| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16358
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
 Posted: 04/04/15 9:51 pm ::: |
Reply  |
|
| Queenie wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| Arkansas is a terrible, backwards place. Nothing good has ever come from there. |
Excuse me, you forgot Shameka Christon. |
I want to say something about a hopper right now.
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15734
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/05/15 12:42 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
| Howee wrote: |
Nicely stated, Justintyme.
And while I agree with the above, I also have an opinion to project here: In *my* world, I really cannot fathom going to a Muslim/Christian/Whatever Bakery for my wedding cake, if I knew they didn't want my business because of who or what I am.
Think about it: EVEN IF (maybe cuz of the legal pressure, etc.) one of these reluctant bakers might finally capitulate and make my cake....I wouldn't want it! For reasons that are obvious:
1. Who knows what they've put in it? 
2. Why would I want to give them MY money, knowing they despise me.
3. There've GOTTA be gay bakers who can out-do the haters' work any day, and twice on Sunday!  |
Why do you say they despise you? And why are you calling them (as if its some kind of established fact) haters? Seems you're close to suggesting or painting their beliefs as hate speech or a hate crime? I agree in a practical sense with pretty much everything else you're saying, by the way. But you can't say that someone despises you or that they're haters or, as some people are calling them, bigots, because their religion (and we're talking about Christianity and Islam, not something someone cooked up in the 1940s) has condemned homosexuality for 2000 years. |
Despise? Hate? You're (possibly) right....they might not really despise me or hate me. But....deciding that I am somehow "lesser" or not deserving of their services/goods isn't loving or respectful, is it?
So then....what's left? Opposite of hate = love. Opposite of "despise" = respect, veneration. If they refuse to provide a service and/or goods--that they WILL provide to others--because of WHAT I AM, that's certainly not "loving" or "respectful".
Ya, I'm good: I'll stick with "hate" and "despise" for now. 
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/05/15 2:04 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Howee wrote: |
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
| Howee wrote: |
Nicely stated, Justintyme.
And while I agree with the above, I also have an opinion to project here: In *my* world, I really cannot fathom going to a Muslim/Christian/Whatever Bakery for my wedding cake, if I knew they didn't want my business because of who or what I am.
Think about it: EVEN IF (maybe cuz of the legal pressure, etc.) one of these reluctant bakers might finally capitulate and make my cake....I wouldn't want it! For reasons that are obvious:
1. Who knows what they've put in it?
2. Why would I want to give them MY money, knowing they despise me.
3. There've GOTTA be gay bakers who can out-do the haters' work any day, and twice on Sunday! |
Why do you say they despise you? And why are you calling them (as if its some kind of established fact) haters? Seems you're close to suggesting or painting their beliefs as hate speech or a hate crime? I agree in a practical sense with pretty much everything else you're saying, by the way. But you can't say that someone despises you or that they're haters or, as some people are calling them, bigots, because their religion (and we're talking about Christianity and Islam, not something someone cooked up in the 1940s) has condemned homosexuality for 2000 years. |
Despise? Hate? You're (possibly) right....they might not really despise me or hate me. But....deciding that I am somehow "lesser" or not deserving of their services/goods isn't loving or respectful, is it?
So then....what's left? Opposite of hate = love. Opposite of "despise" = respect, veneration. If they refuse to provide a service and/or goods--that they WILL provide to others--because of WHAT I AM, that's certainly not "loving" or "respectful".
Ya, I'm good: I'll stick with "hate" and "despise" for now. |
You really don't understand them at all. You think all these little people working behind counters in Indiana are actually running this intellectual word exercise you've written out here through their heads and coming up with what YOU are deciding they think about you? I think that's the definition of self-centered. They're not you. You're not them. You're saying they have decided you're not deserving of their services OR respect? That's incorrect on its face. They don't want to participate in gay weddings by working and producing products and services for those events because their religion, their God, they believe, tells them that homosexuality is wrong. And it would follow, of course, in your mind(s), that they hate and despise you? And, of course, we all know they're bigots. That's now a given. Professors and Vanderbilts have labelled this counter help out in the middle of the country as such and that's that.
I can't believe I'm sticking up for religion but here we go again. A lot of us have it going on. If you're a college or university professor, or a person working in the media, either for MSNBC or CNN or writing for Salon or whatever, you got it going on in your life. I live in the big city. I have a nice car. Other things. I've got it going on. I don't need religion and I never have needed it. But for a lot of people, religion is all they have. And it's all their parents and grandparents had. Hard work. God. And not much else. Comparatively.
We have seen this firestorm, as so many before it, grinding up the little people living their little pathetic lives out in places like Indiana. They're no match for the progressive online press, the Internet of Outrage, etc. Being called a bigot and having that label attached to you is a very destructive thing. I don't know honestly what kind of a backlash and coming together in support of people being allowed to exercise an option to opt out of participating in tasks at their workplace that violates their religious beliefs is going to occur. Maybe all these people caught up in the destructive notoriety that's probably largely flying over their heads right now will ultimately be alright as all their small town religious like-minded brethren step up to sustain them.
