Look at how pleased Bill Clinton was to sign what was then perceived as important civil rights legislation.
The tables have turned. And now all the liberals are remembering how much they love Antonin Scalia. I mean, not really, but to be consistent, those who are denouncing hapless Governor Mike Pence should be extolling Scalia who ushered in the era of "Religious Freedom" legislation when he wrote:
We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition. As described succinctly by Justice Frankfurter in Minersville School Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Gobitis, 310 U.S. 586, 594-595 (1940):Okay, I'm working my way through this resistance to the topic. What I see is: A different group is activated now and everything looks different. What I feel is: Exquisitely distanced amusement.
Conscientious scruples have not, in the course of the long struggle for religious toleration, relieved the individual from obedience to a general law not aimed at the promotion or restriction of religious beliefs. The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.(Footnote omitted.) We first had occasion to assert that principle in Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145 (1879), where we rejected the claim that criminal laws against polygamy could not be constitutionally applied to those whose religion commanded the practice. "Laws," we said, are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.
Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).
Posts
256 comments:
1 – 200 of 256 Newer› Newest»This hoopla just shows Gays want everyone to celebrate their Gayness not merely tolerate it and leave them alone.
They have no attention in leaving Christians alone. Besides, being Gay isn't like being black, no one knows your Gay unless you wear a "I'm Gay sign" on your head when you go to Walmarts.
The gay mayor in Seattle has promised that no city money will be spent traveling to Indiana.
That'll show 'em!!
I mean, not really, but to be consistent, those who are denouncing hapless Governor Mike Pence should be extolling Scalia
Exactly.
I'm also amused that the liberals love RFRA as long as it only applies to peyote and Rastafarians (and probably Muslim beard length too). Back then, religious freedom was so exotic and primitive.
The media should be ashamed of themselves for the way they are reporting this whole thing. I think most people that are halfway paying attention think that just because the RFFA passed in Indiana, every Christian owned business in the State is going to put a sign on their door that says, "No Gays allowed." Then, when those poor, kind and flawless gay people try to sue, the State government will say, "I'm sorry, you can't sue, because we passed the RFRA. Head on over to such Blue States as Illinois or New Mexico or Connecticut if you want to be treated as a real citizen....oh wait, don't go to those states...."
Here's the map that shows the state's that have statutory protections of the RFRA kind and state constitutional law interpretations that give the same protections. Why pick on Indiana? It just didn't get grandfathered in. It didn't adopt the law back when the law was perceived in a different light.
Because the left is on the march.
I support Indiana’s law. The ability of the gay community to find wedding services will not truly be impaired. Certainly there are mulitudes of gay bakers, florists, wedding planners (my experience), and photographers who can naturally market to their community. Read a church bulletin and see the analogous friendly invitations for business.
What must not happen is what has happened again in Oregon where a florist told repeat gay customers that she regretfully could not provide services for their wedding based on her religious beliefs. -And got sued.
I have a friend who’s a professional photographer - once named the leading wedding photographer in the city - who will never do another wedding based on his fear of being forced to place his art at the service of a ceremony in which he does not believe and at which he could not be comfortable.
Those of us with religious beliefs have actual Constitutionally codified rights and if the first ammendment is to mean anything we should not be forced at legal jeopardy to participate in a religious ceremony involuntarily.
I've been seeing a lot of demagoguery on twitter and Facebook around this issue.
From what I understand, the general principle is that businesses can refuse to do business for any reason or no reason.* Unless, there is some compelling reason why they should be forced to do so--Like if they provide an essential service AND are the only provider available.
A good example might be the only gas station in a 50 mile radius--which tries to refuse service to Asians. Or a monopoly, such as utilities.
*If the public is offended by the reason, the business might end-up with no customers at all.
"I'm also amused that the liberals love RFRA as long as it only applies to peyote and Rastafarians (and probably Muslim beard length too). Back then, religious freedom was so exotic and primitive..."
