http://america.aljazeera.com/articles/2014/2/26/brewer-gay-law.html
Al-Jazeera America; no author listed
Gov. Jan Brewer on Wednesday vetoed a Republican bill that set off a national debate over gay rights, religion and discrimination and subjected Arizona to blistering criticism from major corporations and political leaders from both parties.
Brewer was under intense pressure to veto the bill, including from three Republicans who had voted for the bill last week.
I was just reading that Major League Baseball, a major player in the AZ economy due to spring training games, told Brewer that they opposed it, citing Jackie Robinson and tolerance. I didn't believe a word of it. I'm sure it had more to do with their bottom line being affected by any kind of boycott.
Brewer did the right thing, but most likely for the wrong reasons.
The NFL also said they would move the superbowl out of AZ.
Wrong reasons or right reasons, a bill like that should have never even been thought of. What self righteous AZ politician would even come up with something like this. This is really scary that it even got that far as to have to be vetoed.
Quote from: Jill F on February 26, 2014, 07:38:12 PM
Brewer did the right thing, but most likely for the wrong reasons.
To me the reasons don't matter. The important thing is that there was such a firestorm that other places will think twice before heading down that same road.
I'm going to take an opposing view here: if we get gay marriage, it cannot be at the expense of religious freedom. No Christian should be required to take part in, in any way, a gay marriage. That way everyone can peacefully coexist.
We have a habit of thinking our right is more important than their right. It's not. And it should not have legal superiority - but legal equality - to theirs.
Quote from: ZoeM on February 27, 2014, 09:53:38 AM
I'm going to take an opposing view here: if we get gay marriage, it cannot be at the expense of religious freedom. No Christian should be required to take part in, in any way, a gay marriage. That way everyone can peacefully coexist.
We have a habit of thinking our right is more important than their right. It's not. And it should not have legal superiority - but legal equality - to theirs.
I agree.
I'm glad the bill was vetoed though. As Governor Brewer said, it 'solved' a problem that doesn't exist. Which is what really bothers me about these debates.
It's also ironic these bills have begun to turn up primarily due to intolerance of religious views.
Quote from: ZoeM on February 27, 2014, 09:53:38 AM
I'm going to take an opposing view here: if we get gay marriage, it cannot be at the expense of religious freedom. No Christian should be required to take part in, in any way, a gay marriage.
I'm missing something here. How does allowing same sex marriage come at the expense of religious freedom? People are always free to practice their own beliefs, but nobody should be permitted to use their own freedoms as an excuse to restrict the freedoms of others.
And how would Christians be "required" to take part in a gay marriage? Surely you're not falling for that toxic line of nonsense that claims that somehow clergy will be forced to perform marriages they might not otherwise be required to perform, right?
A slave is forced to do many things that a brother or sister will do from love and without the cost of the slave.
Quote from: Michelle-G on February 27, 2014, 11:13:28 AM
I'm missing something here. How does allowing same sex marriage come at the expense of religious freedom? People are always free to practice their own beliefs, but nobody should be permitted to use their own freedoms as an excuse to restrict the freedoms of others.
And how would Christians be "required" to take part in a gay marriage? Surely you're not falling for that toxic line of nonsense that claims that somehow clergy will be forced to perform marriages they might not otherwise be required to perform, right?
I think she's referring to small business owners who reject a service based on religious beliefs.
http://news.msn.com/us/wash-florist-sued-for-refusing-wedding-service-to-gay-couple (http://news.msn.com/us/wash-florist-sued-for-refusing-wedding-service-to-gay-couple)
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/07/gay-colorado-couple-sues-bakery-for-allegedly-refusing-them-wedding-cake/ (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/07/gay-colorado-couple-sues-bakery-for-allegedly-refusing-them-wedding-cake/)
The US Supreme Court decided to take a "freedom of religion/conscience" case when they accepted the Little Sisters of the Poor challenge to the contraception requirements of Obamacare.
The principle is the same. Can the government coerce a person, or group of people, against their deeply held and constitutionally-guaranteed religious beliefs?
Quote from: Nikko on February 27, 2014, 11:37:28 AM
I think she's referring to small business owners who reject a service based on religious beliefs.
http://news.msn.com/us/wash-florist-sued-for-refusing-wedding-service-to-gay-couple (http://news.msn.com/us/wash-florist-sued-for-refusing-wedding-service-to-gay-couple)
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/07/gay-colorado-couple-sues-bakery-for-allegedly-refusing-them-wedding-cake/ (http://www.foxnews.com/us/2013/06/07/gay-colorado-couple-sues-bakery-for-allegedly-refusing-them-wedding-cake/)
Well, in neither of those cases were the business owners being asked to take part in a gay wedding. They were being asked to sell merchandise.
Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on February 27, 2014, 11:50:20 AM
The US Supreme Court decided to take a "freedom of religion/conscience" case when they accepted the Little Sisters of the Poor challenge to the contraception requirements of Obamacare.
The principle is the same. Can the government coerce a person, or group of people, against their deeply held and constitutionally-guaranteed religious beliefs?
If my religious beliefs tell me that I must strike with stones anyone I know to be an adulterer until I've killed them, can the government punish me for bludgeoning my wife to death with a large rock if she sleeps around ?
(Incidentally, the bible commands its believers to do exactly that.)
On one hand the feds are saying religious rights can't be a basis to refuse performing a duty, while at the same time they're involved in cases like the one below...
http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-29-13.cfm (http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/newsroom/release/5-29-13.cfm)
Quote from: suzifrommd on February 27, 2014, 11:55:49 AM
If my religious beliefs tell me that I must strike with stones anyone I know to be an adulterer until I've killed them, can the government punish me for bludgeoning my wife to death with a large rock if she sleeps around ?
(Incidentally, the bible commands its believers to do exactly that.)
It's funny because a number of high-profile politicians would have been toast already for this very reason if we'd felt so inclined. (For some reason Bill Clinton is now a public superstar these days though.)
Quote from: suzifrommd on February 27, 2014, 11:55:49 AM
If my religious beliefs tell me that I must strike with stones anyone I know to be an adulterer until I've killed them, can the government punish me for bludgeoning my wife to death with a large rock if she sleeps around ?
(Incidentally, the bible commands its believers to do exactly that.)
Give it a shot, let us know how it goes.... ;)
The bill was about religious owners of businesses choosing not to do business with LGBTs. The Hell's Angels and Banditos and other outlaw biker clubs are pretty much hard core "sinners" yet would these same business owners do business with them? Somehow I bet the answer would be yes, they would out of genuine fear. Not to mention intimidated by these groups. I could respect the supporters of the bill a whole lot more if they chose to not do business with anyone that they consider "sinners".
Kia Ora,
I'm somewhat at a loss... What is religious freedom ? Is there really such a thing in the "21st" century ?
Metta Zenda :)
Quote from: suzifrommd on February 27, 2014, 11:52:38 AM
Well, in neither of those cases were the business owners being asked to take part in a gay wedding. They were being asked to sell merchandise.
Exactly. When you have a business and you flip over the sign on the door so that it says "OPEN", that's just what it means. Private clubs and associations can, and do, discriminate. That's their issue and their own problem. But if those private organizations open their doors for public business then they become subject to the same standards of public access in the conduct of that business that any other business is subject to.
Here's a good commentary on what religious freedom to discriminate actually means:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erica-keppler/religious-discrimination-macys-transgender-woman_b_1137472.html (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/erica-keppler/religious-discrimination-macys-transgender-woman_b_1137472.html)
Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on February 27, 2014, 11:50:20 AMThe principle is the same. Can the government coerce a person, or group of people, against their deeply held and constitutionally-guaranteed religious beliefs?
