bigots, many are not.
We understand marriage to be created by God, not courts. We understand it to be a picture/symbol of Christ and his church, which is why the church is often called the Bride of Christ. Are there two Christs joined or two brides? No! I have no problem being friends with LBGT people; I have several. I have no problems with them having legal protections vis a vis inheritance, hospital visitation, health care. What I do have a problem with is a marriage defined as a set of legal benefits. To me it is a physical picture of a spiritual reality, rooted in my understanding of God, and his intent. And please stop high-jacking the black civil rights movement. Race is not the same as sexual orientation.
For example, the Bible nowhere prohibits inter-racial marriage, although it was misused by some without any biblical proof. It does in several places define -rand understand marriage to be between one man and one woman.
1
Substitute 'Muslim' with Christian, and Allah with God and see how the reactions change here.
Of course in that case there would be person to make the lawsuit. Under Sharia they would have simply executed you, not (politely) refused service.
In any of the cases cited there were polite refusals, with an explanation, and in some cases suggestions for an alternate.
Of course in that case there would be person to make the lawsuit. Under Sharia they would have simply executed you, not (politely) refused service.
In any of the cases cited there were polite refusals, with an explanation, and in some cases suggestions for an alternate.
1
How do you tell visually if someone is of the LGBT persuasion? When are the "militant" groups going to go after the Islamic bakeries? There is plenty of video online of those bakers refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding. Double standards!
Does the author realize she is endorsing the slow destruction of the 1st amendment? Is she one who believes the 1st amendment protects you from being offended? I thought Larry Flint settled that with Scotus?
Does the author realize she is endorsing the slow destruction of the 1st amendment? Is she one who believes the 1st amendment protects you from being offended? I thought Larry Flint settled that with Scotus?
4
No one denies service because they are gay. They deny service because the customer try to force the business to do exactly what they want or they will sue. There is no real harm done by the business the gays are trying to force the issue and force acceptance of those unwilling to accept.
Adults exercising their constitutional rights should not have to ask permission from government employees or have their moral approval. County court clerks' salaries are paid by all taxpayers, even the ones they might view as sinners. Should they feel very strongly, perhaps they need to find other employment? After all, I could not put anyone to death. Nobody forces me to, but I guarantee you that in a capital case, I would not be seated on a jury because of my deeply held religious convictions about the death penalty. The problem is that somehow selling a cake is supposed to equal approval. I am sure there are many marriages that owners of bakeries might not approve of, but bakers are not counselors or ministers and so far as a I know no one has claimed that fondant and butter cream icing are the body and blood of Christ. They are a bit full of themselves, if you ask me. Freedom terrifies them: other peoples' freedom, that is.
4
Freedom would mean the state leaving the decision to serve or not serve up to the bakery owner, not the gay couple having the right to sue the bakery out of business. Whether they are full of themselves or not, it should not be the state's, or the gay couples' call.
1
Tell me what is the most important thing to have at a wedding besides the ceremony. It is the cake. 2 things will be asked, I thought they were Christian, the other, will they bake mine. When you do this it is even more of a participation than a gift. You are condoning sin.
1
This whole same-sex marriage thing isn't about marriage - it's about acceptance.
Unfortunately, you can't force people to accept something they believe is wrong in the eyes of God.
This doesn't include just homosexuality - Christians believe the ten commandments as well as other admonitions in scripture. So do Muslims, for that matter.
Adultery, fornication, stealing, lying, alcoholism, and so on, are all considered to go against the teaching of God.
Bottom line is, you can't force anyone to accept something they believe is wrong.
Unfortunately, you can't force people to accept something they believe is wrong in the eyes of God.
This doesn't include just homosexuality - Christians believe the ten commandments as well as other admonitions in scripture. So do Muslims, for that matter.
Adultery, fornication, stealing, lying, alcoholism, and so on, are all considered to go against the teaching of God.
Bottom line is, you can't force anyone to accept something they believe is wrong.
5
Larry, Speaking personally, I don't need your acceptance. It's really more about equality and getting the same benefits and rights as the next person. Your personal beliefs don't concern me, They should only concern you. If you are against same sex marriage...don't have a same sex marriage. pretty simple really.
5
Back in April, the NYT wrote an article claiming that gays want a bible written on their behalf. One such exist. A lesbian did just that years ago. Her name is Dr. Virginia Mollenkott. She was a literary critic on the NIV. In Episcopal, Witness (June 1991, pp. 20-23), she admits, "My lesbianism has ALWAYS been a part of me. . ." To no surprise, "sodomite" is completely removed from the NIV. (Deut. 23:17, I Kings 14:24, 15:12, 22:46, II Kings 23:7) And of course, I Cor. 6:9, ". . . effeminate, nor abusers of themselves with mankind. . ." is replaced with the non-offensive ". . . nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders. . ." Notice the NIV in I Cor. 6:9 does NOT condemn "homosexuals" or the "act of homosexuality" - but ONLY "homosexual OFFENDERS". Yet, the Methodist and many Southern Baptist don't have a problem with it, and their "pastors" are unwilling to say anything about it. BTY: The very company that prints this "Bible", HarperCollins, also prints the satanic bible. And remember, in the eyes of God, there is no such thing as a coincidence! HarperCollins and Fox News is owned by the same company/individual.
It wasn't that long ago that homosexual acts were illegal and homosexuality considered a mental defect by professionals in the mental health field. Christians didn't have to say "I can't. It's against my religion." because everything homosexually related was done very low profile, and it wasn't thrown in the Christians' faces or pushed onto them.
Today the world (who doesn't know God) is trying to force Christians to embrace and endorse and participate in the abominations that are against God's design and wishes. (Yes, forcing a florist to make flowers for a gay wedding is forcing participation).
One thing non-Christians need to keep in mind is disagreement does not equal hate or fear. We do not hate or fear homosexuals. Love the sinner, hate the sin.
Same thing with murderers, thieves, etc. - love the sinner, hate the sin. We don't tolerate the murder or thieving because they believe in their lifestyle of murdering or thieving.
Sin is sin. I personally will continue to call sin "sin", and will not fall into the Emperor's New Clothes trap, and I will do so in a loving way - without anger or judgement, because God is the one who judges us all in the end. It's only my job to deliver the message (that homosexuality is also sin Romans 1:26, 27). If I don't stand for the truth then I will be judged for that in the end.
Today the world (who doesn't know God) is trying to force Christians to embrace and endorse and participate in the abominations that are against God's design and wishes. (Yes, forcing a florist to make flowers for a gay wedding is forcing participation).
One thing non-Christians need to keep in mind is disagreement does not equal hate or fear. We do not hate or fear homosexuals. Love the sinner, hate the sin.
Same thing with murderers, thieves, etc. - love the sinner, hate the sin. We don't tolerate the murder or thieving because they believe in their lifestyle of murdering or thieving.
Sin is sin. I personally will continue to call sin "sin", and will not fall into the Emperor's New Clothes trap, and I will do so in a loving way - without anger or judgement, because God is the one who judges us all in the end. It's only my job to deliver the message (that homosexuality is also sin Romans 1:26, 27). If I don't stand for the truth then I will be judged for that in the end.
6
We don't care what your religion says. If you want to be treated with a modicum of dignity then start treating others in that manner. Typically the problem is that the rest of us see all of you selectively applying the parts of the Bible that doesn't apply to yourselves. When was the last time you saw the same conditions being applied to people who have been divorced for any reason other than infidelity and then remarried? It's so easy to insist that others are "sinners" based on the parts that don't apply to yourself. We see you as hypocrites, and the way you selectively apply the Bible is shamefully biased and bigoted.
3
No providing a service is not participating in the ceremony. You make wedding cakes you have to provide them for everybody. How is discriminating against a class of people ok with you ? Sin is a man made concept to put butts in the pews and cause guilt. It's all made up for money for the church. Homosexuality is NOT against God since He made us. The bible is NOT Gods word, it is man's word. God never wrote anything in the bible.
wasn't long ago that native american indians were considered non-human heathens as well, that is why one million were killed and the rest interned into concentration camps called reservations.
3
The best solution is to get government out of religion. Have legal civil unions and not "legal" marriage. Business and people can then have true freedom without the threat of government taking away tax exempt status and forcing people and institutions to "accept" what the government wants.
As long as services are available, forcing everyone to do exactly what government wants is tyranny.
Forcing companies to provide abortifacients is not governments role. Forcing bakers to make a specific cake is not governments role.
The concept that government can force people to like gays, to want women to have abortions is foolish and fair people will see the limits government should have. Those that don't, should recognize that tgovernment will soon come after them and the things they hold "sacred".
As long as services are available, forcing everyone to do exactly what government wants is tyranny.
Forcing companies to provide abortifacients is not governments role. Forcing bakers to make a specific cake is not governments role.
The concept that government can force people to like gays, to want women to have abortions is foolish and fair people will see the limits government should have. Those that don't, should recognize that tgovernment will soon come after them and the things they hold "sacred".
6
Iuds and emergency contraceptives are NOT abortifacients. Pregnancy does not begin until AFTER inplantation of a fertilized egg.
1
The government needs to regulate religion or it will go crazy trying to impose itself on others. It's just an excuse to discriminate as far as I am concerned.
1
then you would no longer have the benefit of being with your loved on in a hospital nor have the right to choose for them if they could not choose for themselves, you would have no rights to any property they held, you would have no right given by the federal government benefit as well. your tax rate would go up. it would no longer benefit you to marry someone. marriage is not just to make a child to raise, it means different things to different people and different religions, when one sect or religion is given the right to tell those who are not of their religion what to do and how to act, we lose all of our civil rights. before the christian god was invented their were may gods, and many beliefs and not all had a problem with gay marriage. in fact gay marriage was done in the christian church well up into the 17th century.
but then we also have a problem with moses, 2,000 years before he was born the 42 commandments of Ma'at were created, surprisingly enough when moses showed up with the ten commandments 8 of those 42 commandments were engraved in stone, can we say it was written by god or by a goddess? well certainly we can say it was not the god Christians want some to worship since they came from another religion. i can not change history nor erase those Egyptian writings for the sake of Christians. no one can. and until they learn that their religion is full of things taken from other religions i can not follow them.
but then we also have a problem with moses, 2,000 years before he was born the 42 commandments of Ma'at were created, surprisingly enough when moses showed up with the ten commandments 8 of those 42 commandments were engraved in stone, can we say it was written by god or by a goddess? well certainly we can say it was not the god Christians want some to worship since they came from another religion. i can not change history nor erase those Egyptian writings for the sake of Christians. no one can. and until they learn that their religion is full of things taken from other religions i can not follow them.
So, some supporters of these dubious new laws claim they are not like Jim Crow because "racial segregation was never central to Christian teaching the way traditional marriage has been." Really?.
The defense of slavery and Jim Crow was thoroughly steeped in dubious but piously asserted Christian theology. There was a neat connection to traditional marriage as well, as the defense of of white women was invoked as reason to suppress the black population completely and silence all those who dared speak up for them.
The religious right's war against the rights of women, sexual minorities and atheists are grounded in the same theological premises used to defend Jim Crow and slavery: repudiation of the Enlightenment concept of equal rights under the law and the restoration of medieval absolutism - the belief in a divinely ordained hierarchy in which a small, self-appointed oligarchy is entitled to exploit and abuse the rest of the people however they please.
The defense of slavery and Jim Crow was thoroughly steeped in dubious but piously asserted Christian theology. There was a neat connection to traditional marriage as well, as the defense of of white women was invoked as reason to suppress the black population completely and silence all those who dared speak up for them.
The religious right's war against the rights of women, sexual minorities and atheists are grounded in the same theological premises used to defend Jim Crow and slavery: repudiation of the Enlightenment concept of equal rights under the law and the restoration of medieval absolutism - the belief in a divinely ordained hierarchy in which a small, self-appointed oligarchy is entitled to exploit and abuse the rest of the people however they please.
3
You draw some logical connections, but in fact, Christianity (used broadly, considering how many sects, sub-sects, sub-sub-sects of that religion exist) has not historically viewed same-sex relations and racial issues in the same way.
One difference--actually alluded to in your post--is that the religious premise of racial discrimination by definition elevated one racial "side" and stigmatized the "other"; but with gay relationships, neither participant is regarded as the "superior" or "inferior" individual. Both are equally condemned for the act they are both participating in. One or both can be "restored" to righteousness (I hope I'm making it clear I'm expressing views held by others, not me) by abstaining from that act; what can the African-American do to rise to the level of the white man/woman? Nothing.
To make a long story short, the upshot is that I do think sexual orientation discrimination should be broadly impermissible, but with religious liberty exceptions related directly to the premise that moral condemnation of homosexuality, as opposed to religiously-justified racism, is about acts, not "being". To illustrate: I agree with the Supreme Court's ruling that Bob Jones University's tax exempt status could rightly be pulled for its policy against interracial dating by students; I would disagree that a religious college that had a parallel policy regarding same-sex relationships should be similarly targeted.
One difference--actually alluded to in your post--is that the religious premise of racial discrimination by definition elevated one racial "side" and stigmatized the "other"; but with gay relationships, neither participant is regarded as the "superior" or "inferior" individual. Both are equally condemned for the act they are both participating in. One or both can be "restored" to righteousness (I hope I'm making it clear I'm expressing views held by others, not me) by abstaining from that act; what can the African-American do to rise to the level of the white man/woman? Nothing.
To make a long story short, the upshot is that I do think sexual orientation discrimination should be broadly impermissible, but with religious liberty exceptions related directly to the premise that moral condemnation of homosexuality, as opposed to religiously-justified racism, is about acts, not "being". To illustrate: I agree with the Supreme Court's ruling that Bob Jones University's tax exempt status could rightly be pulled for its policy against interracial dating by students; I would disagree that a religious college that had a parallel policy regarding same-sex relationships should be similarly targeted.
1
The difference is prohibition of homosexuality is in the Bible but prohibition against inter-racial marriage is not. Just because bigots claimed to be Christian and used the bible as proof of race separation doesn't make it so. Do you know that one scripture they used was Levitical laws saying not to sow different crops in the same field? God only prohibited marriage between the believer and non believer. Since many nonbelievers have not read the Bible in its entirety, I think many believe that there actually is a prohibition against inter-racial marriage.
1
So-called religious liberties end when people use religion to limit the freedoms of others.
3
Memories Pizza was not 'boycotted' for their honest answer to a hypothetical question: they were threatened with murder and arson. SINCE WHEN DOES MURDER AND ARSON CONSTITUTE A BOYCOTT??
Furthermore, the reporter asking questions of Crystal O'Connor was not from a 'local' news station. The reporter was from a station more than 50 miles away in a large city; Memories Pizza is a small-town, Mom and Pop organization.
I see a big difference between hosting a 'sit in' at a lunch counter, demanding equal treatment on the basis of skin color, and threatening to burn someone's business down with them trapped inside because they would not cater a hypothetical wedding they could not sanction.
Am I the only one who sees the difference between non-violent protest and threats of murder?
Furthermore, the reporter asking questions of Crystal O'Connor was not from a 'local' news station. The reporter was from a station more than 50 miles away in a large city; Memories Pizza is a small-town, Mom and Pop organization.
I see a big difference between hosting a 'sit in' at a lunch counter, demanding equal treatment on the basis of skin color, and threatening to burn someone's business down with them trapped inside because they would not cater a hypothetical wedding they could not sanction.
Am I the only one who sees the difference between non-violent protest and threats of murder?
7
actually it was death threats that never panned out as real, i bet you missed that investigation by the police. now they were enriched when it was already known they were struggling to meet their obligations for the business.
Sorry if someone's feelings are hurt because someone expresses disapproval of their religious belief or their sexual orientation. This "dignity" thing goes both ways which is why Kennedy's opinion is a hot mess from a legal standpoint.
5
More evidence that religion makes a mess of the simplest things.
2
Ah yes, it's all about YOUR rights not to be offended by any moral beliefs. Guess what? Hundreds of millions of Americans share those beliefs you so conveniently dismiss; the First Amendment protects exactly those beliefs. So why is everyone so casual about throwing over others religious beliefs for untried secular experiments? We either have the freedom to express and live our beliefs or we don't. The far left wants to impose their beliefs (or lack therein) on the other 98% who simply want to be left alone to raise their families without the state further destroying it.
You may effect lip service for your cause, but you will never win the hearts or minds of people by bullying them into submission.
You may effect lip service for your cause, but you will never win the hearts or minds of people by bullying them into submission.
5
Anything the left says they are, regardless of Constitutional law.
1
A post from Pete from Dallas makes an excellent post. Since most posters feel very strongly about enforcing the rule of law, why not prove you are not hypocritical and speak out with equal conviction against sanctuary cities and the politicians that flout federal law administering those cities. The law is the law!
4
I am a conservative Christian. I think that the secular democratic Left has been conducting a 'war on Christianity' for several years now. I feel that 'turning the other cheek' is no longer is warranted. I would advocate removing the tax-exempt status on Churches, and freeing Churches, and their members, to engage vigorously in public life. The vast public good works... Salvation Army, missions... relief... Hospitals... orphanages... may be lost - but this seems to be what the democratic left wants. Time for atheists to step up.
2
or is it conservative Christians trying to force their beliefs on the populace? if that IS the case, then this IS war.
churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the “wall of separation between church and state,” therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society. We have solved … the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.”
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson: in a speech to the Virginia Baptists, 1808
churches that use government power to support themselves and force their views on persons of other faiths undermine all our civil rights. Moreover, state support of the church tends to make the clergy unresponsive to the people and leads to corruption within religion. Erecting the “wall of separation between church and state,” therefore, is absolutely essential in a free society. We have solved … the great and interesting question whether freedom of religion is compatible with order in government and obedience to the laws. And we have experienced the quiet as well as the comfort which results from leaving every one to profess freely and openly those principles of religion which are the inductions of his own reason and the serious convictions of his own inquiries.”
~Founding Father Thomas Jefferson: in a speech to the Virginia Baptists, 1808
1
The arguments raised in this article for religious accommodation from a historical American tradition are the very same for business owners in regards to same sex marriage Business owners are not saying we will not serve gay customers in any other sense but we cannot due to our moral conscience participate in this one aspect which violates our religious beliefs. What same sex marriage advocates fail to recognize is just how offensive the use of the word marriage is in this case Marriage is the relationship that Christ uses to illustrate the salvation of the church. At every wedding the bride is the representation of the church presented to Christ the bridge groom for redemption. It is time for some grace to be offered by gay couples in recognizing the deep religious feelings of business owners and taking there business to the many others who would welcome their business instead of forcefully forcing the devout into acceptance of something they cannot.
3
Simple solution for any photographer, etc. who conscientiously objects to participating in a gay wedding:
"I welcome your business and respect your rights. But in all honesty, the situation makes me kind of uncomfortable and I tend to do really lousy work when I'm nervous. If you want give it a go anyway, I'm not one to turn away a sale but I can't make any guarantees."
"I welcome your business and respect your rights. But in all honesty, the situation makes me kind of uncomfortable and I tend to do really lousy work when I'm nervous. If you want give it a go anyway, I'm not one to turn away a sale but I can't make any guarantees."
1
It's a sad state of affairs when "religious beliefs"--i.e., rampant superstition--can be used as an excuse by government officials to discriminate against people by refusing to do their jobs.
But it's also a sad state of affairs when governments can punish bakers just for practising their superstitions.
But it's also a sad state of affairs when governments can punish bakers just for practising their superstitions.
The case being made is for hurt feelings, which does not fall under the scope of law as defined by Mr. Jefferson's observation regarding religion: "if it neither picks my pocket, nor breaks my leg."
I fully support same-sex marriage, but I must also support the right of dissent on religious grounds and the dissenting opinions of the SCOTUS outline many of the pitfalls which both sides must address. It serves no useful purpose to recognize one natural right, only to deny another.
I fully support same-sex marriage, but I must also support the right of dissent on religious grounds and the dissenting opinions of the SCOTUS outline many of the pitfalls which both sides must address. It serves no useful purpose to recognize one natural right, only to deny another.
3
Jesus had two dads do I don't see a problem.
5
"A half-century ago, the civil rights movement held lunch-counter sit-ins to protest Jim Crow. No one succeeded then in claiming a God-given right to refuse to serve black customers."
The only reason no one was invoked religion overtly was that the argument had already been made, stridently, in the lead up to the Civil War. Then as now, it was just a tactic masking a deeper cultural problem.
The only reason no one was invoked religion overtly was that the argument had already been made, stridently, in the lead up to the Civil War. Then as now, it was just a tactic masking a deeper cultural problem.
1
One's religious rights ends where another's civil rights begin.
3
Civil rights defined by whom. You can make anything a civil right. This is just an excuse to erode freedoms.
1
No right is absolute...they all have limits. Even religion. The Mormons could not make Utah a state unless they dropped polygamy as per the supreme court. Guess what? They got a "message" to their bishops from God to drop the polygamy. Seems good ole practicality won the day.
They dropped their religious belief in polygamous marriage at the drop of the judicial gavel. Hatred of the gays can be dropped too, much as the thinking that blacks were cursed because they were the descendants of Ham has been dropped. Or that slavery was sanctioned by God. Or that women should be ruled over by men and stay home and raise children. All religious concerns that seem none to concerning now.
And as we live with this ruling, you will find more and more people dropping their religious objections.
They dropped their religious belief in polygamous marriage at the drop of the judicial gavel. Hatred of the gays can be dropped too, much as the thinking that blacks were cursed because they were the descendants of Ham has been dropped. Or that slavery was sanctioned by God. Or that women should be ruled over by men and stay home and raise children. All religious concerns that seem none to concerning now.
And as we live with this ruling, you will find more and more people dropping their religious objections.
Ok, so why are you singling out religious freedom? Why not ask, what is the limits of any of our freedoms....the constitution is clear on this...the congress shall pass no law infringing on religious freedom...what part of that do you not understand.,.dont care about what happened in France...we don't live in France
3
We have learned more about our universe and how and why it operates in the last 30 or 40 years than in all of human history.
This demonstrates why we no longer need to invent imaginary, magical, supernatural 'gods' to explain thunder, disease, planetary motion, speciation, chemical reactions, etc.
Hundreds of religious belief systems have gone down the toilet of history and the remaining ones are circling the bowl as we speak.
This demonstrates why we no longer need to invent imaginary, magical, supernatural 'gods' to explain thunder, disease, planetary motion, speciation, chemical reactions, etc.
Hundreds of religious belief systems have gone down the toilet of history and the remaining ones are circling the bowl as we speak.
2
Perhaps (although I doubt it) but the state should not be enforcing a secular ideology upon everyone.
Traditional heritage IS trumping all; life as advertised… quite frankly people took the freedom to execute 'just' that, the gods have always been rather optional for added drama.
1
The politicians and government employees who scramble to accommodate religious complainers usually end up discriminating and limiting the rights of people who could care less about religious doctrine. All of the limits on abortion rights are religiously motivated behind the clever rhetoric and words that are used to hide the religious origins of restrictive laws. Religion has no exclusive claim to moral righteousness or ethical concerns. In fact the inclusiveness of religion and the rejection of outsiders who do not meet explicit criteria for membership in a particular group is a form of discrimination that often gets encoded in law.
4
"In fact the inclusiveness of "progressives and liberals, or any other number of left wing groups posing as the morally righteous, " and the rejection of outsiders who do not meet explicit criteria for membership in a particular group is a form of discrimination that often gets encoded in law."
Sometimes it makes sense to look in the mirror before one decides they are safe to lambast another's beliefs.
Sometimes it makes sense to look in the mirror before one decides they are safe to lambast another's beliefs.
Religion limits progress, both scientific and social. Religion finds ways to persecute anyone who does not ascribe to their particular dogma (sinners). It has always been this way. Galileo was persecuted for saying that the earth revolves around the sun. Religion forbids analytical thinking. You must strictly adhere to their interpretation of whatever "good book" they select If we allowed any single religion to dictate our laws, we would just be a backward nation of mindless sheep instead of the great progressive forward thinking nation we are. In America you are free to believe whatever you wish, but that does not give you the right to force those beliefs on other free thinking Americans. In fact, there's nothing more un-American. That's what the Taliban and the Ayatollahs do. I applaud each advance forward this nation makes to be more inclusive in healthcare, gay rights and the removal of hateful symbols. As we move forward, it is these advances and those that are to come that will ensure our continued greatness.
10
Don't your dearly held beliefs inform your decisions and actions? Is religious freedom only to allow accommodations when they are superficial such as a head scarf, plain clothing, horse and buggy of the Amish, and the food eaten? Religious beliefs were taken into account during World War II for conscientious objectors and expanded during the Vietnam war. The expansion of the conscientious objector rules were popular with the "mainstream" during the unpopular war. But doesn't faith in a belief system require more than superficial and/or popular acceptance? By adhering to their beliefs, the trades people, who belief that sanctioning same sex marriage by participating in or preparing items for the celebration is abhorrent, are not stopping the civil union. The groups that sue these establishments could find alternative sources for the items they need. As I understand the situation, these businesses did not refuse services on the basis of sexual orientation, but because of the marriage celebration. That is very different than discrimination in general.
They are making the hard choices of their faith. The same choices that many in the Abolitionist and civil rights movement had to make. In the case of the Civil Rights movement, those religious belief have been "forced" on those who belief otherwise. (Please know that I belief all people have the same civil rights under the law.)