But I think it's pretty clear that people are hating them. Despising them. Disrespecting them. People want to destroy them. And I think it's probably just as likely that some of these people who either are small business owners or actually just counter help are going to be very damaged by what's happened.
I've got a lot more response in me to other posters in this thread but it turns out long posts are very difficult and time consuming to respond to.  Who knew? I'll get back to justintyme later on._________________ Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17 |
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/05/15 2:06 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Queenie wrote: |
| pilight wrote: |
| Arkansas is a terrible, backwards place. Nothing good has ever come from there. |
Excuse me, you forgot Shameka Christon. |
No. I think he got that right._________________ Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17 |
|
TonyL222
Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 5140
Location: Reston, VA
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/05/15 6:21 am ::: |
Reply |
|
Not much left to say here. justintyme has said much of what I would say. I'll just summarize my thinking and then I'm moving on:
1. It galls me when we talk about "religious beliefs" as though a) those beliefs are universal, b) the majority view of that particular religion, c) are even representative of what a particular religion teaches. I know I don't speak for all Christianity (just this one Christian). I know what the Bible teaches about homosexuality and that has NOT changed. I also know that it teaches "for we have ALL sinned and fallen short of the glory of God." I do not know of any scripture that would be justification and support for a business to serve some and not specific others. Sin is sin, so why would Christians single out this sin? Posters here are quick to point out that you can't blame all Muslims for terrorism, but lump all who profess to be Christians into one pot.
2. Some of you will ALWAYS hold individual freedoms and rights above all else. Even to the point of absurdity. A person should be able to do practically anything that does not harm another "individual." But if it harms a whole class, but no s specific individual in that class, its okay. What freakin logic is that? Did I ever tell you that "Libertarianism Makes You Stupid"?
http://sethf.com/essays/major/libstupid.php
While the language of the Constitution speaks to individual rights, it is also there to represent "We the people" as we try to form a more perfect union (i.e., more than an individual).
3. I am now a business owner. I had to register my business name and entity with the state of Virginia. I had to obtain an maintain a business license. I HAVE to collect and remit sales taxes. I had to install a "lift" for those who can't negotiate stairs. I had to install a hi/low water fountain that probably has never been used in 4 years. My particular city has regulations on the signage - colors, letter sizes, distance from the front windows, etc. In order to conduct public commerce, I gave up some individual freedoms. That was my personal decision when I chose to operate in the public sector.
4. I FULLY support the concept that a business owner can choose NOT to provide particular goods and services for any personal reason - religious or otherwise. Often those choices are the ones that differentiate you from your competition - and helps establish your brand as justintyme alluded to earlier.
5. I FULLY reject the idea that a business owner should be allowed to discriminate as a matter of individual/religious freedom. Refusing to provide your goods and services to one class of people while providing them other classes of people is discrimination plain and simple. It cannot be justified as an individual or religious freedom. When you willing agree to operate in the public sector, you willingly give up some individual freedoms (see #1 and much of what justintyme said).
6. If this type of discrimination were allowed we are on a slippery slope with chaos waiting at the bottom.
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
This is why I try to avoid as many discussions as I possibly can here. You guys have a serious inclination to go off on the what ifs and hypotheticals and at what points. |
jammer you don't like hypotheticals. Even the Justices pose hypotheticals when hearing a case. Hypotheticals help take a concept to a logical conclusion to see how it holds up then - many times to an unintended consequence. I'm sorry they annoy you. But if they help illustrate a point I will use them.
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15734
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/05/15 9:05 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
| You're saying they have decided you're not deserving of their services OR respect? That's incorrect on its face. They don't want to participate in gay weddings by working and producing products and services for those events because their religion, their God, they believe, tells them that homosexuality is wrong. And it would follow, of course, in your mind(s), that they hate and despise you? And, of course, we all know they're bigots. That's now a given |
First of all (I didn't think this was necessary, but....), you DO realize I was speaking in collective "me" and "they" terms....right?
Yes, this one or that one might genuinely claim no real "hatred" towards any of my tribe....they just don't want to serve us. That's not bigotry....is it?
"Jim Crow" certainly seemed appropriate, for it's time, at least. Didn't it? I mean, it's MY RELIGION. Races shall not intermingle. I'm not bigoted. I don't *hate* blacks, but....really!
Jammer, jammer. Your convolutions have convolved on themselves. If you can't see the slippery slope a "little discrimination" creates, then....I pity you.
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
scullyfu
Joined: 01 Jan 2006
Posts: 8859
Location: Niagara Falls
Back to top |
|
PUmatty
Joined: 10 Nov 2004
Posts: 16358
Location: Chicago
Back to top |
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/05/15 1:13 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| PUmatty wrote: |
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
But I think it's pretty clear that people are hating them. Despising them. Disrespecting them. |
You mean like the way you are talking about them? Jesus Christ, Jammer. Pathetic little lives? Get over yourself.