To be fair to the liberal perspective: Liberals (including, notably, Justice Brennan) want to protect minorities from oppression by the majority. When it comes to generally applicable laws, the majority already builds in protection for the religious needs it knows and cares about. Judicial protection against burdens on religion is supported because the democratic process is not trusted when it comes to religions that are disliked, considered weird (in a bad way), or not known. This is a standard thing for liberals to want law to do.
People support laws when they picture good effects, but the courts have to apply those laws equally, and the religions you didn't think you were going to help will have the same capacity to use that law.
The people against this are not concerned with the principal involved; only who wins in the current cases to which the law is being applied. They don't like the current Streetcar stop and so the law is now bad.
The question is why a gay marriage destroys normal Christian marriage. It does not unless the Christians say it does.
What I want to know is why Chik-Fil-A is closed today. That means No Chiken nugget treya at the Gay Marriages on Sunday.
And now all the liberals are remembering how much they love Antonin Scalia.
I'm just glad I wasn't drinking my morning coffee when I read that.
What I don't understand is one one group seeks to have their rights exist over another.
It's a quandary. Refusing service to gay is frankly, dumb business. Their money is as good as anyone else's.
On the flip side, having homosexuals dictate their rights over the religious rights, is dumb too. (Just go to another trusted provider.)
Althouse wrote: The tables have turned. And now all the liberals are remembering how much they love Antonin Scalia.
The notion of the left doing a volte-face vis-à-vis Scalia is amusing. It'll never happen though--not after those slippery-slope comments of his. And so the left will hobble and cripple themselves, putting the worst face on things.
"Liberals (including, notably, Justice Brennan) want to protect minorities from oppression by the majority."
Well, that's nice. Except that's not in the constitution. No discrimination based on race means no discrimination based on race. Of course, the words never mattered did they?
The constitution is whatever 5 SCOTUS judges say it is. It can mean white today and black tomorrow.
This is the kind of clusterfuck you get when there are too many laws and everyone wants their interests inscribed in the code, law upon law. You're going to get some conflicts.
"Well, that's nice. Except that's not in the constitution. No discrimination based on race means no discrimination based on race. Of course, the words never mattered did they?"
So are you for RFRA or against it?
Be careful. It's a trap.
Ann-- I think the 'Why pick on Indiana" is...because Indiana is easy to boycott. If you had to boycott Seattle, or Chicago? That could hurt!
But... the people who are in hysterics over the law would never set foot in IN anyway. I mean, basketball? Race cars? That's rednecked rube stuff.
Also, as I've said elsewhere.... We know Obama wants Warren, not Hillary!.... and so, if opposition to RFRA becomes a liberal litmus test, Hillary! is stuck either disavowing Bill (her best campaigner and fundraiser and the only reason she's even in the running), or she ends up embracing it and losing the hysterical base.
So... going after IN is an easy way to marginalize Hillary!
It's all politics, not real hysteria at all....
Do you think the Free Exercise clause should be interpreted to require that there be exceptions from laws for people who have a need to avoid a burden on their religion?
Let's see which side wins the boycott battle.
Thanks for commenting on this. I've read a lot of hyperventilating commentary this week, and read the Indiana statute, and I have a lot of trouble figuring out how to get from the wording of the statute to the Gaymageddon that the commentary assumes is coming.
The Wisconsin Constitution is interpreted to require accommodations for religion. The Wisconsin Supreme Court was unanimous about that in 1996 (PDF).
And it wasn't only Justice Brennan who thought the U.S. Constitution should be read that way. Justice O'Connor thought it too:
"The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment commands that "Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]."... Because the First Amendment does not distinguish between religious belief and religious conduct, conduct motivated by sincere religious belief, like the belief itself, must therefore be at least presumptively protected by the Free Exercise Clause. The Court today, however, interprets the Clause to permit the government to prohibit, without justification, conduct mandated by an individual's religious beliefs, so long as that prohibition is generally applicable. But a law that prohibits certain conduct -- conduct that happens to be an act of worship for someone -- manifestly does prohibit that person's free exercise of his religion. A person who is barred from engaging in religiously motivated conduct is barred from freely exercising his religion. Moreover, that person is barred from freely exercising his religion regardless of whether the law prohibits the conduct only when engaged in for religious reasons, only by members of that religion, or by all persons. It is difficult to deny that a law that prohibits [p894] religiously motivated conduct, even if the law is generally applicable, does not at least implicate First Amendment concerns."
