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 ?



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)

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

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.