I should know to stop reading once this sort of thing happens in a thread.
 |
Although I certainly don't share their religious beliefs or feelings or opinions about homosexuality, in terms of their lives, their status and importance working behind the counters in pizza shops and bakeries, I IDENTIFY with them. Meaning their lives and their situations and their economic realities. And I'm the only here it seems who does and is. From a family where no one I know besides me had (or has yet) ever gone to college and with half a useless music school education I have DONE those jobs. For years. I have bagged muffins and served coffee to people whose parents and everyone else in their family has gone to college.
I'm not calling these people bigots and I didn't start a thread claiming their political representation hates me. I'm using harsh words to create as stark a contrast between people who live their lives in the humble places where they live and the fabulously elite in the media and academia and in the political and corporate worlds who will all decide FOR them as to how they will serve up those baked goods. I think these people are being STEPPED ON and in some cases, I am sure, are having their lives destroyed by people who can and will move on to something else next week.
So that's why I'm dropping words like 'pathetic' and 'little' into my rhetorical descriptions of these people. It is done in sarcastic anger. Working class hostility has resurfaced in my life with a literal vengeance and now, honestly, I only (or at least, first) see many if not most political issues in terms of class implications and little people being wronged by their economic superiors.
If that is or was misunderstood ... maybe because it was poorly communicated by me... wouldn't be the first time. As far as me getting over myself... forget it. No matter how large I blow my own ego up to be I will never do to simple people, religious or not, gay or not, black or cop or both, what has been done to so many people over the last few years of news/outrage cycles. Maybe I was delusional before having my coffee the other day, but I could have sworn I saw on CNN, Gloria Vanderbilt's son walking into a pizza shop with a microphone ambushing a pizza shop worker. I get you don't like my use of the word 'pathetic'... but I wouldn't do what Anderson Cooper did there (or has done).
Down here in reality, feet on the ground, I'm a person with compassion and empathy. I haven't dismissed or condemned the large white Christian working poor through lower middle classes as a vast hopeless toxic sea of bigots as the left and progressives have done. They're Americans who have been screwed for decades and they have no idea how bad it's going to get for them. I don't look at those Muslim bakery workers who won't write gay oriented messages on wedding cakes as bigots. They're just simple little quiet religious people who shouldn't be caught up in a political ragefest as they've been along with a lot of people in this story. A woman answers a hypothetical question from a reporter and the next thing you know the place is out of business?
I think some people need to get over themselves._________________ Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17 |
|
SORF
Joined: 06 Jan 2005
Posts: 1979
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/05/15 3:42 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
| TonyL222 wrote: |
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
| That said, if these laws force businesses to make a gay wedding cake or participate by catering etc. a gay wedding or reception or anything at all... I have a real problem with that. That's not freedom. |
Exactly what is a "gay wedding cake?" If you are in the business of catering receptions, there should not be classes of people you will cater for and other classes you won't. Just as you have the right to do certain things in the privacy of your home but not in public, the exercise of your individual liberty should have some constraints in public commerce.
My other question jammer - why is this one distinction so prevalent? Can the baker refuse to make a Jewish cake? An atheist cake? A Catholic cake? A cake for couples who have been living together in sin? Can a sole proprietor greet his customers naked 'cause he owns the place and that's his individual freedom? I would guess laws on public decency would apply to his locally licensed store.
At what point does an exercise of individual freedom impinge upon the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of others? When we get to the public square, some individual liberties need to be checked at the door.
I do have a question in my mind though. I do believe that individual business owners should have the right to NOT provide a specific product or service for any reason - like the pharmacist that refused to carry the abortion pill. But what if a Christian baker was asked to provide a cake for an openly gay couple, and agreed to do everything to the best of his professional ability. But in good conscious, could not put a same sex topper on the cake (which I suppose makes it a "gay cake"). What if the bakery carried only pre-molded male and female (molded together as one) toppers in the store? |
This is why I try to avoid as many discussions as I possibly can here. You guys have a serious inclination to go off on the what ifs and hypotheticals and at what points. The WaPo article makes clear why this law came to be precisely now in 2015 and that is to 'protect' religious individuals from having to participate in gay special events and celebrations by having them use their efforts, time, talents, and equipment to create their products for those celebrations or events.
What is a gay wedding cake (or banner, sign, or floral arrangement)? One that might call for writing that says, for instance, "Bob and Ken! Gay and Married! Finally! Whew Hoo!!!" If you try to compell religious anybody or anything by law to participate in gay special events to that extent the backlash is going to be politically catastrophic. That's why there's a two week old law in Indiana NOT doing that but attempting to do the opposite. |
I think this has been an over reaction by the media and gay community. Has anyone looked at the actual signing of the law? Did the gays and the media notice whom was standing behind Gov. Pence when he signed the law. There is another regional segment of people in the USA that are discriminated, abused, and chastised for their beliefs...The Amish. This law was passed to protect the huge Indiana Amish communities...Shipshewana and Berne IN. And, Amish were in the signing picture.