They are making the hard choices of their faith. The same choices that many in the Abolitionist and civil rights movement had to make. In the case of the Civil Rights movement, those religious belief have been "forced" on those who belief otherwise. (Please know that I belief all people have the same civil rights under the law.)
You and many of the left will never discuss what the Bible teaches on marriage and sex and homosexuality. It is plain in the Bible so how can someone who believes in it defy it? They would be denying their Lord and faith. If homosexuals want to marry then they should go to the people who agree with them and leave the people of Biblical faith alone. It is just that simple. Evangelical Christians offer their beliefs to others and allow them to accept or reject; so we would like the same respect from the left as well. It is crazy to equate Christians with violent Muslims. It isn't the same. The main danger here is that freedom of religion is lost. That appears to be where some want to go. I am afraid that the USA will have to find out that God is real the hard way. From God's own judgment.
4
Christian have a very hard time actually reading and understanding the bible. You say one man and one women when it comes to marriage. But for thousands of years men had multiple wife's in the bible along with concubines. Jesus said that his followers must follow man's law. The Sabbath must be followed. God gave women the right too choose when a nother child was added to the family not the man. If she decided no. She went to the rabbi for the bitter water. Some Christians just make it up as they go.
Why should we discuss what the Bible, or the Koran, or the Book of Mormon, teaches about anything? We don't care.
Scholars of the bible show, over and over, the flaws with the thought that it is in any way "divinely" inspired. Rather, it is the recycled myth from the ancient middle east. It's long past time we jettison that "authority" in favor of something that really works - objective evidence.
1
What those who wish to make the laws of the land support their individual beliefs and conscience do not get is that historically the faithful have been the ones to make sacrifices for their faith. That means that standing by what you believe is not about making the rest of society bend for your faith, but making the sacrifices personally. So, get another job. If you are a baker, don't make any wedding cakes; ditto for the florist - do funerals, Mother's Day, Valentine's Day and skip doing weddings if you don't want to get into another like of work and your conscience just won't let you do a gay wedding's flowers...
6
I will try this reply again:
What does that florist do when he has to do a Mothers Day arrangement for Heather and her two mommies? Or a Valentine bouquet with a car from Adam to Steve? It is not a question with an easy answer. I haven't applied for work as a supermarket cashier because, as a vegan, I don't want to handle packages of meat. I don't base my ethical qualms in the dictates of an imaginary superbeing - but I have thought long and hard on it, and decided that although selling meat is a legal activity, it is one in which I cannot in good conscience participate. As you can see, that choice would bar me from a number of jobs, not just supermarket cashier but waitress in a restaurant serving meat, etc. I have also noticed that our local supermarket puts the hijab-wearing women to work in neutral jobs, such as the florist corner, where they will not come in contact with pork. As martyrdoms go, having to forgo some business opportunities seems pretty light.
What does that florist do when he has to do a Mothers Day arrangement for Heather and her two mommies? Or a Valentine bouquet with a car from Adam to Steve? It is not a question with an easy answer. I haven't applied for work as a supermarket cashier because, as a vegan, I don't want to handle packages of meat. I don't base my ethical qualms in the dictates of an imaginary superbeing - but I have thought long and hard on it, and decided that although selling meat is a legal activity, it is one in which I cannot in good conscience participate. As you can see, that choice would bar me from a number of jobs, not just supermarket cashier but waitress in a restaurant serving meat, etc. I have also noticed that our local supermarket puts the hijab-wearing women to work in neutral jobs, such as the florist corner, where they will not come in contact with pork. As martyrdoms go, having to forgo some business opportunities seems pretty light.
I have yet to hear an explanation of (1) how someone else's marriage diminishes mine; of (2) why anyone in this country who thought about it for a half second would want the local/state/federal government enforcing ANY religion's rules on the rest of us; or (3) why they don't just re-read our own history, as it was not so long ago that the clear opinions of our founding fathers were against the things they lived and observed from other more theocratic countries. We deride the Taliban, yet call for our own version?
16
It does not as long as state does not get into the business of issuing marriage license. Marriage has been a social institution and there wont have been a problem if it stayed that way. First, straight married couples go entitlements at expense of singles and now they are complaining that this entitlements should not be extended to gay couples. All this happens while the poor single (or polygamist) watches in amusement.
There is no reason for government to get involved in this. Leave it to the parents, communities and religious institutions. If an individual does not fit in, he can leave the parents, move to a different community or find a different religious institution.
There is no reason for government to get involved in this. Leave it to the parents, communities and religious institutions. If an individual does not fit in, he can leave the parents, move to a different community or find a different religious institution.
Mother's Day and Valentine's Day, two lighthearted secular holidays do not have the significance of marriage. Marriage, to the Christian, is a physical symbol of a spiritual reality; Christ and the church. That is why the church is often called the Bride of Christ. As a Christian, I could easily go to a birthday party of a LBGT friend, give a mother's day bouquet, etc. But, marriage, like Easter Sunday, goes to the heart of our faith and what it means to us. We are accountable, in the end, to our God, as all will be. If we lose a few friends or court battles in the process, so be it. My goal is for God to say, "Well done, my good and faithful servant; enter into my rest."
Nancy Danielson,
Your comment is totally inane. Just because you think in act is demeaning doesn't give you any right to make laws making that act illegal. And same-sex couples are just as capable of loving each other as straight couples. To deny these obvious facts is ignorant.
Your comment is totally inane. Just because you think in act is demeaning doesn't give you any right to make laws making that act illegal. And same-sex couples are just as capable of loving each other as straight couples. To deny these obvious facts is ignorant.
8
As they say love does bound in chains.
It is a little naive to say that this issue is just about love.
This is an issue of extending entitlements to another class of people. Get rid of all entitlements from straight couples and this won't be a topic of interest anymore.
It is a little naive to say that this issue is just about love.
This is an issue of extending entitlements to another class of people. Get rid of all entitlements from straight couples and this won't be a topic of interest anymore.
Too bad we can't separate validation for action. I don't think anyone has any right to not sometimes feel demeaned. To hold otherwise would be to say that no one can really fundamentally object to another person's attitude or behavior, an absurd position.
Actions however ought to be separable, particularly commercial actions. When a law or court ruling of equal treatment, and the principle of live-and-let-live, both would hold that I ought to be able to purchase the same goods and services as you may purchase, if those folks over there are in the BUSINESS of selling said goods or services, they ought not to be able to sell to you but refuse to sell to me because they object to my personal characteristics, attitude, or private behavior.
Perhaps adding protection against discrimination in employment would provide a solution. Then a business could sell to all, and still shield employees objecting to personally participating in certain transactions on claimed grounds of conscience, simply by hiring one or more employees who did not hold that view....
Actions however ought to be separable, particularly commercial actions. When a law or court ruling of equal treatment, and the principle of live-and-let-live, both would hold that I ought to be able to purchase the same goods and services as you may purchase, if those folks over there are in the BUSINESS of selling said goods or services, they ought not to be able to sell to you but refuse to sell to me because they object to my personal characteristics, attitude, or private behavior.
Perhaps adding protection against discrimination in employment would provide a solution. Then a business could sell to all, and still shield employees objecting to personally participating in certain transactions on claimed grounds of conscience, simply by hiring one or more employees who did not hold that view....
5
The desire to engage in a demeaning act does not change the inherent nature of the act, which is why we can know through both Faith and reason, that any act, including any sexual act that does not respect the inherent personal and relational Dignity of the human person is not and can never be an act of Love.
1
I don't believe there should be a 'religious' right to practice one's religion on someone else. This is so especially in the public sphere, like business or education.
12
You can't know anything through both faith & reason, because faith & reason are entirely different ways of knowing, & almost always at odds. Furthermore, your pseudo-theological jargon doesn't fool anyone.
3
Today I had to wait forever at the grocery store. The store only employs one cashier who isn't Jewish or Muslim and lets you buy pork chops. She was on her lunch break!
Anything related to religion should be banned from law making. Why in 2015 are we making and or breaking laws based on a mythology which many humans were indoctrinated as children. Humans make no sense.
17
That would include The Constitution, as "the Government instituted by Men", to secure and protect our inherent Right to Life, Liberty, and The Pursuit of Happiness, endowed to us from God at the moment of our creation, at conception. It is absurd to suggest that our Constitution is unconstitutional, even if it is 2015.
1
You are confusing the Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. It is the Declaration that states: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness..." Note: there is nothing there that refers to "the moment of our creation, at conception."
The rights you cite are endowed by "our creator", which is not the same thing as what you call "God". Our creator is, in fact, the laws of physics, and the laws of physics are pretty silent on morality.
Nancy, you need to get past a myth that stems from a time when a screwdriver would have been a technological miracle.
Nancy, you need to get past a myth that stems from a time when a screwdriver would have been a technological miracle.
It is quite surprising to me that some Christian Americans would deny others a pizza or some flowers because they disapprove of gay marriage. The teaching and example of Jesus are replete with examples of Jesus showing hospitality and acceptance to those considered outcasts in his day and time.
While I wholeheartedly agree that churches have the right to limit their sacraments based upon religious conditions based upon their theology (up to and including racist motivations), it is quite another to think that people need to pass an arbitrary test put by retail businesses in order to be allowed to be customers. Whomever wants to buy a pizza or hamburger, whomever wants to buy wine, flowers, dishes, etc. should be able to do so. Any limits make our society untenable -- people could be rejected because they are Catholic, Southern Baptist, Jews, Muslims, inter-racially married, unwed parents, gay couples, have Confederate bumper stickers on their car, are prolife or prochoice, etc. Discriminatory retail practices are neither American nor in the Judeo-Christian tradition. It is absurd to claim that, based upon ones religious beliefs and practices, selling food or services constitutes an endorsement of the customer's lifestyle. Rather, it reflects respect for a multi-cultural, multi-religious, multi-ethnic society which we proudly are.
While I wholeheartedly agree that churches have the right to limit their sacraments based upon religious conditions based upon their theology (up to and including racist motivations), it is quite another to think that people need to pass an arbitrary test put by retail businesses in order to be allowed to be customers. Whomever wants to buy a pizza or hamburger, whomever wants to buy wine, flowers, dishes, etc. should be able to do so. Any limits make our society untenable -- people could be rejected because they are Catholic, Southern Baptist, Jews, Muslims, inter-racially married, unwed parents, gay couples, have Confederate bumper stickers on their car, are prolife or prochoice, etc. Discriminatory retail practices are neither American nor in the Judeo-Christian tradition. It is absurd to claim that, based upon ones religious beliefs and practices, selling food or services constitutes an endorsement of the customer's lifestyle. Rather, it reflects respect for a multi-cultural, multi-religious, multi-ethnic society which we proudly are.
24
I'd respectfully suggest that we shouldn't confuse the right to deny services to a class of people with the right to refuse to support an institution. No one living in a state with anti-discrimination laws (and it's ridiculous that some states don't have them) can deny services to a class of people. Furthermore, as you correctly point out, merely selling goods does not endorse someone's lifestyle. Almost all of the businesses under legal pressure for this issue do serve the GLBT community for all cases except their marriage--one high profile case involves a gay couple who chose a particular religious business for their wedding because of their longstanding, amicable business relationship. But creating something with your own hands (bakers, photographers, creators of floral arrangements, other artists, etc.), even for commercial purposes, is a form of self expression, and these people often feel they shouldn't be forced to create something that runs against their conscience, which would be the case for supporting a gay marriage. I tend to agree that their conscience should be protected, keeping in mind that the knife cuts the other way as well... Would we want to force a gay baker to create "True marriage is between a man and a woman" cakes for the rallies a pro-traditional marriage group might hold? Your stance, applied equally, would require that, since it effectively denies any recourse to conscience in order to opt out of providing a service.
3
I'm sure that Madison Avenue firms decline potentially lucrative opportunities to develop PR campaigns for parties with whom they do not wish to be associated all the time. Why should it be any different for small-town bakers?
1
rella, basically ad firms and public relations firms don't make moral judgements. They're hired guns working for whoever pays.
3
This is not as complicated as Bazelon makes it. If you are a vendor use your religious beliefs to bar folks from access to the goods or services that you provide then will perhaps you are not in the right occupation. University, College, Hospital or agencies is willing to deny services to the LGBTI community, should lose public funds. There is a price to be paid for prejudice and engaging in anti-equality behaviour. Religion is private, it can guide bevaviour but it should never be used as a shield against accountability nor should it be used as a sword to sever communities from basic human rights. One can practice their religion in their shul, church or temple. They can listen to the latest take on the world from their rabbi, priest or iman. And they can use their religious beliefs to guide who they vote for, what policies they support and in the positions that they take. But those beliefs (note the word is belief) are not a force to be reckoned with in the crafting, legislating or decisions that flow from the Courts. They are beliefs, nothing more-nothing less. And while they are important to some, in a pluralistic society equality trumps religious belief. It is time to reinscribe the foundational premise that a wall shall separate church and state. Thus, what happens in church, temple, shul...stays in church, temple and shul and should never become the rule outside those venues.
15
Except the First Amendment protects the free exercise of religion not just the freedom to worship. This exercise includes charitable works, education, evangelization and discourse. I don't have to keep my religion at the church. Just as you are free to espouse your beliefs.
4
And that is the problem. This free exercise has become a tool for discrimination, and poor treatment. That's too much 'freedom.'
The religious wars of Europe killed millions indescriminatly: we don't need that kind of license.
The religious wars of Europe killed millions indescriminatly: we don't need that kind of license.
7
Amend the constitution then Richard. Won't happen because the majority don't agree with you...but hey, you can give that a shot.
Where is my freedom FROM religion? Keep it in your houses, your places of worship and among your likeminded friends and family. Once you have a business that's open to the public, religion should have no bearing on it, ever.
27
dont have to keep it in my house...that is t what the constitution says.... I know you hate the constitution but I have the freedom to practice my religion. But if you don't like it have congress try to amend the constitution. Go for it...you will not win because the majority disagree with you
AMM, too bad I can only vote your comment up once. Far, far too bad.
In the USA we allow al,to worship as they please. Anyone who has studied the Bible will know,that it is hard to be certain about issues. Too many read Bible and find a passage that matches their opinion and use it wrong. In addition change is difficult for churches and church organization even when change is necessary
The LGBT has informed many that they are good neighbors. It is time for all to us to be good neighbors.
The LGBT has informed many that they are good neighbors. It is time for all to us to be good neighbors.
13
Well said.
No Jewish person has ever told me that MY eating pork violates HIS "freedom of religion".
31
Eating pork does not demean the inherent Dignity of the human person. Coercing someone to condone the engaging in acts that demean the Dignity of the human person, including the act of denying that God Is The Author of Love, Life, and Marriage, is a violation of the major tenet of our Christian Faith.
So what, Nancy? That is your belief, you are free to believe in it and you are not free to push it on anyone else. In case you haven't noticed, no one cares whether you "condone" something or not. If you have a public business, you must serve the public - all of them. If your beliefs are that crippling, you should get out of any business that involves serving the public.
No, but if you went to a kosher butcher and demanded pork chops or a beef rump roast, you would be violating his religious beliefs. You might not see a difference, but he does. We both might think it's silly, especially the rump roast part, but he is free to believe and serve his customer as he sees fit, while you and I are free to shop elsewhere.
We've been down this particular road and this was a settled area of law. We're seeing this excuse being used to attempt allowing public employees and owners of public accommodations to act on their own bigotry. It's not at all different than Jim Crow. Their Churches and homes are theirs but the public sphere belongs to all of us. If you get a business license or take an oath to be a public servant there isn't an exception built in to allow you to discriminate. If you are truly unable to serve a group of people because of your own beliefs then find another way to make a living. The current Orwellian definition of "Religious Freedom" is really giving religion the ability to impose itself on everyone else. To people owning businesses that want to avoid selling cakes or taking picture of a same sex wedding, tough; you have a public accommodation do your job within the law or find another business. To public employees; all of you took an oath to do your job. Serving all the people all the time is your job. If you can't do that resign or be fired. We wouldn't be having this discussion if the couples were black or bi-racial. I always find it interesting that a "good Christian" can find the LGBT community so sinful that they cannot serve them but all the other transgressions listed in the Bible, especially its top 10 - the Commandments, not so much. Just another use of religion to cover hate - again.
22
REALLY??
"Chief Justice John Roberts predicted in his dissent from the same-sex marriage ruling, when, ‘‘for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples"
1. There are many other colleges these people can go to.
2. Very few LGBTs are going to want to go to this kind of religious college in the first place.
"Chief Justice John Roberts predicted in his dissent from the same-sex marriage ruling, when, ‘‘for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples"
1. There are many other colleges these people can go to.
2. Very few LGBTs are going to want to go to this kind of religious college in the first place.
1
Religious Liberty SHOULD BE pretty simple
A person should be allowed to more or less follow their religious, or other beliefs FOR THEMSELVES, as long as they don't negatively impact or harm other people.
Obviously we don't permit human-sacrifices, honor-killings, or other such practices, in ANY CASE
And in applying this principle, it should be completely irrelevant whether ANY such beliefs are long-stand, or however deeply/shallowly 'held'.
(ie should somebody's claimed Christian beliefs be ignored if it can be shown that they only converted last week? Or if they are a minority sect, ala the 12 disciples of Jesus in an overwhelming ocean of traditional jews?
By what yardstick can we measure/gauge the intensity of a person's holding to ANY belief?)
Where we went off the rails, is when we created a nonsense legal status where people could project/enforce their 'beliefs' ON OTHER PEOPLE.
1. By what right can the owners of HobbyLobby or ANY BUSINESS, be allowed to apply 'their' religious beliefs onto the healthcare options of their employees?
2. AGAINST ABORTION? Don't have one, and don't perform any. PROBLEM SOLVED!
3. Don't approve of dispensing legal morning-after pills to customers? GET ANOTHER JOB
4. Government Clerk doesn't approve of following the law and issuing Marriage Licenses to LGBT? Get another job
A person should be allowed to more or less follow their religious, or other beliefs FOR THEMSELVES, as long as they don't negatively impact or harm other people.
Obviously we don't permit human-sacrifices, honor-killings, or other such practices, in ANY CASE
And in applying this principle, it should be completely irrelevant whether ANY such beliefs are long-stand, or however deeply/shallowly 'held'.
(ie should somebody's claimed Christian beliefs be ignored if it can be shown that they only converted last week? Or if they are a minority sect, ala the 12 disciples of Jesus in an overwhelming ocean of traditional jews?
By what yardstick can we measure/gauge the intensity of a person's holding to ANY belief?)
Where we went off the rails, is when we created a nonsense legal status where people could project/enforce their 'beliefs' ON OTHER PEOPLE.
1. By what right can the owners of HobbyLobby or ANY BUSINESS, be allowed to apply 'their' religious beliefs onto the healthcare options of their employees?
2. AGAINST ABORTION? Don't have one, and don't perform any. PROBLEM SOLVED!
3. Don't approve of dispensing legal morning-after pills to customers? GET ANOTHER JOB
4. Government Clerk doesn't approve of following the law and issuing Marriage Licenses to LGBT? Get another job
23
There is a subtle difference between action and inaction that you have ignored.
I have to act if I am engaging human-sacrifices, honor-killings, or other such practices
On the other hand, if I am against abortion, I am being forced to pay for someone else's abortion. That is wrong. If I am a baker, I am being forced to bake a cake for gay marriage. That is wrong.
I have to act if I am engaging human-sacrifices, honor-killings, or other such practices
On the other hand, if I am against abortion, I am being forced to pay for someone else's abortion. That is wrong. If I am a baker, I am being forced to bake a cake for gay marriage. That is wrong.
1
By your logic, any OB/GYN who objects to abortion should also get another job, or leave medicine altogether.
Taken to your logical conclusion, anyone who objects to anything that is current government policy should just leave the country. Against the draft - leave. For affirmative action in California - leave. Against the deportation of undocumented immigrants - leave.
Somehow, I don't believe elimination of all dissent was the intent, yet that is the logical end of your argument.
Taken to your logical conclusion, anyone who objects to anything that is current government policy should just leave the country. Against the draft - leave. For affirmative action in California - leave. Against the deportation of undocumented immigrants - leave.
Somehow, I don't believe elimination of all dissent was the intent, yet that is the logical end of your argument.
The Constitution stands clear in its' protection of individual liberties.
Bigots don't get to vote on their fellow citizens' rights or on the standing of their neighbor's citizenship. Period.
These rightwing rubes have picked one cultural fight after another and they always come out on the losing end. They will never get this any more than they got civil rights. Dimwitted intractability is their lot.
Now, their Official Antigay Football has been taken out of play. The rubes *lose again*. Deservedly. Haven't they always been miserable in our Constitutional Republic? Haven't they always displayed an inability to get along peaceably with *anybody*- even each other?
Bigots don't get to vote on their fellow citizens' rights or on the standing of their neighbor's citizenship. Period.
These rightwing rubes have picked one cultural fight after another and they always come out on the losing end. They will never get this any more than they got civil rights. Dimwitted intractability is their lot.
Now, their Official Antigay Football has been taken out of play. The rubes *lose again*. Deservedly. Haven't they always been miserable in our Constitutional Republic? Haven't they always displayed an inability to get along peaceably with *anybody*- even each other?
13
Religious consciences leash the hounds, not the neighbors. That’s why our consciences are praised, our self-righteousness is scolded, and our whining bait-and-switch pitch smells dutiful. Such semantic subterfuge — to subvert equal rights? — underscores our need to reconscience our runaway urges and confine them to our own yards. (No, not the streets, too. They’re neither ours nor one-way.)
3
The US Constitution stands clear in its' protection of individual liberties.
Bigots don't get to vote on their fellow citizens' rights or on the standing of their neighbor's citizenship. Period.
These rightwing rubes have picked one cultural fight after another and they always come out on the losing end. They will never get this any more than they got civil rights. Dimwitted intractability is their lot.
Now, their Official Antigay Football has been taken out of play. The hellbilles *lose again*. Deservedly. Haven't they always been miserable in our Constitutional Republic? Haven't they always displayed an inability to get along peaceably with *anybody*- even each other?
Bigots don't get to vote on their fellow citizens' rights or on the standing of their neighbor's citizenship. Period.
These rightwing rubes have picked one cultural fight after another and they always come out on the losing end. They will never get this any more than they got civil rights. Dimwitted intractability is their lot.
Now, their Official Antigay Football has been taken out of play. The hellbilles *lose again*. Deservedly. Haven't they always been miserable in our Constitutional Republic? Haven't they always displayed an inability to get along peaceably with *anybody*- even each other?
5
Even though we want these to be rule-of-law decisions, founded on a clear understanding of the meaning and implication of the Constitution and Bill of Rights, I believe these decisions are also influenced by theological opinions among those with particular religious heritage -- especially when it's the United States' dominant majority religious heritage, Christianity. Many people who were raised in a Christian tradition believe, based on what's in the Bible, that Jesus would embrace gay marriage were he here today. They find it hypocritical to hear certain Christians argue, on the basis of some verses from Matthew, that Jesus was against gay marriage -- because it's so clear those verses are almost entirely about Jesus's opposition to divorce. In the same way, Christians understood 50 years ago that hypocritical twisting of words and meanings was required to make the New Testament into a prescription for racial discrimination. Abortion, on the other hand, inarguably dissonates with the fundamentals of Christianity -- which seems to create a more pervasive willingness in our society to let religious people steer clear of it. When it comes to religious freedom, our debates in this majority-Christian country over "public policy" and "constitutionality" may be more influenced than we want to recognize by opinions on the theological legitimacy of certain positions.
3
If "religious liberty" means that some people can effectively disregard the obligations to which all citizens agree - expressly or tacitly - to follow in order to be a member of society in the USA, then not only are certain segments of the population being given legal right to discriminate, but other segments of the population are being forced to follow different rules of citizenship, viz. they are being denied the right to discriminate based upon personal (organizational, etc.) belief.
More specifically, if a pharmacist can claim religious liberty as defense for denying information or actual birth control pharmaceutical sale and the physician can claim religious liberty as defense for denying a legal abortion, then cannot the Christian, for example, claim religious liberty in denying service to any member of any other religion, since all non-Christians who claim belief in a god are in direct violation of the very first commandment (or at least, the 2nd)? It would actually be hypocritical to provide services to heathens and blasphemers, would it not?
A country cannot promote discrimination, at least not a free, democratic country.
More specifically, if a pharmacist can claim religious liberty as defense for denying information or actual birth control pharmaceutical sale and the physician can claim religious liberty as defense for denying a legal abortion, then cannot the Christian, for example, claim religious liberty in denying service to any member of any other religion, since all non-Christians who claim belief in a god are in direct violation of the very first commandment (or at least, the 2nd)? It would actually be hypocritical to provide services to heathens and blasphemers, would it not?
A country cannot promote discrimination, at least not a free, democratic country.
6
Actually, no, because it is a central tenant of Christianity that even non-believers are God's children whom one should treat with respect and kindness. As a Christian, they believe in loving the sinner, but hating the sin, so as long as they are not directly engaged in furthering the sin, they should serve the non-believer.
It's really very simple, 'Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesars'.
8
And the Jewish tradition teaches that "the law of the land is the law."
6
Ahhh. So "marriage equality" was actually a first battle in the war to force people of faith to surrender the religious freedom that was bestowed on them by their, er, "imaginary friend," as the wonderfully named Laycock put it. The minority that demands tolerance for its non-traditional beliefs and behavior cannot credibly do so by being totally intolerant of and demeaning to the majority with traditional beliefs and behavior.
