‘Religious Freedom Division’ Threatens LGBT Health—and Science

[rmaddy]

In the past, that sign indicated racial discrimination. Today it means they will not serve disruptive customers. A single person shouldn't be permitted to interfere with the dining experience of the rest of the customers.

Not buying it.  No business will tolerate a disruptive client and the right of the business to protect the safety and experience of other clients is generally assumed by the public.  Very few businesses post such a sign.  It's still rooted in prejudice.  Perhaps not directed toward my demographic, but all prejudice is one in my book.

[AnneK]

In the past, that sign indicated racial discrimination. Today it means they will not serve disruptive customers. A single person shouldn't be permitted to interfere with the dining experience of the rest of the customers.

What makes you so sure it will only be applied to "disruptive" customers?  Will they consider gay or trans people disruptive?  We already have examples of businesses refusing to serve gay or trans customers and this only makes things worse.

Were the students at this lunch counter "distruptive"?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greensboro_sit-ins


This is legalized bigotry and nothing more.

[Mariah]

 
No bashing please. Folks we can understand you hate this new policy. We get that, however ones strong dislike for the policy needs to be expressed without bashing or breaking other TOS. If what you need to express in regards to that policy is something not in line with the TOS then take it elsewhere please! Lets please keep in mind TOS 5, 10, 15. Thanks
Mariah

[Cassi]

No Shoes, No Shirts, No Service.

[Dee Marshall]

No Shoes, No Shirts, No Service.

And we've all contemplated walking in in just a shirt and shoes.

The spy who came in from the cold in the War Between the Sexes.

[Cassi]

 

And we've all contemplated walking in in just a shirt and shoes.

The spy who came in from the cold in the War Between the Sexes.

[AnnMarie2017]

I'm afraid I'm about to alienate forever people whose good opinion is important to me. And yet I must speak.

Trans women need each other, especially those of us who don't pass. I am hyper-conscious of this.

It is wrong to force other people to act in ways they don't want to. If someone hates us because we're trans, that's unfortunate (and stupid); but that's their prerogative. Just as we believe we should be left alone to live our lives according to our best lights, so must we acknowledge the rights of others to regard  us as hopelessly gender-confused people. We must allow other people the same rights we demand for ourselves.

It is so very seductive to think of medical care, etc., as a given, such that we should have the same access as cis people. What's lost in the analysis is that medical care is often a matter of paying a private individual for his services – and he must be accorded the same latitude we demand for ourselves.

Assume, for the sake of argument, that you are a baker. One day, someone comes into your shop wanting a cake with writing on it that makes trans people look like crazed, deluded people.What would your course be?After all, most – if not all – of us would regard a fundamentalist as crazed and deluded; but, in a free country, that's par for the course.

There is something profoundly, fundamentally, morally wrong with demanding that other people do our bidding,when it goes against their better judgment. Of course, it's stupid. Of course, it's inconvenient.  But that's their right.

It is wrong to use "law" to force our neighbors to violate their consciences. It doesn't matter how stupid their ideas are; those are their ideas, and they have a rght to hold them and to respond accordingly.

We must take responsibility for our own lives, and situation. If one among us has a need – say, SRS surgery, or suicide – it is silly, stupid and deluded to demand that government provide. *We* should provide. *We* should care for our own. Should government help? Of course. But, if it chooses not to , where are our energies best spent?

I love and support my fellow trans women. Politics is not the answer.

[Deborah]

In America equal protection is part of the Constitution so demanding that our constitutional rights are respected is certainly a political matter. 

Christians would like to ignore the constitution and claim their faith requires them to deny equal protection. They did that before when they used their faith to justify slavery and again to justify all sorts of discriminatory laws against people of non-white races.

We either live in a nation defined by the constitution or we live in a medieval theocracy.  Either way it is a political matter to decide which will define America into the future.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cassi]

In America equal protection is part of the Constitution so demanding that our constitutional rights are respected is certainly a political matter. 

Christians would like to ignore the constitution and claim their faith requires them to deny equal protection. They did that before when they used their faith to justify slavery and again to justify all sorts of discriminatory laws against people of non-white races.

We either live in a nation defined by the constitution or we live in a medieval theocracy.  Either way it is a political matter to decide which will define America into the future.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

God bless separation of Church & State!

[AnnMarie2017]

In America equal protection is part of the Constitution so demanding that our constitutional rights are respected is certainly a political matter. 

Christians would like to ignore the constitution and claim their faith requires them to deny equal protection.

Equal protection is an obligation that *government* owes to the citizenry -- *not* private individuals.