Most Hoosiers in Indiana would not discriminate against gays in their establishments. But, if it reassures the gay community that an amendment to the law is necessary to address their concerns, I have no problem with it. What I do have a problem with is the attitude that gay rights are more important than religious rights...especially if more important than my Amish Hoosiers. Their beliefs may be conservative and strict adherence to the Bible, but they are not hypocritical or political. They are genuine.
All the rest of this crap about pizza parlors and bakeries is just that...crap.
JMO
|
|
Ex-Ref
Joined: 04 Oct 2009
Posts: 8942
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/05/15 4:59 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| SORF wrote: |
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
| TonyL222 wrote: |
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
| That said, if these laws force businesses to make a gay wedding cake or participate by catering etc. a gay wedding or reception or anything at all... I have a real problem with that. That's not freedom. |
Exactly what is a "gay wedding cake?" If you are in the business of catering receptions, there should not be classes of people you will cater for and other classes you won't. Just as you have the right to do certain things in the privacy of your home but not in public, the exercise of your individual liberty should have some constraints in public commerce.
My other question jammer - why is this one distinction so prevalent? Can the baker refuse to make a Jewish cake? An atheist cake? A Catholic cake? A cake for couples who have been living together in sin? Can a sole proprietor greet his customers naked 'cause he owns the place and that's his individual freedom? I would guess laws on public decency would apply to his locally licensed store.
At what point does an exercise of individual freedom impinge upon the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of others? When we get to the public square, some individual liberties need to be checked at the door.
I do have a question in my mind though. I do believe that individual business owners should have the right to NOT provide a specific product or service for any reason - like the pharmacist that refused to carry the abortion pill. But what if a Christian baker was asked to provide a cake for an openly gay couple, and agreed to do everything to the best of his professional ability. But in good conscious, could not put a same sex topper on the cake (which I suppose makes it a "gay cake"). What if the bakery carried only pre-molded male and female (molded together as one) toppers in the store? |
This is why I try to avoid as many discussions as I possibly can here. You guys have a serious inclination to go off on the what ifs and hypotheticals and at what points. The WaPo article makes clear why this law came to be precisely now in 2015 and that is to 'protect' religious individuals from having to participate in gay special events and celebrations by having them use their efforts, time, talents, and equipment to create their products for those celebrations or events.
What is a gay wedding cake (or banner, sign, or floral arrangement)? One that might call for writing that says, for instance, "Bob and Ken! Gay and Married! Finally! Whew Hoo!!!" If you try to compell religious anybody or anything by law to participate in gay special events to that extent the backlash is going to be politically catastrophic. That's why there's a two week old law in Indiana NOT doing that but attempting to do the opposite. |
I think this has been an over reaction by the media and gay community. Has anyone looked at the actual signing of the law? Did the gays and the media notice whom was standing behind Gov. Pence when he signed the law. There is another regional segment of people in the USA that are discriminated, abused, and chastised for their beliefs...The Amish. This law was passed to protect the huge Indiana Amish communities...Shipshewana and Berne IN. And, Amish were in the signing picture.
Most Hoosiers in Indiana would not discriminate against gays in their establishments. But, if it reassures the gay community that an amendment to the law is necessary to address their concerns, I have no problem with it. What I do have a problem with is the attitude that gay rights are more important than religious rights...especially if more important than my Amish Hoosiers. Their beliefs may be conservative and strict adherence to the Bible, but they are not hypocritical or political. They are genuine.
All the rest of this crap about pizza parlors and bakeries is just that...crap.
JMO |
I don't think that those are Amish in the picture.
|
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/05/15 5:31 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
I sometimes feel like we're going to all get old together._________________ Every woman who has ever been presented with a career/sex quid pro quo in the entertainment industry should come forward and simply say, “Me, too.” - jammer The New York Times 10/10/17 |
|
SORF
Joined: 06 Jan 2005
Posts: 1979
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/05/15 5:37 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Ex-Ref wrote: |
| SORF wrote: |
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
| TonyL222 wrote: |
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
| That said, if these laws force businesses to make a gay wedding cake or participate by catering etc. a gay wedding or reception or anything at all... I have a real problem with that. That's not freedom. |
Exactly what is a "gay wedding cake?" If you are in the business of catering receptions, there should not be classes of people you will cater for and other classes you won't. Just as you have the right to do certain things in the privacy of your home but not in public, the exercise of your individual liberty should have some constraints in public commerce.
My other question jammer - why is this one distinction so prevalent? Can the baker refuse to make a Jewish cake? An atheist cake? A Catholic cake? A cake for couples who have been living together in sin? Can a sole proprietor greet his customers naked 'cause he owns the place and that's his individual freedom? I would guess laws on public decency would apply to his locally licensed store.