That is not the principle at stake here, despite what the religious right would like people to believe. That's like saying that the government "coerced" business owners into allowing African-Americans to eat at the lunch counter against their deeply-held and constitutionally-guaranteed beliefs.
Nobody has a constitutional right to exercise discrimination on the basis of ethnicity, religion, country of origin, sex, age, physical limitations, sexual orientation or gender identity (and probably several other things I can't recall at this moment). The notion that someone's religious mandate to do so does not trump the Constitution.
And as disappointing as it may seem to the religious right it's the Constitution that is the law of the land and not the Bible, the Koran, the Gita, the Book of Mormon nor any other religious text.
Quote from: suzifrommd on February 27, 2014, 11:55:49 AM
If my religious beliefs tell me that I must strike with stones anyone I know to be an adulterer until I've killed them, can the government punish me for bludgeoning my wife to death with a large rock if she sleeps around ?
(Incidentally, the bible commands its believers to do exactly that.)
It doesn't, actually. The mosaic law, maybe, but with some specific exceptions that has been superseded, and only folks ignorant of actual Biblical study and looking for easy putdown-points claim nonsense like that.
What most folk seem to miss is that making people take part in activities they disagree with does go against the freedoms ensconced in our founding documents. It's why doctors can't be forced to perform abortions; why the birth control mandate is unconstitutional; and why this current debate is so very disappointing - it's essentially the LGBT (and allies) saying "Ok, we got gay marriage. But that's not enough. So now you have to agree or shut up - your religious freedom is less important than our civil freedoms."
Which, I believe, was the very reason the right so strongly opposed gay marriage in the first place - the inevitable march of 'progress' at their expense, part equality and straight towards one-sided dominance.
Put another way, not forcing Christian wedding businesses to take part in gay marriage hurts nothing but the claim that sexuality/gender identity is equivalent to race - a human right, immutable and undeniable. (Having had a sexuality change myself, I'm VERY skeptical on this - not to mention at best it's a theory, unproven and poorly documented). It doesn't even slow down the cause of marriage - it just leaves Christian beliefs on an equal sociopolitical standing to our own. And I'm kinda ashamed that's viewed as a bad thing by so many here.
Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on February 27, 2014, 11:50:20 AM
The principle is the same. Can the government coerce a person, or group of people, against their deeply held and constitutionally-guaranteed religious beliefs?
Yes.
There are christians who torture and murder others as part of their religious beliefs yet the law of the land compels them not to do this and most people approve of this coercion.
Human sacrifice as part of religion has been around for millennia and still goes on today. You can argue that it is an extreme example, but once you concede that religiously motivated murder is wrong, you are conceding that religious belief MUST be subject to and overriden by law. Arguing over lesser examples is just a case of haggling about where the line should be drawn.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4098172.stm
"Three people, including the girl's aunt, were convicted of trying to "beat the devil out of" the un-named 10-year-old - originally from Angola.
The report was commissioned by the Met after the death of Victoria Climbie in February 2000 and because of concerns over so-called faith crimes."
Quote from: ZoeM on February 27, 2014, 12:42:08 PMWhat most folk seem to miss is that making people take part in activities they disagree with does go against the freedoms ensconced in our founding documents.
Well, not quite. We are compelled to do all sorts of things we might regard as contrary to protected freedoms. If my interpretation of my religion says that I should perform an "honor killing" when my teenage daughter talks to some boy at the mall I can holler about religious freedom all I want. In this country we call that murder, and the murderer is tried and convicted.
Quote from: ZoeM on February 27, 2014, 12:42:08 PMIt's why doctors can't be forced to perform abortions;
That's exactly the OPPOSITE of the point being debated. Legalized abortion does not REQUIRE doctors to conduct abortions, it PERMITS them to do so. And the legality of that procedure PROHIBITS those who claim to be following a higher law from preventing the free exercise of that law.
In the same way, equal rights for LGBT prohibits those who would deny public access to the free exercise of those rights from restricting that freedom. And if you're a business offering services to the public then you surrender your own right to discriminate when you open your doors for business. It's really just that simple.
Quote from: ZoeM on February 27, 2014, 12:42:08 PMand why this current debate is so very disappointing - it's essentially the LGBT (and allies) saying "Ok, we got gay marriage. But that's not enough. So now you have to agree or shut up - your religious freedom is less important than our civil freedoms."
You know what? Civil rights really ARE more important than religious freedoms. That's how it works in a constitutional society (as opposed to a theocracy).
Quote from: Anatta on February 27, 2014, 12:26:16 PM
Kia Ora,
I'm somewhat at a loss... What is religious freedom ? Is there really such a thing in the "21st" century ?
Metta Zenda :)
Freedom of religion to me is that you are free to choose to hold whatever spiritual beliefs that you as long as it doesn't harm anyone else in the process. You can worship a coke can as long as you don't beat someone in the head with it. In my opinion this bill was more about legalized discrimination under the guise of religion and the freedom of such. Religious freedom? Free to be religious? Or free to use religion as a tool for hate? who knows?
Religious freedoms are a civil right, Michelle. No more than any other right, but also no less.
Fake examples of "my religion wants me to kill people" have no place here. That's a slippery slope argument - and nobody here is very fond of those, for obvious reasons.
We're talking about, Christian family wedding businesses being forced by law to take part in ceremonies they consider celebrations of sin. THAT is wrong, a clear violation of religious freedom, and on that point I'll eagerly fight alongside my family, my church, and even the odious Westboro to preserve the freedoms guaranteed us. Especially as those freedoms hurt nobody, and taking them away does hurt people.
Quote from: Michelle-G on February 27, 2014, 12:29:15 PM
Exactly. When you have a business and you flip over the sign on the door so that it says "OPEN", that's just what it means. Private clubs and associations can, and do, discriminate. That's their issue and their own problem. But if those private organizations open their doors for public business then they become subject to the same standards of public access in the conduct of that business that any other business is subject to.
Why, because you want it to be that way? I don't think it's that simple. Opening a business doesn't require an individual give up their constitutional rights. This is a needed debate and it needs more clarity. Bullying from large business and professional sports organizations before the political process has played out isn't helpful.
If people can be forced to go against their closely held constitutionally protected religious beliefs, what else can we be forced to do? Next thing they'll do is force us to buy products we don't want or face property confiscation... oops, too late... obamacare is the law of the land. BTW, did you see the latest warning from the IRS... don't you all dare try and skip out on paying your obamacare fines!
Quote from: Jess42 on February 27, 2014, 12:58:24 PM
Freedom of religion to me is that you are free to choose to hold whatever spiritual beliefs that you as long as it doesn't harm anyone else in the process. You can worship a coke can as long as you don't beat someone in the head with it. In my opinion this bill was more about legalized discrimination under the guise of religion and the freedom of such. Religious freedom? Free to be religious? Or free to use religion as a tool for hate? who knows?
Kia Ora Jess,
::) How about a can of Pepsi ?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=40DykbPa4Lc
Metta Zenda :)
Quote from: Jess42 on February 27, 2014, 12:58:24 PM
Freedom of religion to me is that you are free to choose to hold whatever spiritual beliefs that you as long as it doesn't harm anyone else in the process. You can worship a coke can as long as you don't beat someone in the head with it. In my opinion this bill was more about legalized discrimination under the guise of religion and the freedom of such. Religious freedom? Free to be religious? Or free to use religion as a tool for hate? who knows?
Like a say, I don't think legitimate tolerant debate will be possible on this important issue. But then, what laws are enforced in 2014 America? Eric Holder just told state AG's to feel free to pick and choose which ones they like (as long as he approves of course). This isn't sustainable.