5
First, you may not be the majority any more and if you are it clearly won't be so for much longer. That really doesn't matter however as no one is or ever will try to force you to surrender the freedom to worship as you please and conduct the affairs and practices of your church, temple, mosque, sacred grove or whatever according to the dictates of your faith. The issue is about bringing the constraints of religion into the public marketplace via denial of service. Deny service to gays today and will you deny service to Muslims or Jews tomorrow? What about schismatics of your own faith? What about atheists? How about Wiccans? Further, it isn't really about florists and bakers. The total count of gay hating florists, bakers and pizza makers must be infinitesimal. The problem is the slippery slope. If a florist can deny service, can a pharmacy? A hospital emergency room? How about the phone company?
6
Actually, declining to do business with someone on principle is as American as apple pie. Here are examples that are literally ripped from today's headlines:
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/10/dining/donald-trump-dc-hotel-project-l...
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/07/08/us/ap-us-travel-trump-dc-hote...
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/10/dining/donald-trump-dc-hotel-project-l...
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2015/07/08/us/ap-us-travel-trump-dc-hote...
1
"So "marriage equality" was actually a first battle in the war to force people of faith to surrender the religious freedom that was bestowed on them"
Um, no. Marriage equality was about the right to get married. Everyone's right to get married. Get it now? It wasn't about you.
Um, no. Marriage equality was about the right to get married. Everyone's right to get married. Get it now? It wasn't about you.
4
I just came back from shopping at the mall. I asked a young clerk (presumably Muslim, as she was wearing a head scarf) where the bathing suits were, and she told me. I'm guessing that her religious beliefs prohibit HER from wearing a suit in public. So a teenager understands that MY choices don't violate HER right practice her religion, yet some moronic politicians just don't grasp it.
12
It is important to separate religion from the rule of law. Without this separation you get ISIS/ ISIL/ IS. Countries that allow religion to be use for the laws of the state, such as sharia law, continue to stone women to death, cut off heads for the crime of questioning the religion of the land, flog and cane innocents, and murder women for supposed transgressions of honor.
The best way to protect peoples right to practice their religion (or lack of) is to separate religion into private life and keep laws secular and tolerant. One may chose to disapprove all one wants but one does not have the right to refuse a marriage license to a couple of mixed race or same gender. So says the law of the land. Nor should we allow religion to determine who is served pizza or not. Shall we refrain from serving infidels? Or just cut their heads off? That is the slippery slope one heads for when one allows religious intolerance to govern our land.
The best way to protect peoples right to practice their religion (or lack of) is to separate religion into private life and keep laws secular and tolerant. One may chose to disapprove all one wants but one does not have the right to refuse a marriage license to a couple of mixed race or same gender. So says the law of the land. Nor should we allow religion to determine who is served pizza or not. Shall we refrain from serving infidels? Or just cut their heads off? That is the slippery slope one heads for when one allows religious intolerance to govern our land.
12
kathleen - "The best way to protect peoples right to practice their religion (or lack of) is to separate religion into private life and keep laws secular and tolerant."
Excellent opinion, let's not go down that "slippery slope" and continue to serve kosher or halal meals in our prisons and jails since they are taxpayer supported secular institutions.
Excellent opinion, let's not go down that "slippery slope" and continue to serve kosher or halal meals in our prisons and jails since they are taxpayer supported secular institutions.
True. But there is a big difference you are missing. The religious people who don't want to be forced to participate in a gay wedding aren't trying to write law or impose their will on anyone. That is very different from ISIS. You miss the "slippery slope" all together. If you can force a baker to participate in a gay wedding, can you then force a Catholic doctor at a hospital to perform an abortion. Or force Catholic hospitals to perform abortions. That is the more realistic "slippery slope" you should fear. What you are missing in your logic is that it is not Religion forcing their rules upon society, rather it is the Government that is forcing a religious person do do something against their will. Big difference.
4
Without this separation you get ISIS/ ISIL/ IS
Also, without this separation, you also get Iran, SaudiArabia, & Israel
No, I don't recognized the right for a Jewish-State or an Islamic-State to exist.
Everybody else born there is, at the minimum, a second-class citizen.
You also get Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and any other countries where a basic principle of their so-called 'constitutions" is adherence to SOMEBODY's interpretation of a religious doctrine.
Also, without this separation, you also get Iran, SaudiArabia, & Israel
No, I don't recognized the right for a Jewish-State or an Islamic-State to exist.
Everybody else born there is, at the minimum, a second-class citizen.
You also get Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, and any other countries where a basic principle of their so-called 'constitutions" is adherence to SOMEBODY's interpretation of a religious doctrine.
1
Perhaps one of the reasons we have remained a Union for the last 150
years is the amount of toleration we have for people's consciences.
Be because of Religious beliefs, political beliefs, cultural beliefs or any
combination thereof.
I can understand the necessity to be able to buy drugs, to go to the
hospital, to find a room to stay in but not for having a business make your
wedding cake, take photographs at your wedding.
After all if I cannot afford to hire your business is that not a form of
economic discrimination ? [ Why is economic discrimination is
perfectly just and morally fair ? ]
I would suppose, were I seeking non-essential services from someone
that if they did not like me for whatever reasons - I would not want to
do business with them.
I don't have to buy from your store - you do not have to sell to me.
Where is the problem in all of that ?
or
years is the amount of toleration we have for people's consciences.
Be because of Religious beliefs, political beliefs, cultural beliefs or any
combination thereof.
I can understand the necessity to be able to buy drugs, to go to the
hospital, to find a room to stay in but not for having a business make your
wedding cake, take photographs at your wedding.
After all if I cannot afford to hire your business is that not a form of
economic discrimination ? [ Why is economic discrimination is
perfectly just and morally fair ? ]
I would suppose, were I seeking non-essential services from someone
that if they did not like me for whatever reasons - I would not want to
do business with them.
I don't have to buy from your store - you do not have to sell to me.
Where is the problem in all of that ?
or
6
And where is the line drawn on that? Is it just the cake and the florist? What about the chairs? Or perhaps the ribbons? Those too are nonessential services. And is it just wedding services? How about furniture? If a couple needs to furnish their home, is the discrimination there okay as well?
And is it just for same sex couples? What about interracial couples? Is discrimination against them okay?
Where exactly is this line drawn?
And let me guess: You're probably not a person who would face any of this discrimination, so it's very easy for you to live with the consequences of such a policy, aren't yoU?
And is it just for same sex couples? What about interracial couples? Is discrimination against them okay?
Where exactly is this line drawn?
And let me guess: You're probably not a person who would face any of this discrimination, so it's very easy for you to live with the consequences of such a policy, aren't yoU?
3
There is such a blind spot among those who want the US to creep toward theocracy- religious freedom can be used as an excuse for anything and the constitution forbids the hegemony of one religion (or none) over other religions or none. I am seriously laying the groundwork for my own religion in case it is necessary to preserve my freedom of conscience and convenience. Star Trek has a much standing as the Koran or the Bible, folks.
7
You are backwards in your logic. No religion, Catholics or Baptists, or any are trying to make law or make you do anything. Rather they want the government to stay out of their religion. In your world, if you can force a baker to participate in a gay wedding, you would probably also agree to force a Catholic doctor to perform an abortion - after all, abortion is the law too.
What we really need is some common sense. Plenty of people would love to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding. Let them. And plenty of doctors want to perform abortions. Let them. But where religious beliefs are in that grey area, don't force anybody to do something they don't want to do.
What we really need is some common sense. Plenty of people would love to make a wedding cake for a gay wedding. Let them. And plenty of doctors want to perform abortions. Let them. But where religious beliefs are in that grey area, don't force anybody to do something they don't want to do.
4
The crux of this article lies in the phrase "Invoking religious liberty in this way presents ‘‘special concerns’’ by prolonging social conflict, " The intent is that religion be snuffed out of our society. Too many of the traitors of democracy believe that freedom of religion be confined to a small corner of someone's home, not to how they live, thing, believe or vote.
4
"Too many of the traitors of democracy believe that freedom of religion be confined to a small corner of someone's home, not to how they live, thing, believe or vote."
Really? Name 'em.
Really? Name 'em.
2
So much going on here. Next big fight will be anti-vaxxers hiding behind "religious" objections to skirt new California law. At some point courts will be faced with whether RFRA violates Establishment Clause (i.e. free exercise taken to an extreme). Allowing ANY accommodation of public obligation for religion is a slippery slope, but the personal-vs-third-party distinction is a bright line that can be managed. Recipients of state-conferred benefits (such as pharmacists' licenses) should not be allowed to discriminate based on faith, conscience, or anything else.
7
Maybe the best way for Conservatives to get around all this religious hate is to simply call their cities "a religious sanctuary city" like San Francisco has done with illegal immigration. For people on the left it is OK to bypass immigration laws with a sanctuary city claim. So maybe its time for those on the right to simply bypass any offensive religious laws by declaring their city a religious sanctuary city. That way, the baker won't have to sell the wedding cake for a gay wedding. After all, words don't mean anything anymore. The definition is whatever you or politically appointed judges want them to mean.
7
And, Pete from Dallas, don't forget the faith-based freedom to carry and brandish a firearm, for religious reasons, anywhere, any time in your sanctuary.
4
I guess Obama should just have invoked the bible in quoting Leviticus 19:33-34: "When a foreigner resides among you in your land, do not mistreat them. The foreigner residing among you must be treated as your native-born." He can just say immigration laws violate his religious beliefs and refuse to enforce them.
Two can play that game.
Two can play that game.
2
Joeff - Your statement is an excellent example of a non sequitur!
Pete, from Dallas, has an excellent idea for the use of "sanctuary cities" in the pursuit of religious freedom. If cities today can harbor illegal aliens in violation of federal law (see 8 U.S. Code § 1324 iii) why not establish religious sanctuary cities where religious Americans can practice their faith without secular government harassment.
Pete, from Dallas, has an excellent idea for the use of "sanctuary cities" in the pursuit of religious freedom. If cities today can harbor illegal aliens in violation of federal law (see 8 U.S. Code § 1324 iii) why not establish religious sanctuary cities where religious Americans can practice their faith without secular government harassment.
‘‘The phrase ‘religious liberty’ has become an overused talisman"
Holy cow is that true!
And where is my "religious liberty", as an atheist, to NOT have my tax dollars spent on faith-based organizations? It's sickening that America's vocal pseudo-Christians can be so adamant about their own tender consciences while simultaneously disdaining anyone else's. This hypocrisy reeks to high heaven and is the engine driving increasing numbers of "nones".
Holy cow is that true!
And where is my "religious liberty", as an atheist, to NOT have my tax dollars spent on faith-based organizations? It's sickening that America's vocal pseudo-Christians can be so adamant about their own tender consciences while simultaneously disdaining anyone else's. This hypocrisy reeks to high heaven and is the engine driving increasing numbers of "nones".
21
We're reaching the point where we can now begin openly having the discussion that needs to be had: that theistic religion is a social fantasy based on fictional beliefs which conflict with the values of objectivity and reason which underlie our laws and disturb social harmony. Like other social fantasies religion can be tolerated to the extent that its followers don't interfere with the conduct and teaching of science, but they should not have any special protections in law other than normal free speech rights. The protections for religion written into the Constitution are no longer compatible with the demands for objectivity and secular freedom required for a successful modern society and must be removed, a notion which may seem shocking today but will seem obvious by the end of this century to most of the public, who will by then be non-practitioners of religion...
15
Rich - "The protections for religion written into the Constitution are no longer compatible with the demands for objectivity and secular freedom required for a successful modern society and must be removed,"
What other Constitutional protections would you like to see removed Rich? I'm sure you have quite a few of them in mind.
What other Constitutional protections would you like to see removed Rich? I'm sure you have quite a few of them in mind.
1
I completely agree with Rich. The Gig is up. The silly party is over. Faith justifies nothing. You are free to believe whatever you want but please keep it to yourself.
Using religion to justify ones own preferences and fears is a cowards game. If you don't think gay people should marry then say so. Stop saying my religion makes me believe gay people should not marry. A child might say " I took your bicycle because my mother told me it was OK". An adult should know better. better.
Using religion to justify ones own preferences and fears is a cowards game. If you don't think gay people should marry then say so. Stop saying my religion makes me believe gay people should not marry. A child might say " I took your bicycle because my mother told me it was OK". An adult should know better. better.
3
I seriously doubt these business owners like bakers are asking straight people if they have had premarital sex before selling them a wedding cake. Or asking the mom buying a kid's birthday cake whether the child was conceived in wedlock. This is the same as abortion--they don't like the rulings so they try and sabotage in every way what they want other people's lives to be like and they won't stop.
26
Why do you presume that they care whether someone has had premarital sex? They have the right to decide what is or is not important to them. The term "cafeteria Catholic" is often used in connection with people who hew closely to church teachings when it comes to, say, regular attendance at church services, but not when it comes to contraception. Guess what? Everyone is a cafeteria something or other, and there is nothing wrong with that.
"This business reserves the right to refuse service to any person, business or religious organization that discriminates and/or demonstrates intolerance."
The power to demean is religious liberty, baby.
The power to demean is religious liberty, baby.
10
Citizens' rights from religion trump citizens' rights of religion.
America isn't the place it was before the civil war and the civil rights amendment. Citizenship means getting the right sooner or later to defend oneself from discrimination in housing, employment, public services and from private businesses who offer services to the public.
Religious freedom doesn't imply a right to deny service to a citizen. It means freedom to worship in the place of your choice, with whom you choose and in any doctrine or practice which does not deny others their rights. For the churches to choose to defend their members' "right" to discriminate against citizens in public or business conduct will be a losing proposition sooner or later, even in front of a court system which gives wide tolerance to religious views and practices. No minister or priest needs to be legally compelled to marry gay couples but the registry clerk, the pizza place, the photographer and the cake-maker deserve to lose, and they will, sooner or later.
It may be a long and painful trail to get there but the haters will lose, just as the slavers and racists before them lost. Any God of love is not likely to have mercy upon their souls.
America isn't the place it was before the civil war and the civil rights amendment. Citizenship means getting the right sooner or later to defend oneself from discrimination in housing, employment, public services and from private businesses who offer services to the public.
Religious freedom doesn't imply a right to deny service to a citizen. It means freedom to worship in the place of your choice, with whom you choose and in any doctrine or practice which does not deny others their rights. For the churches to choose to defend their members' "right" to discriminate against citizens in public or business conduct will be a losing proposition sooner or later, even in front of a court system which gives wide tolerance to religious views and practices. No minister or priest needs to be legally compelled to marry gay couples but the registry clerk, the pizza place, the photographer and the cake-maker deserve to lose, and they will, sooner or later.
It may be a long and painful trail to get there but the haters will lose, just as the slavers and racists before them lost. Any God of love is not likely to have mercy upon their souls.
10
Why do you think that a gay couple ought to be able to force someone to cater their wedding? Why do you think that a religious college ought to be forced to offer married housing for gay couples?
A government clerk must follow the law or resign. But a private business does have the right to decline to enter into a business relationship with someone, at least in Michigan.
A government clerk must follow the law or resign. But a private business does have the right to decline to enter into a business relationship with someone, at least in Michigan.
No shoes, no shirt, no service. Is this simple maxim to be challenged now in a court of law? I own the business, if you don't like my terms don't use me.
5
That's a totally different issue. As long as you are barring all the shirtless, whether black or white, gay or straight, any ethnicity or faith or lack of same, without discrimination, you're in the clear. There may be a few barefoot monks or yogis or something who might claim shoelessness is a facet of their faith, but such ascetics will probably not visit your restaurant.
You might be interested in Noah Feldman's article from Bloomberg View:
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-01-21/no-shirt-no-shoes-no-ci...
Several reasons have been given for the 'no shirt, no shoes, no service' rule, and none of them are religiously based. Usually, it's a rule in beach towns. Some claim shoelessness would be a health violation in a place serving food, and there may be safety or insurance issues (for employees), but there's no actual law. Here's a roundup of state health departments, from an organization promoting going barefoot:
http://www.barefooters.org/health-dept/commentary.html
Most of the states consulted said it's a voluntary dress code, and Feldman's essay touches on the established constitutionality of dress codes (as long as you're not using them to discriminate, e.g., 'no skullcaps' which would affect both Jews and Muslims.
You might be interested in Noah Feldman's article from Bloomberg View:
http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2014-01-21/no-shirt-no-shoes-no-ci...
Several reasons have been given for the 'no shirt, no shoes, no service' rule, and none of them are religiously based. Usually, it's a rule in beach towns. Some claim shoelessness would be a health violation in a place serving food, and there may be safety or insurance issues (for employees), but there's no actual law. Here's a roundup of state health departments, from an organization promoting going barefoot:
http://www.barefooters.org/health-dept/commentary.html
Most of the states consulted said it's a voluntary dress code, and Feldman's essay touches on the established constitutionality of dress codes (as long as you're not using them to discriminate, e.g., 'no skullcaps' which would affect both Jews and Muslims.
5
Of course not Lawrence, not if applied equally to everyone. However if you start asking about who is doing whom then you will probably run off all of your customers.
You can put shoes on....you can't change your skin color or become "un-gay"
6
Since all religions are equal in that they are all equally "true", there is no way to split the baby on this. No exemptions for religious faith whatever should be made under any circumstances. It puts someone, the somewhere, in the position of making a judgement about the validity of those beliefs.
7
Oh god... I hate the trope that "baking a cake" = "participating in a wedding" = "actively sponsoring and endorsing that wedding"
PUH-LEEZE
When my husband and I got married, you know who the participants were? Me and my husband. Our two (legally required) witnesses (a.k.a the best man and maid of honor). The minister. That's it.
Our friends and family who we invited to the ceremony and reception? They were celebrating with us. They weren't participating.
The caterers who prepared the food and set up the buffet? They sure weren't "participating". they weren't even invited to join in the celebration. They were the hired help and were there as part of a commercial transaction between my husband and myself and the venue. That's it.
PUH-LEEZE
When my husband and I got married, you know who the participants were? Me and my husband. Our two (legally required) witnesses (a.k.a the best man and maid of honor). The minister. That's it.
Our friends and family who we invited to the ceremony and reception? They were celebrating with us. They weren't participating.
The caterers who prepared the food and set up the buffet? They sure weren't "participating". they weren't even invited to join in the celebration. They were the hired help and were there as part of a commercial transaction between my husband and myself and the venue. That's it.
21
The answer is simple. Like any other liberty, the limit is my nose. In other words, you can practice your religious liberty any way you like until it infringes on the liberty of others. Your religion speaks out against blasphemy, but that infringes on my liberty of freedom of speech. Your religion tells you not to dispense certain doctor-prescribed medicines, then you are infringing on the liberty of the patients by getting in the way of their healthcare. Your religion tells you to stone people who offend your sensibilities, but that infringes on their liberty to life. Your religion tells you not to bake a cake for someone you don't like, then that infringes on the liberty of that taxpayer who funds the roads, police, fire department, and other services that provide the needs for you to even have a business. "Religious Liberty" doesn't mean the right to take others' liberty away.
18
By that "logic", if you invite some people to your home and not others, you infringe on the liberty of people who fund the roads, police, fire department, and other services that make it possible for you to even have a home.
Religious freedom means you are free to practice the religion of your choice, not impose it on others or condemn others for disagreeing with it.
15
You don't have the right to force your religion on others, but:
No, you certainly *can* condemn others for disagreeing with it.
The early Israelites condemned the followers of Moloch for participating in human sacrifice.
The Christians condemned the Jews for lending money at interest, for not accepting Jesus as the Messiah, for a slew of things.
Muhammad condemned the Christians, along with other idolators, for polytheism (the Trinity = 3 gods, plus a host of saints) and the Jews for not becoming Muslims.
Some Christians condemned other Christians for accepting and promoting slavery (as per both Testaments).
Jesus condemned the Pharisees. Luther condemned the Catholic Church ... oh heck, I think by now you can see where I'm going. And we freethinkers reserve the right to condemn any or all 'believers' for their hypocrisy; for the irrationality, illogic, unfalsifiability, and absurdity of their supernatural belief systems; and for the frequent oppressive brutality of their histories (and current actions as well - witness the Christian evangelicals promoting homophobic violence and persecution in Uganda).
Tolerance requires we put up with each other. That's as little, and as much, as is required. Can't condemn each other? Quite the opposite; in fact, under some circumstances, if we have any conscience at all, we have not only the right but the obligation to speak up and condemn.
No, you certainly *can* condemn others for disagreeing with it.
The early Israelites condemned the followers of Moloch for participating in human sacrifice.
The Christians condemned the Jews for lending money at interest, for not accepting Jesus as the Messiah, for a slew of things.
Muhammad condemned the Christians, along with other idolators, for polytheism (the Trinity = 3 gods, plus a host of saints) and the Jews for not becoming Muslims.
Some Christians condemned other Christians for accepting and promoting slavery (as per both Testaments).
Jesus condemned the Pharisees. Luther condemned the Catholic Church ... oh heck, I think by now you can see where I'm going. And we freethinkers reserve the right to condemn any or all 'believers' for their hypocrisy; for the irrationality, illogic, unfalsifiability, and absurdity of their supernatural belief systems; and for the frequent oppressive brutality of their histories (and current actions as well - witness the Christian evangelicals promoting homophobic violence and persecution in Uganda).
Tolerance requires we put up with each other. That's as little, and as much, as is required. Can't condemn each other? Quite the opposite; in fact, under some circumstances, if we have any conscience at all, we have not only the right but the obligation to speak up and condemn.
1
Here's a simple solution--have every store/business owner post a sign that states explicitly who will be served and who will not. Let the market decide when customers opt to patronize one business over another. In this way--NO ONE can say that their religious beliefs have been violated.
15
We're I in a business that does not discriminate, I would be sure to update my advertising making it clear that I would serve all comers.
2
Why should we, therefore, have any obligations toward those with whom we disagree? Must I subsidize police and fire protection for a business that refuses me service?
2
Woolgatherer - "Must I subsidize police and fire protection for a business that refuses me service?"
Must those businesses subsidize police and fire protection for you, feed and house the poor, pay for the education and health care of those who have no legal right to be in the United States? Where does it stop?
Must those businesses subsidize police and fire protection for you, feed and house the poor, pay for the education and health care of those who have no legal right to be in the United States? Where does it stop?
"In France, it’s illegal for a Muslim woman to wear a head scarf at a public school."
To be clear: this rule applies to students and members of staff in state schools and is not limited to the muslim religion. Any parent or other visitor from any religion can keep whatever religious sign they are wearing. The rule does not apply to university. In addition, headscarves, or any other religious signs are not forbidden in public places provided the face is fully visible. And to set the record absolutely straight, this is not limited to face covering muslim veils: no one will be allowed inside a bank, a school or a town hall wearing a motorcycle helmet or a balaclava!
To be clear: this rule applies to students and members of staff in state schools and is not limited to the muslim religion. Any parent or other visitor from any religion can keep whatever religious sign they are wearing. The rule does not apply to university. In addition, headscarves, or any other religious signs are not forbidden in public places provided the face is fully visible. And to set the record absolutely straight, this is not limited to face covering muslim veils: no one will be allowed inside a bank, a school or a town hall wearing a motorcycle helmet or a balaclava!
13
I wonder why France didn't ban veils when all the Catholic nuns were wearing them? Some of the nuns wore hijabs basically with a small square part of their face showing but no one was frightened except little kids in Catholic schools.
3
sleeve - Because their faces were NEVER completely covered and one didn't have to guess who was under the "veil" that's why.
We should simplify the conditions under which a business can operate. Any registered business has the primary intention of making money. No business should be permitted to conduct itself in a way that solely undermines that intention, unless the business is planning to fold.
2
It used to be that the idea of "special rights" was a bad thing when gay people were asking for equal treatment. I don't see how you can call this "religious objection" movement anything else than a demand for exemption to laws governing civil behavior.
13
We all have our own individual faiths. As a citizen I have faith in my country first: It gives me freedom to have any religious faith I choose, and protects me from having to live the religious faith of other citizens I do not agree with. Restating: As a citizen I have faith in my country FIRST. My country gives all citizens freedoms and requires obligations in return. We all know of the untold thousands of us who have served, and even died for our freedoms. This is the ultimate obligation. Equally important is the obligation of tolerance that makes a nation of so many different religions, creeds, and preferences. Tolerance means keeping my faith personal, to myself, and out of the business of others. America was established by people not tolerated in Europe for their religious faiths by majorities of other faiths. If a citizen is one whose faith champions intolerance and will not keep faith with our nation, that citizen is free to leave America. I do not think that kind will be welcome anywhere though.
11
These bakers and county clerks are not forcing people to do anything. Quite the opposite, they are being forced by the law to either violate their beliefs or be expelled from the economy. The liberty to get married to someone of the same-sex is not the liberty to force other people to support your same-sex marriage.
8
Wrong, and wrong again. Businesses may not discriminate, by law. "Religious liberty" is the cathphrase for bigotry. The logical extension of your argument is that a gay couple needs to suffer the indignity of discrimination and or hostility and find an alternate baker or band or caterer or venue. No - the business is expelling itself, both from the economy and from a civilized society.
12
Anyone who refuses to do their job gets "expelled" from the economy.