At what point does an exercise of individual freedom impinge upon the life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness of others? When we get to the public square, some individual liberties need to be checked at the door.
I do have a question in my mind though. I do believe that individual business owners should have the right to NOT provide a specific product or service for any reason - like the pharmacist that refused to carry the abortion pill. But what if a Christian baker was asked to provide a cake for an openly gay couple, and agreed to do everything to the best of his professional ability. But in good conscious, could not put a same sex topper on the cake (which I suppose makes it a "gay cake"). What if the bakery carried only pre-molded male and female (molded together as one) toppers in the store? |
This is why I try to avoid as many discussions as I possibly can here. You guys have a serious inclination to go off on the what ifs and hypotheticals and at what points. The WaPo article makes clear why this law came to be precisely now in 2015 and that is to 'protect' religious individuals from having to participate in gay special events and celebrations by having them use their efforts, time, talents, and equipment to create their products for those celebrations or events.
What is a gay wedding cake (or banner, sign, or floral arrangement)? One that might call for writing that says, for instance, "Bob and Ken! Gay and Married! Finally! Whew Hoo!!!" If you try to compell religious anybody or anything by law to participate in gay special events to that extent the backlash is going to be politically catastrophic. That's why there's a two week old law in Indiana NOT doing that but attempting to do the opposite. |
I think this has been an over reaction by the media and gay community. Has anyone looked at the actual signing of the law? Did the gays and the media notice whom was standing behind Gov. Pence when he signed the law. There is another regional segment of people in the USA that are discriminated, abused, and chastised for their beliefs...The Amish. This law was passed to protect the huge Indiana Amish communities...Shipshewana and Berne IN. And, Amish were in the signing picture.
Most Hoosiers in Indiana would not discriminate against gays in their establishments. But, if it reassures the gay community that an amendment to the law is necessary to address their concerns, I have no problem with it. What I do have a problem with is the attitude that gay rights are more important than religious rights...especially if more important than my Amish Hoosiers. Their beliefs may be conservative and strict adherence to the Bible, but they are not hypocritical or political. They are genuine.
All the rest of this crap about pizza parlors and bakeries is just that...crap.
JMO |
I don't think that those are Amish in the picture. |
When I saw the picture on TV, it only showed the center portion...the hat looked like an Amish hat. But, after googling and seeing the whole picture, it probably is not. However, I still stand that Indiana was considering the Amish too when they passed the legislation.
|
|
Luuuc
#NATC
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 21927
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/05/15 7:47 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| SORF wrote: |
| What I do have a problem with is the attitude that gay rights are more important than religious rights |
Why is that?
Personally I think gay right are more important than religious rights.
The rights I have due to my religion should be no different to the rights I have due to being a fan of the Phoenix Mercury.
On the other hand, I also take issue with people being forced to run their businesses a certain way. It's hard to define where I draw the line, but not all types f discrimination seem unfair to me. eg. do they have female-only gyms in the USA? They exist here, and I am in favour of their existence, even though they discriminate. There are more than enough other gyms for guys to choose from.
_________________
Thanks for calling. I wait all night for calls like these.
|
|
justintyme
Joined: 08 Jul 2012
Posts: 8407
Location: Northfield, MN
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/05/15 9:23 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Luuuc wrote: |
| SORF wrote: |
| What I do have a problem with is the attitude that gay rights are more important than religious rights |
Why is that?
Personally I think gay right are more important than religious rights.
The rights I have due to my religion should be no different to the rights I have due to being a fan of the Phoenix Mercury.
On the other hand, I also take issue with people being forced to run their businesses a certain way. It's hard to define where I draw the line, but not all types f discrimination seem unfair to me. eg. do they have female-only gyms in the USA? They exist here, and I am in favour of their existence, even though they discriminate. There are more than enough other gyms for guys to choose from. |
There have been some successful discrimination suits that have been brought against women's health clubs (also because they refuse to employ men). Ironically, one of the groups who opposes the idea of women's only clubs is NOW (National Organization for Women) since they oppose all gender based discrimination.
However, in just about every district where the courts have found them against anti-discrimination laws, the state legislature has then gone ahead and passed exemptions for gender based discrimination in health clubs. This means in those locations health clubs are allowed to have both men and women only clubs. None of these laws have been overturned, which means either they have never been challenged or the courts feel that the state has a compelling reason to allow this sort of discrimination.
But that is really what it comes down to, and is the check that the courts use on discrimination cases. They have found that as long as a compelling reason exists for the discrimination, it can be allowed. Now, what constitutes a compelling reason and how "strict" of scrutiny is applied depends on what sort of class is being discriminated against. If it is a suspect class or a quasi-suspect class (typically defined as there being a history of the majority discriminating against or animus toward this class) the standards are much harder to meet. Gender, if I remember correctly, is considered quasi-suspect and thus is given "intermediate" scrutiny.
But anyways, that is how the legal system determines what sort of discrimination is allowed and which is not.