Quote from: ZoeM on February 27, 2014, 01:00:28 PM
Fake examples of "my religion wants me to kill people" have no place here. That's a slippery slope argument - and nobody here is very fond of those, for obvious reasons.
May I disagree?
People are using religion to justify an antisocial act (denying services based on who someone is) and claiming the government can't outlaw the antisocial act without violating their religious freedom.
Isn't it a valid question to ask, does that apply to ANY antisocial act (e.g murder) or just SOME antisocial acts?
And if just some, what separates the acts that government CAN outlaw from those that the government CAN'T outlaw?
Quote from: suzifrommd on February 27, 2014, 01:09:12 PM
May I disagree?
People are using religion to justify an antisocial act (denying services based on who someone is) and claiming the government can't outlaw the antisocial act without violating their religious freedom.
Isn't it a valid question to ask, does that apply to ANY antisocial act (e.g murder) or just SOME antisocial acts?
And if just some, what separates the acts that government CAN outlaw from those that the government CAN'T outlaw?
I have no idea why you're conflating serious crimes like murder with individuals not performing services they feel are antithetical to their core religious beliefs. I don't see how that helps anything.
Those the government can outlaw, Suzi, violate another's personal rights. This does not.
The closest example (before you bring it up) is to racism - but there are three crucial differences. First, Christians aren't declining to do business with people in general based on their sexuality - they're declining to do certain types of business they disagree with.
Second, whether sexuality/gender identity is equivalent to racism is an unanswered question. We claim it is. They claim it isn't. Neither can be accepted by fiat.
Third, in the case of racism it's questionable whether what the government did is legal. Not whether it was right, mind - but whether it was constitutionally sound to force businesses to go along with them.
Quote from: Nikko on February 27, 2014, 01:16:41 PM
I have no idea why you're conflating serious crimes like murder with individuals not performing services they feel are antithetical to their core religious beliefs. I don't see how that helps anything.
You're driving on an isolated road in the middle of a freezing night. You haven't seen any cars for miles. You notice your fuel is low. You pull into the only service station around. The owner refuses to fuel your car because he doesn't approve of you being transgender. You tell him you could easily die if you can't make it to the next station. He doesn't seem to care (perhaps that means one less trans person in the world, which is fine with him).
Still think denial of services is a minor issue?
Quote from: ZoeM on February 27, 2014, 01:22:00 PM
Those the government can outlaw, Suzi, violate another's personal rights. This does not.
You're the only transgender person in town. No one in the town will allow you into their stores or restaurants because they don't "approve of your lifestyle".
Doesn't that sort of violate your rights?
Quote from: suzifrommd on February 27, 2014, 01:25:06 PM
You're driving on an isolated road in the middle of a freezing night. You haven't seen any cars for miles. You notice your fuel is low. You pull into the only service station around. The owner refuses to fuel your car because he doesn't approve of you being transgender. You tell him you could easily die if you can't make it to the next station. He doesn't seem to care (perhaps that means one less trans person in the world, which is fine with him).
Still think denial of services is a minor issue?
That's better. This is why I've said the bill in AZ was poorly written and why I was glad it was vetoed. The question is how do we protect religious rights in our country. Forcing people out of business for legitimate religious expression isn't right, nor is leaving someone in physical danger right in the example you've given. I believe most states have laws against failure to render aid? I'm not sure.
Quote from: suzifrommd on February 27, 2014, 11:55:49 AM
If my religious beliefs tell me that I must strike with stones anyone I know to be an adulterer until I've killed them, can the government punish me for bludgeoning my wife to death with a large rock if she sleeps around ?
(Incidentally, the bible commands its believers to do exactly that.)
That was Mosaic Law. That sort of thing still happens in places like Saudi Arabia. Not here. Not without consequence.
Stoning someone is taking an action to punish. Refusing a request for service because of your religious beliefs or conscience is taking no action at all.
Should the government compel/coerce pacifists or conscientious objects to serve in the armed forces? Same principle.
Quote from: suzifrommd on February 27, 2014, 01:26:22 PM
You're the only transgender person in town. No one in the town will allow you into their stores or restaurants because they don't "approve of your lifestyle".
Doesn't that sort of violate your rights?
Another good point.
Similar points could be made about a lot of things... a person could wipe out everybody in site with their automobile, we must outlaw these horrible contraptions. But it's a problem that doesn't exist, certainly not on any meaningful level. Not everything could or should be codified into law. There are still many things we as human beings should handle without getting the government to spell out everything for us. The gays who came across these religious business owners probably should've just gone next door rather than suing them out of business, i.e., they could've shown tolerance for others. Not everything fits into a nice neat little box. I had an old bitch ignore me at the check out line at JC Penny once because clearly she hated trans people. I went to the next register and got helped by a sweet little young gal. Both our lives worked out better and no one got hurt. Certainly not me, I don't give people that kind of power over me.
Quote from: suzifrommd on February 27, 2014, 01:26:22 PM
You're the only transgender person in town. No one in the town will allow you into their stores or restaurants because they don't "approve of your lifestyle".
Doesn't that sort of violate your rights?
A restaurant or store or gas station is a "public accommodation." "A public accommodation is a private entity that owns, operates, leases, or leases to, a place of public accommodation. Places of public accommodation include a wide range of entities, such as restaurants, hotels, theaters, doctors' offices, pharmacies, retail stores, museums, libraries, parks, private schools, and day care centers."
Here is the wording of Title II, Section 201:
TITLE II--INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AGAINST DISCRIMINATION IN PLACES OF PUBLIC ACCOMMODATION
SEC. 201. (a) All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, and privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
(b) Each of the following establishments which serves the public is a place of public accommodation within the meaning of this title if its operations affect commerce, or if discrimination or segregation by it is supported by State action:
(1) any inn, hotel, motel, or other establishment which provides lodging to transient guests, other than an establishment located within a building which contains not more than five rooms for rent or hire and which is actually occupied by the proprietor of such establishment as his residence;
(2) any restaurant, cafeteria, lunchroom, lunch counter, soda fountain, or other facility principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, including, but not limited to, any such facility located on the premises of any retail establishment; or any gasoline station;
(3) any motion picture house, theater, concert hall, sports arena, stadium or other place of exhibition or entertainment; and
(4) any establishment (A)(i) which is physically located within the premises of any establishment otherwise covered by this subsection, or (ii) within the premises of which is physically located any such covered establishment, and (B) which holds itself out as serving patrons of such covered establishment.
(c) The operations of an establishment affect commerce within the meaning of this title if (1) it is one of the establishments described in paragraph (1) of subsection (b); (2) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (2) of subsection (b), it serves or offers to serve interstate travelers or a substantial portion of the food which it serves, or gasoline or other products which it sells, has moved in commerce; (3) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (3) of subsection (b), it customarily presents films, performances, athletic teams, exhibitions, or other sources of entertainment which move in commerce; and (4) in the case of an establishment described in paragraph (4) of subsection (b), it is physically located within the premises of, or there is physically located within its premises, an establishment the operations of which affect commerce within the meaning of this subsection. For purposes of this section, "commerce" means travel, trade, traffic, commerce, transportation, or communication among the several States, or between the District of Columbia and any State, or between any foreign country or any territory or possession and any State or the District of Columbia, or between points in the same State but through any other State or the District of Columbia or a foreign country.
(d) Discrimination or segregation by an establishment is supported by State action within the meaning of this title if such discrimination or segregation (1) is carried on under color of any law, statute, ordinance, or regulation; or (2) is carried on under color of any custom or usage required or enforced by officials of the State or political subdivision thereof; or (3) is required by action of the State or political subdivision thereof.