9
If a business owner has a serious, carefully thought out belief that inter-racial marriage is wrong, are they free to decline to serve an inter-racial marriage of a man and a woman? There are people who believe for religious reasons inter-racial marriage is wrong. I don't agree with them, but at least in some fraction of the cases, the belief is honest and sincere. In the US, at least, if they open a business they still have to provide services to an inter-racial couple.
5
I would like to take exception to the author's statement that "tolerance no longer seems to be the word of the day. ‘The religious resisters say, ‘It doesn’t matter if you can have the wedding you want, because you shouldn’t be getting married anyway’’.
As a religious resistor, I respond, "No, that's not what religious resisters say." We say, "You can have the wedding you want; it's legal now. Please feel free to furnish your wedding with the ceremony, cake, flowers, and services that you wish. If I decline to provide any of these services, please seek them elsewhere."
As a religious resistor, I respond, "No, that's not what religious resisters say." We say, "You can have the wedding you want; it's legal now. Please feel free to furnish your wedding with the ceremony, cake, flowers, and services that you wish. If I decline to provide any of these services, please seek them elsewhere."
10
You are taking the option that will possibly put you out of business. No worries.
5
You live in a civil society. Your business operates in a civil society. Your business is not private, for members only. It is a public business. Your religious preferences, or in this case literally, biases, are irrelevant. Serve the public under law or suffer the sanction of law, made to protect the private practice of religion and to protect others from the discrminatory practices of religion.
18
To which we say, "Nice try, but discrimination is illegal here. This is a secular society; you aren't allowed to refuse customers on religious grounds. If you'd prefer a theocracy, where religious affiliation determines who's cool and who's not, there are several Middle Eastern states where you might be more comfortable."
11
When my husband and I were in our twenties, we both experienced dating Jewish people. Both of us were told that they couldn't bring us home to their parents or marry us because we were not Jewish. I had never heard of such a thing, as I certainly wasn't raised to be against any race ore religion. Neither my husband or I were practicing any religion at the time. I think what we both experienced is that fear of the other and trying to stay in the same tribe, race, or religion, is a thing all its own which is far deeper than any laws or Supreme Court decisions that are made, and probably has been deeply embedded in many cultures for thousands of years. Personally, that is why I have little time for religion in general, as most have very warped ideas about many things, usually they believe them, because many things are not just religious mandates but cultural ones as well.
7
As a Muslim African-American citizen, Imam, chaplain, and author of the book "We Fundamentalists," I am not surprise by U.S. supreme court tragic unraveling of a monotheistic ideas and moral fabric of social dignity! Yet, we Muslims live in a secular democracy which place sovereigty in the hands of it`s people! Thus, we must be patient with those atheist, pagans, agnostics, and those who practice homosexuality, and who call themselves transgender that live in this blessed land called America! Thou, I strongly object to such outrageous acts of governmental approved lewdness within today`s society, but people have a right to be obscene here!
Those of us who are God fearing and place sovereignty with that divine one only, knows such approved lewdness within today`s society will not go un-notice by that real Supreme Court in heaven in which that divine one has already decided the matter of marriage lone ago: Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:21-32; Quran 7:80-87! So, let them have their cheer and respite!
Keeping it real- homosexuality, lewdness acts, and other faiths outside of a monotheistic faith are by choice! I will not not discriminate against someone because of their color or ethnic background because that choice was not theirs to make! But I can refuse service to, cater to, hire someone because I will not patronize an ideal that I feel is an affront to my religious beliefs. Yet, I shall cause them no harm and let them pass in peace, which is differant in a "Theocracy!"
Those of us who are God fearing and place sovereignty with that divine one only, knows such approved lewdness within today`s society will not go un-notice by that real Supreme Court in heaven in which that divine one has already decided the matter of marriage lone ago: Leviticus 18:22, 20:13; Romans 1:21-32; Quran 7:80-87! So, let them have their cheer and respite!
Keeping it real- homosexuality, lewdness acts, and other faiths outside of a monotheistic faith are by choice! I will not not discriminate against someone because of their color or ethnic background because that choice was not theirs to make! But I can refuse service to, cater to, hire someone because I will not patronize an ideal that I feel is an affront to my religious beliefs. Yet, I shall cause them no harm and let them pass in peace, which is differant in a "Theocracy!"
3
On-line you can find what Science has recently shown us, that women and homosexual males have the same pheromonal response to other males. Completely different than that which heterosexual males have for women. Which homosexual males don't have. Sexual orientation is not a choice, it is neurologically driven. Your entire premise is based on ignorance. And as Tony Morrison has said... "The most unforgivable human characteristic is intentional ignorance or willful naiveté."
4
You state at the beginning of your post that you're an imam and a chaplain. I don't anticipate anyone's going to present you with a challenge to serve them even though you consider them immoral, because by definition the only people who seek out your services are going to be the ones who already conform to your faith.
Must be nice to have things so easy ... and to be in America, where no one will force you to conform to, say, the Catholic faith as in medieval Europe or the Protestant faith as in Calvin's Geneva.
Must be nice to have things so easy ... and to be in America, where no one will force you to conform to, say, the Catholic faith as in medieval Europe or the Protestant faith as in Calvin's Geneva.
2
Ah but how would you react to others refusing to hire, serve, cater to, or otherwise do business with you because you are a Muslim?
Sexuality is generally no more a 'choice' than gravity, but religious faith clearly is.
Sexuality is generally no more a 'choice' than gravity, but religious faith clearly is.
5
I take issue with the equation of an ethical or moral position with a religious one. In the case of medical staff being allowed to refuse participation in abortion procedures, for instance, that refusal may based in religious doctrine for some, but certainly represents a specific view of when life begins for all. It is a matter of conscience. Why does the opinion of anyone waving a holy book matter more, in the courts, than the well-reasoned worldview of a non-believer? Why should anyone's purported faith supersede the personal philosophy of a humanist, atheist or agnostic? A conscience clause should apply solely to individual conscience, not the doctrine of any religious text, leader or -- in the case of Christian Fundamentalists -- political entity. The religious right uses it's "muscle" in the most cynical ways. "Demean" is a good word choice to describe what they do, but it doesn't go far enough. They routinely manipulate the words of a prophet who advocated love, acceptance and forgiveness to validate their campaigns based in hate and exclusion. What would Jesus do? Weep, I suspect.
10
My complaint with this essay and others like it is that those on the side of the LGBT are invariably portrayed as possessing all of the good characteristics opposite to those held by people who question the legitimacy of same-sex marriage (SSM). In other words, because of their skepticism SSM opponents are necessarily "discriminatory," "bigoted," and "hateful." Meanwhile, by virtue of not being skeptical of SSM, its supporters are inclusive, tolerant, and loving.
This is a lie.
In reality, many if not most LGBT proponents are just as content as their opponents to discriminate against minority groups whose behavioral characteristics offend their own sensibilities. The only reason this hypocrisy is allowed to flourish without resistance is because the discrimination directed toward these other minority groups is so firmly entrenched within our present-day social norms that practically no one in the mainstream is willing to help these discrete individuals emerge from the closet. Indeed, some of the loudest voices condemning these still-closeted groups ring out from within the LGBT.
The the fact that this post of mine has at best a 50-50 chance of being approved — and if so, only because I have not referenced these other groups specifically by name — demonstrates the true power of prejudice far better than any example we might have of a small town pizza shop politely declining to service same-sex weddings.
This is a lie.
In reality, many if not most LGBT proponents are just as content as their opponents to discriminate against minority groups whose behavioral characteristics offend their own sensibilities. The only reason this hypocrisy is allowed to flourish without resistance is because the discrimination directed toward these other minority groups is so firmly entrenched within our present-day social norms that practically no one in the mainstream is willing to help these discrete individuals emerge from the closet. Indeed, some of the loudest voices condemning these still-closeted groups ring out from within the LGBT.
The the fact that this post of mine has at best a 50-50 chance of being approved — and if so, only because I have not referenced these other groups specifically by name — demonstrates the true power of prejudice far better than any example we might have of a small town pizza shop politely declining to service same-sex weddings.
5
Is anyone in "their" community telling you whom you can marry? Are "they" trying to enact laws to impose their beliefs on you? Do any of "them" try to equate being "skeptical" -- merely a silent belief -- with "declining to [provide] service" -- an action that violates laws governing for-profit businesses?
Who's being "discriminatory," "bigoted," and "hateful" here?
If you want to pick and choose your customers, form a co-op.
Who's being "discriminatory," "bigoted," and "hateful" here?
If you want to pick and choose your customers, form a co-op.
2
RB,
I'm not sure what group you have in mind when you refer to "them." The quotation marks suggest that you're referring to the still-closeted groups I adverted to in my OP. If, however, you have in mind homosexuals as a group, then, as I said above, it is a fact that many if not most homosexuals also behave in discriminatory ways that are virtually indistinguishable from the discriminatory ways of conservative traditionalists.
The LGBT taught us that there is more to discrimination than the sort of brutal violence we saw in the Matthew Shephard incident. Discrimination, we are told, can be both active and passive. A person discriminates not only when he sneers, mocks, or expresses strong opinions about the morality of another person's sexual inclinations; he also discriminates passively when he blithely allows existing laws to continue discriminating against disfavored groups. When I say "allows" what I mean is that the discriminating person is unmotivated to speak up on behalf of those who are, by law and by custom, forced to live as social outcasts.
There are several, still-closeted sexual minority groups that homosexuals themselves view as repugnant, despite the fact that many of these groups' members can, either outright or with some modification, indulge their sexual inclinations without violating the basic moral rules arbitrarily established by the LGBT (e.g., the no-harm principle).
I'm not sure what group you have in mind when you refer to "them." The quotation marks suggest that you're referring to the still-closeted groups I adverted to in my OP. If, however, you have in mind homosexuals as a group, then, as I said above, it is a fact that many if not most homosexuals also behave in discriminatory ways that are virtually indistinguishable from the discriminatory ways of conservative traditionalists.
The LGBT taught us that there is more to discrimination than the sort of brutal violence we saw in the Matthew Shephard incident. Discrimination, we are told, can be both active and passive. A person discriminates not only when he sneers, mocks, or expresses strong opinions about the morality of another person's sexual inclinations; he also discriminates passively when he blithely allows existing laws to continue discriminating against disfavored groups. When I say "allows" what I mean is that the discriminating person is unmotivated to speak up on behalf of those who are, by law and by custom, forced to live as social outcasts.
There are several, still-closeted sexual minority groups that homosexuals themselves view as repugnant, despite the fact that many of these groups' members can, either outright or with some modification, indulge their sexual inclinations without violating the basic moral rules arbitrarily established by the LGBT (e.g., the no-harm principle).
Yes, Jason, by "them" I refer to "those on the side of the LGBT".
To be clear, I care more about how people treat each other than about anything else. I believe in respecting other shepherds’ pastures, holding only ourselves to our own values, and subjecting only ourselves to our own religions' demands.
I do not believe in exalting ourselves to define, judge, and interfere with others' lives. I oppose the misuse of the legal system to deny, second-guess, and restrict their fully equal and equally rightful private lives, legal activities, and religious liberty. And I condemn the abuse of licensed for-profit business privileges to discriminate against people based upon what's none of our business.
I have no idea whether "many if not most homosexuals also behave in discriminatory ways", and I challenge your assertion that "it is a fact". But, either way, I believe that this isn't about their choices or their behavior -- it's about ours.
With these things in mind, I invite you to reread my earlier questions concerning how they treat us vs. how we treat them. You may not agree with my position, but at least you'll know where I'm coming from in taking issue with yours.
To be clear, I care more about how people treat each other than about anything else. I believe in respecting other shepherds’ pastures, holding only ourselves to our own values, and subjecting only ourselves to our own religions' demands.
I do not believe in exalting ourselves to define, judge, and interfere with others' lives. I oppose the misuse of the legal system to deny, second-guess, and restrict their fully equal and equally rightful private lives, legal activities, and religious liberty. And I condemn the abuse of licensed for-profit business privileges to discriminate against people based upon what's none of our business.
I have no idea whether "many if not most homosexuals also behave in discriminatory ways", and I challenge your assertion that "it is a fact". But, either way, I believe that this isn't about their choices or their behavior -- it's about ours.
With these things in mind, I invite you to reread my earlier questions concerning how they treat us vs. how we treat them. You may not agree with my position, but at least you'll know where I'm coming from in taking issue with yours.
Freedom of religion cannot exist without freedom FROM religion. That is where it begins, and also where it continually exists. For one person to freely enjoy his or her own religion, he/she must not be forced to endure the strictures imposed by someone else's religion.
22
IF someone feels that they simply cannot carry on... that is, that they can't bear to have COMMERCIAL TRANSACTIONS with people they honestly believe are sinners, they are free to withdraw. The author correctly cites to the example of the Amish. They've made such a commitment to their faith that they have segregated themselves from what they view as an unclean world. No one faults them for that. But the Amish never try to force the issue beyond their own community. If a religious group (and I don't care if it's ultra-orthodox Jewish, Catholic, Protestant, or Muslim) wants all the financial benefits of the secular world, they are going to have to deal with the fact that they cannot raise a religious objection to everything they deem to be a sin. If your religion won't allow you to ride on the same bus as a woman, maybe Manhattan isn't for you. If your religion has strict rules against baking cakes for certain couples, maybe the wedding cake business isn't for you. Atheists don't refuse to deal with believers because they understand that business transactions are not personal endorsements of any particular belief. The understanding should be mutual.
63
This is not about "being sinners", it's about participating in a ceremony. Can we compel an atheist to do the artwork for a bible tract? If not, then why should we compel an artist do design the centerpiece of a wedding?
I know this much. Religion should be kept out of our courts, off our currency, and religious orgs should not get special tax-exempt status. Total separation of church and state.
32
Apparently the New York Times Magazine is only allowing opinions that agree with the opinion piece written here, so while I'll state the obvious, it won't actually make it to the comments because of the subjective nature of this forum.
Christians and others who believe their scriptures aren't saying "We don't serve your kind." They're saying, "We're all sinners. The difference is, we're not going to sin and call it OK. When we sin, we ask forgiveness and repent. And we're not going to participate in your sin."
Now, would you like a pizza?
Christians and others who believe their scriptures aren't saying "We don't serve your kind." They're saying, "We're all sinners. The difference is, we're not going to sin and call it OK. When we sin, we ask forgiveness and repent. And we're not going to participate in your sin."
Now, would you like a pizza?
10
No one is asking you to climb into the marital bed. They are asking you to sell a pizza for a party. As a pizza supplier, you have no need to inquire as to the specifics of the KIND of party. That's frankly, none of your business.
7
You assume that everyone is a believer, and therefore should accept the fact that they are a "sinner." As an atheist, I do not believe in your concept of sin, forgiveness or repentance. If you choose to believe that, it is perfectly fine with me. What I am not fine with is Christians or other religious folk attempting to impose their views on others. Religion should be a personal matter, and kept in the privacy of one's home or house of worship, and out of pizza parlors, schools, and anywhere else you may interact with "sinners"
8
@Jimmy Hoffa (nice name), you speak of the "subjective nature" of whether your comment will be allowed, but you seem to disregard the subjective nature of religious objection and why it can't be honored in every case. Even if a religious belief is sincerely held, that can't form the basis of allowing discrimination against a group. I know calling it "discrimination" sounds harsh, but that's what it is. If a gay couple is getting married and goes to an establishment that is in the business of catering to weddings, they should be served. If not, the business is discriminating against them for religious reasons. It would be like a cab drive refusing to drive a woman to a polling station because his religion says women have no right to participate in voting. He could just as easily say, "I'm not going to participate in your sin." And bit by bit, the rights of anyone not in lockstep with the most powerful religious group in an area will have their legal rights diluted through so-called religious objections.
10
The claim of religious freedom from secular interference is absurd. How in the world should a faith-based dogmatically intolerant group establish the narrow rules for everybody else? What we need is allow tolerance for the myriad religious group's own requirements...as long as they do not impinge on the needs and wishes of all other secular folks. We need secular freedom from religious intolerance, not the other way around. We need a dogma-free society to recognize reality and beauty as is, supported by reason, science and the humanities. Religion is a make-believe system based on fiction, unprovable by any method, and requiring the suspension of what makes us human, reason.
23
As a born-again Christian, I WILL NOT provide services to someone when it violates the laws of God!!!!
4
"when it violates the laws of God!!!" is the problem. Your God, my God, his God? Worshiping your God can be done anywhere and everywhere all day long. Christ said to "love thy neighbor." It's a pretty simple and all encompassing prescription for life. It seems many Christians no little of what he taught.
In the US law prevails. If your job requires you to treat all people equally, then do it or find a new job. Freedom is wonderful, isn't it? You can find a new job!!!
In the US law prevails. If your job requires you to treat all people equally, then do it or find a new job. Freedom is wonderful, isn't it? You can find a new job!!!
29
I'll try replying, but I doubt it'll show up.
The laws of God on this subject are crystal clear. Retail store owners aren't saying they don't serve these kinds of people. They're saying, we don't participate in an unholy service that's called a sin in the Bible.
So, if you want a cake, go to a store that makes cakes for gay weddings. If you just want a birthday cake, I'll take your order.
The laws of God on this subject are crystal clear. Retail store owners aren't saying they don't serve these kinds of people. They're saying, we don't participate in an unholy service that's called a sin in the Bible.
So, if you want a cake, go to a store that makes cakes for gay weddings. If you just want a birthday cake, I'll take your order.
5
"Judge not, lest ye be judged." Matthew 7: 6-1
And
"You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things." Romans 2: 1
And also
"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." John 8: 7.
And
"You, therefore, have no excuse, you who pass judgment on someone else, for at whatever point you judge another, you are condemning yourself, because you who pass judgment do the same things." Romans 2: 1
And also
"He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her." John 8: 7.
16
Claims of religious freedom are one change we see. Another less talked about is a decline in tolerance. While you don't support something you don't actively object. Some of this resulted from the idea that you consider people you tolerated less than equal even while you had to treat them as equals. Here's a example from the Virginia public schools in the 1950. The class recited the Lord's Prayer every morning, and I learned in the 1960 it was the protestant version. The catholics as well as the atheists, agnostics et al had solid grounds to object, but the issue apparently seemed tolerable to most.
4
Brownie points to Bill R for sharing a fact I never knew about which version of the Lord's Paryer was being used. Seriously, thank you.
But that's what a lot of poeple don't realize when they say Christain. Catholic? Mormon? Lutheran? Presbyterian? UCC? MCC? Some of which openly accept marriage equality.
But that's what a lot of poeple don't realize when they say Christain. Catholic? Mormon? Lutheran? Presbyterian? UCC? MCC? Some of which openly accept marriage equality.
The limits of religious liberty in America end at the word "religious." Atheists are excluded.
We are beleaguered with "God bless you's" if we sneeze. We're expected to sit still for moments of silence in memory of someone or something. We're expected to return a "have a merry christmas," or "happy easter," or wonderful you-name-it holiday that we don't celebrate with a smiling response.
If I tell a religious person that I am an atheist, he feels he has every right to tell me how wrong I am. Yet no one will allow me to tell him how wrong he is when he tells me he is whatever religion he is. Think about it: You have the freedom to assault me for my atheism. I am not free to do the same to you for your religious beliefs.
When is the Supreme Court going to do something about this?
We are beleaguered with "God bless you's" if we sneeze. We're expected to sit still for moments of silence in memory of someone or something. We're expected to return a "have a merry christmas," or "happy easter," or wonderful you-name-it holiday that we don't celebrate with a smiling response.
If I tell a religious person that I am an atheist, he feels he has every right to tell me how wrong I am. Yet no one will allow me to tell him how wrong he is when he tells me he is whatever religion he is. Think about it: You have the freedom to assault me for my atheism. I am not free to do the same to you for your religious beliefs.
When is the Supreme Court going to do something about this?
24
Atheists assault religious people for their beliefs all the time. Feel free not to say "God bless you" or "Merry Christmas." You have that right.
Religious people do not have the freedom to live in a society without atheists, but atheists also do not have the right to live in a society without religious people in it. There is no such thing as a freedom from religion (or atheism).
Religious people do not have the freedom to live in a society without atheists, but atheists also do not have the right to live in a society without religious people in it. There is no such thing as a freedom from religion (or atheism).
1
Which of these examples involves the religious person acting in his/her capacity as a representative of a government agency? If they don't, why would it any business of the Supreme Court or any other court?
"We are beleaguered with 'God bless you's' if we sneeze."
Heavens to Betsy! I never realized how imposed upon I am when I sneeze. Or when I'm quiet while others grieve, honor, or (gasp!) pray. Or when someone greets me on a holiday.
Why should others respect our beliefs when we trash theirs?
I recommend the Golden Rule to atheists and believers alike.
Heavens to Betsy! I never realized how imposed upon I am when I sneeze. Or when I'm quiet while others grieve, honor, or (gasp!) pray. Or when someone greets me on a holiday.
Why should others respect our beliefs when we trash theirs?
I recommend the Golden Rule to atheists and believers alike.
1
I think we should have a "public accomodation" view on these matters. If your business is open to the public and serves the public then it's open to and should serve everyone regardless of their orientation, religion, race or anything else. Period. This constant whining about "religious liberty" is getting old and I predict a backlash, a la the Confederate flag, sometime in the future. No one is saying evangelical "Christians" (who don't seem very "Christian" to me in that they seemed to have stopped reading the bible at the Book of Malachi) aren't free to practice their faith. Your faith and public business have to be kept separate. Frankly, I prefer the French view on it, but that will never fly here.
26
Two points:
1. Does being open to the public mean that you cannot boycott events you find problematic? Can a baker refuse to bake for same-sex weddings while not denying services to gay people? Can a baker refuse to bake for a KKK rally while not denying services to members of the KKK? There should be a distinction between discriminating against a class of people versus supporting a particular event.
2. If we take your interpretation, would you allow a business to operate if it were not open to the "public"? (E.g. a separate class of business that only serves Christians or whites or some other group) The problem I see with the current system is that it forces people who sincerely believe that they cannot support a same-sex wedding to either leave the economy altogether or change their religious views. That is a much more severe consequence that simply having to call the next baker in the phone book.
1. Does being open to the public mean that you cannot boycott events you find problematic? Can a baker refuse to bake for same-sex weddings while not denying services to gay people? Can a baker refuse to bake for a KKK rally while not denying services to members of the KKK? There should be a distinction between discriminating against a class of people versus supporting a particular event.
2. If we take your interpretation, would you allow a business to operate if it were not open to the "public"? (E.g. a separate class of business that only serves Christians or whites or some other group) The problem I see with the current system is that it forces people who sincerely believe that they cannot support a same-sex wedding to either leave the economy altogether or change their religious views. That is a much more severe consequence that simply having to call the next baker in the phone book.
3
Is it our privilege to decide the marital, medical, and legal relationships of strangers? Is faith more important than mercy? Must women and minorities submit to men and majorities? Is it okay to work on the Sabbath, and when does that day begin and end? Must we stone to death our rebellious children? Are we obligated to feed, clothe, shelter, teach, employ, care for, and protect the hungry, naked, homeless, uneducated, jobless, disabled, and vulnerable? May we drink alcohol, or eat shellfish? Is it appropriate for us to confidently define the histories, character, motives, and worth of people we don’t know, and to treat them accordingly? Which commands, from which scripture, must we follow, and which may we ignore? Are foreigners ours to attack and enslave, and their property ours to take? When we offend others’ spiritual/existential beliefs, is that as profane as when they offend ours?
Do all of the members of any religious denomination, let alone of any religion, agree on the answers to all of these questions?
We live in a crowded theater. Is it good to express our "Fire!" simply because we can? We have our beliefs, and they have theirs. Are only ours sacred? They have their values, and we have ours. Are only ours inviolate? Both we and they have lives, and find loves, and make choices. Are only ours rightful?
Whatever happened to humility? Whatever happened to compassion? Whatever happened to the Golden Rule?
In fact, whatever happened to "their" freedom of religion?
Do all of the members of any religious denomination, let alone of any religion, agree on the answers to all of these questions?
We live in a crowded theater. Is it good to express our "Fire!" simply because we can? We have our beliefs, and they have theirs. Are only ours sacred? They have their values, and we have ours. Are only ours inviolate? Both we and they have lives, and find loves, and make choices. Are only ours rightful?
Whatever happened to humility? Whatever happened to compassion? Whatever happened to the Golden Rule?
In fact, whatever happened to "their" freedom of religion?
19
First: WRT the "right" of County clerks to deny a marriage license to a gay couple; they are not conducting a religious transaction, they are conducting a civil transaction. Religion has nothing to do with getting a marriage license from the state. Like those Hobby Lobby workers they undoubtedly counseled: If you don't like the rules, get another job.
Second: When did the conservative "Christian" lobby amend the Golden Rule to to include the clause, "as long as they are just like you."? Or did that come with the change in meaning of religious liberty from "being free to act within the beliefs of my religion" to "being free to impose on you the beliefs of my religion"?
Second: When did the conservative "Christian" lobby amend the Golden Rule to to include the clause, "as long as they are just like you."? Or did that come with the change in meaning of religious liberty from "being free to act within the beliefs of my religion" to "being free to impose on you the beliefs of my religion"?