To relate this back to same-sex marriage, right now the lower courts are not exactly sure how sexual orientation should be treated in the class system. Most courts are treating sexual orientation on the lowest "catch-all" classification and are using the lowest form of scrutiny called "rational basis". But the decision of SCOTUS in Windsor has some courts believing it should be considered quasi-suspect. I am guessing this will be cleared up in their upcoming same-sex marriage decision.
_________________
↑↑↓↓←→←→BA
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/05/15 10:40 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Luuuc wrote: |
The rights I have due to my religion should be no different to the rights I have due to being a fan of the Phoenix Mercury. |
I think in this country that was decided otherwise in 1791 when the First Amendent to the Constitution was ratified.
To equate rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights to "being a fan of the Phoenix Mercury" is a truly bizarre notion.
|
|
Luuuc
#NATC
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 21927
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/05/15 10:54 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| Luuuc wrote: |
The rights I have due to my religion should be no different to the rights I have due to being a fan of the Phoenix Mercury. |
I think in this country that was decided otherwise in 1791 when the First Amendent to the Constitution was ratified.
To equate rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights to "being a fan of the Phoenix Mercury" is a truly bizarre notion. |
I think we're talking about different things.
But in the case of what you're referring to, it's not like belonging to a religion necessarily allows one freedom in the USA to legally take part in all the practises of that religion, right? I assume that, for example, full enforcement of Sharia would not be tolerated even in the land of the free?
It seems far from a simple issue, to me at least.
_________________
Thanks for calling. I wait all night for calls like these.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/05/15 11:03 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Luuuc wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| Luuuc wrote: |
The rights I have due to my religion should be no different to the rights I have due to being a fan of the Phoenix Mercury. |
I think in this country that was decided otherwise in 1791 when the First Amendent to the Constitution was ratified.
To equate rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights to "being a fan of the Phoenix Mercury" is a truly bizarre notion. |
I think we're talking about different things.
But in the case of what you're referring to, it's not like belonging to a religion necessarily allows one freedom in the USA to legally take part in all the practises of that religion, right? I assume that, for example, full enforcement of Sharia would not be tolerated even in the land of the free? |
Not sure I understand. Law by who? How do you envision Sharia law being adopted?
Plainly, for example, for Congress to pass a law providing for punishment of any non-believers of any particular faith would plainly violate the First Amendment. Probably passing a law providing for cutting off the hands of a thief would today constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the 8th Amendment. But certainly Congress could adopt provisions of Sharia law if it chose to do so just as many laws are based on Judeo-Christan tradition.
The First Amendmennt is pretty unequivocal:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"
Doesn't leave a lot of leeway. Which is why there are volumes of caselaw defining the scope of those rights. But to equate them to "rights" as a sports fan? I don't even know what to say to that.
People in the current debate think these answers are obvious based on what they individually value and what they would like the answer to be. But these are very difficult issues involving competing legitimate interests and the resolution of these questions can have serious unintended consequences, just like Scalia's idiotic peyote decision indirectly led to this entire RFRA mess.
We take for granted today that private businesses operating public accomodations cannot discriminate against protected classes, but before 1964 that certainly wasn't obvious, and a true libertarian - regardless of what he feels about minority or gay rights - would be offended by the notion that the government can or should tell a private business how to run its business or who to do business with. There are fundamental issues regarding the proper role and reach of government at play here.
Last edited by ArtBest23 on 04/05/15 11:22 pm; edited 2 times in total |
|
Luuuc
#NATC
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 21927
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/05/15 11:12 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| Luuuc wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| Luuuc wrote: |
The rights I have due to my religion should be no different to the rights I have due to being a fan of the Phoenix Mercury. |
I think in this country that was decided otherwise in 1791 when the First Amendent to the Constitution was ratified.
To equate rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights to "being a fan of the Phoenix Mercury" is a truly bizarre notion. |
I think we're talking about different things.
But in the case of what you're referring to, it's not like belonging to a religion necessarily allows one freedom in the USA to legally take part in all the practises of that religion, right? I assume that, for example, full enforcement of Sharia would not be tolerated even in the land of the free? |
Not sure I understand. Law by who? How do you envision Sharia law being adopted?
Plainly, for example, for Congress to pass a law providing for punishment of any non-believers of any particular faith would plainly violate the First Amendment. Probably passing a law providing for cutting off the hands of a thief would today constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the 8th Amendment. But certainly Congress could adopt provisions of Sharia law if it chose to do so just as many laws are based on Judeo-Christan tradition. |
I just meant that if a sub-community somewhere within the USA was living by their own religion-based laws, and those laws were in direct conflict with the USA's laws, or maybe the USA's interpretation of human rights, the first amendment can be overridden, right? It's not like freedom of religion is total carte blanche. So therefore there are grey areas. One can't just say "but First Amendment!" as a response to everything.
_________________
Thanks for calling. I wait all night for calls like these.