Hey, Angie's list says the new law is why they won't expand further in Indiana.
Totally has nothing to do with their bizarre, and borderline fraudulent business plan, which has been totally usurped by social media anyhow......
Nope. It's all about the RFRA. Hooray for Angie's List! Maybe the opponents of the law will rush to pay $50 a year for fake reviews now!
I think a struggling gay-owned restaurant in IN needs to announce that they will no longer serve people who won't sign a statement of support for Gay Marriage. Activists from all over would fly in and pay to thumb their noses at Indiana, and the restaurant owners could retire wealthy!
I would like a law passed that Chik-Fil-A has to open on Sunday. It is an equal day. And that would not offend Hindus since no cows are killed and eaten during the meal.
I'm really disappointed in the childish embarrassing pandering on the part of the mayor of Seattle. His only response to the events in Indiana ought to be, "I'm the mayor of Seattle, Washington, and the laws of Indiana have nothing to do with my responsibilities." The no-travel thing silly, pandering, knee-jerk and emotion-driven and serious minded people ought to be infuriated at having such a ridiculous "leader."
This is the kind of clusterfuck you get when there are too many laws and everyone wants their interests inscribed in the code, law upon law. You're going to get some conflicts.
I'm starting to get the sense that 80% of all laws are not intended to be enforced, but they made us all feel good when they were signed into law.
Exquisitely distanced amusement.
Bullshit. You're a cheerleader for one side, and a poor winner to boot.
The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities.
Scalia quoting Frankfurter
Wait! "Religious convictions" --- like "we need peyote for our ceremonies"? "Discharge of political responsibilities" --- like "possession of peyote is a felony"?
Since the RFRA was passed into law by an avalanche of legislative support, and it clearly authorizes the exemption on religious grounds from a very serious law, either 1) the RFRA is clearly unconstitutional & the justices are asleep at the wheel or 2) Frankfurter & Scalia are full of shit in this matter.
Or, am I missing something really basic here?
Ann Althouse said...
This is the kind of clusterfuck you get when there are too many laws and everyone wants their interests inscribed in the code, law upon law. You're going to get some conflicts.
"Junk law" is like junk DNA
Do you think the Free Exercise clause should be interpreted to require that there be exceptions from laws for people who have a need to avoid a burden on their religion?
No..it means laws that infringe on religious liberty are unconstitutional.
I would like a law passed that Chik-Fil-A has to open on Sunday
Why not.
Typical Lefty trying to order people around.
Given the Obamacare ruling, and laws around the country preventing people from opening on Sundays, it is probably legal today.
Judicial protection against burdens on religion is supported because the democratic process is not trusted when it comes to religions that are disliked, considered weird (in a bad way), or not known. This is a standard thing for liberals to want law to do.
One could argue this is already happening to Evangelical Christians in certain sectors of American society. Why else would Ana Marie Cox have to come out as a Christian? In the sectors of law, media, and academia, an Evangelical Christian is as foreign and minority as the Native on the rez.
People support laws when they picture good effects, but the courts have to apply those laws equally, and the religions you didn't think you were going to help will have the same capacity to use that law.
I truly hope Scalia has learned his lesson and I'm glad he's getting some more comeuppance fr such a short sighted decision. Perhaps his wife made him a couple of gay wedding cakes as she did with the flag burning decision (though he got it right on that one--wife's opinion notwithstanding).
We are getting to the point that it is illegal to hurt gay people's feelings.
We're gonna need need another list of forbidden words and it will be longer than seven.
"Let's see which side wins the boycott battle."