27
The original Constitution of the United States is available for all to see and comprehend. No doubt or argument exists as to its provenance. Amendments to it adopted over the last 226 years are historically documented. We do not base our government on a version of the Constitution written between forty and three hundred years after the death of Madison. We do not use a version of the Constitution that has been translated from one dead language into another dead language then into yet another language, each time by anonymous men with obvious or hidden agendas. Our Constitution demands no suspension of disbelief to accept its words or intent. We do not adhere to the sections of the Constitution that we agree with and dismiss or ignore those that we do not.
Have we arrived at the day when another document, with a nebulous history and questionable authorship, that demands belief in the unseen and supernatural is seen to be on par with our Constitution? And not even the entire questionable document but rather some select passages that happen to agree with the politics of its proponents?
Have we arrived at the day when another document, with a nebulous history and questionable authorship, that demands belief in the unseen and supernatural is seen to be on par with our Constitution? And not even the entire questionable document but rather some select passages that happen to agree with the politics of its proponents?
17
The biggest problem with religious objections to gays comes from the selective use of various religious writings, while ignoring other statements in the same writings. Hence, we do not stone people who commit adultery or kill children who bad mouth their parents....all objections based on holy books are logically inconsistent because they involve personal biases as to what part of the holy book the reader thinks is important. Protecting the Native American use of peyote should have been done by allowing anyone to use peyote rather than invoking religion.
13
What especially ticks me off:
I'm a freethinker. That is, I have very carefully thought-out positions on a wide range of ethical and moral issues, which were arrived at through reading and deliberation but not via any supernatural authority, revealed scripture (except insofar as its philosophical and historical aspects shed light on a question) or established 'faith' (by which I mean St Paul's description, 'the evidence of things not seen, the substance of things hoped for' - i.e., that which must be accepted without evidence). Quite possibly my positions on many moral issues are stricter than yours, dear reader.
Yet 'believers' regularly insist that because I profess no 'god' I therefore must have no morals, and often I get no respect for my creed in whole or part. But I am adjured to 'respect' (i.e., don't dare challenge or argue with) the 'beliefs' of someone based on millennia-old, inconsistent legends and folk tales of nomadic tribes, translated and retranslated from imperfectly understood archaic languages, or some poohbah whose imaginary superfriend has instructed him to dress funny. And whose 'morality' doesn't bear close inspection in its own right, even aside from the believers' constant hypocritical lapses from it.
I'm a freethinker. That is, I have very carefully thought-out positions on a wide range of ethical and moral issues, which were arrived at through reading and deliberation but not via any supernatural authority, revealed scripture (except insofar as its philosophical and historical aspects shed light on a question) or established 'faith' (by which I mean St Paul's description, 'the evidence of things not seen, the substance of things hoped for' - i.e., that which must be accepted without evidence). Quite possibly my positions on many moral issues are stricter than yours, dear reader.
Yet 'believers' regularly insist that because I profess no 'god' I therefore must have no morals, and often I get no respect for my creed in whole or part. But I am adjured to 'respect' (i.e., don't dare challenge or argue with) the 'beliefs' of someone based on millennia-old, inconsistent legends and folk tales of nomadic tribes, translated and retranslated from imperfectly understood archaic languages, or some poohbah whose imaginary superfriend has instructed him to dress funny. And whose 'morality' doesn't bear close inspection in its own right, even aside from the believers' constant hypocritical lapses from it.
18
"It’s an American legacy that dates back to before the founding, when some of the original colonies were set up as havens for religious dissenters. "
The only original colony that I know of that was set up as a haven for religious dissenters was Massachusetts -- and it was in marked contrast to the other colonies.
When the London Company issued a contract for its second plantation -- it forbade the Pilgrims from establishing their religion as that of the settlement. The Pilgrims lied, understandably so, since as Separatists they wanted to purge all competing religions from their communities. They and the Puritans engaged in a reign of terror, executing, maiming, and banishing anyone not of their specific religion.
In fact, England of the 16th century had established religious toleration and a form of separation of church and state thanks to Elizabeth I. Protection of religious "minorities'" rights was an element of the English law of all the American settlements -- except for Massachusetts, which was a colony of religious dissenters whose freedom of religion required persecution of all other religions.
The only original colony that I know of that was set up as a haven for religious dissenters was Massachusetts -- and it was in marked contrast to the other colonies.
When the London Company issued a contract for its second plantation -- it forbade the Pilgrims from establishing their religion as that of the settlement. The Pilgrims lied, understandably so, since as Separatists they wanted to purge all competing religions from their communities. They and the Puritans engaged in a reign of terror, executing, maiming, and banishing anyone not of their specific religion.
In fact, England of the 16th century had established religious toleration and a form of separation of church and state thanks to Elizabeth I. Protection of religious "minorities'" rights was an element of the English law of all the American settlements -- except for Massachusetts, which was a colony of religious dissenters whose freedom of religion required persecution of all other religions.
9
This is inaccurate. Most colonies did not allow religious freedom. For example, Maryland's colonial law required beheading of non-trinitarians, which would include Jews, Muslims, Hindus, and even some Christians.
Add Maryland for Catholics ... who were second class citizens under the Church of England.
I wish I could refuse to serve any and all persons exhibiting their religious based symbols. Can I discriminate against people wearing hijabs ,yarmulkas, niqabs, crosses, nuns habit, priests collars or any other such symbol? No, this is not about religious freedom and never has been. Take away all religious based tax exemptions, that would level the playing field.
18
Maryland and Rhode Island were religious colonies originally as well.
I guess I have a somewhat off the wall take on religion-government debate. Since this country was established in 1776, a white and Christian majority established a deep relationship between religion and government. In the past, when this status quo was challenged, the established religions usually won in court. However, the tide was starting to change in the mid 20th century and now in 21st century Americans are realizing that deep relationship between the Church and Government needs close examination and a significant change. I welcome this change.
6
So if I ask a cake store owner to make a cake with a swastika on it, they must also comply because that expression is protected under my 1st amendment rights? Curious if all of the Times readers would defend that right too.
4
Nice try, but I think you'd find most would, and strongly so.
When the American Nazis [in]famously marched in [the largely Jewish neighborhood of] Skokie, Illinois, it was the ACLU who came to their rescue, arguing before the courts and securing their rights, under the 1st amendment, to do so.
Some of those lawyers were Jewish and/or liberals.
Some ACLU members, some of them Jewish and/or liberals, cancelled their memberships in protest -- but many (and I'm pretty sure it was most) did not.
You might ask yourself why you so blithely assume that most of the readers and commenters here would be so blatantly inconsistent in their application of principles strongly held.
Could it be, I can't help but wonder, that you yourself don't consistently apply the principles by which you profess to operate, but -- as so many conservatives and Republicans obviously do -- instead check the party affiliation of the players in each conflict, to see whom you should be supporting, as you're suggesting you expect us to do?
Hmm?
When the American Nazis [in]famously marched in [the largely Jewish neighborhood of] Skokie, Illinois, it was the ACLU who came to their rescue, arguing before the courts and securing their rights, under the 1st amendment, to do so.
Some of those lawyers were Jewish and/or liberals.
Some ACLU members, some of them Jewish and/or liberals, cancelled their memberships in protest -- but many (and I'm pretty sure it was most) did not.
You might ask yourself why you so blithely assume that most of the readers and commenters here would be so blatantly inconsistent in their application of principles strongly held.
Could it be, I can't help but wonder, that you yourself don't consistently apply the principles by which you profess to operate, but -- as so many conservatives and Republicans obviously do -- instead check the party affiliation of the players in each conflict, to see whom you should be supporting, as you're suggesting you expect us to do?
Hmm?
7
No. A baker doesn't have to decorate the cake in any particular way. The baker just needs to offer the same type of cake to gay couples that he offers to straight couples. So, if the baker bakes a five layer cake with fancy frosting to a straight couple, he must also offer a five layer cake with fancy frosting to the gay couple.
I am so sick of people making up sill examples like the one in your post.
I am so sick of people making up sill examples like the one in your post.
If:
1-You come to my Kosher Deli and want a ham sandwich, I say, "That is not what I sell."
2-You come to my Pizza Store and ask for pizza for you Nazi rally, I say, For here, or delivered?"
3-You come to my bakery and want a cake for your Nazi wedding, I say, "I will make the cake, but I do not have political decorations, nor can I make them for you. I suggest you add them yourself after you take the cake that I make and sell to you."
Items 1 and 3 say I am not obligated to carry products outside of my normal business simply because you demand them. Item 2 says that as long as you ask my business to serve you as I would any other customer, I am obliged to do so.
1-You come to my Kosher Deli and want a ham sandwich, I say, "That is not what I sell."
2-You come to my Pizza Store and ask for pizza for you Nazi rally, I say, For here, or delivered?"
3-You come to my bakery and want a cake for your Nazi wedding, I say, "I will make the cake, but I do not have political decorations, nor can I make them for you. I suggest you add them yourself after you take the cake that I make and sell to you."
Items 1 and 3 say I am not obligated to carry products outside of my normal business simply because you demand them. Item 2 says that as long as you ask my business to serve you as I would any other customer, I am obliged to do so.
3
As a Christian, I could not agree more with the majority of the sentiments in the comments section. A job has a job description, and a person knows what he or she is getting into when they apply for it. I am completely sympathetic to a clerk if he or she believes same-sex marriage goes against his or her beliefs and cannot in good conscience give a marriage license to a same-sex couple. I support that. But then you do need to get a new job.
That said, I only see that applying to government positions. The minute that person is in a private business or non-profit, I do think the organization has the room, since they are not in public service, to work in the boundaries of their conscience. I could see this being fuzzier when applied to a publicly owned company.
That said, I only see that applying to government positions. The minute that person is in a private business or non-profit, I do think the organization has the room, since they are not in public service, to work in the boundaries of their conscience. I could see this being fuzzier when applied to a publicly owned company.
3
Religion is not something we are born with like gender or race. Religions are ideas and beliefs people are socialized into.
Expressing those beliefs and being free to follow those practices without the interference of certainly the state is a basic right in the United States.
But that liberty of following beliefs ends where the basic civil rights of others begins.
Religious liberty does not mean adherents can discriminate based on race, gender, sexual orientation. It does not mean dialog and freedom of speech can be shut down. Religion is not innate. It is socialized and therefore does not have the same rights as those protecting what is fundamental to humanity.
Expressing those beliefs and being free to follow those practices without the interference of certainly the state is a basic right in the United States.
But that liberty of following beliefs ends where the basic civil rights of others begins.
Religious liberty does not mean adherents can discriminate based on race, gender, sexual orientation. It does not mean dialog and freedom of speech can be shut down. Religion is not innate. It is socialized and therefore does not have the same rights as those protecting what is fundamental to humanity.
8
Religion is also chosen -- in ironic contrast to sexual orientation.
Fundamentally, people don't freely join what they don't support.
Fundamentally, people don't freely join what they don't support.
First of all, the gay rights answer is not "you're talking to your imaginary friend," there are many Christian same sex couples. Their answer is "baking a cake is not a religious act & in public accommodations, the business has consented to provide the same goods & services to all members of the public." Not even arbitrary discrimination is legal without a specific business purpose.
But I also wonder if the government doesn't risk violating the establishment clause by protecting someone's "religious liberty" in the public sphere. Even if there is no law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, discrimination based on religion is always prohibited. If a baker is making the argument that the customer is doing something unacceptable in his/her religion, then isn't the customer freely exercising a different religion by default/definition?
If exemption does not merely relieve the religious practitioner from a burden on free exercise, but in essence becomes a preference advancing a particular religion or even religion in general, the exemption must be denied.
But I also wonder if the government doesn't risk violating the establishment clause by protecting someone's "religious liberty" in the public sphere. Even if there is no law prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation, discrimination based on religion is always prohibited. If a baker is making the argument that the customer is doing something unacceptable in his/her religion, then isn't the customer freely exercising a different religion by default/definition?
If exemption does not merely relieve the religious practitioner from a burden on free exercise, but in essence becomes a preference advancing a particular religion or even religion in general, the exemption must be denied.
8
Religious freedom should not be a free pass for discrimination.
The law of the land allows one to freely practice religious beliefs but must not allow those private beliefs to result in discrimination among the public.
If you chose to go into business you must serve the public without selectivity.
The law of the land allows one to freely practice religious beliefs but must not allow those private beliefs to result in discrimination among the public.
If you chose to go into business you must serve the public without selectivity.
14
You're totally allowed to flail away with your fists. But when you connect with someone else's nose, your rights just stopped. Similarly, you are free to practice your religion in any way, shape, or form... as long as you don't impact someone else's ability to practice theirs.
Barronelle Stutzman of Arlene’s Flowers in Richland Washington regularly served gay customers. She refused to do a gay wedding. Most weddings involve late or weekend hours and are usually a choice. If she had said “sorry, I am washing my hair” would she have been OK?
Will Moslems be required to do gay weddings on Friday, Jews Saturday and Christians Sunday? What about gay weddings on religious "holy days" or special feast days?
Will Moslems be required to do gay weddings on Friday, Jews Saturday and Christians Sunday? What about gay weddings on religious "holy days" or special feast days?
2
Though I can't believe you don't know the answer to your question, a business can determine its hours for operation of course, but can't discriminate once the doors are open.....they are open to everyone. What else you got?
Religious dogma has been pushing too far. The push back is starting. The republicans are likely to see very different election results than they expect.
9
"They also correctly point out that strong national laws protect against discrimination on the basis of race, but not against discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. In many states, in the South and elsewhere, a business or a landlord doesn’t need a special faith-based reason for turning away a gay client or tenant. They’re simply free to do so."
Yup. The Religious Right are in the process of changing the Civil Rights Act to include LGBTs. Just as with marriage. Just as the Westboro Baptist Church reinforces sympathy towards LGBTs.
Overreaching is one of the deep weaknesses of the Religious RIght.
As the majority of people start to become aware that almost everywhere, it is legal to fire someone for being gay, or deny them service, or kick them out of their apartment for being gay, the people will unite and beat down the hateful CINOs (Christian In Name Only).
Yup. The Religious Right are in the process of changing the Civil Rights Act to include LGBTs. Just as with marriage. Just as the Westboro Baptist Church reinforces sympathy towards LGBTs.
Overreaching is one of the deep weaknesses of the Religious RIght.
As the majority of people start to become aware that almost everywhere, it is legal to fire someone for being gay, or deny them service, or kick them out of their apartment for being gay, the people will unite and beat down the hateful CINOs (Christian In Name Only).
8
I will not say the Pledge of Allegiance because of the newly added phrase "under God". I said the Pledge when that phrase was absent. I will not swear on a Bible. That is my religious freedom exercised. In a court you are forced to swear on a Bible so it allows me to object or lie giving me permission to lie in court as it is an invalid oath. What will "they" allow me if I say worship trees or springs or fire (Zoroastrians might be in danger)? Decidedly non Christian worship or "none" is becoming persecuted. And frankly we might be further ahead with some nature worship than what we have at present. California might lead the way with worship of "living water".
5
If I object to following a law because of my lack of religion, do I get a pass Like people of religion do? If not, where is the equality? If not, it smells of the government not following the principle of separation of church and state.
8
I wonder how many of these religious zealots would, to be consistent, also refuse to sell a cake inscribed "to the best mom in the world" if the cake were ordered by a child born from an adulterous relationship. After all, adultery is specifically forbidden in the bible.
Of course they wouldn't. Their position on gay marriage is simply one of bigotry, not religious belief.
Of course they wouldn't. Their position on gay marriage is simply one of bigotry, not religious belief.
11
Asking got a quick survey here-who thinks that the $135,000 fine imposed on the Oregon bakers, or even the $13,000 fine on the NY B&B for declining service to a sme sex wedding, is appropriate?
2
I have a deeply held personal belief that people who choose to live as christians are living a corrupt immoral lifestyle, so I will deny them service.
This is the America they are trying to create, where anyone we don't like we don't have to deal with.
It doesn't get much more un-American than this, in my opinion.
This is the America they are trying to create, where anyone we don't like we don't have to deal with.
It doesn't get much more un-American than this, in my opinion.
7
Thou shalt have no other god before me...
These religious resisters better be checking the religion of everyone who walks through their doors and refusing service to anyone who doesn't pray to their god, otherwise they aren't being honest when they deny services to gay people - they are just picking and choosing whom to serve and whom to shun.
These religious resisters better be checking the religion of everyone who walks through their doors and refusing service to anyone who doesn't pray to their god, otherwise they aren't being honest when they deny services to gay people - they are just picking and choosing whom to serve and whom to shun.
7
Justify intolerance? If you mean not tolerating the behaviors that the moral principles of the religion in question oppose then that would necessarily be true.
If a religion opposes sex with children they would not "tolerate" it. Many religions are more "tolerant." If a religion opposes torture, capital punishment, firearms, violence against women and violence generally, they would express disdain and "intolerance" toward it as well. Whether the religion is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or any other there would necessarily be certain things they would be "intolerant" of.
This same behavior exists in the secular world. Anti-racist groups are highly intolerant of what they consider "racism." Environmentalists are rigid and close-minded about pollution. Animal lovers consider behaviors they regard as cruel and inhumane as anathema, perverted, vile and unnatural. Intolerance is a necessary part of human behavior and simply part of standing up for what you feel is right.
Intolerance is accepted and widely supported all throughout our society. In the case of homosexuality or gay marriage many people are opposed while others are not and they have a right to express their values, opinions and beliefs. There are moral arguments on either side. In this case “intolerance” appears to be used as an epithet and has been “weaponized,” in a manner of speaking. It’s wiser to take a broader and more open minded view of what seems to be a universal human behavior.
If a religion opposes sex with children they would not "tolerate" it. Many religions are more "tolerant." If a religion opposes torture, capital punishment, firearms, violence against women and violence generally, they would express disdain and "intolerance" toward it as well. Whether the religion is Christian, Jewish, Muslim, Hindu or any other there would necessarily be certain things they would be "intolerant" of.
This same behavior exists in the secular world. Anti-racist groups are highly intolerant of what they consider "racism." Environmentalists are rigid and close-minded about pollution. Animal lovers consider behaviors they regard as cruel and inhumane as anathema, perverted, vile and unnatural. Intolerance is a necessary part of human behavior and simply part of standing up for what you feel is right.
Intolerance is accepted and widely supported all throughout our society. In the case of homosexuality or gay marriage many people are opposed while others are not and they have a right to express their values, opinions and beliefs. There are moral arguments on either side. In this case “intolerance” appears to be used as an epithet and has been “weaponized,” in a manner of speaking. It’s wiser to take a broader and more open minded view of what seems to be a universal human behavior.
3
I am all for gay rights but it seems lately two things I've noticed;
1 Gay rights trump religious rights.
2 When it comes to Gay rights VS Religious rights the progressive press will only focus on Christianity and never Islam or the Jewish faith which all share similar qualities of same sex, abortion etc.
Any time you hear a story about a baker that refuses to make cake for a gay couple you know right away that it is a Christian baker and that they have been targeted by gay activists who do not pursue Islamic or Jewish bakeries, only Christians are persecuted. My Conclusion is from the book "Animal Farm" "All of the animals are equal, only some animals are more equal than others."
1 Gay rights trump religious rights.
2 When it comes to Gay rights VS Religious rights the progressive press will only focus on Christianity and never Islam or the Jewish faith which all share similar qualities of same sex, abortion etc.
Any time you hear a story about a baker that refuses to make cake for a gay couple you know right away that it is a Christian baker and that they have been targeted by gay activists who do not pursue Islamic or Jewish bakeries, only Christians are persecuted. My Conclusion is from the book "Animal Farm" "All of the animals are equal, only some animals are more equal than others."
4
So far none of the cases of businesses being fined for not providing their normal public accommodations has been 'targeted' by anyone. No one specifically picked any of these business with foreknowledge that they would be discriminated against for being gay.
These businesses were approached to provide their services in the same manner and for the same reasons anyone else does, and they declined, voluntarily voicing their discriminatory reasons. In essence they 'outed' themselves as not being willing to abide by the laws they agreed to when they accepted their business licenses to accommodate the public without discrimination.
These businesses were approached to provide their services in the same manner and for the same reasons anyone else does, and they declined, voluntarily voicing their discriminatory reasons. In essence they 'outed' themselves as not being willing to abide by the laws they agreed to when they accepted their business licenses to accommodate the public without discrimination.
The American public is, at least nominally, still over 78% Christian in self-identification.
Jews are no more than 2.2% of the US population (if that; intermarriage rates for this generation are well over 50%); Muslims comprise no more than 9/10 of 1%.
Assuming Christians are no more or less likely to open bakeries than Jews or Muslims, that means a randomly chosen bakery is at least 25 times more likely to turn out Christian than not.
Does that help put the media's apparent focus on Christian business owners into its proper perspective?
TL,DR version:
They're not "targeted."
Jews are no more than 2.2% of the US population (if that; intermarriage rates for this generation are well over 50%); Muslims comprise no more than 9/10 of 1%.
Assuming Christians are no more or less likely to open bakeries than Jews or Muslims, that means a randomly chosen bakery is at least 25 times more likely to turn out Christian than not.
Does that help put the media's apparent focus on Christian business owners into its proper perspective?
TL,DR version:
They're not "targeted."
Here is a clue: 2.2 % of US population is Jewish and Muslim population is .8%. These facts probably explain why christians at over 70% of the population are most of the examples. It is math.
1
Minority religions have understood these "limits" to be more accurately described as "distinctions" since the founding. It's the privileged religions, protestant at the nation's founding, and in the last 50-75 years in particular evangelical protestant, who are struggling to understand the the difference between "religious expression" and "religious imposition".
Orthodox Judaism forbids the eating of pork. Jehovah Witnesses forbid so-called "traditional" holidays" such as birthdays or Christmas. Catholicism forbids divorce, birth control and freemasonry. Amish forbid finery, military service, telephones and electricity. Evangelical Christianity hasn't come to grips yet with the fact that their own private religious practice is equally separable from US penal codes. No Amish person, for example, considers their personal religious expression "diminished" because the US caters to folks who demand ready and reliable access to electricity.
Orthodox Judaism forbids the eating of pork. Jehovah Witnesses forbid so-called "traditional" holidays" such as birthdays or Christmas. Catholicism forbids divorce, birth control and freemasonry. Amish forbid finery, military service, telephones and electricity. Evangelical Christianity hasn't come to grips yet with the fact that their own private religious practice is equally separable from US penal codes. No Amish person, for example, considers their personal religious expression "diminished" because the US caters to folks who demand ready and reliable access to electricity.
8
i hope the RFRA and similar laws proliferate. only a certain kind of person will find it necessary to use the protection of these laws. and the actions of those persons will stand as a cautionary and revealing example of what christianity has come to represent.
1
There is a simple way to solve this issue, which is perfectly legal. If the business in question doesn't wish to serve gay people because the owner feels it is against his or her religion, then all he or she has to do is put a sign in the window that says "We hate gay people." Problem solved. You can be sure that no gay couples will patronize the business, and the person doesn't have to violate his or her conscience. Of course, this kind of advertising will drive away other customers, too, who may have gay friends or family, or who find patronizing bigots objectionable, but that's the price you pay when your conscience dictates that you practice hate as a business mission.
12
There's a simpler solution that resolves the issue for all involved and doesn’t involve “hate,” whether implied or inferred: The business can offer to contract the work out to another provider.
An older gentleman who recently died had for years not paid the old telephone excise tax because his religious beliefs forbade war as he was a practicing Mennonite. The IRS audited him a few times, but allowed his personal protest. I believe that no matter what the law says, you cannot force individuals to accept one's personal religious beliefs. In other words, you cannot make or force individuals to love or hate abortion, gay rights, birth control, head coverings, being open on the Sabbath or Sunday, etc. etc. Early indoctrination and deep ingrained feelings about many issues will always continue. You cannot legislate personal belief out of the human animal no matter what the courts rule.
1
Agreed- but you can legislate against active discrimination based on those beliefs in a secular society. I believe the fundamental bible thumpers are a sad bunch of weak minded prudes, and have made a poor life decision in following their doctrines. However, I am not allowed to refuse them service in my business. Why should we make "special accommodations" for them to discriminate in theirs?
This article and these comments aren't about religion they are about Christianity and Conservatism. There is no religion that supports Gay Marriage. If a Buddhist refused would there be this outcry? What of a Muslim? Jain? Hindu? This is about asserting that Christianity is hypocritical and nasty and the underlying cause of what is wrong in society today.
I read this and think this is about privileged white people arguing with other privileged white people about their privileges.
I read this and think this is about privileged white people arguing with other privileged white people about their privileges.
2
The victors of the battle are now just bayoneting the loses wounded survivors in the weeds.
No one is bayoneting anyone; sore loser.
If the religion you belong to alongs to deny civil rights and basic liberties to others who are not of your faith, then perhaps it is time we remove the tax-exemption from your religion.
When your religion begins to interfere with public policy and laws, then it is timed for your religion to be taxed.
When your religion begins to interfere with public policy and laws, then it is timed for your religion to be taxed.
9
Just because the Supreme Court calls sodomy "marriage" does not mean that Americans must fall in lockstep behind Anthony Kennedy, any more than when the Supreme Court called blacks "property" meant that should have lined up behind Roger Taney and not "demeaned" Simon Legree. This is what Antonin Scalia warned about when, in Obergefell, he noted that the shortcircuiting of democratic decision-making pretends that law can replace culture. And the homosexual couple denied a wedding cake may feel bad, but the baker believes he cannot morally endorse this. There is no shortage of butchers, bakers, or picture takers. To compel the dissident to use his professional skills to solemnize the occasion is simply to cudgel others to accept YOUR views, nicely branded "tolerance." The problem is, behind the "tolerance" is a vehement intolerance to anybody who disagrees.