(e) The provisions of this title shall not apply to a private club or other establishment not in fact open to the public, except to the extent that the facilities of such establishment are made available to the customers or patrons of an establishment within the scope of subsection (b).
Let me quote from a criticism of the New Mexico Supreme Court Elane Photography case (which is being appealed):
(T)his case is going to be kicked up the chain by the ADF, but this is, as far as I know, not really about the lesbians involved — the photographer is declining to participate in an activity with which she disagrees. I suspect that if someone attempted to hire her to photograph a polyamorous-commitment ceremony, she would refuse to do that too. The photographer wasn't discriminating on the basis of what these women are but what they were doing...
Under this ruling, could an advertising company refuse to create an ad campaign for, say, the KKK? Fred Phelps [Westboro Baptist Church]? CAIR? e.g. if you don't want to create a book, website, ad campaign, drawing, painting, for all comers to your business, then don't be in [that] business.
(Emphasis as in the original: Art must remain private (http://proteinwisdom.com/?p=40815))
I believe the New Mexico Court erred and will be overturned.
Quote from: suzifrommd on February 27, 2014, 01:26:22 PM
You're the only transgender person in town. No one in the town will allow you into their stores or restaurants because they don't "approve of your lifestyle".
Doesn't that sort of violate your rights?
That's not the issue here, Suzi. Marriage participation is the issue.
Rush Limbaugh wasn't allowed to be part owner of an NFL football team, the league rejected him because of his political and religious views, and his business partners had to move forward without him.
Quotehttp://healtheland.wordpress.com/2009/10/15/rush-limbaughs-not-being-allowed-to-buy-an-nfl-team-may-be-a-bad-sign-for-american-christians/
Quote from: ZoeM on February 27, 2014, 01:00:28 PM
Religious freedoms are a civil right, Michelle. No more than any other right, but also no less.
9th Amendment to the US Constitution -
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Sorry, but religious freedom inherently takes a back seat to other civil rights when it's used to deny others their rights.
Quote from: ZoeM on February 27, 2014, 01:00:28 PMFake examples of "my religion wants me to kill people" have no place here. That's a slippery slope argument - and nobody here is very fond of those, for obvious reasons.
In the first place, they're not fake:
http://www.examiner.com/article/honor-killing-muslim-man-from-mn-convicted-of-murder-of-mi-step-daughter (http://www.examiner.com/article/honor-killing-muslim-man-from-mn-convicted-of-murder-of-mi-step-daughter)
That argument is no more valid than "My religion wants me to discriminate against other people."
And the notion that a law that makes people behave in a just and civil manner is a slippery slope is in itself a slippery slope argument.
A "slippery slope argument" states that a relatively small first step (in this case, requiring businesses to treat all people the same) leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect (ie: loss of religious freedom in the form of compelling people to do abhorrent things).
The validity of the argument depends on the warrant, meaning whether one can demonstrate the cause leading to the significant effect. So far that has not happened, especially in light of the absence of a clear Christian doctrinal statement (something like "Thou shalt not do business with same-sex couples, or with people who just make you uncomfortable).
Quote from: ZoeM on February 27, 2014, 01:00:28 PMWe're talking about, Christian family wedding businesses being forced by law to take part in ceremonies they consider celebrations of sin.
No, we're really not. We're saying that if you sell flowers then you sell flowers. Your responsibility for that ends as soon as you accept payment and fulfill your contractual agreement.
That's no more valid than if someone were buying flowers for the wedding of a couple who had lived together before marriage (sin), or where the bride was pregnant before she was engaged (sin) or that someone getting married was believed to be unrepentant for any other sin the florist considered to be particularly odious. Or maybe somebody's buying flowers for the funeral of somebody whom the business believed embodied or exemplified some other form of sin. Florists just do not have the right to police the morality of their customers.
When talking about anti-gay discrimination there's just no way to shine this up and make it sound holy. And there's just no way that requiring somebody to behave in a just manner can be made to sound evil.
Quote from: Michelle-G on February 27, 2014, 03:00:39 PM
9th Amendment to the US Constitution -
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
Sorry, but religious freedom inherently takes a back seat to other civil rights when it's used to deny others their rights.
In the first place, they're not fake:
http://www.examiner.com/article/honor-killing-muslim-man-from-mn-convicted-of-murder-of-mi-step-daughter (http://www.examiner.com/article/honor-killing-muslim-man-from-mn-convicted-of-murder-of-mi-step-daughter)
That argument is no more valid than "My religion wants me to discriminate against other people."
And the notion that a law that makes people behave in a just and civil manner is a slippery slope is in itself a slippery slope argument.
A "slippery slope argument" states that a relatively small first step (in this case, requiring businesses to treat all people the same) leads to a chain of related events culminating in some significant effect (ie: loss of religious freedom in the form of compelling people to do abhorrent things).
The validity of the argument depends on the warrant, meaning whether one can demonstrate the cause leading to the significant effect. So far that has not happened, especially in light of the absence of a clear Christian doctrinal statement (something like "Thou shalt not do business with same-sex couples, or with people who just make you uncomfortable).
No, we're really not. We're saying that if you sell flowers then you sell flowers. Your responsibility for that ends as soon as you accept payment and fulfill your contractual agreement.
That's no more valid than if someone were buying flowers for the wedding of a couple who had lived together before marriage (sin), or where the bride was pregnant before she was engaged (sin) or that someone getting married was believed to be unrepentant for any other sin the florist considered to be particularly odious. Or maybe somebody's buying flowers for the funeral of somebody whom the business believed embodied or exemplified some other form of sin. Florists just do not have the right to police the morality of their customers.
When talking about anti-gay discrimination there's just no way to shine this up and make it sound holy. And there's just no way that requiring somebody to behave in a just manner can be made to sound evil.
You could not be more wrong, Michelle. Freedom of expression, freedom to exercise your religious beliefs, and the freedom to act according to your own conscience, as part of the Constitution, have the sanction of the People. Civil rights legislation is of a lower order - statutory law.
Alexander Hamilton explained in
Federalist #78:
Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.
Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on February 27, 2014, 03:28:15 PM
You could not be more wrong, Michelle. Freedom of expression, freedom to exercise your religious beliefs, and the freedom to act according to your own conscience, as part of the Constitution, have the sanction of the People. Civil rights legislation is of a lower order - statutory law.
Alexander Hamilton explained in Federalist #78:
Nor does this conclusion by any means suppose a superiority of the judicial to the legislative power. It only supposes that the power of the people is superior to both; and that where the will of the legislature, declared in its statutes, stands in opposition to that of the people, declared in the Constitution, the judges ought to be governed by the latter rather than the former. They ought to regulate their decisions by the fundamental laws, rather than by those which are not fundamental.
Jamie, I'm sorry, but your argument is weak. Hamilton was addressing the separation of powers and the hierarchy of such powers within the US government. Thus, the executive, legislative and judicial branches are equal and none can trump the others because of any inherent power imbalance, yet all can keep the others in check through presidential vetoes, legislative overrides and judicial examinations regarding the unconstitutionality of various laws, orders and policies.
Hamilton rightly endorses the idea that all power is derived from the people and that the government is responsible for the just use of that power.
Those freedoms you mentioned are American values and protected by the Constitution, but nothing in this passage negates the 9th Amendment which protects the people from being victimized by the exercise of any other right.
I just have one theoretical, what if the shoe was on the other foot and the gay business owners were wanting to refuse service to the religious people that condemn them? I just wonder how big the sting would be?