Angie's List has been right up front in declaring a boycott. Let's see how they do. Based on the history of Chick Fil A, I would say they are in trouble. Certainly in Indiana, they are on the wrong side.
madAsHell said...
The gay mayor in Seattle has promised that no city money will be spent traveling to Indiana.
A city that lives off Microsoft's largesse and few other mega-corporations can't even manage to have a dialog on race and to keep small businesses healthy and thriving. They're still smarting from the Sea Hawk's loss. They should butt out of Hoosierly affairs.
"Bullshit. You're a cheerleader for one side, and a poor winner to boot."
Yeah? Which side?
I'd like to know so I could have more fun. Cheerleading is fun. I'm having more of a subtle distanced-amusement kind of fun. I'd like to kick it up a notch. Help me here.
Here's a clue, if you'll try to answer my question: Click my RFRA tag and see what I've said over the years.
Gahrie is on board. The Chikenless Sunday will no longer be allowed by a new law.
We may not get Texas Cattle Rancher votes, but I believe the vegetarians will trade their votes for a promise of mandatory broccoli and peas served as sides. We can always throw in sweet potato souffle if it takes it to pass our Pro Chicken Law. ( full disclosure: I like sweet potatoe souffle.)
I'm confused. So Liberals liked RFRA for religious exceptions from the law when it was in support of religious stuff and groups they liked. And now that RFRA is being used in cases where people's religions don't want to cater to gays, literally, the same Liberals don't like the RFRA they once supported? So, in effect, Liberals want to pick and choose how the RFRA is applied based on their whims? Am I even close?
I'm checking RFRA tag........
I need another cup of coffee....
"The tables have turned. And now all the liberals are remembering how much they love Antonin Scalia."
Yes, but they didn't love Scalia back when he wrote Smith, did they?
There was overwhelming support from liberals (and everyone else) for the RFRA. I can't recall ANY liberals praising Scalia at that time.
The coverage of this issue is appalling. The news media cannot explain any story or issue that has an ounce of complexity in it.
Unless there is a overriding state interest involved it is simply unacceptable for the government to force people to abandon their deeply held religious beliefs. Authoritarianism in the guise of tolerance is still authoritarianism.
Again: deeply held beliefs not just a dislike for gay people.
@Diogenes,
So, in effect, Liberals want to pick and choose how the RFRA is applied based on their whims? Am I even close?
All of us who just don't understand have been instructed to sit over there in the corner until the teacher has time to come over & answer our questions one on one. Just be patient....
I'm amused as well. You think the progressives would bemoan and boycott the states and/or cities that don't protect sexual orientation discrimination in public accommodations (and employment). That an Indiana RFRA instead provokes this response is comical.
Let's boycott the Final Four!!!
And the Indy 500!!!
@SMG,
Unless there is a overriding state interest involved it is simply unacceptable for the government to force people to abandon their deeply held religious beliefs.
But, the liberals will simply say that allowing gays full & unfettered access to public businesses is an overriding state interest. Just like it was when they forced businesses to allow full & unfettered access to black people. Do you think that a member of the Full Tilt Gospel Church of I-Can-Prove-That-Negroes-Are-Dinosaurs has the right to refuse service to blacks?
That's the analogy that liberals would, and are, using.
With all this talk about Seattle and cheerleaders, I'm surprised that Laslo is AWOL.
Seriously, the flack Chik-Fil-A took from a family member owner giving one of his many donations a pro family group is a lesson for Indiana.
Suppression of Gay people's rights is no longer a fight for Christians to waste their time winning because no one hates gays anymore.
We need to move back to good things like spreading the Gospel and exercising charity that pays to raise abandoned children in Christian homes. That is what the owners of Chik-Fil-A have spent their lives and fortune doing.
Exercising sincere religion in a tolerant place attracts believers. Hunting down impure people for exclusion is not what Christians are called to do
@chickelit,
I'm surprised that Laslo is AWOL
Well, Miz Scarlett can sometimes be a pretty demanding young lady, ya know.