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/05/15 11:31 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| Luuuc wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| Luuuc wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| Luuuc wrote: |
The rights I have due to my religion should be no different to the rights I have due to being a fan of the Phoenix Mercury. |
I think in this country that was decided otherwise in 1791 when the First Amendent to the Constitution was ratified.
To equate rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights to "being a fan of the Phoenix Mercury" is a truly bizarre notion. |
I think we're talking about different things.
But in the case of what you're referring to, it's not like belonging to a religion necessarily allows one freedom in the USA to legally take part in all the practises of that religion, right? I assume that, for example, full enforcement of Sharia would not be tolerated even in the land of the free? |
Not sure I understand. Law by who? How do you envision Sharia law being adopted?
Plainly, for example, for Congress to pass a law providing for punishment of any non-believers of any particular faith would plainly violate the First Amendment. Probably passing a law providing for cutting off the hands of a thief would today constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the 8th Amendment. But certainly Congress could adopt provisions of Sharia law if it chose to do so just as many laws are based on Judeo-Christan tradition. |
I just meant that if a sub-community somewhere within the USA was living by their own religion-based laws, and those laws were in direct conflict with the USA's laws, or maybe the USA's interpretation of human rights, the first amendment can be overridden, right? It's not like freedom of religion is total carte blanche. So therefore there are grey areas. One can't just say "but First Amendment!" as a response to everything. |
Sure, to the extent that a provision contravened a different constitutional right, or a controlling state or federal law, the two would have to be reconciled or balanced, or the local law would be struck down. But if the appropriate governmental body adopted many provisions of Sharia law as its own local law, there's nothing inherently wrong in that. If they made it clear they were adopting a relgious law, then it might violate the Establishment Clause, just like the justice in Alabama who keeps trying to put the Ten Commandments in his courthouse.
|
|
Luuuc
#NATC
Joined: 10 Feb 2005
Posts: 21927
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/05/15 11:44 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| Luuuc wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| Luuuc wrote: |
| ArtBest23 wrote: |
| Luuuc wrote: |
The rights I have due to my religion should be no different to the rights I have due to being a fan of the Phoenix Mercury. |
I think in this country that was decided otherwise in 1791 when the First Amendent to the Constitution was ratified.
To equate rights guaranteed by the Bill of Rights to "being a fan of the Phoenix Mercury" is a truly bizarre notion. |
I think we're talking about different things.
But in the case of what you're referring to, it's not like belonging to a religion necessarily allows one freedom in the USA to legally take part in all the practises of that religion, right? I assume that, for example, full enforcement of Sharia would not be tolerated even in the land of the free? |
Not sure I understand. Law by who? How do you envision Sharia law being adopted?
Plainly, for example, for Congress to pass a law providing for punishment of any non-believers of any particular faith would plainly violate the First Amendment. Probably passing a law providing for cutting off the hands of a thief would today constitute cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the 8th Amendment. But certainly Congress could adopt provisions of Sharia law if it chose to do so just as many laws are based on Judeo-Christan tradition. |
I just meant that if a sub-community somewhere within the USA was living by their own religion-based laws, and those laws were in direct conflict with the USA's laws, or maybe the USA's interpretation of human rights, the first amendment can be overridden, right? It's not like freedom of religion is total carte blanche. So therefore there are grey areas. One can't just say "but First Amendment!" as a response to everything. |
Sure, to the extent that a provision contravened a different constitutional right, or a controlling state or federal law, the two would have to be reconciled or balanced, or the local law would be struck down. But if the appropriate governmental body adopted many provisions of Sharia law as its own local law, there's nothing inherently wrong in that. If they made it clear they were adopting a relgious law, then it might violate the Establishment Clause, just like the justice in Alabama who keeps trying to put the Ten Commandments in his courthouse. |
That's a big part of what I'm saying here. That there are rights here that conflict with other rights, so it's far from a black and white situation.
But also that being gay is different to voluntarily joining up with some group, so I don't think they need to be treated as equivalent.
_________________
Thanks for calling. I wait all night for calls like these.
|
|
Howee
Joined: 27 Nov 2009
Posts: 15734
Location: OREGON (in my heart)
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/05/15 11:55 pm ::: |
Reply |
|
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
| I haven't dismissed or condemned the large white Christian working poor through lower middle classes as a vast hopeless toxic sea of bigots as the left and progressives have done....I don't look at those Muslim bakery workers who won't write gay oriented messages on wedding cakes as bigots. |
I really believe I know what you're saying, and agree.
But....do YOU get the Big Picture here? You DO realize that many (no, not all, but MANY) of "the large white Christian working poor through lower middle classes", have historically (and to this day) classified gays as "evil"? Didn't just call us "hopeless bigots", but much much more venomously, "evil", "deserving to die", etc. Do you realize that there ARE "Muslim bakery workers" in Indiana who most certainly think gays are "evil" and "deserve to die"?