Quote from: Jess42 on February 27, 2014, 03:54:33 PM
I just have one theoretical, what if the shoe was on the other foot and the gay business owners were wanting to refuse service to the religious people that condemn them? I just wonder how big the sting would be?
And that's an interesting idea. I have known several gay business owners who have never denied any business to anyone. Usually it's the religious people who, for some reason, conclude that a business is gay-owned and decide not to patronize the business in the first place.
That kinda reminds me of that saying I hear from tattoo devotees in response to those who criticize them for having tattoos:
"Tattooed people don't care if you're not tattooed."
Straight people seem to care an awful lot about who gay people sleep with, but it never seems to bother gay people in the least who straight people sleep with.
I can't understand how this is such a political issue are people really in here quoting the Federalist papers? (I consider it a dubious sign when people start quoting political papers as if they were somehow law, which happens far too often)
It is simple, if you operate a for profit business and you think that blacks originate from the descendants of Caine and are servants of Satan and you refuse to serve them you are breaking the law (and are also crazy). If you operate a Church or a Church business (like a Catholic School for example) then you can discriminate because you are a religious institution.... So why should blacks have protections and not LGBT people?
If religious freedom gives you the "freedom" to cripple our civic institutions (and yes, with the way our country is ran for profit companies are not only civic institutions, they form the backbone of civic participation) Then I am absolutely opposed to such "Freedom". If someone wants to discriminate against me because I am Trans, Lesbian, White, or even Atheist that person better be part of a church or some other exclusive affinity group, not a for profit enterprise.
As to the specific point, this bill was about taking democratic rights away from the cities of Arizona, several of whom have passed nondiscrimination laws. This entire thing was just another example of rural politicians trying to override the democratic processes of urban areas, because they can't seem to stand just discriminating against the LGBT community in their own back yard they need to do it in urban areas too.
Quote from: Michelle-G on February 27, 2014, 04:01:42 PM
And that's an interesting idea. I have known several gay business owners who have never denied any business to anyone. Usually it's the religious people who, for some reason, conclude that a business is gay-owned and decide not to patronize the business in the first place.
That kinda reminds me of that saying I hear from tattoo devotees in response to those who criticize them for having tattoos:
"Tattooed people don't care if you're not tattooed."
Straight people seem to care an awful lot about who gay people sleep with, but it never seems to bother gay people in the least who straight people sleep with.
I really just kind of find the whole situation funny because I am in business for myself and I personally don't care who, what, where you are from, what color you are, what sexual orientation, religious belief and so on as long as your money is green, checks don't bounce and credit cards aren't maxed out. Why in the world would any business owner want to cut their profits over something so unintrusive as lifestyle choices. I may just be a conspiracy theorist but something just don't seem right about this whole thing especially in 2014. Actually I did a double take on the story when I first heard it on the news.
Jess, that's an excellent point! Here in Texas we see this sort of nonsense all the time - politicians and activist groups, claiming to speak for the people, who initiate all of this conflict and get everyone riled up and then sit back and watch what happens.
I suspect that this was originally somebody's idea of how to look like a real leader, and now they're all butthurt because it backfired. Did you notice that 3 of the Republican state legislators who originally supported this backtracked and asked Gov Brewer to veto the measure?
Quote from: Jess42 on February 27, 2014, 03:54:33 PM
I just have one theoretical, what if the shoe was on the other foot and the gay business owners were wanting to refuse service to the religious people that condemn them? I just wonder how big the sting would be?
I just provided a link describing discrimination against perhaps the most influential conservative in America today, it's not theoretical. I'm sure it stung, but he accepted it and moved on. I thought it was ironic the NFL was bullying Governor Brewer, threatening to pull the Superbowl from her state is she signed a discriminatory bill when they've discriminated so blatantly themselves.
So many people are behaving as though there are millions of Christians out there just chomping at the bit to begin discriminating at will against the LGBT community. It's absurd.
BTW, where are Christians slaughtering people anyway? That accusation seems absurd to me. It's the other way around, Christians are being slaughtered around the world by the thousands.
Quote from: Michelle-G on February 27, 2014, 04:20:19 PM
Jess, that's an excellent point! Here in Texas we see this sort of nonsense all the time - politicians and activist groups, claiming to speak for the people, who initiate all of this conflict and get everyone riled up and then sit back and watch what happens.
I suspect that this was originally somebody's idea of how to look like a real leader, and now they're all butthurt because it backfired. Did you notice that 3 of the Republican state legislators who originally supported this backtracked and asked Gov Brewer to veto the measure?
I don't see this at all here.
The republicans that asked she veto did so because the bill was being misconstrued in the media in their view. I tend to disagree though. I think there would have been unintended consequences. I see no need for this kind of garbage. The First Amendment of the Constitution should be sufficient and if there are bad court rulings, then appeal them.
Quote from: Nikko on February 27, 2014, 04:20:48 PM
BTW, where are Christians slaughtering people anyway? That accusation seems absurd to me. It's the other way around, Christians are being slaughtered around the world by the thousands.
Well, the Lord's Resistance Army for one, and Christian Syrian militias who have tied their fate to the government come to mind just off the top of my head.
Domestically there were people like Jim D. Adkisson who was a fundamentalist Christian who attacked of all things a Universalist Unitarian Church, also IIRC that guy who attacked the Sheik temple was also a Christain fundamentalist, and IIRC so was the murder of George Tiller the abortion doctor by Christain fundamentalists, and I am sure I could find more if I looked rather than just thought back to cases in the past few years.
My point is, all groups are persecuted and almost all persecute. While many Syrian Christians have thrown their lot in with the government, a great deal of Coptic Christians aren't being protected by the Egyptian government. It isn't a contest to see who suffers more and who causes suffering more, because there isn't a group out there that doesn't have some fundamentalist members who have taken things too far.
George Tiller, who performed numerous controversial partial-birth abortions, was murdered by a schizophrenic. I don't believe Christians are killing others in the name of Jesus in Syria. Christians through out the Middle East and parts of Asia and Africa are being killed in disturbing numbers. You're trying to draw a moral equivalence when there's no serious comparison to be made.
Quote from: Nikko on February 27, 2014, 04:26:11 PM
I don't see this at all here.
The republicans that asked she veto did so because the bill was being misconstrued in the media in their view.
Right. That was a smokescreen. I saw all these supporters on the news crying crocodile tears about the big, bad liberal media making them feel like second class citizens for just wanting to do the right thing. Truth is this went south in a big way and those who were smart enough to jump off a sinking ship did.
Quote from: Nikko on February 27, 2014, 04:26:11 PMThe First Amendment of the Constitution should be sufficient and if there are bad court rulings, then appeal them.
Well, the First Amendment IS sufficient, but even so it didn't stop DOMA. That's why there was such an outcry. And although the First Amendment says that Congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion it also says that Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. So, if this was a religiously-based law (as its supporters tried to sell it) then it was wrong to begin with.
People always seem to want to overlook that.
Michelle, you draw some odd conclusions. You're now claiming the AZ bill violated the First amendment rather than trying to (foolishly) bolster it? That's a new one. So what religion are they attempting to establish?
Quote from: Nikko on February 27, 2014, 04:45:23 PM
George Tiller, who performed numerous controversial partial-birth abortions, was murdered by a schizophrenic. I don't believe Christians are killing others in the name of Jesus in Syria. Christians through out the Middle East and parts of Asia and Africa are being killed in disturbing numbers. You're trying to draw a moral equivalence when there's no serious comparison to be made.