If you are a gay couple, why on Earth would you want to force a person who opposes gay marriage to cater your wedding?
Freedom of association has an exception only by way of a principle that the courts do not recognize.
The exception is cases of law or private violence that removes a competitive market. For instance, not serving blacks lest it runs afoul of law or vigilante store burning.
The store owners in enough numbers want to serve blacks but are prevented.
So the court should intervene to get them to do what they want to do anyway, mostly. It's a blow against an interest group that worked by force against unwilling subjects.
Hence freedom of association is removed so that the store owners can claim that they have no choice, and the blackmail no longer works.
In the case of baking cakes, there is a perfectly fine competitive market, and gays need no protection.
It's not a religious matter, it's a freedom matter. Religion shouldn't even try to come into it.
Terry asked: If you are a gay couple, why on Earth would you want to force a person who opposes gay marriage to cater your wedding?
To smite with spite, I suppose.
@tradguy,
Hunting down impure people for exclusion is not what Christians are called to do
Send me a registered letter when you get around to extending that tolerance to Catholics & the Orthodox, you hypocrite!
"But, the liberals will simply say that allowing gays full & unfettered access to public businesses is an overriding state interest."
Agreed, and they will use the race analogy.
When rights conflict such as they do here we try to find a middle ground where both sides have to give in some. Some sort of accommodation.
The RFRA was an attempt to find a middle ground, a ground destroyed by, as Althouse points out, Scalia's opinion in Smith (the peyote case).
But the left - on this issue - doesn't want that middle ground. They want it all.
It is strange that they will defend Islam from just about any criticism - "You're a racist!" - but on this one they see the adversary as Christianity and in that instance all of their concerns about religious freedom disappears.
They (not all but most) really do have a deep hostility towards Christianity. They view it as a white conservative religion whereas they see Islam as a racial religion that can't be criticized too much.
If you are a gay couple, why on Earth would you want to force a person who opposes gay marriage to cater your wedding?
Power and affirmation.
The media should be ashamed of themselves for the way they are reporting this whole thing.
I quit saying things like that years ago.
"If you are a gay couple, why on Earth would you want to force a person who opposes gay marriage to cater your wedding?"
Because you get the pleasure of either forcing a person to take part in a ceremony he/she objects to or you put him/her out of business.
Either way you get the pleasure of hurting a person you disagree with. For a great many people this isn't actually about marriage, it's about making a statement.
That said if you're going to be forced to bake a wedding cake I'd say just bake a really shitty cake.
Exercising sincere religion in a tolerant place attracts believers. Hunting down impure people for exclusion is not what Christians are called to do
I agree with you. And I'm sure this whole issue will not even be an issue in 10-15 years when Christians become used to the idea of gay people marrying and that it is against their religion, and that's ok--they will bake the cake anyway. But no one should be compelled to offer services because the gov't said so.
Would it be legal for me to refuse to serve Democrats in my restaurant? Refuse to bake a wedding cake for any Democrat?
Why?
It's not a religious matter, it's a freedom matter. Religion shouldn't even try to come into it.
Agree with this, entirely. There should be no religious exemptions, because you shouldn't need to provide a government-sanctioned reason for declining to associate (personally or in a business relationship) with anyone you please.
That said if you're going to be forced to bake a wedding cake I'd say just bake a really shitty cake.
That would be dishonest. These people who are refusing service really are trying to be decent people, aren't they? If they actually hated gay people, I suppose baking a crappy cake would be what they would choose to do in this situation.
@SMG,
They (not all but most) really do have a deep hostility towards Christianity.
Opposition to Christianity is embedded deep in the DNA of the historical Left, from its very birth in the French Revolution. The "faithful" of every stripe have been their victims, but even in places like China, special ire has been reserved for Christians.
What amazes me is that in my conversations with lefties is that, while they will postulate that e.g. American political history is dominated by a "racist discourse", they cannot see that for the very same reasons that they claim the dominance of an American racist discourse means that the Left is dominated by a fundamentally anti-Christian discourse.