1
Where have you been for the last 60 years, JGrondelski? The whole of civil rights legislation and court decisions have been a matter of law replacing culture. Or do you - and presumably Justice Scalia - hold that decisions in these matters should have been left to 'democratic decision-making'?
Which is the rights that you (presumably) enjoy would you be willing to subject to the democratic process?
p.
Which is the rights that you (presumably) enjoy would you be willing to subject to the democratic process?
p.
If baking a cake for a gay wedding makes the bakery a participant in that wedding, why doesn't selling a gun used in a murder make the gun shop a participant in that murder?
And while on the subject of religious liberty, shouldn't we define religion? Do you have to belong to a mainstream church in order to claim religious liberties? Or can any deeply held personal belief (or prejudice) be considered a religious belief?
And while on the subject of religious liberty, shouldn't we define religion? Do you have to belong to a mainstream church in order to claim religious liberties? Or can any deeply held personal belief (or prejudice) be considered a religious belief?
12
in your gun example, if the gun buyer indicates and the gun seller reasonably comprehends that the gun buyer will use the gun for murder, then yes, the gun seller could be an accessory to murder, provided the gun seller was not forced to sell the gun and the gun seller did not notify the proper authorities.
If the gun shop employee sells a gun knowing that it will be later used in a murder, the employee would indeed be considered a participant in the murder (an accessory before the fact, I believe), so your premise is wrong. (And of course, the bakers knew what the cake would be used for.)
It was Supreme Court Justice Kennedy who authored both the Hobby Lobby and gay marriage majority opinions, and I've often wondered how exactly he envisioned, if at all, the resulting trajectory that could potentially push the culture war to new heights of acrimony and argument. But could it also reshape our understanding of rights? Conservatives have long disavowed the analogy between African-American civil rights and gay civil rights, disingenuously claiming they were two different matters (and without ever distinguishing how or why), but it is undeniable that the era of Jim Crow segregation has passed its key legacy on in the form of an unresolved question that now stands at the core of the gay marriage/religious rights debate, namely, is there a right to discriminate? A seemingly noxious question, it remains a stark interrogation of what liberty truly means once the historical window dressing of black and gay civil right rights struggles are pulled away. Perhaps this is the question that remains unresolved in Kennedy's mind. And should anyone want an example of certitude, Scalia's dissent in the 1996 case Romer v Evans, easily one of his most abhorrent opinions, stands as a prelude to the debate we see emerging today.
1
Religious liberties were meant for common folk to protect themselves from gov't intrusion, not for politicians working in the gov't power to impose their values upon common (women, minorities, & gays) folk with. Liberties are for individuals, for gov't or corporations.
6
Liberties are for individuals, NOT gov't or corporations.
Mainstream religions in the US encompass many different rules, doctrines and prohibitions. The only thing they have in common is that many of their principles are based on a supernatural and obviously false premise. While I believe that everyone should have the right to believe as they please concerning the ultimate questions, no one should have the right to impose their religious philosophy on anyone else, particularly since religious philosophy is always irrational and very obviously untrue when challenged through rational discourse. The fact that the US government grants special accommodations for fantastical unsupported beliefs is indeed depressing. Religious 'reasoning' (a real oxymoron) should never cross the threshold of any state house or the Capitol.
6
I couldn't agree with you more. So let's flip that. No one should be able to impose their religious ceremony on anyone else. If I don't want to participate in your gay marriage, I shouldn't have to.
WALL OF SEPARATION A strong wall of separation between church is fully consistent with freedom to practice one's religion, so long as there is a clear, strong demarcation between religious practices and secular law. All the confusion is caused when people claim that their religious scruples prohibit them from serving same-sex couples, because pizza parlors, so far as I can tell, are not recognized as institutions of religious worship. Unless there really is a pizza god. If religious universities refuse housing to same-sex couples but not opposite sex couples, so long as they do not receive a single penny of public funds for research or any other university function, that's just fine. But once they accept public funds, they become subject to the secular laws of the government. I think that the pharmacist who refuses to fill a prescription for a morning after pill based on personal religious beliefs is insisting that secular law be mixed with religious law. If the pharmacist is practicing in a facility that is 100% paid for by a religious institution, then the refusal is fine with me. But in a community pharmacy, secular law rules. If that means calling in another pharmacist immediately who will comply with secular laws, that's fine. If it means that a woman must relinquish her right to self-determination, it violates the separation of church and state in my opinion. As to Scalia, so long as people agree with him, things are easy for him. If he has to compromise NO!
4
What are the limits of Religious Liberty? It's simple. In any context, one person is not at liberty to practice their religion on another person.
8
So if I'm a Buddhist they should be able to deny me the right to marry if its against their beliefs?
2
They've got the country by the throat through their unholy alliance with the GOP, yet they claim they're threatened, embattled, boxed in. What they mean is they're not succeeding in forcing their narrow bigotry down my throat.
“The world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief.” -- Nobel laureate in Physics, Steven Weinberg, U.T. Austin.
“The world needs to wake up from its long nightmare of religious belief.” -- Nobel laureate in Physics, Steven Weinberg, U.T. Austin.
6
"No one succeeded then in claiming a God-given right to refuse to serve black customers." In fact, in Bob Jones University v. US, the Supreme Court accepted that "The sponsors of the University genuinely believe that the Bible forbids interracial dating and marriage." The belief did not justify their discrimination. What's different here?
5
This is a red herring.
If you don't want to bake a cake for somebody, or you don't want to hire somebody, just don't do it. There is no requirement to tell someone why you won't hire them, or won't bake them a cake.
If you want trouble, then tell them it's because they're too fat, too old, ugly, or you don't like Jews, or women, or Muslims, or Christians, gays, or anything else guaranteed to get you some press! Make trouble for yourself???
For publicity. Notoriety. Foolishness. 15 minutes of fame. Not good business....
If you don't want to bake a cake for somebody, or you don't want to hire somebody, just don't do it. There is no requirement to tell someone why you won't hire them, or won't bake them a cake.
If you want trouble, then tell them it's because they're too fat, too old, ugly, or you don't like Jews, or women, or Muslims, or Christians, gays, or anything else guaranteed to get you some press! Make trouble for yourself???
For publicity. Notoriety. Foolishness. 15 minutes of fame. Not good business....
3
I understand when a clergyman says, "I cannot participate in this ceremony because it goes against the principals of my faith and my calling." A religion has the right to dictate to its membership.
I cannot understand how one's bedroom proclivities impact the ordering of a pizza. Nor can I understand how denying service to same-sex couples is any different from denying service to African Americans or Jews. Can you imagine the outcry if a Christian was denied service in a kosher deli?
If you choose to live in a nation where there is a separation of church and state, where the government is not permitted to institute a national religion, then you must abide by those rules. What you do or say or teach in your home is a matter of personal choice; you cannot, however, impose those choices on strangers. How to pray, how to eat, or how to love is personal. In the public sphere, that is none of your business.
In other words, your conscience is yours and yours alone. Keep it in your head, your living room or your bedroom. Don't impose it on the rest of us. That is totally unconstitutional.
http://wifelyperson.blogspot.com/
I cannot understand how one's bedroom proclivities impact the ordering of a pizza. Nor can I understand how denying service to same-sex couples is any different from denying service to African Americans or Jews. Can you imagine the outcry if a Christian was denied service in a kosher deli?
If you choose to live in a nation where there is a separation of church and state, where the government is not permitted to institute a national religion, then you must abide by those rules. What you do or say or teach in your home is a matter of personal choice; you cannot, however, impose those choices on strangers. How to pray, how to eat, or how to love is personal. In the public sphere, that is none of your business.
In other words, your conscience is yours and yours alone. Keep it in your head, your living room or your bedroom. Don't impose it on the rest of us. That is totally unconstitutional.
http://wifelyperson.blogspot.com/
7
In general, a businessman is free to decline to do business with anyone he chooses, for any reason or none at all. The only exceptions are for categories protected by the Civil Rights Acts: race, color, religion, national origin or sex. Even those exceptions only apply to businesses engaged in interstate commerce, unless there is an analogous state law.
If you think that, for example, it should be illegal to discriminate against tall people, or left handers, or...go lobby your congressman to pass a new law forbidding that. Until you persuade Congress to pass such a law, and a President to sign it, it's legal, as silly as it may seem to do so. Not everything you or the NYT dislikes is illegal, or should be; it is better to allow room for individual choice than for government to regulate every aspect of our lives.
If you think that, for example, it should be illegal to discriminate against tall people, or left handers, or...go lobby your congressman to pass a new law forbidding that. Until you persuade Congress to pass such a law, and a President to sign it, it's legal, as silly as it may seem to do so. Not everything you or the NYT dislikes is illegal, or should be; it is better to allow room for individual choice than for government to regulate every aspect of our lives.
1
One man's "equality" is another man's immorality.
Why should one man be forced to go against his morals
so that another can be "equal"?
People of faith have rights too.
Why should one man be forced to go against his morals
so that another can be "equal"?
People of faith have rights too.
If I, an atheist, were the physician on duty in the emergency room, and you were the bleeding patient, would I have the right to refuse you treatment because your faith goes against my morals?
1
Always amazing that the tyranny of the majority seems to remain so invisible to so many liberals:
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~ J.S. Mill On Liberty: Ch. II: Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion
"If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind."
~ J.S. Mill On Liberty: Ch. II: Of the Liberty of Thought and Discussion
1
Strawman much?
Nobody's "silencing" the deniers; they're free to make as much noise as they wish.
We're pointing out that anyone in the business of providing public accommodations cannot discriminate among customers whom they will serve.
It's really not that difficult.
Nobody's "silencing" the deniers; they're free to make as much noise as they wish.
We're pointing out that anyone in the business of providing public accommodations cannot discriminate among customers whom they will serve.
It's really not that difficult.
Atheists and Agnostics can hate people, too, but only religious people get government backing for their bigotry. Sure, it seems
Atheists and Agnostics have a smaller percentage of bigots per capita, but is it not government establishing religion when it supplies special protection from the law to only religious bigots?
Let Atheists and Agnostics have special protection, too. Let them discriminate without fear of prosecution just like the Religious Free Act would do for people who claim religion as an excuse. Then, the government would protect all bigots, not just religious ones..
Atheists and Agnostics have a smaller percentage of bigots per capita, but is it not government establishing religion when it supplies special protection from the law to only religious bigots?
Let Atheists and Agnostics have special protection, too. Let them discriminate without fear of prosecution just like the Religious Free Act would do for people who claim religion as an excuse. Then, the government would protect all bigots, not just religious ones..
7
"The gay rights people answer, ‘It doesn’t matter if you violate your conscience, because you’re just talking to your imaginary friend.’ ’’
I am sorry, but the above is bullscrap. There are many "believers" that ascribe to the notion that Jesus was the human manifestation of an all inclusive deity and that would have not only approved of, but would have actively supported the fulfillment of sincere love.
I am sorry, but the above is bullscrap. There are many "believers" that ascribe to the notion that Jesus was the human manifestation of an all inclusive deity and that would have not only approved of, but would have actively supported the fulfillment of sincere love.
2
Religious bigotry is against my religion.
7
"But supporters say the analogy to the exclusions of Jim Crow is inapt, because racial segregation was never central to Christian teaching the way traditional marriage has been."
First, traditional marriage is not "central" to Christian teaching.
Second, the acceptance of slavery in the New Testament churches would seem to indicate that racial prejudice was just as "central" to Christian teaching as traditional marriage.
First, traditional marriage is not "central" to Christian teaching.
Second, the acceptance of slavery in the New Testament churches would seem to indicate that racial prejudice was just as "central" to Christian teaching as traditional marriage.
6
Can ´religion' be defined please? And what does it have to do with sexuality or reproduction? Why is there a ´conscience' clause in Obamacare and not in the tax code? What does any of this mean and what are we talking about?
5
The problem modern religious individuals (including myself) have with the supreme court decision is that it considers the notion that marriage should exist between one man and one woman, a tradition older than most others and one that supports relationships that many species naturally require for species survival, bigotry and against reason. It doesn't only say it is a good idea and should be permissible under the law, but rather that one who believes otherwise is considered unvurtuous and hateful. This decision makes fundamental changes to the definition of family and relationships, and it seems unfair to require religious institutions to recognize those new definitions and consider them bigots for standing by their beliefs.
1
No one, not even the Supreme Court in this ruling, is even suggesting that "religious organizations recognize those new definitions." No clergy will be forced to perform marriages between same sex partners if it is against their doctrine, just as they are currently free to decline to perform marriages for other reasons and do so without repercussions.
Businesses, however, are not religious organizations, they enter into a contract with the government and agree to provide their services to the general public and in exchange they receive the benefits of being able to secure their income in doing so. They accept the rights and responsibilities of providing public accommodations, and their personal, private religious beliefs are not central, or even discussed, when they apply for and accept that business license as a for-profit, public entity. If they choose not to accommodate all of the public for illegal, unsubstantiated reasons, then they forfeit their rights when they forfeit that responsibility.
Businesses, however, are not religious organizations, they enter into a contract with the government and agree to provide their services to the general public and in exchange they receive the benefits of being able to secure their income in doing so. They accept the rights and responsibilities of providing public accommodations, and their personal, private religious beliefs are not central, or even discussed, when they apply for and accept that business license as a for-profit, public entity. If they choose not to accommodate all of the public for illegal, unsubstantiated reasons, then they forfeit their rights when they forfeit that responsibility.
It's not that hard - it's called the law. Yes, you can refuse to obey a law in protest - but then you get arrested and or fined. There is no "religious freedom" to disobey laws without sanction.
7
One way to end some of this nonsense is for the government to stop supporting religious organizations. End ALL tax exemptions for ALL religious organizations and watch how many disappear because their congregations won't bother supporting them. Organized religion is an albatross around the neck of free society - time to stop supporting it.
11
In the '50s, the Catholic Charities refused to allow adoptions to potential parents in a "mixed marriage". A young couple--she was Methodist, he was Catholic--were denied their petition to adopt me and my three siblings. As a consequence, we spent our formative years in an orphanage. On the bright side, I can blame my social ineptitude on an institutional upbringing.
7
Conservative (Evangelical) Christianity in the United States is nothing more than a political party, known as Republicans, masquerading as a religion. Further, its defining characteristic is linked more and more to discrimination rather than compassion and love. A political party that claims the number of tax and conscience exemptions claimed by the Christian Republican party, is practicing the very opposite of personal responsibility as they enjoy the rights of citizenship but are unwilling to take on the duties.
7
If Christians were getting bent out of shape over providing services to divorced people I would find their arguments more believable. After all, Jesus unequivocally condemned divorce. On the other hand, he was silent about homosexuality. It's obvious religion is being used as a rationalization for homophobia.
11
Christ wasn't silent about homosexuality because it wasn't a sin. There was no need to address it. Read the context of Christ and divorce. The pharisees were testing him. Educate yourself before commenting.
Jesus spoke up about the things he saw around him that he didn't like. His silence concerning homosexuality would seem to indicate that he had no problem with prevailing attitudes toward homosexuality in the time and place in which he lived, attitudes which were hardly favorable. Is that really where you want to go with this?
Mormons are not supposed to drink hot coffee or tea. Suppose that in a predominantly Mormon town, all of the bakeries refuse service to people who plan to serve their purchases with coffee. Would this be accepted as an exercise of religious freedom?
It seems to me the purchaser would be the one whose religious freedom is being infringed upon. The baker is in the business of selling cakes and should not be allowed to discriminate against people whose religious beliefs differ from their own. Similarly, a gay couple's religious beliefs allow for them to marry. To refuse service to the couple violates their religious freedom.
I think the only exception would be if the service provided is itself a religious act (e.g., a minister asked to lead a marriage ceremony).
It seems to me the purchaser would be the one whose religious freedom is being infringed upon. The baker is in the business of selling cakes and should not be allowed to discriminate against people whose religious beliefs differ from their own. Similarly, a gay couple's religious beliefs allow for them to marry. To refuse service to the couple violates their religious freedom.
I think the only exception would be if the service provided is itself a religious act (e.g., a minister asked to lead a marriage ceremony).
9
You are a merchant in America. Tax money was taken from all "kind" of citizens. This tax money supports the infrastructure for you to have a business. All paid. All get to eat cake and buy flowers.
By the way, the cake you sold to the person who looks "straight"; how do you know the cake was not for a mistress?
The only entity in America that can deny service based on a sexual issue is the church. A church in America will not be forced to ordain or employ LGBT persons.
I wish Fake News would stop fanning the flames of foolish thinking.
By the way, the cake you sold to the person who looks "straight"; how do you know the cake was not for a mistress?
The only entity in America that can deny service based on a sexual issue is the church. A church in America will not be forced to ordain or employ LGBT persons.
I wish Fake News would stop fanning the flames of foolish thinking.
9
And carrying out this foolishness, a truly religious believing business should be responsible for investigating all customers for possible secret infractions against its beliefs -- while definitely, easily. refusing the couple or others who have been open and honest about their "violation" of its beliefs.
Disagreeing with popular culture doesn't necessarily mean you're on the wrong side; neither is Christianity confined to conservatism. The ones exerting social controls are the people who try to force others to act against conscience, with the apparent goal of eventually (according to this article) compelling medical practitioners to perform abortions and church-run organizations to violate their beliefs. The Civil Rights Act prohibits discrimination only on the basis of race, color, religion, sex, and national origin, because these are inherent characteristics--except religion which The First protects--that the individual cannot change (can't change male or female chromosomes). Legalized discrimination would deny equality; however, including sexual orientation or any other trait under the Act would compromise civil, and religious or morals/values liberties. Having a different neural activity doesn't qualify a group for protections, since numerous conditions show a specific brain pattern. These are morality and autonomy issue. Government should keep hands off the cultural fabric, stay clear and let the people fight over it.
Religion is against my religion.
3
Define religion. Who is anyone to say what my personal religion is or is not? Which means if you allow a religious exemption to anyone who serves the public, they can claim a religious exemption for whatever reason they may choose, because if they choose "it is against their religion." No. If your job or business is engaged to serve the public, then if their request is legal, you are obliged to serve all of the public, without regard to your personal religion.
118
I wonder how many county court clerks refusing to provide marriage licenses to same sex couples are they themselves divorced?
61
Since so many religions in the USA allow divorce, of what relevance is that?
What has that to do with it? I'm Jewish and we can get divorced. I think for many protestants it's not a problem either, but not sure about Mormons.
The opening sentence of this article reads:
"‘I can’t. It’s against my religion.’’
What the religious right says today is:
"You can't. It's against my religion."
"‘I can’t. It’s against my religion.’’
What the religious right says today is:
"You can't. It's against my religion."
340
So, if I'm a minister from the Baptist faith, this means I must go against my faith and explicit instructions of the Bible and marry a gay couple? Because that's where this is headed.
Christians don't have a problem "serving gay couples," this isn't the same problem as racial discrimination. Christians take issue with being forced to take part in what they consider a an unholy union between same sex couples, and they shouldn't be forced to participate. Interesting, though, that articles fail to mention the difference between "We don't serve your kind," and "Our religion forbids us from partaking in your same-sex marriage."
Christians don't have a problem "serving gay couples," this isn't the same problem as racial discrimination. Christians take issue with being forced to take part in what they consider a an unholy union between same sex couples, and they shouldn't be forced to participate. Interesting, though, that articles fail to mention the difference between "We don't serve your kind," and "Our religion forbids us from partaking in your same-sex marriage."
No. What the adherents to religion are saying is, I can't participate in your sin. Please find someone else to participate in your ceremony.
No one is going to force any church or minister to perform a wedding they are opposed to on religious grounds. They already do have the right to refuse to marry anyone they wish, and they regularly exercise that right.
Someone with a business license to provide services to and accommodate the public, isn't in the same league at all. Their religious practices and beliefs are not central to their business, nor was it a part of their application process and what they agreed to in accepting their business license.
Someone with a business license to provide services to and accommodate the public, isn't in the same league at all. Their religious practices and beliefs are not central to their business, nor was it a part of their application process and what they agreed to in accepting their business license.
2
The phone book yellow pages list numerous businesses, from A to Z. If the owner of any of these businesses supports the spiritual/philosophical/ethical belief that gay people Do have a legal right to get married, then can he or she claim, "It's against my religion" to provide business services to the owner of a bakery or other business which Refuses to serve gay couples?
Should the government declare that only very conservative, fundamentalist religious beliefs are "true and valid" when considering claims about religious freedom?
Should the government declare that only very conservative, fundamentalist religious beliefs are "true and valid" when considering claims about religious freedom?
31
I say let it continue to be legal to discriminate, fire, house, etc gays. But make the business post it openly in their business. "NO GAYS ALLOWED!"
I don't have a problem with that. People are far more decent than the homophobes and will cease doing business with them.
I don't have a problem with that. People are far more decent than the homophobes and will cease doing business with them.
So if a bakery is asked to make a cake that reads "Joan in the best mom in the world" are they supporting that viewpoint and approving that message? Are they now actively or tacitly advocating for Joan's mothering choices by making the cake? It's ludicrous that baking a cake in a commercial bakery and selling it for profit is deemed an act of support for anything other than maybe capitalism.
147
No cake for YOU!
If the whole thing weren't an actual affront to civil rights, it would sound like something out of a Larry David show.
If the whole thing weren't an actual affront to civil rights, it would sound like something out of a Larry David show.
2
so you think that Walmart is wrong in refusing to make Confederate flag cakes (or now ISIS cakes, now that they know what the ISIS flag looks like)? You think that the EU should be condemned for refusing to allow export licenses that US states use for executions? You think that US drug companies should be required to sell execution drugs to the states? Fine if you do, I just don't see much consistency here on the part of the left. We (and I consider myself typically more left than otherwise) think it's just fine and dandy when corporations make moral judgments that we approve of, but fall all to pieces when corporations/businesses make moral judgments that we don't approve of. But this sort of selective outrage is going to come back and bite us.
My husband formerly managed a chain grocery store bakery and would occasionally have to decline orders for obscene cake designs for bachelor or bachelorette parties because his cake decorator would not be willing to decorate the cake as requested. But I really do not see how making a generic wedding cake would be a substantial burden for anyones religious beliefs. Because, really, when you think about it, weddings in and of themselves are pretty gay events.
A lot of religious zealots are missing the point of the gospels: compassion and forgiveness.
Even if you consider someone's lifestyle to be sinful, you must forgive. Some of Christ's original followers were sinners.
For example, I don't consider homosexuality to be sinful, but if I did, my religion commands me to forgive and treat the transgressor with kindness.
The gospels also warn about hypocrisy and judgement.
Only those without sin can throw stones.
Even if you consider someone's lifestyle to be sinful, you must forgive. Some of Christ's original followers were sinners.
For example, I don't consider homosexuality to be sinful, but if I did, my religion commands me to forgive and treat the transgressor with kindness.
The gospels also warn about hypocrisy and judgement.
Only those without sin can throw stones.
53
They've abandoned the gospels for the reasons you cited--compassion and forgiveness. Fundamentalist Christianity is an Old-Testament religion that has rejected the teachings of Jesus Christ in favor of the angry god, the war god, the vengeful god.
6
I'm a Presbyterian, and our faith - the Reformed faith - has always said that all of us are sinners, not just some of us. A church is for sinners, because there isn't anyone else available! We are saved not because we are good, but by God's grace. Not only do we believe that Jesus taught compassion and forgiveness, but it's the only logical way to go - it's something everyone needs, because we all have sinned.
.
.
1
Good points. The gospels have all sorts of punishments (stoning, etc.) that are ignored for the torture and inhumanity they were. Moreover, so much of the gospels have been reinterpreted my modern evangelicals to suit their own fear-inducing objectives.
What I don't get about a baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple, why can't s/he just say with a smile: "So sorry, I can't bake the cake, but there is a great baker down the street who does great work, sometimes better than mine."
At the same time, why would a gay couple even want to become a client of a bigoted attitude. Just move down the street to the better baker on the corner.
Kindness rules in every situation. Condemnation never wins.
What I don't get about a baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple, why can't s/he just say with a smile: "So sorry, I can't bake the cake, but there is a great baker down the street who does great work, sometimes better than mine."
At the same time, why would a gay couple even want to become a client of a bigoted attitude. Just move down the street to the better baker on the corner.
Kindness rules in every situation. Condemnation never wins.
"We don't serve your kind," is no longer acceptable by most Americans. The First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom is supposed to be a shield to protect, not a spear to do harm. I cannot see how someone's practice of religion is harmed by putting effigies of two grooms or of two brides on a cake harms either one's faith, one's religious practice or one's religious beliefs. I cannot see how the First Amendment allows anyone to judge and punish another person.
97
"No Irish need apply." "No Irish, no blacks, no dogs." "Juden werden hier nicht bedient." Et cetera. C'mon. As the Supreme Court takes us into the 21st century, can we leave the 19th and 20th behind?