You asked for Christians slaughtering others, you didn't ask about if they were doing it in the name of Jesus, but for what it is worth even Islamic fundamentalists are doing what they do for lots of political and financial reasons it isn't all in the name of Allah. From my point of view as an Atheist I could care less on who kills more people than the other. When I see Ugandans use Jesus to justify crimes against homosexuals, it really doesn't strike me as being largely different than the Taliban doing it. I don't care if there is a moral equivalence, I am not keeping score.
Quote from: Michelle-G on February 27, 2014, 03:40:21 PM
Jamie, I'm sorry, but your argument is weak. Hamilton was addressing the separation of powers and the hierarchy of such powers within the US government. Thus, the executive, legislative and judicial branches are equal and none can trump the others because of any inherent power imbalance, yet all can keep the others in check through presidential vetoes, legislative overrides and judicial examinations regarding the unconstitutionality of various laws, orders and policies.
Hamilton rightly endorses the idea that all power is derived from the people and that the government is responsible for the just use of that power.
Those freedoms you mentioned are American values and protected by the Constitution, but nothing in this passage negates the 9th Amendment which protects the people from being victimized by the exercise of any other right.
Hamilton was addressing the Supremacy Clause and the concept that constitutional guarantees take precedent over statutes.
Charles J Cooper, writing in the chapter, "Limited Government and Individual Liberty: The Ninth Amendment's Forgotten Lessons" (
The Bill of Rights: Original Meaning and Current Understanding, Eugene Hickok, Editor), stated:
The relationship of the rights of the people and the powers of the federal government may be unfamiliar to reads of recent Supreme Court decisions, but it was central to the Framers' concept of republican government. The Framers believed that the enumerated powers of the federal government and the retained rights of the people were reciprocally related. By delegated legislative power over certain subjects to the federal government, the people consented to abide by the laws enacted to the federal government that pertained to those subjects. However, as to those subject over which the federal government had no delegated legislative power, the people retained the right, vis-a-vis the federal government, to do as they pleased.... The Ninth Amendment is a rule of constitutional construction designed to protect residual rights that exist by virtue of the fact the federal government has limited powers.The First Amendment of the Bill of Rights limited what the Federal government (and later, State governments by way of "incorporation") could due with respect to the freedom of expression and the exrecize of religion/conscience. Or as it has been observed, when the people sanctioned the Bill of Rights, including the prohibition, "Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." it meant,
no law.
Quote from: Nikko on February 27, 2014, 04:53:54 PM
Michelle, you draw some odd conclusions. You're now claiming the AZ bill violated the First amendment rather than trying to (foolishly) bolster it?
Well, that's the whole point, Nikko! The First Amendment is a two-sided coin that simultaneously protects religious liberty and yet does not make any one religion better or more valid than others, which would amount to state sanctioned religion.
Again, that's the point people always want to leave out. Supporters of this ill-conceived law are all too quick to bang the drum for religious liberty and then they pretend not to know that this same liberty also protects people who do not share their views.
Quote from: Nikko on February 27, 2014, 04:53:54 PMThat's a new one.
Hardly. This was the same argument used to ultimately cause the repeal of DOMA.
Quote from: Nikko on February 27, 2014, 04:53:54 PMSo what religion are they attempting to establish?
Does it matter? The claim is that this is all about religious freedom. The actual brand name on the label is irrelevant.
Quote from: Jamie de la RosaOr as it has been observed, when the people sanctioned the Bill of Rights, including the prohibition, "Congress shall make NO law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..." it meant, no law.
Which is the point I just made here.
Quote from: Jess42 on February 27, 2014, 03:54:33 PM
I just have one theoretical, what if the shoe was on the other foot and the gay business owners were wanting to refuse service to the religious people that condemn them? I just wonder how big the sting would be?
Is there a right to be free of condemnation in the Bill of Rights? There is a right to the free exercise of religion.
The late Arizona law sought to protect the exercise of religion and the freedom of conscience from an assault similar to that dealt by the New Mexico Supreme Court.
Quote from: Nikko on February 27, 2014, 04:20:48 PM
I just provided a link describing discrimination against perhaps the most influential conservative in America today, it's not theoretical. I'm sure it stung, but he accepted it and moved on. I thought it was ironic the NFL was bullying Governor Brewer, threatening to pull the Superbowl from her state is she signed a discriminatory bill when they've discriminated so blatantly themselves.
The NFL acted perfectly consistently with seeking the most profits. I am sure the NFL is made up of a majority of Christians, so it wasn't discrimination against Christians, it was protecting their brand from someone who says very controversial things. The NFL wouldn't want Jeremiah Wright either, and it isn't because he is a Christian, but because he is a liability to their brand....
This is the exact same motivation for the NFL to threaten to move the Superbowl as well, they viewed keeping it in Arizona as a business liability because they viewed the bill as antiLGBT and discrimination isn't popular. These are rational business decisions, not some sort of malice towards Christians.
I'm not going to get into the politics/legal aspects of it all or the implications it can have. Some have hashed those arguments better than I could. I just want to say that I really don't get how people really can treat each other so poorly. Seriously, no one has to endorse or support lifestyles that they don't agree with, but why can't we all respect and tolerate one another as people? I was raised in a very Catholic family and was taught to treat people with respect and to not judge others. Yes, I fail big time quite often(even here) and constantly have to work hard to improve as a person, but this just seems so wrong to do to someone. I mean the idea of refusing someone basic services for their sexuality just seems really evil. What are we going to do, have cashiers wearing a black robe deeming who is morally fit to buy an item? To be honest, the judgemental holier than thou attitude seems very unchristian to me and is just sad. Basic human decency is really what this is about. You can oppose same-sex marriage and lgbt lifestyles, but can't you also respect the person? Having someone buy a bag of chips in your store really isn't you endorsing the lgbt community. Nor is having a christian or muslim customer the equivalent of embracing their religious views. It's simply treating your neighbors as people no matter what their beliefs are. I couldn't imagine a christian or gay couple sitting down at a restaurant to be told we don't serve your kind. Maybe I'm missing something, I really just don't get it. Perhaps it's stupid and naive to say, but really why can't we all get along?
Quote from: provizora on February 27, 2014, 12:44:44 PM
Yes.
There are christians who torture and murder others as part of their religious beliefs yet the law of the land compels them not to do this and most people approve of this coercion.
Human sacrifice as part of religion has been around for millennia and still goes on today. You can argue that it is an extreme example, but once you concede that religiously motivated murder is wrong, you are conceding that religious belief MUST be subject to and overriden by law. Arguing over lesser examples is just a case of haggling about where the line should be drawn.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4098172.stm
"Three people, including the girl's aunt, were convicted of trying to "beat the devil out of" the un-named 10-year-old - originally from Angola.
The report was commissioned by the Met after the death of Victoria Climbie in February 2000 and because of concerns over so-called faith crimes."
You are conflating "acts of commission" with "acts of conscience."
In the case,
Reynolds v. United States (1878), the Court wrote:
Congress cannot pass a law ... which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation. Religious freedom is guaranteed everywhere throughout the United States, so far as congressional interference is concerned. The question to be determined is, whether the law now under consideration comes within this prohibition....
(Quoting Jefferson) "Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between man and his God; that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship; that the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and 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 and State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore man to all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties...."
Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. Suppose one believed that human sacrifices were a necessary part of religious worship; would it be seriously contended that the civil government under which he lived could not interfere to prevent a sacrifice? Or if a wife religiously believed it was her duty to burn herself upon the funeral pile of her dead husband; would it be beyond the power of the civil government to prevent her carrying her belief into practice?The Supreme Court here, by quoting Jefferson, and applying common sense, differentiated between "rights of conscience" from "practices' of certain religions which fall afoul of our law.
Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on February 27, 2014, 05:05:44 PM
Is there a right to be free of condemnation in the Bill of Rights? There is a right to the free exercise of religion.
The late Arizona law sought to protect the exercise of religion and the freedom of conscience from an assault similar to that dealt by the New Mexico Supreme Court.
I am a definite believer in the Bill of Rights. I also definitely believe in religious freedom as long as it doesn't belittle, discriminate, humiliate or persecute others for living their lives the way they see fit. I am a very Spiritual person but I would never dream of not doing business just because of someone's lifestyle that I don't agree with. They have every right to be able to use my services as long as they can pay for it and if they can't I will even cut breaks. I know I am trans which is an alternate lifestyle in which some do not agree with or out and out hate and there are lifestyles that I don't agree with. But they have every much the same right to live the way they see fit as I have the same right. With that said I am a business person and green is green and provides for my living and hopefully retirement.
Believe me, I am not taking this bill personally but rather very skeptically. In good conscience? "Judge not lest ye be judged" "Do not take the Lord's name in vain" are passages that ring true to my heart from the Bible. If there was a transgender that wanted Christ to pray for him or her for some malady besides being transgender, what would Jesus do? Deny that person compassion just because he or she were transgendered? WWJD I see a lot or used to see it a lot but proclaiming proudly and contemplating it are two different things entirely. On a lighter note though Jesus did hang with the sinners way more than the saints. ;)
Quote from: Hikari on February 27, 2014, 04:06:43 PM
I can't understand how this is such a political issue are people really in here quoting the Federalist papers? (I consider it a dubious sign when people start quoting political papers as if they were somehow law, which happens far too often)
It is simple, if you operate a for profit business and you think that blacks originate from the descendants of Caine and are servants of Satan and you refuse to serve them you are breaking the law (and are also crazy). If you operate a Church or a Church business (like a Catholic School for example) then you can discriminate because you are a religious institution.... So why should blacks have protections and not LGBT people?
If religious freedom gives you the "freedom" to cripple our civic institutions (and yes, with the way our country is ran for profit companies are not only civic institutions, they form the backbone of civic participation) Then I am absolutely opposed to such "Freedom". If someone wants to discriminate against me because I am Trans, Lesbian, White, or even Atheist that person better be part of a church or some other exclusive affinity group, not a for profit enterprise.
As to the specific point, this bill was about taking democratic rights away from the cities of Arizona, several of whom have passed nondiscrimination laws. This entire thing was just another example of rural politicians trying to override the democratic processes of urban areas, because they can't seem to stand just discriminating against the LGBT community in their own back yard they need to do it in urban areas too.
The
Federalist Papers are authoritatively quoted by the Supreme Court because they represent the observations and views of two of the persons (Madison and Hamilton) who were responsible for much of the Constitution's original content. Furthermore, these papers record the nature of the debates in the Philadelphia convention, and the process of ratification by state conventions of the people. That means they record the prevailing arguments of the day and the original meaning and intent of the Constitution.
The debates in the First Congress tell us about the crafting of the Bill of Rights. Both are important tools in understanding what these fundamental guarantees mean.
As Justice Antonin Scalia notes, the Constitution is not a "living" document. It is an "enduring" document.
Quote from: Hikari on February 27, 2014, 05:15:42 PM
The NFL acted perfectly consistently with seeking the most profits. I am sure the NFL is made up of a majority of Christians, so it wasn't discrimination against Christians, it was protecting their brand from someone who says very controversial things. The NFL wouldn't want Jeremiah Wright either, and it isn't because he is a Christian, but because he is a liability to their brand....
This is the exact same motivation for the NFL to threaten to move the Superbowl as well, they viewed keeping it in Arizona as a business liability because they viewed the bill as antiLGBT and discrimination isn't popular. These are rational business decisions, not some sort of malice towards Christians.
So you do support discriminating against controversial things, like gay-marriage? Interesting.
Quote from: Jamie de la Rosa on February 27, 2014, 06:54:24 PM
The Federalist Papers are authoritatively quoted by the Supreme Court because they represent the observations and views of two of the persons (Madison and Hamilton) who were responsible for much of the Constitution's original content.
This thread has been very entertaining but it's gotten past the point where it ceases to make any sense. The Federalist Papers is an important work, but it's not law. The Constitution, however, IS law.
Let's break this thing down to the basics -
Person 1 (Joe) says "I don't want to sell wedding cakes to this guy because I suspect he's gay and that would be a violation of my religious beliefs, and my religious expression is constitutionally protected."
Person 2 (Bob) says "My partner and I are committing to each other in a church ceremony. We're decent, religious people and our church sanctions this even though same sex marriage is not legal or recognized by the state, and my religious expression is constitutionally protected."
Bob wants to be treated just like any other customer, Jim wants to deny Bob equal treatment. Two people with claims to religious freedom, but they're in conflict. So who's right? Who takes precedence?
Neither, if the argument is solely religious. The 1st Amendment prohibits making a law that respects one over the other, so these interests would cancel each other out based merely on religious merit. This then falls to other laws to break the tie. As I've pointed out, the 9th Amendment answers this issue quite nicely by protecting Bob's civil rights.
Do Jim's rights become infringed? No, despite the fact that conservative media crybabies are saying that it does. Making Jim sell the cake to Bob just means that Jim is doing his job and treating everyone the same, and that's all the law requires. He suffers no loss of equal status (but Bob would if Jim made him have to find a gay bakery), he receives no unfair or inequal treatment (but Bob would if Jim prevails), and he continues to have full access to all the rights and benefits of society (but Bob would not if Jim continues to unlawfully restrict him).
Making Jim do his job does not deprive him of any rights. Discrimination is not a religious right, it's not a religious value, there is no doctrinal commandment in any of the holy texts I have ever read that tell followers to mistreat their fellow man because they sin in a different way.
I must admit I haven't read this whole thread, geez 4 whole pages since I posted this last night!
Quote from: Michelle-G on February 27, 2014, 09:56:04 PM
This thread has been very entertaining but it's gotten past the point where it ceases to make any sense. The Federalist Papers is an important work, but it's not law. The Constitution, however, IS law.
Here though the Constitution is interpreted using a variety of methods (http://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art3frag30_user.html), one of them being the "historical" method. While these types of documents aren't law, they're often extremely influential in deciding what our constitution means. A few of the Supreme Court justices prefer the historical method over other methods and don't view it Constitution as a "living document", so it's often best to research how these docs would apply in the historical method in order to have a better guesstimate as to what these justices will decide.
It might seem silly, but if you read many Supreme Court cases, concurrences, and dissents, you'll see the Federalist Papers, letters, diaries, etc. quoted.
Quote from: Michelle-G on February 27, 2014, 09:56:04 PM
This thread has been very entertaining but it's gotten past the point where it ceases to make any sense. The Federalist Papers is an important work, but it's not law. The Constitution, however, IS law.
Let's break this thing down to the basics -
Person 1 (Joe) says "I don't want to sell wedding cakes to this guy because I suspect he's gay and that would be a violation of my religious beliefs, and my religious expression is constitutionally protected."
Person 2 (Bob) says "My partner and I are committing to each other in a church ceremony. We're decent, religious people and our church sanctions this even though same sex marriage is not legal or recognized by the state, and my religious expression is constitutionally protected."
Bob wants to be treated just like any other customer, Jim wants to deny Bob equal treatment. Two people with claims to religious freedom, but they're in conflict. So who's right? Who takes precedence?