But, being a post-Marxist Lefty really is about being able to jump over one's own shadow, isn't it?
In a tolerant world, a thing like RFRA wouldn't be needed. In a world where some people seem hellbent on ruining your livelihood unless you subscribe to the zeitgeist, it's a useful thing to have, if only against the government.
Meanwhile, mainstream coverage of this subject is a joke. The Indiana government just imposed restrictions on itself when it comes to religious beliefs, and to read Facebook, you'd think the law was aimed at allowing people to deny service to gays.
Rich Lowry made a excellent observation about the hostility that Ayaan Hirsi gets from the left over her criticism of Islam's treatment of women and others.
If Hirsi had been raised in a Southern Baptist family and criticized it for its doctrines she'd be hailed by the same left that denounces her.
She'd be lionized.
Yeah? Which side?
Well, you have tried to use the RFRA to justify giving all women free birth control.
Where are the posts defending people's right not to participate in gay weddings and denouncing gays for attempting to force people to participate? You hint that you might be favorable to this argument in a post attacking a USSC reporter, but never directly address this key issue.
----Hunting down impure people for exclusion is not what Christians are called to do
Hunting down Christians believing in normal marriage among hundreds of competitors and forcing them to PARTICIPATE in their weddings is not what Gays should do.
Isn't it generally legal to discriminate against homosexuals, on the basis of homosexuality, in Indiana?
A quick look shows that with the exception of state hiring practices, there do not seem to be any laws protecting them.
So what does this RFRA do that the existing law doesn't already?
My understanding is that it basically mirrors the federal law and was mainly done to bring state and federal law into agreement.
I don't understand the hoorah.
Why does Blogger still ask me to prove I am not a robot then let my note go through when I refuse to do so? Stupid Blogger.
John Henry
Would it be legal for me to refuse to serve Democrats in my restaurant? Refuse to bake a wedding cake for any Democrat?
Yes.
Why?
Because, despite the best efforts of the Democrats, the Republicans managed to outlaw slavery in the United States.
Though to be fair, the Democrats under the leadership of Obama are doing their damndest to bring it back, this time based on class instead of race.
Someone upstream mentioned Chick-Fil-A and the gay backlash against them.
How's that working out for y'all?
In 2013 CFA passed KFC in sales even though CFA has about half as many restaurants and is only open 6 days a week.
And then there is this douchebag:
A businessman lost his job and his home after posting a viral video excoriating a Chick-fil-A clerk over gay marriage opinions voiced by an officer of the restaurant chain.
More than two years after the video’s publication, Adam Smith, 37, his wife and four kids are now living in a camper and subsisting on food stamps, according to ABC News.
Read more at http://iotwreport.com/#2MPwRcbr3RLlYpgR.99
Those vicious, vicious, Christians! Some might say.
Not me.
I suspect that Christians had nothing to do with it. I suspect that it was mainly that he was a douchebag. I also suspect that there is more to the story that is not being reported.
John Henry
If you are a gay couple, why on Earth would you want to force a person who opposes gay marriage to cater your wedding?
You want the real answer, the one you are not allowed to say, write or even think anymore?
Because homosexuals know how deviant and unhealthy (both physically and emotionally) their behavior is, even though they won't admit it, and so demand that the rest of us constantly affirm their choice.
Opps, not supposed to say that homosexuality is a choice, unless of course you are a feminist lesbian saying that all women should chose to reject heterosexuality.
"Well, you have tried to use the RFRA to justify giving all women free birth control."
What would that argument even be? Show me which old post you believe you are paraphrasing.
In that photo of Clinton signing the bill you can see Howard Metzenbaum, Al Gore, Mark Hatfield and Chuck Schumer.
I wonder what the next Senate minority leader thinks of the law now?
Show me which old post you believe you are paraphrasing.
http://althouse.blogspot.com/2014/07/how-should-obama-respond-to-hobby-lobby.html
Personally, I recommend that the federal government directly pay for all birth control.