3
There's a difference between 'not serving your kind' and 'not making particular kinds of products.' When Walmart refused to make a confederate flag cake it was not refusing to serve Southerners, who are more than welcome to buy cakes with different decorations. When bakeries refuse to make cakes for same sex weddings they are not refusing to serve gay customers, who are more than welcome to buy cookies or cakes for other occasions.
Moreover, If a business does not have a right to not put two male or two female figures on a cake, then I don't see how Walmart has the right to refuse to make the confederate cake. (After all that's just frosting....) (And, fwiw, I support same sex marriage, and think the confederate flag should not be flown in any official location. But I also take the first amendment, and freedom of conscience provisions, very seriously.)
Moreover, If a business does not have a right to not put two male or two female figures on a cake, then I don't see how Walmart has the right to refuse to make the confederate cake. (After all that's just frosting....) (And, fwiw, I support same sex marriage, and think the confederate flag should not be flown in any official location. But I also take the first amendment, and freedom of conscience provisions, very seriously.)
That's not the issue. No one is saying they won't serve gays. They're saying, they won't serve a gay wedding because the Bible is crystal clear on the subject. HUGE difference.
Abortion laws, which are in large part based on religions that believe that life begins at conception, violate the religious liberties of atheists and members of those religions that believe that life begins at some point after conception.
114
Nondiscrimination laws on the basis of sexual orientation are actually far more popular than marriage laws for same sex couples. Majorities of nearly every category of people support such laws. In fact, most people believe national laws already protect people on the basis of sexual orientation.
Support in the specific instance of letting businesses refuse wedding services to same sex couples on the basis of sexual orientation does collapse, although a slight majority (54%) oppose such discrimination even when supported by religious beliefs.
The issue is that you can't write a law specifically allowing discrimination against same sex couples on the basis of religious beliefs. Such a narrowly targeted law against a minority would almost certainly never survive constitutional review. (See Romer v. Evans.) And thus such laws need to be written more generally. The issue with that is it opens the doors to any ugly discrimination based on religious beliefs, including against interracial couples. Support for such laws collapse even further, as we saw in Indiana and Arkansas.
Support in the specific instance of letting businesses refuse wedding services to same sex couples on the basis of sexual orientation does collapse, although a slight majority (54%) oppose such discrimination even when supported by religious beliefs.
The issue is that you can't write a law specifically allowing discrimination against same sex couples on the basis of religious beliefs. Such a narrowly targeted law against a minority would almost certainly never survive constitutional review. (See Romer v. Evans.) And thus such laws need to be written more generally. The issue with that is it opens the doors to any ugly discrimination based on religious beliefs, including against interracial couples. Support for such laws collapse even further, as we saw in Indiana and Arkansas.
14
How far will the invocation of "religious liberty" be allowed to go? What happens when individuals and corporations refuse to pay taxes based on their objections to their revenue being used for weapons, wars and killing? Having to pay for such things could be perceived as a violation of their religious liberty.
40
It's been tried in the past. People have been arrested and fought conviction, and the tax laws have been upheld at the highest judicial levels. Doesn't mean it won't happen again, but the outcome will most likely be the same.
15
The question should be whether there's another way for the state to obtain its legitimate interests. (That was the heart of the ruling on the Hobby Lobby case, as I understand it. The state's interest in making sure people had access to birth control could be satisfied by ways other than making Hobby Lobby pay for it.) Allowing people to opt out of the tax laws would be an administrative nightmare. But what's the administrative nightmare in requiring that couples go to a different bakery, down the street?
I'm sure "that couple" will have no problem going to a different baker down the street. After all, who would want someone who thinks their an abomination making something they will be eating? So far, no one has been forced to provide their services once they've outed themselves as discriminatory. They've only been forced *by the state* to pay the applicable fines.
1
Not eating non-kosher or non-halal food or homeschooling your children is a decision that affects you and you alone.
Refusing to provide services, healthcare, and work to others doesn't affect you at all--in fact, it only affects those subject to your 'freedoms'.
There's no problem with Amish people not choosing to participate in modern society or Muslims wearing headscarves, because they're exercising their religion for themselves, which is exactly how 'religious freedom' is supposed to play out.
When 'religious freedom' is imposed on others, it's a restriction on their freedoms--in fact, it's shades of theocratic behavior.
Refusing to provide services, healthcare, and work to others doesn't affect you at all--in fact, it only affects those subject to your 'freedoms'.
There's no problem with Amish people not choosing to participate in modern society or Muslims wearing headscarves, because they're exercising their religion for themselves, which is exactly how 'religious freedom' is supposed to play out.
When 'religious freedom' is imposed on others, it's a restriction on their freedoms--in fact, it's shades of theocratic behavior.
195
If you have to make a law that hurts a number of people, just to prove your morals or faith, then you have no true morals or faith to prove.
1
In the more relevant cases - which will arise - religious schools, or churches, for example, shouldn't be forced to hire people whose lifestyles violate their beliefs. Those folks can go work at another school, or church. There are some things certain religious people will not do, and they will be willing to pay the consequences, I imagine.
All of these problems would be minimized if we just did 2 things:
1) Had complete separation of Church and State (as called for in the Constitution and supported by Jefferson, Washington, and other Founding Fathers, and emphasized by JFK in his famous speech).
2) Stopped putting religion above or on a par with government.
There used to be a better balance between the two, but for the past 40 years, the religious right has waged a largely successful propaganda campaign to increase their political. The religious/evangelical war against secular government has done enormous damage, allowing religiously motivated discrimination to limit the rights of women, gays, and everyone who doesn't agree with the Christian view of things.
Today the words "religious freedom" do not mean the right to practice religion at church or home without government interference (which was never under attack). It means the right to impose their beliefs on others, discriminate against others, take away the rights of others.
The idea that religious liberty needs protection is false and absurd, a complete lie. (How could a country as religious as America, where over 80% identify as religious, possibly be subject to a "war against religion" - who exactly is doing the fighting, the 6% of atheists who could never become President?)
History will no doubt show that today's religious intolerance is very destructive. Hopefully one day we will become a more enlightened country.
1) Had complete separation of Church and State (as called for in the Constitution and supported by Jefferson, Washington, and other Founding Fathers, and emphasized by JFK in his famous speech).
2) Stopped putting religion above or on a par with government.
There used to be a better balance between the two, but for the past 40 years, the religious right has waged a largely successful propaganda campaign to increase their political. The religious/evangelical war against secular government has done enormous damage, allowing religiously motivated discrimination to limit the rights of women, gays, and everyone who doesn't agree with the Christian view of things.
Today the words "religious freedom" do not mean the right to practice religion at church or home without government interference (which was never under attack). It means the right to impose their beliefs on others, discriminate against others, take away the rights of others.
The idea that religious liberty needs protection is false and absurd, a complete lie. (How could a country as religious as America, where over 80% identify as religious, possibly be subject to a "war against religion" - who exactly is doing the fighting, the 6% of atheists who could never become President?)
History will no doubt show that today's religious intolerance is very destructive. Hopefully one day we will become a more enlightened country.
200
The Constitution actually doesn't call for separation of Church and State. All the First Amendment says is that Congress may not pass any law respecting an establishment of religion or impeding the free exercise of religion. This whole "Wall of Separation" was invented by the Supreme Court at the behest of anti-Catholic activists.
Jefferson's famous "wall" was designed to keep government out of religion, not the reverse.
"The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more . . . pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see . . . the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your . . . prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802"
"The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more . . . pleasing.
Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see . . . the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties.
I reciprocate your . . . prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem.
Th Jefferson
Jan. 1. 1802"
"Jefferson's famous "wall" was designed to keep government out of religion, not the reverse."
It works both ways. You don't get one without the other, given the establishment clause and all. ;0)
It works both ways. You don't get one without the other, given the establishment clause and all. ;0)
2
Unlike in earlier eras, when religious objections let the faithful separate themselves from institutions they felt they could not support, many conservatives now deploy the phrase as a way of excluding other people.
I disagree with Christian conservatives on this issue, but they feel they're supporting the institution of gay marriage by providing services for gay weddings, so they separate themselves from the institution by refusing to provide those services.
The muscle of the conservative Christian movement, Siegel and NeJaime argue, enhances its ‘‘power to demean.’’ Women who have been refused abortion services report feeling judged and mortified.
People who peacefully protest abortion feel judged and mortified by the response they get from abortion supporters. Feelings are beside the point. Many Christian conservatives freely admit their own faults. They aren’t throwing stones, and they aren’t demeaning. They’re standing up for what their Bibles tell them.
Gay couples turned away by wedding vendors say the same. ‘‘The phrase ‘religious liberty’ has become an overused talisman,’’ the Indiana University law professor Steve Sanders told me. ‘‘Most of the invocations lately have nothing to do with actual infringements of free exercise. They’re about political and cultural dissent from gay rights.’’
How would Sanders know if someone’s conscience prohibits them from helping with a gay wedding?
I disagree with Christian conservatives on this issue, but they feel they're supporting the institution of gay marriage by providing services for gay weddings, so they separate themselves from the institution by refusing to provide those services.
The muscle of the conservative Christian movement, Siegel and NeJaime argue, enhances its ‘‘power to demean.’’ Women who have been refused abortion services report feeling judged and mortified.
People who peacefully protest abortion feel judged and mortified by the response they get from abortion supporters. Feelings are beside the point. Many Christian conservatives freely admit their own faults. They aren’t throwing stones, and they aren’t demeaning. They’re standing up for what their Bibles tell them.
Gay couples turned away by wedding vendors say the same. ‘‘The phrase ‘religious liberty’ has become an overused talisman,’’ the Indiana University law professor Steve Sanders told me. ‘‘Most of the invocations lately have nothing to do with actual infringements of free exercise. They’re about political and cultural dissent from gay rights.’’
How would Sanders know if someone’s conscience prohibits them from helping with a gay wedding?
4
In other words, they're breaking the law in violating others' Constitutional rights. The Supreme Court has so ruled.
1
If you freely choose to do business in public for profit, you do so to serve all the public. It's your choice. If you don't want to serve the public for profit, don't. But don't try and claim special business preferences for your bigotry.
2
And what if my deeply held religious beliefs include throwing stones through the windows of bakeries that refuse to serve gay people?
2
The solution to the “limits of religious freedom” problem is to do what most of us thought we HAD done until Republican appointments turned the Supreme Court into the College of Cardinals West: we say that laws which are religion-neutral on their face, and have as their purpose some "general welfare" goal, are binding on everyone, though we'll try to incorporate reasonable accommodation for cases that don't seriously undercut the law's purpose. And ONLY cases that don’t seriously undercut the law’s purposes. E.g.: commercial landlords can't refuse to rent to unmarried couples on the ground that God disapproves of non-marital sex, but if I rent out a room in my home, I can give my religious prejudices free rein. Reasonable.
Also reasonable to say "sorry" to churches that claim expanding the church parking lot in violation of a zoning ordinance is "free exercise of religion." And to tell commercial enterprises – universities, hospitals, pharmacists, cake-bakers and peddlers of beads and baubles -- that the morals of their employees and customers are not theirs to supervise, even if they really truly believe God has commanded them to do it. If that offends them, so be it.
Also reasonable to say "sorry" to churches that claim expanding the church parking lot in violation of a zoning ordinance is "free exercise of religion." And to tell commercial enterprises – universities, hospitals, pharmacists, cake-bakers and peddlers of beads and baubles -- that the morals of their employees and customers are not theirs to supervise, even if they really truly believe God has commanded them to do it. If that offends them, so be it.
37
It seems to me that if an organization openly declares itself a Christian organization, then people can choose whether or not to patronize it. But they must identify themselves as such up front (big sign out front!) and not in small print later in the contract.
Seriously, how many married gay couples are likely to attend graduate school at (for example) Liberty College? or to have their wedding flowers done by "Roses - a Christian florist"?
However, if you are just "Roses Flowers" then everyone, regardless of sexual orientation or anything else, should be able to expect courteous services as advertised.
As for people working in public service - registrars and court clerks - they cannot, as a representative of the government, refuse to perform their duties because of "strongly held personal religious beliefs". If they cannot in conscience provide a marriage license to a gay couple, resign and get another job in the private sector.
Seriously, how many married gay couples are likely to attend graduate school at (for example) Liberty College? or to have their wedding flowers done by "Roses - a Christian florist"?
However, if you are just "Roses Flowers" then everyone, regardless of sexual orientation or anything else, should be able to expect courteous services as advertised.
As for people working in public service - registrars and court clerks - they cannot, as a representative of the government, refuse to perform their duties because of "strongly held personal religious beliefs". If they cannot in conscience provide a marriage license to a gay couple, resign and get another job in the private sector.
47
There are lots of very religious gay people. Being gay and religious is not mutually exclusive. That's part of the problem here ... certain people have decided that their version of a particular religion is the only correct one, and everyone else is simply an infidel and should be shunned.
1
So when somebody wants a Muslim t-shirt maker to print up t-shirts that are derogatory to the prophet Mohammed, we're going to fine or jail him for refusing.
7
Not even remotely analogous.
6
No. Every business has a full right to what products and services they choose to sell. If the content of a product is objectionable, they may certainly refuse to sell it. Take the case of two Colorado bakers, one who refused to serve a gay couple, and the other who refused to bake a cake with anti-gay messages. The state board ruled against the first and in favor of the second.
There's a difference between the two: One refused to sell to a certain person. The second refused to sell a certain product. The first is not legal. The second is completely legal.
Had these gay couples asked for something specifically that was objectionable, say having rainbow cakes or even two same gender figurines on top, they would have had a case.
They didn't. As soon as they found out who it was to, they refused them service.
"We don't sell that" isn't discrimination.
"We don't sell that to your kind" is discrimination.
There's a difference between the two: One refused to sell to a certain person. The second refused to sell a certain product. The first is not legal. The second is completely legal.
Had these gay couples asked for something specifically that was objectionable, say having rainbow cakes or even two same gender figurines on top, they would have had a case.
They didn't. As soon as they found out who it was to, they refused them service.
"We don't sell that" isn't discrimination.
"We don't sell that to your kind" is discrimination.
77
Let's make it perfectly analogous. Will devout Muslims be targeted for not participating in a gay wedding? My guess is no. Why? Because we perceive them as people who live their faith authentically. And we perceive Christians as hypocrites who don't. So, if they refuse, then they must be crushed out of business instead of taking the business to one of their many, many competitors who are supportive.
12
I always thought that morality was something you applied to yourself, not something you applied to others. So if your religion forbids homosexuality then don't do it. If your religion forbids certain foods, don't eat it. But why should anyone's religion forbid anything to a nonbeliever?
157
Excellent point
12
If a believer demands that I, as a nonbeliever, observe his taboos in the public domain, he is not asking for my respect, but for my submission. Flemming Rose
2
Let's take that thought a bit further: If you don't want to kick puppies, then don't kick puppies. If you don't want to beat your children with a belt, then don't.
As a people, we allow and disallow behavior all the time. We recognize when something harms another or infringes on someone's rights. Were I in the floral business, I would sell flowers to anyone. However, if it was requested that I participate - even in a small way - in a same-sex union, my faith does not allow me to do that. I would respectfully decline.
What if a gay couple wanted to rent a hall owned/used by Orthodox Jews on a Saturday? The owners would say, "No, we don't rent on the Sabbath." Is your answer to say "You must! We have a right to rent this hall anytime we want!" or should that couple seek out a hall that is not owned by Orthodox Jews?
As a people, we allow and disallow behavior all the time. We recognize when something harms another or infringes on someone's rights. Were I in the floral business, I would sell flowers to anyone. However, if it was requested that I participate - even in a small way - in a same-sex union, my faith does not allow me to do that. I would respectfully decline.
What if a gay couple wanted to rent a hall owned/used by Orthodox Jews on a Saturday? The owners would say, "No, we don't rent on the Sabbath." Is your answer to say "You must! We have a right to rent this hall anytime we want!" or should that couple seek out a hall that is not owned by Orthodox Jews?
One of the problems with the religious liberty efforts is that none of these resisters can point to a verifiable, established religious doctrine they are adopting wholesale. If these bakers or pizza makers were requiring all their clients to affirm that they were complying with the religious teachings of some denomination or church, then we might be able to assess the actual validity of their claims. At the moment, I don't know of any that also refuse to serve couples that plan to use birth control, or who have been engaging in premarital sex, etc... To my knowledge NONE of these resisters have even asked these questions of opposite sex couples. Religious resistance without broad adherence to some established, verifiable religious doctrine is just personal bias. We can't operate any kind of legal or social system if we call personal biases "religion." That makes a joke of religion and creates a society where no laws are enforceable.
90
I'm sure that if these Christian bakers were asked to produce a cake for an IUD insertion party or an abortion celebration, they would refuse that too.
Unfortunately, I have read of instances where pharmacies have refused to fill birth control prescriptions. I also read of a practicing medical doctor who refuses to prescribe any birth control products.
The nature of this problem truly eludes me. Any serious reading of the New Testament makes it pretty clear what Jesus would do. There are many true Christians who "Judge not," and "Love one another, as I have loved you."
I question the maturity of believers who feel so threatened by those who hold different beliefs. The extent of the hatred (or perhaps it's fear) seems to increase at the same rate as the capacity for LOVE decreases. This suggests a really immature understanding of the most basic teachings of the carpenter from Nazareth.
I question the maturity of believers who feel so threatened by those who hold different beliefs. The extent of the hatred (or perhaps it's fear) seems to increase at the same rate as the capacity for LOVE decreases. This suggests a really immature understanding of the most basic teachings of the carpenter from Nazareth.
38
It's simply using religion as a fig leaf for bigotry. There is nothing else to it, and they know it, but they're working very hard to pretend to be oh-so offended. It's total hypocrisy.
Sadly, the Christian faith as interpreted by many of its followers puts much more stock in what Paul said than what Jesus said or chose not to say.
Paul's words are the words Jesus gave him. It's good to put great stock in Jesus' teachings but ignoring the words he gave to Paul is just plain silly.
Ah, religious intolerance..... It's not just for women anymore.
39
There is a significant difference between religious "liberty" and "tyranny". When it is the lawful responsibility of a county clerk to issue marriage licenses to those eligible under the law, it is a responsibility of the clerk to issue the license. If the clerk objects on so called religious grounds, the clerk has the option to resign. No one forced the clerk to seek their job. Those seeking to obtain a marriage license in their county have no choice but go to the county clerk's office. A non-compliant clerk is "imposing" their values which is wrong! Imagine if a member of an Amish Sect became a county clerk and decided not to issue driver's licenses because their religious principles did not allow for driving automobiles?? Is there a difference?
151
Economic necessity forces people to get jobs. County clerks aren't there because it is a hobby. Forcing someone to change their religious beliefs or resign from their job is a horrible choice. The Supreme Court upheld the right of that Muslim girl to work at Abercrombie even though the fact she is wearing a headscarf impacts every single person who sees her in a small way. Wouldn't it be easier just to let the next county clerk issue the license?
Then those county clerks can get another job. There is nothing that guarantees them the particular position of county clerk. If their religious beliefs are so crippling that they cannot perform the duties of the office, which they SWORE TO DO, then they can go get another job.
They made the "horrible choice" themselves and only have to look in a mirror.
They made the "horrible choice" themselves and only have to look in a mirror.
The Constitution bars discrimination against someone because of their religion. Forcing a County clerk out because of his/her religious beliefs violates the constitution.
Let's not forget that Southern Evangelicals and Calvinistic Protestants have explained slavery and inferior status proper for Blacks, Hamitic people, based on biblical teaching: Noah's curse of his son Ham legitimized by the writer who wrote inspired by God. The right to religious belief would support the right to own slaves and maintain segregation.
59
Those biblical references were, in fact, used to justify slavery. Churches divided into southern and northern branches. In many southern churches, slavery was defended as part of God's plan. In the north, some churches preached abolition of slavery and others preached defense of the Union as government ordained by God. The different points of view were part of the forces that led to the Civil War. After the war was lost, religion in the south supported the separation of races and other expressions of white supremacy. Both ideas were cultural rather than religious at their core and both were damaging to those who were oppressed.
There are biblical injunctions against homosexuality, but, like many other concepts, the Bible does not address the issue of gay marriage. In our society, marriage is a civil concept that grants certain rights and responsibilities to people. The religious aspect of marriage is a kind of parallel construction. The differences get confused in peoples' minds.
There are biblical injunctions against homosexuality, but, like many other concepts, the Bible does not address the issue of gay marriage. In our society, marriage is a civil concept that grants certain rights and responsibilities to people. The religious aspect of marriage is a kind of parallel construction. The differences get confused in peoples' minds.
2
This is incorrect. Even Ms. Bazelon (the article's writer) mentions how Christian teaching was never central to racial segregation in this country. And the slavery in the Bible's New Testament was not the same type that occurred during the ugliest episode of this nation's history. "Slaves" in the New Testament were indentured servants who voluntarily worked in order to work off debts they could not afford to pay and were no longer in bondage after the debts were satisfied. Sure, the labor was hard and they were often treated poorly (just like many of us who work for horrible bosses). But, indentured servitude (New Testament slavery) is very much different from the African American slavery or even Jewish slavery in the Old Testament who were property, violently forced from their homes and separated from their families to live a life of hard labor and torture with no end in sight. The Bible clearly condemns this slavery. To say that Biblical teaching "explains" slavery and "inferior status proper for Blacks" is misinformed, erroneous and insulting to all of us who are of color who worship together in churches every Sunday. I welcome you to join us one Sunday, even if it's to question or express skepticism. :)
Just curious, how does your church differentiate between biblical passages being clear vs. allegory vs. contradicts with another passage? If the bible is so clear then why are there so many interpretations of it and so many different churches with different theologies, all based on this one book? If the bible's position on slavery is so clear then how did so many people get it wrong? Are you willing to allow that those other people's interpretation is correct and yours is wrong? Zoom out a little further: are you willing to allow that the bible is not the only holy book? Zoom out further: willing to allow yours is not the only god to believe in? Further: willing to allow there might not be any gods?
2
I find this whole debate so ridiculously lacking in actual reason.
Religious leaders complain that homosexuality is a sin. Which implies that it is a choice. And, they claim that it is a sin greater than the myriad other sins, such as witchcraft and adultery and coveting neighborly livestock. Evidence, of course, has proven that it isn't - that complying with Christian doctrine in fact sentences gay and lesbian people to lives without sexual or romantic connection, something few Christians would be willing to volunteer for (look at Bristol Palin for an example). Additionally, this is the only sin which is contageous- simply interacting with the sinner spreads the sin!
On the other hand, religion and how one chooses to practice it are entirely optional. There are many Christian denominations that embrace gay members and understand the tricky nature of biblical interpretation (after all, it was once considered a religious mandate to kill witches and heretics). If one CHOOSES a religious doctrine that prevents them from interacting with others, they should reap the benefits and consequences of that choice.
So basically, the rights to choose to be prejudiced are being held above human needs such as love and companionship.
Basically, it is just a way of saying that prejudice isn't bad as long as someone is really, really convinced it is justified.
Religious leaders complain that homosexuality is a sin. Which implies that it is a choice. And, they claim that it is a sin greater than the myriad other sins, such as witchcraft and adultery and coveting neighborly livestock. Evidence, of course, has proven that it isn't - that complying with Christian doctrine in fact sentences gay and lesbian people to lives without sexual or romantic connection, something few Christians would be willing to volunteer for (look at Bristol Palin for an example). Additionally, this is the only sin which is contageous- simply interacting with the sinner spreads the sin!
On the other hand, religion and how one chooses to practice it are entirely optional. There are many Christian denominations that embrace gay members and understand the tricky nature of biblical interpretation (after all, it was once considered a religious mandate to kill witches and heretics). If one CHOOSES a religious doctrine that prevents them from interacting with others, they should reap the benefits and consequences of that choice.
So basically, the rights to choose to be prejudiced are being held above human needs such as love and companionship.
Basically, it is just a way of saying that prejudice isn't bad as long as someone is really, really convinced it is justified.
75
I would take another look at your argument. I doubt that very many denomination consider associating with a gay person a sin. For example, my religion doesn't.
5
You're covered in the 3rd paragraph , relax
5
Picking which Biblical "truth" to obey among the many prohibitions is decidedly political. Why not focus on wearing clothing made of two kinds of cloth? How about planting fields with two kinds of crop being unacceptable with mandated gleaning in all those mid western fields? 1850 it was slavery, 2015 it is same sex and women's access to healthcare, next is what's worrisome. Face it the Bible justifies bigotry.
2
Religious liberty is intended to prevent persecution against persons of any given faith, not as a vector to discriminate against others. Hence, the use of the word 'liberty'. You can practice your faith to the fullest commitment, so long as it doesn't interfere with the rights of other persons. A 'Right' and a 'Liberty' are not equivalent.
You have the right to religious freedom. Religious liberty only extends as far as it does not impugn upon someone else's life, liberties, happiness. This includes their right to religious freedom (or lack of religion) as an expression of their beliefs. Sorry if their beliefs are not the same as your own.
You have the right to religious freedom. Religious liberty only extends as far as it does not impugn upon someone else's life, liberties, happiness. This includes their right to religious freedom (or lack of religion) as an expression of their beliefs. Sorry if their beliefs are not the same as your own.
85
That was true before Hobby Lobby. I'm not so sure anymore.
The Constitution doesn't say that. There are no limitations to religious freedom.
'...a companywide policy banning head coverings, was asking for ‘‘favored treatment’’ — to which she was entitled by federal employment law. ‘‘This is really easy,’’ Justice Antonin Scalia said...'