Neither, if the argument is solely religious. The 1st Amendment prohibits making a law that respects one over the other, so these interests would cancel each other out based merely on religious merit. This then falls to other laws to break the tie. As I've pointed out, the 9th Amendment answers this issue quite nicely by protecting Bob's civil rights.
Do Jim's rights become infringed? No, despite the fact that conservative media crybabies are saying that it does. Making Jim sell the cake to Bob just means that Jim is doing his job and treating everyone the same, and that's all the law requires. He suffers no loss of equal status (but Bob would if Jim made him have to find a gay bakery), he receives no unfair or inequal treatment (but Bob would if Jim prevails), and he continues to have full access to all the rights and benefits of society (but Bob would not if Jim continues to unlawfully restrict him).
Making Jim do his job does not deprive him of any rights. Discrimination is not a religious right, it's not a religious value, there is no doctrinal commandment in any of the holy texts I have ever read that tell followers to mistreat their fellow man because they sin in a different way.
???
Quote from: Nikko on February 27, 2014, 10:22:37 PM
???
Yep.
QuoteDo Jim's rights become infringed? No, despite the fact that conservative media crybabies are saying that it does. Making Jim sell the cake to Bob just means that Jim is doing his job and treating everyone the same, and that's all the law requires....
Making Jim do his job does not deprive him of any rights.
"Making Jim do his job" equals coercion, and coercion is the very antithesis of free choice.
Here is an interesting take on the issue from
the Daily Kos - LOLZ
Can the state compel an "artist to paint a picture"? (http://www.dailykos.com/story/2013/04/14/1201652/-Can-the-state-compel-an-artist-to-paint-a-picture#)
Arlene's Flowers' attorney is arguing that floral arranging is a form of artistic expression, and is therefore protected speech under the First Amendment of the US Constitution. To wit:
"[The lawsuit] is compelled speech in violation of the First Amendment. The state cannot require a florist to express appreciation for, or acceptance of gay marriage, any more than the state can require a musician to write a song about it, or an artist to paint a picture."
Setting aside the question of whether or not flower arranging is artistic expression (I think it is), what about the case of an artist that paints wedding portraits as a regular course of business? Is the First Amendment in play here? Can the state of Washington fine an artist $2000 for refusing to paint a picture? Flower arrangements are artistic expression.
Photography is artistic expression.
Cake decorating is artistic expression.
Portraiture is artistic express.
Same First Amendment. Same protections. Same reason - freedom of conscience.
Quote from: Nikko on February 27, 2014, 07:41:57 PM
So you do support discriminating against controversial things, like gay-marriage? Interesting.
First I was talking about the NFL at no point did I make mention of what I support furthermore support of same sex marriage isn't very controversial. There might be some fundamentalists who oppose it but by and large for profit institutions (technically the NFL is a non profit but I say they act like a for profit company) can support things like gay marriage and get a small publicity boost rather than scores of protesters outside.
A company would be however foolish to think that the things said on conservative (or liberal) talk radio represent any sort of majority viewpoint. The reason why the NFL didn't embrace LGBT players and fans 20 years ago is because it would create controversy and rock the boat, now whatever controversy would be rather limited and they are surely betting that the tide of history is on the side of lgbt people and do t want to get cast in a negative light for being a hold out.
Quote from: Hikari on February 28, 2014, 03:08:49 AM
First I was talking about the NFL at no point did I make mention of what I support furthermore support of same sex marriage isn't very controversial. There might be some fundamentalists who oppose it but by and large for profit institutions (technically the NFL is a non profit but I say they act like a for profit company) can support things like gay marriage and get a small publicity boost rather than scores of protesters outside.
A company would be however foolish to think that the things said on conservative (or liberal) talk radio represent any sort of majority viewpoint. The reason why the NFL didn't embrace LGBT players and fans 20 years ago is because it would create controversy and rock the boat, now whatever controversy would be rather limited and they are surely betting that the tide of history is on the side of lgbt people and do t want to get cast in a negative light for being a hold out.
Really, gay marriage isn't controversial? It's hugely controversial. So, as long as viewpoints are rare, it's ok to discriminate? Liberals have done their best to polarize Rush Limbaugh and define him as controversial, but his views are quite mainstream. I don't play that game though.
You appear to be making a case for discrimination on the basis of what you feel others should believe. I'm suggesting there are beliefs people hold that may prevent them from taking part in certain activities. I don't share their beliefs, but their beliefs aren't for me to judge per se. This isn't about what you or I believe.
QuoteA company would be however foolish to think that the things said on conservative (or liberal) talk radio represent any sort of majority viewpoint.
Twice as many self identify as conservative than they do liberal.
I find your mindset a little scary, a lot actually. You seem entirely willing to discriminate against things you simply disagree, things you deem not okay. I'm not religious and I support gay marriage, I don't support these bills. But it's concerning how many people just seem closed minded regarding other's beliefs. Truly scary.
Quote from: Nikko on February 28, 2014, 07:03:24 AM
Really, gay marriage isn't controversial? It's hugely controversial. So, as long as viewpoints are rare, it's ok to discriminate? Liberals have done their best to polarize Rush Limbaugh and define him as controversial, but his views are quite mainstream. I don't play that game though.
If you don't think that Rush is controversial, moreover even think he is mainstream then I have to say we must live in worlds where there are simply different facts. I suppose there isn't much point in talking at that point, because if the world you live in operates of a different set of facts then I don't see how we could ever do anything but talk past each other. Maybe I should start adopting different facts too and start thinking that Rachel Maddow and Robert Reich are somehow people with mainstream views; it would certainly make the world easier to deal with.
Tell me one radical non-mainstream view he has. You're fond of communism, yes your world is different than mine. Duh?
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out--
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me--
and there was no one left to speak for me.
*****
At what point will this not be OK? At what point will this shift from good to bad? At what point will this false claim of religious liberty actually begin to look like the hate and discrimination it truly is? Will it be when they identify any of us as transgender and refuse to treat us equally because it is also is against their "religious beliefs"?
If "they" are coming for the socialists, by definition it's a liberating force for those oppressed by these thugs and it's a good thing.
In reality, a free people have their freedoms taken one by one by the elites who assume the role of masters. This bill, although poorly designed and poorly thought out was aimed at preventing the loss of freedom of religion.
Quote from: Nikko on February 28, 2014, 03:50:13 PM
Tell me one radical non-mainstream view he has. You're fond of communism, yes your world is different than mine. Duh?
I am pretty sure thinking feminists are somehow "femnazis" isn't very mainstream.
My world view is very different than yours but, locally there are quite a few people I know who consider the concept of property itself to be theft. So while I understand my views aren't mainstream they aren't really all that far left in my community. I suspect we very well might be living in basically different worlds.
Quote from: Nikko on February 28, 2014, 04:45:19 PMIn reality, a free people have their freedoms taken one by one by the elites who assume the role of masters.
Yeah . . . you really didn't get it, did you? That's the whole point of this thread.
Quote from: Nikko on February 28, 2014, 04:45:19 PMThis bill, although poorly designed and poorly thought out was aimed at preventing the loss of freedom of religion.
It was aimed at legalizing inequality. How much longer will you continue to try to make hate and discrimination sound noble and holy?
Quote from: Hikari on February 28, 2014, 05:36:24 PM
I am pretty sure thinking feminists are somehow "femnazis" isn't very mainstream.
Why any woman or transwoman would want to align herself with Rush Limbaugh is beyond me. That makes about as much sense as Barack Obama wanting to join the KKK or Jews aiding the Third Reich. Just sayin'...
:police: This thread seems to be getting quite polarized. People have different opinions, and that's okay, but remember to keep things nice. :)
Since this has turned into a cat fight, topic locked.