Thoughts, prayers, and hate

[Minstrel]

It's not up to you to decide for religious people what violates their religious expression. It's not up to many others, either.

Okay, let me put it another way: it's up to each individual what violates their religious expression, but people don't have an absolute right to exercise their religious expression. The Bible has language that gay people must be put to death, but even if there were those who felt that they must carry that out, we'd have to force them to violate their religious expression.

I never claimed protected classes are unconstitutional. Just that gays are not a protected class.

They are at the state level in many states. And just by accepting that protected classes aren't unconstitutional, you agree that the law doesn't have to protect everyone equally.

 

[Spud147]

We disagree on how broadly you draw "violating religious expression." Baking a cake that will be used in a wedding does not, to me or many others, constitute forcing people to violate their religious expression.

The thing is, what is the definition of religious expression? There are many religions with all different beliefs, how do we legislate what is okay and not okay to express under the 1st amendment?

 

[Minstrel]

The thing is, what is the definition of religious expression? There are many religions with all different beliefs, how do we legislate what is okay and not okay to express under the 1st amendment?

There's no bright line standard. I think, though, that using "violation of religious expression" for things that in no way require the person/business to endorse any particular practice is shaky.

 

[SlyPokerDog]

I know I'm going semi OT here but the subject is very interesting and it got me to thinking where you would or could draw the line.

What if you owned a Christian/Muslim book store and had a Satanist come in to buy Bibles/Korans? You know that they are going to be defiled... can you refuse services?

The Christian/Muslim would hope that the person would take a moment to read some of the book before destroying it and the world of god would seep in.

At least a reasonable one would.

 

[Denny Crane]

The thing is, what is the definition of religious expression? There are many religions with all different beliefs, how do we legislate what is okay and not okay to express under the 1st amendment?

It's been basically limited to real physical harm. Like denying medical care to children with the expectation that God will provide a miracle. Even then, it's highly questionable, though the state does have a compelling interest in seeing the children who have access to care should get it. (and everyone has access, even if it's showing up at the emergency room, it's law that everyone must be treated).

 

[Spud147]

There's no bright line standard. I think, though, that using "violation of religious expression" for things that in no way require the person/business to endorse any particular practice is shaky.

Okay, so let's go back to selling a Bible/Koran to a Satanist. Am I going to be forced to knowingly sell what I consider to be the word of God to be misused?

 

[Denny Crane]

They are at the state level in many states. And just by accepting that protected classes aren't unconstitutional, you agree that the law doesn't have to protect everyone equally.

Nonsense. Laws pertaining to protected classes DO protect everyone equally.

You are trying to invent a right here that isn't an equal protection. You want to exclude the Nazis, per my example.

 

[Minstrel]

Okay, so let's go back to selling a Bible/Koran to a Satanist. Am I going to be forced to knowingly sell what I consider to be the word of God to be misused?

I think it depends on whether Satanism is officially recognized as a religion. If it isn't, then as far as I know the bookstore owner could deny service because there's no religious protection. If Satanism is recognized as a religion, then I don't think the owner could refuse on those grounds.

 

[Minstrel]

Nonsense. Laws pertaining to protected classes DO protect everyone equally.

If laws protecting blacks or Christians from denial of service protect everyone equally, so do laws protecting gays from denial of service.

 

[Spud147]

I think it depends on whether Satanism is officially recognized as a religion. If it isn't, then as far as I know the bookstore owner could deny service because there's no religious protection. If Satanism is recognized as a religion, then I don't think the owner could refuse on those grounds.

Well then we have to ask what the definition of a religion is... tax exempt status? Who decides what's officially a religion? As an American aren't I free to believe any religion I want including one I made up today?

 

[Denny Crane]

If laws protecting blacks or Christians from denial of service protect everyone equally, so do laws protecting gays from denial of service.

They're already protected equally by the laws. Blacks need specific protection because of their history and concerted effort by government to deny them basic civil rights, including the right to vote. I don't see where gay people have been denied the right to vote, or hundreds of years of Jim Crow laws.

The Christian bakers aren't denying old people or black people or any other protected group. They're not denying gay people either service either - just wedding cakes.

 

[Minstrel]

Well then we have to ask what the definition of a religion is... tax exempt status? Who decides what's officially a religion?

I have no idea.

As an American aren't I free to believe any religion I want including one I made up today?

Yes, but you're not necessarily going to get legal protections for that religion.

 

[Minstrel]

They're already protected equally by the laws. Blacks need specific protection because of their history and concerted effort by government to deny them basic civil rights, including the right to vote.

Even the federally protected classes you quoted included more than black people.