There is nothing in the First Amendment that allows for ‘‘favored treatment’’ of religious beliefs and, in fact, those sixteen words do just the opposite: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...'
This clearly states that the government shall remain neutral on religious beliefs, neither for or against, so how did SCOTUS interpret that to mean that religious beliefs deserve 'special treatment'?
(It also begs the question of why religious institutions receive tax exempt status way beyond any non-religious charities, but once SCOTUS rules that the First Amendment calls for special treatment for all religions, the door is open to endless abuse.)
There is nothing in the First Amendment that allows for ‘‘favored treatment’’ of religious beliefs and, in fact, those sixteen words do just the opposite: 'Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof...'
This clearly states that the government shall remain neutral on religious beliefs, neither for or against, so how did SCOTUS interpret that to mean that religious beliefs deserve 'special treatment'?
(It also begs the question of why religious institutions receive tax exempt status way beyond any non-religious charities, but once SCOTUS rules that the First Amendment calls for special treatment for all religions, the door is open to endless abuse.)
48
You're assuming that the only federal employment law is stated in the constitution?
The First Amendment and, in fact, all the Amendments, address only what the government can allow or prohibit, federal or state.
1
Not correct. The Bill of Rights was enacted to protect the people from Government tyranny.
The quote from Professor Laycock ascribes an atheist motivation to those who support non-discrimination against gay couples: ‘It doesn’t matter if you violate your conscience, because you’re just talking to your imaginary friend.’ With this straw man, unfounded assertion, he turns the issue to one of believers vs. non-believers. The members of the many churches, synagogues, temples, etc., who have accepted gay marriage as compatible with their belief systems might be surprised that this acceptance has turned them into atheists.
And, as a matter of curiosity from a non-believer, what has happened to the denial of claims of bigotry from, at least, Christian apologists, for their anti-gay position: "lover the sinner, hate the sin"? Is the sin eating the wedding cake? I don't see much love here.
And, as a matter of curiosity from a non-believer, what has happened to the denial of claims of bigotry from, at least, Christian apologists, for their anti-gay position: "lover the sinner, hate the sin"? Is the sin eating the wedding cake? I don't see much love here.
22
If County Clerks can have an exemption from giving licenses to gay couples, why can't letter carriers be exempt from carrying mail to our oh-so-distasteful gay addresses?
The whole religious "freedom" argument is hogwash.
The whole religious "freedom" argument is hogwash.
154
Indeed, why can't the clerk in the IRS office refuse to process the tax return of a legal married gay couple -- or just arbitrarily change the marital status to "single?" Or the clerk in the Social Security office refuse to process claims to benefits based on a legal gay marriage -- or just deny them? Just where do these folks get to draw the line? The answer is: Public officials carry out the duties of their public office. All of them. If they wish to refuse some of these duties, they should leave. On their own, by resigning, or by termination.
47
This particular argument might be hogwash, but the large religious freedom discussion is not. For example, my college has an honor code which prohibits students from engaging in extramarital sex as well has homosexual relations. This is part of my church's doctrine. the Constitution provides me "free exercise of religion," not freedom of religion, "free exercise of religion." Should my school be punished then for not providing same-sex on-campus housing? Does the government forcing my college to do so violate its "free exercise of religion"?
These are questions that will need to be answered, and this argument is definitely not "hogwash."
These are questions that will need to be answered, and this argument is definitely not "hogwash."
1
To Colin Snider: It most certainly is hogwash, and I say that as a professor of law. The government is forcing your college to do nothing, although - given its so-called "honor code" - I would imagine that your school could benefit from quite a bit of introspection, reflection and, dare I hope, reasoned thinking.
5
Excellent overview which raises the important questions for the discussions which need to follow.
As I read the article, I was struck by the similarities to the Vietnam-era draft controversies. When drafted men proposed they had "religious" objections to serving, the various local draft boards were required to make decisions--with life or death consequences--about the sincerity of a person's religious convictions. Could a mainstream Lutheran or Catholic avoid the draft despite no official prohibition in church teachings? While I don't remember nationwide court cases, I do remember the agony of those who were confronted with a choice to serve or be a criminal--and the damage that came with either choice.
It is very easy to doubt the sincerity of the current crop of people waving the "religious liberty" banner over the issue of marriage equality. The harm to a person with religious objections to same sex marriage that comes from cake baking or flower arranging seems trivial at best.
Choosing to deny service to same sex couples only while second marriages of divorced people are happily business opportunities seems discriminatory. Just how deeply into one's customer's "sins" are businesses permitted to explore? Can one ask if any of the Hobby Lobby banned birth control are being taken? Can a florist or a baker require evidence of premarital counseling? Can a photographer ask to see a copy of the wedding vows before agreeing to take photos of the ceremony?
As I read the article, I was struck by the similarities to the Vietnam-era draft controversies. When drafted men proposed they had "religious" objections to serving, the various local draft boards were required to make decisions--with life or death consequences--about the sincerity of a person's religious convictions. Could a mainstream Lutheran or Catholic avoid the draft despite no official prohibition in church teachings? While I don't remember nationwide court cases, I do remember the agony of those who were confronted with a choice to serve or be a criminal--and the damage that came with either choice.
It is very easy to doubt the sincerity of the current crop of people waving the "religious liberty" banner over the issue of marriage equality. The harm to a person with religious objections to same sex marriage that comes from cake baking or flower arranging seems trivial at best.
Choosing to deny service to same sex couples only while second marriages of divorced people are happily business opportunities seems discriminatory. Just how deeply into one's customer's "sins" are businesses permitted to explore? Can one ask if any of the Hobby Lobby banned birth control are being taken? Can a florist or a baker require evidence of premarital counseling? Can a photographer ask to see a copy of the wedding vows before agreeing to take photos of the ceremony?
34
I would note that war objectors have often risked serious jail time to exercise their deepest beliefs of conscience. Contrast this with county clerks who claim conscientiously to refuse to issue marriage licenses to gay couples, but have not yet (to my knowledge) expressed the moral courage to risk even their jobs by doing so.
69
One did resign the other day, it was in the news. (Hey, credit where credit is due.)
There have been several who've resigned and it will continue to happen...
While it is a far stretch to apply one's religious liberty to control what others do, I would like to give my evangelical friends the benefit of the doubt in that their actual concern is in being forced themselves to violate their beliefs. This is not so much in providing cakes or flowers, but in some of the "hard cases" that Justice Roberts alludes to. The fact that they may be worried about hard cases that frankly may not yet exist does not mean their point is not valid. Some of us evangelicals may rejoice with the legitimate dignity and respect that the Supreme Court ruling has recognized for gays, but both sides (and I regret there are sides at all) need to be careful to not extend their freedoms beyond the boundaries of mutual respect. Evangelical churches may fear having their sermons policed by the government for unacceptable content; they need to be shown their fears are groundless even while they need to understand the legitimate fears of gays of being labeled second-class citizens.
1
The door to your home and the door to your place of worship, the two places where all religion belongs.
The Dutch of the XVII c. 'Golden Age' who gave us oil paint, the art gallery, genre painting and still life, letter writing, the postal service, international trade, the stock market, the tulip and gin, also embraced religious tolerance, “freedom of religion” ... and FROM it.
While the they were free to believe or not in whatever got them through the night, it was to be done so privately. Banned were all outward manifestations and religious symbols, ergo: no proselytizing, no problem.
The result was one of the greatest cultural watersheds in history: a time of science and commerce, exploration, philosophy, art, literature, music that became a refuge for ALL at a moment ripe with religious persecution. Baruch Spinoza, the Portuguese Jewish philosopher, flourished there while working placidly as a lens grinder; Isaac Newton published his treatises there. Rembrandt, Van Dyck and Vermeer came out of that time free from religious obstruction and intolerance.
“Everybody's got to believe in something. I believe I'll have another beer.” ~ W. C. FIELDS
I am very religious. I drink RELIGIOUSLY – it's my faith – at home or in a bar or eatery. If I can't drink in public, why should anyone pray or preach.
"More people are driven insane through religious hysteria than by drinking alcohol?" ~ W. C. FIELDS
The Dutch of the XVII c. 'Golden Age' who gave us oil paint, the art gallery, genre painting and still life, letter writing, the postal service, international trade, the stock market, the tulip and gin, also embraced religious tolerance, “freedom of religion” ... and FROM it.
While the they were free to believe or not in whatever got them through the night, it was to be done so privately. Banned were all outward manifestations and religious symbols, ergo: no proselytizing, no problem.
The result was one of the greatest cultural watersheds in history: a time of science and commerce, exploration, philosophy, art, literature, music that became a refuge for ALL at a moment ripe with religious persecution. Baruch Spinoza, the Portuguese Jewish philosopher, flourished there while working placidly as a lens grinder; Isaac Newton published his treatises there. Rembrandt, Van Dyck and Vermeer came out of that time free from religious obstruction and intolerance.
“Everybody's got to believe in something. I believe I'll have another beer.” ~ W. C. FIELDS
I am very religious. I drink RELIGIOUSLY – it's my faith – at home or in a bar or eatery. If I can't drink in public, why should anyone pray or preach.
"More people are driven insane through religious hysteria than by drinking alcohol?" ~ W. C. FIELDS
36
PS -
"Don't pray in my school and I won't think in your church." ~ ANONYMOUS
"Don't pray in my school and I won't think in your church." ~ ANONYMOUS
45
My immediate reaction is to question the benefits of any Supreme Court decision that angers a portion of the voters and leads to people doing what they want anyway because of religious right to choose or personal objections.
Right now in a political world fraught with dissent and conflicting opinions, there will be no correct answers for our many varieties of challenges.
My solution is to just sit back and let time have its way, What is volatile now will cool down and changes will come about.
Right now in a political world fraught with dissent and conflicting opinions, there will be no correct answers for our many varieties of challenges.
My solution is to just sit back and let time have its way, What is volatile now will cool down and changes will come about.
2
"Justice delayed is justice denied." Also, srsly?
3
You're right. Even if your advice goes unheeded, Time and Death will have their merciful way. Judging by its lopsided age demographics, this form of bigotry has a terminal condition.
Your freedom of religion ends where my freedom from religion begins.
178
That's not what the Constitution says. There are no limitations to religious freedom in the Constitution.
I'm opposed to same sex marriage. I believe the Supreme Court overstepped the Constitution by making it a Constitutional right.
But that ship has now sailed and the law of the land prevails. A business that is open to the public cannot start deciding to which part of the population it will sell its products of services. Unless it's a religious organization, it should not be able to decide whom to hire - the Constitution says we cannot do that.
I very much hope that religious organizations and colleges will be protected from having to violate their conscience, but they're going to lose that right if they also insist that members can pick and choose whom to serve of sell. There is a VERY vocal anti-religious movement in this country today that would love nothing more than to take away tax-exempt status to churches and religious schools, and perhaps someday, even ban them.
Let's not provide them with the ammunition to do so.
But that ship has now sailed and the law of the land prevails. A business that is open to the public cannot start deciding to which part of the population it will sell its products of services. Unless it's a religious organization, it should not be able to decide whom to hire - the Constitution says we cannot do that.
I very much hope that religious organizations and colleges will be protected from having to violate their conscience, but they're going to lose that right if they also insist that members can pick and choose whom to serve of sell. There is a VERY vocal anti-religious movement in this country today that would love nothing more than to take away tax-exempt status to churches and religious schools, and perhaps someday, even ban them.
Let's not provide them with the ammunition to do so.
5
Sounds to me that you support discrimination based on religious views. So, if I own a grocery store, its OK for me to post a sign that says "No service to non-whites, Jews, Mormons, Women unaccompanied by their husbands, and anyone else my personal religion objects to."
5
You are absolutely correct about one thing. When churches claim tax exemptions for dozens of residences for all types of employees (even janitors), when churches occupy huge tracts of land surrounded by government-built and maintained roads and utilities, and when church leaders rake in millions in salaries with outright political exhortations using fear-based messages about infidels and a war on religion, there are those of us who ARE completely in favor of challenging the tax exempt status of churches.
17
You're playing victim. There is no "anti-religious movement" in this country. What you are experiencing is a backlash from reasonable people who are sick and tired of right-wing zealots trying to turn the country into a theocracy. The past 40 years or so have seen a gradual encroachment of religious conservatism and tyranny corrode the foundations of secular society. The church is incredibly powerful in this country. Much more powerful than it should be.
3
It is against my personal religion to cater to the narrow-minded. To liberty!
22
Great analysis. I've noticed that the definition of "religious freedom" has been expanding recently--it used to mean freedom to express your own beliefs without fear of attack or repression, now it means freedom to impose your beliefs on everyone else. Don't believe in birth control? Don't use it! But now the Supreme Court says you can force your employees not to use it too. It seems clear that there has been, and should be, a limit to claims of religious entitlement. You can't claim justification for stoning a gay couple (or a prostitute or an adulterer...) on the grounds that the Bible told you too. Nor should you be able to refuse anyone commercial services. The analogy with Jim Crow is apt, and I would also make an analogy with pre-war European anti-semitism. No coloreds, no Jews, no gays--what's the difference?
99
"the Supreme Court says you can force your employees not to use it too."
This is obviously NOT TRUE. The SC said you don't have to buy it for your employees, that's hardly the same as forcing them not to use it.
This is obviously NOT TRUE. The SC said you don't have to buy it for your employees, that's hardly the same as forcing them not to use it.
3
Agreed -- sort of: What SCOTUS says is essentially that those employees don't have the same right to contraception which is not approved by Hobby Lobby -- as the rest of the American (non-church-employed) public. Is that really what we want as a people???
6
It's pretty close...low wage earners most likely could not afford contraception if it wasn't provided in their health care insurance plans.
7
Clerks who refuse to issue marriage licenses are allowed to exercise their religious preferences, but they are not allowed simultaneously to keep their jobs. The door is always open, and there are applicants waiting.
If I am hired on as a supermarket butcher, there is a high probability that some day I will be required to cut up some pork chops. I can't expect to refuse that task and keep my job.
Pretty much every civil service job description includes the phrase, "and such other tasks as are assigned by the supervisor".
The appropriate response to these refusing clerks is, "Fine. I understand that you are exercising your religious beliefs. Good for you. Now please clean out your desk and go home."
If I am hired on as a supermarket butcher, there is a high probability that some day I will be required to cut up some pork chops. I can't expect to refuse that task and keep my job.
Pretty much every civil service job description includes the phrase, "and such other tasks as are assigned by the supervisor".
The appropriate response to these refusing clerks is, "Fine. I understand that you are exercising your religious beliefs. Good for you. Now please clean out your desk and go home."
209
I have no problem with any merchant turning away business due to their religious or moral beliefs; provided that a detailed list of who they will refuse to provide serve to is displayed at the front door. Then let the market decide.
33
if someone refuses to serve someone because of their religion, then they should be sentenced to live exactly as the religion says. they can't cherry pick from the bible or other functional books. they should be forced to adhere to it. See how fast this religious freedom thing would go away.
4
Similarly, we should all be required, I suppose, to wear visible indications of our 'faiths' or lack of same. Otherwise, the pious merchant risks providing services to someone of whom he may not approve, simply because the miscreant's sin is not obvious. When a nice, wholesome, heterosexual couple walks into his shop, he may not realise they are not married, that the wicked fornicatrix's ring is merely a friendship ring!
In the name of preserving religious purity, the merchant may want to hand out a checklist of sins of which the customer may be guilty, any of which would render the customer so ritually impure as to be denied service; which would have to be notarized, of course, perhaps after an oath and a polygraph, since you can't expect a sinner to fill out the form truthfully.
Or it might simplify matters if those of us who don't have such obvious signifiers as yarmulkes, payess and tzitzit, niqabs or burqas, crucifixes, etc. could all wear badges ... for starters, as I remember the protocol, yellow stars for Jews, pink triangles for gay men, black triangles for Lesbians and Jehovah's Witnesses. Scarlet As for adulteresses, branding on thumb, forehead, etc. depending on the specific transgression. Then, o merchant, thee could tell at a glance who was worthy of thy cupcakes.
In the name of preserving religious purity, the merchant may want to hand out a checklist of sins of which the customer may be guilty, any of which would render the customer so ritually impure as to be denied service; which would have to be notarized, of course, perhaps after an oath and a polygraph, since you can't expect a sinner to fill out the form truthfully.
Or it might simplify matters if those of us who don't have such obvious signifiers as yarmulkes, payess and tzitzit, niqabs or burqas, crucifixes, etc. could all wear badges ... for starters, as I remember the protocol, yellow stars for Jews, pink triangles for gay men, black triangles for Lesbians and Jehovah's Witnesses. Scarlet As for adulteresses, branding on thumb, forehead, etc. depending on the specific transgression. Then, o merchant, thee could tell at a glance who was worthy of thy cupcakes.
2
Not correct. The businessman has no way of knowing whether or not the couple is sexually active and they aren't about to tell him. Silly comment.
People seem to overlook the differences between a state actor and an individual actor.
The state cannot use religion as a basis for discriminating. Therefore, a state (or state subdivision, such as a county or a town) and an employee of such a governmental entity cannot invoke "religious belief" to deny someone the benefit of a law. A state employee who has such qualms should quit and find a different job. That employee is there to serve all legitimate requests.
An individual is not similarly constrained. A baker or a photographer (or a pizza shop owner) has every personal right to PUBLICLY state that his or her personal belief prevents that person from providing some service. Equally well, the public has the right to boycott such businesses. As an individual, you are free to be a jerk and to discriminate. And I am equally free to take my business elsewhere.
As far as a religious organization goes, nobody can oblige a member of that organization or that clergy to perform seervices that violate the religious precepts of the organization. Those who feel discriminated against are equally free to choose a different religious organization.
The state cannot use religion as a basis for discriminating. Therefore, a state (or state subdivision, such as a county or a town) and an employee of such a governmental entity cannot invoke "religious belief" to deny someone the benefit of a law. A state employee who has such qualms should quit and find a different job. That employee is there to serve all legitimate requests.
An individual is not similarly constrained. A baker or a photographer (or a pizza shop owner) has every personal right to PUBLICLY state that his or her personal belief prevents that person from providing some service. Equally well, the public has the right to boycott such businesses. As an individual, you are free to be a jerk and to discriminate. And I am equally free to take my business elsewhere.
As far as a religious organization goes, nobody can oblige a member of that organization or that clergy to perform seervices that violate the religious precepts of the organization. Those who feel discriminated against are equally free to choose a different religious organization.
17
'...People seem to overlook the differences between a state actor and an individual actor...'
SCOTUS just ruled that a private company has to change their dress code to accommodate one person's religious beliefs, so unfortunately they appear not to have read the First Amendment or, since four of them are religious conservatives, they are incapable of separating their own religious beliefs from the US law.
Since religious beliefs cannot be proven and 'sincerely held' is entirely subjective, both public and private institutions should prepare themselves for employees wearing shiny metal colanders on their heads as member of the FSM faith.
SCOTUS just ruled that a private company has to change their dress code to accommodate one person's religious beliefs, so unfortunately they appear not to have read the First Amendment or, since four of them are religious conservatives, they are incapable of separating their own religious beliefs from the US law.
Since religious beliefs cannot be proven and 'sincerely held' is entirely subjective, both public and private institutions should prepare themselves for employees wearing shiny metal colanders on their heads as member of the FSM faith.
13
@ Joe From Boston
Every time I see a flag as an icon on a religious comment I remember SINCLAIR LEWIS' admonition:
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross."
Every time I see a flag as an icon on a religious comment I remember SINCLAIR LEWIS' admonition:
"When fascism comes to America it will be wrapped in a flag and carrying a cross."
66
An individual who holds himself out as a provider of services/goods to the public is simultaneously undertaking an obligation to serve ("accommodate") the public -- and this includes members of groups of which he does not approve. This is why public accommodations laws must be binding on non-governmental vendors.
15
Here is a point which I have not seen raised in this discussion. The Constitutional protections for religious freedom also protect me from having the State's, or somebody else's religious beliefs from being crammed down my throat. In other words, I have a Constitutional protection against religion. I admit that the right of a business owner to claim religious freedom when denying services to gay people (or any other group) is a murky area. But there is nothing obscure about the responsibilities of public officials to carry out their sworn duties.
If a clerk, judge or magistrate is sworn to perform certain duties, such as issuing marriage licenses or performing civil marriage ceremonies, that person has absolutely zero freedom to deny me their service, because in doing so they are imposing their religious belief on me. The Constitution protects my freedom to enjoy the services conferred by the state from being infringed because of what somebody else believes. Any legislation that authorized public officials to pick and choose which of their sworn duties they may deny others is unconstitutional on its face. The solution is for the public official to quit, and to make way for another whose beliefs do not prevent him from carrying out his sworn duties. This is not even a little bit hard to figure out.
If a clerk, judge or magistrate is sworn to perform certain duties, such as issuing marriage licenses or performing civil marriage ceremonies, that person has absolutely zero freedom to deny me their service, because in doing so they are imposing their religious belief on me. The Constitution protects my freedom to enjoy the services conferred by the state from being infringed because of what somebody else believes. Any legislation that authorized public officials to pick and choose which of their sworn duties they may deny others is unconstitutional on its face. The solution is for the public official to quit, and to make way for another whose beliefs do not prevent him from carrying out his sworn duties. This is not even a little bit hard to figure out.
297
In short, a clerk, judge, magistrate, or other civil service employee is an agent of the state, acting on behalf of and "as" the state, so any refusal by a civil service employee to provide service is discrimination *by the state* and unconstitutional. As noted by several others, an employee with a personal religious objection to performing all the duties of that job is free to take other employment. And should be required to do so.
42
Absolutely. And, likewise, any pharmacist who refuses to fill a script for a legally prescribed medication should find a new career.
29
Well said.
I read an interesting article that said these seeming to be liberal rulings from SCOTUS were actually conservative overreach that is jamming the court with cases that then provide precedent for other cases. It seems like the Univ of Virginia law professor was trying to tell evangelical leaders exactly that- if you squawk about your personal freedoms while using your job to insert yourself into American's personal lives, you are going to lose the public opinion war in a big way. I would fully expect a backlash to people who misperceive their own paperwork/retail job with being some sort of Morality Sorting Hat for the public.
I read an interesting article that said these seeming to be liberal rulings from SCOTUS were actually conservative overreach that is jamming the court with cases that then provide precedent for other cases. It seems like the Univ of Virginia law professor was trying to tell evangelical leaders exactly that- if you squawk about your personal freedoms while using your job to insert yourself into American's personal lives, you are going to lose the public opinion war in a big way. I would fully expect a backlash to people who misperceive their own paperwork/retail job with being some sort of Morality Sorting Hat for the public.
3
For millennia, the notion of religious belief has been a misnomer. Religious bigotry and hatred has lead to countless sufferings. Sufferings that range across time and society. Believe what you want, act civilly but keep it out of legal society. Public religion against another is a poison.
People can wear head scarfs and draw cartoons and receive medical care. Religion is not a reason to discriminate, deny or kill. The idea of public religious freedom is an oxymoron. Keep religion out of government and legal decisions. This is no longer the middle ages.
People can wear head scarfs and draw cartoons and receive medical care. Religion is not a reason to discriminate, deny or kill. The idea of public religious freedom is an oxymoron. Keep religion out of government and legal decisions. This is no longer the middle ages.
43
I live in a neighborhood that has become a favorite of Orthodox Jews. I find these Jews' choice of lifestyle beyond bizarre (given the option of Conservative or Reform Judaism), and often wonder just how much psychological coercion is required for the maintenance of this insular community. But I nonetheless tolerate them - just as I would tolerate any Christian, Jew, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, Deist, New Age enthusiast, etc.
To me, the soul of religious liberty in the modern world must be a freedom to worship God, the Goddess, or the Cosmos as you choose, within reason (and there must indeed be limits, inasmuch as certain religious practices and attitudes could violate other rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution), coupled to the absolute requirement that you afford this freedom to others.
The problem with fundamentalists of all stripes in this argument is that they increasingly insist on imposing their highly subjective conception of religious obligation unto others who either hold another, radically different conception or no conception at all (as in the instance of atheists and agnostics). In a multi-cultural, spiritually pluralistic modern nation, they cannot have that right.
Religious liberty is not a one-way street, as fundamentalist claimants would have us believe. Religious liberty requires religious and metaphysical toleration.
To me, the soul of religious liberty in the modern world must be a freedom to worship God, the Goddess, or the Cosmos as you choose, within reason (and there must indeed be limits, inasmuch as certain religious practices and attitudes could violate other rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution), coupled to the absolute requirement that you afford this freedom to others.
The problem with fundamentalists of all stripes in this argument is that they increasingly insist on imposing their highly subjective conception of religious obligation unto others who either hold another, radically different conception or no conception at all (as in the instance of atheists and agnostics). In a multi-cultural, spiritually pluralistic modern nation, they cannot have that right.
Religious liberty is not a one-way street, as fundamentalist claimants would have us believe. Religious liberty requires religious and metaphysical toleration.
121
@ Matthew Carnicelli
"... spiritually pluralistic [secular] modern nation ..."
"The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy." ~ GEORGE WASHINGTON
"... spiritually pluralistic [secular] modern nation ..."
"The United States of America should have a foundation free from the influence of clergy." ~ GEORGE WASHINGTON
41