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

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.