They did that before when they used their faith to justify slavery and again to justify all sorts of discriminatory laws against people of non-white races.

OMG. Slavery involves dominating people with whips and chains. Saying, "I don't want to do business with you," is on a completely different plane.

[Deborah]

Equal protection is an obligation that *government* owes to the citizenry -- *not* private individuals.

"The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws".

Many states are passing laws legalizing discrimination against LGBT people.  Secondly, the USA decided in the 1960s that denying business to people just because they belong to a certain "class" is a violation of the 14th amendment.  This is the same thing.

OMG. Slavery involves dominating people with whips and chains. Saying, "I don't want to do business with you," is on a completely different plane.

Defining a specific class of people as "lesser" and not worthy of equal protection is the issue.  I suppose you were ok with miscegenation and other segregation laws though.  Or did you just conveniently leave that out of your argument.   




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[rmaddy]

Equal protection is an obligation that *government* owes to the citizenry -- *not* private individuals.

OMG. Slavery involves dominating people with whips and chains. Saying, "I don't want to do business with you," is on a completely different plane.

You might want to read up a little on the SCOTUS decisions having to do with public accommodations.  The meaning of the 14th amendment in the public sphere has been thoroughly adjudicated.  We already know who gets to ride the bus, sit at the counter or use the bathroom, at least regarding race.  Masterpiece Cakeworks vs Colorado Civil Rights Commission broadens the conversation to include LGBT people, but it too will be interpreted in the context of precedent.  I think many of the justices are sensitive to the conscience of the religion person, but I doubt there will be any appetite to become the court that gutted the 14th in service to irrational belief.

[AnneK]

Saying, "I don't want to do business with you," is on a completely different plane.

You may want to read that link I provided about the Woolworths lunch counter.

While that was about African Americans, what happens if you replace them with gays or transgenders?

[Cassi]

You may want to read that link I provided about the Woolworths lunch counter.

While that was about African Americans, what happens if you replace them with gays or transgenders?

The almighty dollar has replaced God in some peoples eyes.  Back in the 70's or early 80's, a gay couple dancing at Disneyland were escorted off property and there was an uproar over even having let them dance to begin with.  Disneyland went from an anti-gay position to a point where alot of the management and staff are gay.  So things change.

I also feel the dollar will out weigh what someone's gender is or isn't. 



Times do change and yes there are ignorant people. 

[Cassi]

"The clause, which took effect in 1868, provides that no state shall deny to any person within its jurisdiction "the equal protection of the laws".

Many states are passing laws legalizing discrimination against LGBT people.  Secondly, the USA decided in the 1960s that denying business to people just because they belong to a certain "class" is a violation of the 14th amendment.  This is the same thing.
Defining a specific class of people as "lesser" and not worthy of equal protection is the issue.  I suppose you were ok with miscegenation and other segregation laws though.  Or did you just conveniently leave that out of your argument.   




Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Which States are making it legal to discriminate?

[Deborah]

There are many.  Mississippi is the most egregious.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Cassi]

There are many.  Mississippi is the most egregious.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Educate me, please give examples.

[rmaddy]

Educate me, please give examples.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Liberty_Accommodations_Act

[Cassi]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_Liberty_Accommodations_Act

Thank you.  Well, No M I S S I P P I 4 M E.

[AnnMarie2017]

You might want to read up a little on the SCOTUS decisions having to do with public accommodations.  The meaning of the 14th amendment in the public sphere has been thoroughly adjudicated.

I'm reasonably familiar with public accommodation theory; and that's what it is, a theory. Historically, it's an extension of the law of common carriers. Of course, that rationale no longer applies in the vast majority of cases; there are bakeries and flower shops everywhere today.

PA was and is a bad idea. And it's not settled law; I think the US Supreme Court has agreed to take one of the gay wedding cases that has been in the news in recent years. You never know which way the Court is going to rule in these highly-controversial cases; but I have a pretty good idea of how it should rule.

The freedoms guaranteed by the Constitution are not created by it; they are pre-existing. And they exist in hierarchy; they are not all of equal weight. Primary is the right to life, without which no other right has meaning; but, in my opinion, freedom to live according to one's own conscience -- of which religion is but one manifestation -- comes in a close second. The notion that someone is obligated to violate one's conscience to live, to continue owning and operating one's business, is a moral outrage of immense proportions. Think of how such a principle might be applied in a country with a less democratic tradition. The potential horrors boggle the mind.

PA flies in the face of the most fundamental of traditional American values. It's a bad patch job on a torn dress. The patch needs to be ripped out and the tear resewn properly.