I am NOT invoking hyperbole here for gratuitous reasons: I just don't want to see back-pedaling on the fragile progress we currently have in place. And if a state codifies what is discriminatory business practices, then, yes: we're losing ground.
I come from the "classes" you describe. I've married into the same. I HAVE a family that would gladly see me die (really) a miserable death BECAUSE I'm gay. My husband's family, very different--loving, caring, not judgmental. I am living the class dynamics you invoke here, Jammer. I really don't believe "they" need any protection when it comes to their religious beliefs.
| SORF wrote: |
| There is another regional segment of people in the USA that are discriminated, abused, and chastised for their beliefs...The Amish. This law was passed to protect the huge Indiana Amish communities.... |
I live amongst the many Amish (and Mennonites) of Lancaster, PA, and know many on a personal basis. Maybe it's different in IN, but there's no unusual levels of discrimination or mistreatment based in bigotry among the ones I know. In fact, they are the LEAST likely to be involved in such political wranglings: they're highly pacifist, and do not enjoy getting caught up in such things. Now, the evangelical Christian neighbors? Quite different!
| SORF wrote: |
| What I do have a problem with is the attitude that gay rights are more important than religious rights...especially if more important than my Amish Hoosiers. |
As a gay person, I have no need for *my* rights to be more important than someone's religious rights. But they are neither INFERIOR to, nor LESS than "religious" rights.
To parse it a different way, how about if my 'religion' IS about being gay? (There are actually such denominations) Is it still fair to discriminate against me, if my gayness was an integral part of my religion? Is it alright for Muslims to protest serving Jews, but Lutherans are okay? If a business owner hates Presbyterians, can they be turned away?
Personally, I cannot equate being Gay to a Religion (but I thought the above hypotheticals might help Jammer! ) I'd much sooner equate being Gay to being African American. Oh, wait! Indiana businesses can't do THAT, now....THAT was 50 years ago.
| jammerbirdi wrote: |
| I sometimes feel like we're going to all get old together. |
You silly romantic, you! (Scary thought: A retirement home for Rebkell members only! )
_________________
Oregon: Go Ducks!
"Inévitablement, les canards voleront"
|
|
ArtBest23
Joined: 02 Jul 2013
Posts: 14550
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/06/15 12:40 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Luuuc wrote: |
But also that being gay is different to voluntarily joining up with some group, so I don't think they need to be treated as equivalent. |
I understand you feel that way, but our US Constitution establishes a somewhat different heirarchy.
For example, I expect that a law which attempted to require a minister to perform a same sex wedding would be struck down in about one millisecond as a violation of the free exercise clause.
|
|
jammerbirdi
Joined: 23 Sep 2004
Posts: 21046
Back to top |
|
TonyL222
Joined: 01 Oct 2007
Posts: 5140
Location: Reston, VA
Back to top |
| Posted: 04/06/15 5:25 am ::: |
Reply |
|
| Howee wrote: |
I am NOT invoking hyperbole here for gratuitous reasons: I just don't want to see back-pedaling on the fragile progress we currently have in place. And if a state codifies what is discriminatory business practices, then, yes: we're losing ground.
I come from the "classes" you describe. I've married into the same. I HAVE a family that would gladly see me die (really) a miserable death BECAUSE I'm gay. My husband's family, very different--loving, caring, not judgmental. I am living the class dynamics you invoke here, Jammer. I really don't believe "they" need any protection when it comes to their religious beliefs.
|
Hmmmm. Interesting points, Howee. In this discussion I have found myself at odds with some of my fellow Christians here - and you just made me realize why that may be. On this issue, you and I may have walked a mile in each other's shoes.
I'm from and grew up in the deep south (Georgia), and I remember "Whites Only" signs. I have been to clubs and been told "we're full", only to see the next white couple be let in. I can give you many more instances where businesses have refused me service because of race. Not much now (not openly anyway), but certainly within my memory. I cannot support this type of discrimination - even if concealed as some sort of religious freedom. Particularly if that religion is supposed to represent Christianity.
More importantly for me as a student of the Bible, I can't think of any support in scripture itself for this "religious belief" that is being infringed upon. Where in scripture did Jesus ever turn anyone away or refuse to associate with someone? The Pharisee's did. Jesus did not. To be "Christian" is to be Christ-like.
When Jesus went from Jerusalem to Galilee, His Disciples wanted Him to avoid Samaria, whom the Jews regarded as vile and ignorant, and a "class" of people no respectable Jew would ever associate with. Jesus went through Samaria. Instead of avoiding or shunning an outcast, Jesus sought opportunities to embrace people.
| Quote: |
"Then saith the woman of Samaria unto him, How is it that thou,
being a Jew, askest drink of me, which am a woman of Samaria? for the Jews have no dealings with the Samaritans." (John 4:9) |
A Christian's strongest witness isn't the words spoken but the life lived - the actions taken. Every day a Christian should ask if the things I did that day drew anyone nearer to Christ - or pushed them away.
|
|
|
|