 

[Denny Crane]

Well then we have to ask what the definition of a religion is... tax exempt status? Who decides what's officially a religion? As an American aren't I free to believe any religion I want including one I made up today?

It's not just refusing religious expression that's in question here, it's also establishment of religion by government. Legislating against one religion in ways the favor another is establishment (and yes, Secular Humanism is a religion for the purposes of this question).

 

[Denny Crane]

Even the federally protected classes you quoted included more than black people.

Not globally for all things, as for black people.

Even so, refusing to bake a cake is not a situation where any real damages occur. Sure, the gay people affected get upset by the refusal, but they're not hurt physically or denied actual rights (like housing, voting rights, etc.), or monetary harm (loss of income or business). If they can make a civil case that they've been done some great mental anguish type of harm, let 'em sue.

 

[Minstrel]

Even so, refusing to bake a cake is not a situation where any real damages occur..

A single cake is not damaging in the big picture, I agree (though it is humiliating/degrading, which is a harm itself). The issue here is that if such prejudices are allowed to become normalized, denial of service could become widespread, which would collectively add up to a pretty significant harm. We saw this happen with black people before the Civil Rights Act. Even apart from the obvious physical threats they faced, you could have argued then that a restaurant being allowed not to serve a black person did not cause any great harm--but if many/most businesses choose not to serve black people, it becomes a great harm.

 

[Spud147]

It's not just refusing religious expression that's in question here, it's also establishment of religion by government. Legislating against one religion in ways the favor another is establishment (and yes, Secular Humanism is a religion for the purposes of this question).

Exactly, it's a slippery slope when you have to come up with a definition under the 1st amendment. Minstrel's post got me to thinking about Scientology, it is a tax exempt "religion" but, from what I understand, doesn't involve worshiping any "gods".

 

[SlyPokerDog]

Exactly, it's a slippery slope when you have to come up with a definition under the 1st amendment. Minstrel's post got me to thinking about Scientology, it is a tax exempt "religion" but, from what I understand, doesn't involve worshiping any "gods".

I'm available to be worshiped if they're looking for someone.

 

[Spud147]

A single cake is not damaging in the big picture, I agree (though it is humiliating/degrading, which is a harm itself). The issue here is that if such prejudices are allowed to become normalized, denial of service could become widespread, which would collectively add up to a pretty significant harm. We saw this happen with black people before the Civil Rights Act. Even apart from the obvious physical threats they faced, you could have argued then that a restaurant being allowed not to serve a black person did not cause any great harm--but if many/most businesses choose not to serve black people, it becomes a great harm.

But a Christian/Muslim could use the same argument... they feel humiliated and degraded because their religious beliefs are not respected. Most bakeries don't consider religions and serve everybody. History shows us that, while there is a very long way to go, we've come a long way in improving conditions for those who've been discriminated against in the past and we're not going to go backwards. When does it come to the point where the minority "religious" bakery owners are "protected"?

 

[Spud147]

If you're going to say, "Why can't you be reasonable and bake the cake?" to a religious baker you have to ask, "Why can't you be reasonable and go to another bakery?" to the gay couple. See what I'm saying? Both parties feel their rights are being violated and both parties have a legitimate argument. Clearly the founding fathers didn't see this coming!

 

[Minstrel]

But a Christian/Muslim could use the same argument... they feel humiliated and degraded because their religious beliefs are not respected.

The "humiliation/degradation" wasn't the main argument. It was that denial of service can quickly lead to marginalization of a minority in society. I don't think that this can be feasibly reversed: that by providing services to people they disagree with, Christians or Muslims will be marginalized in society.

 

[crandc]

Spud, discrimination is not a civil right. Period. No one's rights are being violated when a business is asked to do business. Maybe there is only one bakery that makes wedding cakes? Doesn't matter. There is no civil rights violation to being asked to do your damn job. If a baker is unwilling to bake, find another job. If a clerk can't issue marriage licenses, get another job. If a pharmacist can't fill prescriptions, get another job. What if it's hiring? You're a Christian, it offends you that gay people exist, you want us all dead, so your civil rights are violated if you have to hire people regardless of sexual orientation?

It's bogus. Fake argument. Persecuted bakers, persecuted Nazis, men pretending to be transwomen, all bullshit. Total complete utter bullshit. Just putting frosting on bigotry. The Congress called hearings on this bill because they consider gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans inferior beings not entitled to the rights heteros take for granted. They called hearings on the month anniversary of a massacre of mostly gay people to underline their contempt for us. All this shit about persecuted Christian bakers and persecuted Nazis is just a big pile of bullshit. No one is proposing a bill that would allow county clerks to refuse to issue marriage licenses to Nazis, they are proposing a bill that allows clerks to refuse to issue licenses to gay and lesbian couples. No one is proposing a bill that would allow employers to refuse Christian employees time off under Federal Family and Medical Leave Act to care for sick spouse or child, they are proposing a bill that would allow employers to refuse gay employees time off under FMLA. No one is proposing a bill that would allow federal contractors to refuse to hire Christians, they are proposing a bill that would allow federal contractors to refuse to hire LGBTQ people. No one is proposing a bill that would prohibit Nazis from using public facilities, Congress is proposing a bill that would prohibit transgender people from using public facilities.

Gays, lesbians, bi, transgender people. Not Christians. Not Nazis. So stop spreading the bullshit. You can spread bullshit a mile thick and it doesn't cover up the fact that Congress is proposing the widest ranging antigay bill in history on the one month anniversary of the worst antigay violence in the country's history.

 

[Spud147]

The "humiliation/degradation" wasn't the main argument. It was that denial of service can quickly lead to marginalization of a minority in society. I don't think that this can be feasibly reversed: that by providing services to people they disagree with, Christians or Muslims will be marginalized in society.

I do, in this case they could be considered the minority because the majority of the bakeries out there are going to sell wedding cakes to everyone. The religious baker is being marginalized when they he is forced to violate his religious beliefs protected under the 1st amendment. You're trying to rank who's rights are the most important but those individual people, whether we agree with their beliefs or not, are just as protected under the constitution.

 

[Minstrel]

I do, in this case they could be considered the minority because the majority of the bakeries out there are going to sell wedding cakes to everyone. The religious baker is being marginalized when they he is forced to violate his religious beliefs protected under the 1st amendment.

Christians (or Muslims) will be in no danger of being marginalized in society, even if some of them must sell goods/services to people who's practices they disagree with.

You're trying to rank who's rights are the most important but those individual people, whether we agree with their beliefs or not, are just as protected under the constitution.

Yes, they are. Christians and Muslims are also protected classes and can't be denied goods/services. No one (including gays, blacks, etc) is allowed to deny goods and services to protected classes.

 

[Denny Crane]

The religious persons' refusal is a form of conscientious objection.

They even lost their businesses and were fined big bucks over it and were willing to accept that rather than the trivial act of baking the cake.

The party suffering the damage is clearly the business, not the gay persons. The gay couple got a cake elsewhere, I presume.

 

[Minstrel]

The party suffering the damage is clearly the business, not the gay persons. The gay couple got a cake elsewhere, I presume.

Yes, but a big part of that is because the discrimination was illegal. If it had been legal, other businesses can follow suit and then it would be extremely damaging to gay people, just as it was when it played out that way for black people. That's the whole point of marginalization.

You're essentially affirming that the system worked--it's produced a society where this kind of discrimination rarely happens and, when it does, the gay couple has recourse. As I mentioned, we've seen this play out differently when such prejudice wasn't prohibited.

 

[Denny Crane]

Yes, but a big part of that is because the discrimination was illegal. If it had been legal, other businesses can follow suit and then it would be extremely damaging to gay people, just as it was when it played out that way for black people. That's the whole point of marginalization.

You're essentially affirming that the system worked--it's produced a society where this kind of discrimination rarely happens and, when it does, the gay couple has recourse. As I mentioned, we've seen this play out differently when such prejudice wasn't prohibited.

Judging by the mass quantity of bakeries that have not baked cakes for gay marriages, the republic is doomed!

There simply is no there there.

 

[rasheedfan2005]

It's not idiotic for me to care about my life and my civil rights.

Congress can't do anything about Zika, or background checks for assault rifles, or for that matter any of the issues raised, but they can hold hearings to prove they hate gay people.

They don't have to prove it to me.
Just don't fucking insult me by pretending to "pray" for me.

Ive had to do a background check all 6 times ive purchased a fire arm?

 

[rasheedfan2005]

Yes, but a big part of that is because the discrimination was illegal. If it had been legal, other businesses can follow suit and then it would be extremely damaging to gay people, just as it was when it played out that way for black people. That's the whole point of marginalization.

You're essentially affirming that the system worked--it's produced a society where this kind of discrimination rarely happens and, when it does, the gay couple has recourse. As I mentioned, we've seen this play out differently when such prejudice wasn't prohibited.

So gay person goes without cake, and gay haters die from diabetes while their business fails. Who gets the last laugh?

 

[Minstrel]

There simply is no there there.

Yup. That's the point I made. We agree. Hooray for legal protections.