"Hunting down impure people for exclusion is not what Christians are called to do"
Perhaps so but it's not up to the government to tell Christians how they should follow their religion.
Unless there's an extremely important reason otherwise we allow people of faith to practice their religion publicly. They aren't forced to practice their religion only in private.
Apparently that's what progressives/liberals now want to do.
At least with Christians. With Muslims? Who knows what their view is.
By the way, I am a deist, not a Christian, and I would have no problems attending, or baking a cake for, a gay civil union or partnership ceremony.
As long as no one was forcing me to.
If anyone was wondering.
NTTIAWWT
After arguing with them for several days, I've discovered they don't care about the truth behind the bill. They are immune to reason. They want a narrative that allows them to call christians bigots, same way they ignored all the facts in the Micheal Brown case so they could call cops racist. This is about establishing a false narrative they can turn into distorted bumpersticker slogans and FB memes. Their walls will soon be adorned with "Look at me! I'm a righteous dude!" self-promotions.
I think their motivation is narcissism - they need to feel good about themselves. They need to be able to look themselves in the mirror and say "Sure, I made a pass at the babysitter, but I defended gays from those bigots, so I can't be a total douche, right?"
Liberalism is a mental disorder.
" Refusing service to gay is frankly, dumb business"
Imagine a feminist photographer being asked to do shots of a scene she feels promotes violence against women. Should she be allowed to refuse?
It's not about the money, its about principles.
" Refusing service to gay is frankly, dumb business"
True but as I understand the law that is not allowed.
As I understand it, the person/business owner must have deeply held religious reasons for refusing to serve a gay person. There must be a "substantial burden" placed on the person in doing something.
It can't simply be because he dislikes gay men or women or because his religion says don't do business with them.
The federal law has been in existence for more than 20 years. We simply haven't seen the parade of horribles that critics say would occur.
We're trying to balance rights here but our friends on the left simply won't reach out to find some middle ground.
"The coverage of this issue is appalling. The news media cannot explain any story or issue that has an ounce of complexity in it."
They can, but it wouldn't serve the cause.
"Unless there is a overriding state interest involved it is simply unacceptable for the government to force people to abandon their deeply held religious beliefs. Authoritarianism in the guise of tolerance is still authoritarianism."
Unacceptable to you and half a dozen others. Everyone else knows that any Progressive priority automatically becomes an overriding state interest. Authoritarianism is just reactionary rhetoric describing intelligent control exercised for the public good.
Forcing business people to act against their religious beliefs is just asking for poor products and or service.
Pro-choice policy or selective (i.e. capricious) exclusion takes its toll on human relationships and lives. After the trans equality movement, it will be necessary to revisit orientations and behaviors selectively excluded and included by politicians, psychiatrists, civil and human rights activists, etc. The future looks dysfunctional, or at least interesting, for our Posterity.
Diogenes of Sinope wrote:
"Forcing business people to act against their religious beliefs is just asking for poor products and or service."
That's not the idea, though, is it? The idea is to drive devout Christians from the public square, and to marginalize them.
I imagine that there are wedding businesses run by orthodox Jews and Muslims. Gay activists don't seem to be targeting them.
Being gay is definitely not the same thing as being black.
But whom you choose to MARRY is the same in both cases.
Way back in 1967 in the case Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court ruled that discrimination against interracial couples was unconstitutional.
I just don't see the logic in claiming that a private business can refuse to serve a gay wedding but not an interracial wedding.
You really have to thread an extremely tiny needle to claim that a baker cannot refuse service on the grounds that "My religion does not accept interracial marriage" (which was widely preached in the South before the 1960s). While at the same time allowing the baker to refuse service on the grounds that "My religion does not accept gay marriage."
" why on Earth would you want to force a person who opposes gay marriage to cater your wedding?
To smite with spite, I suppose."
Exactly. HuffPo is going berserk over this and the comments are pretty revealing about the left. Far more than they realize.
The story about the jerk ordering a glass of water from Chick fil A is pretty funny. He apparently made himself a pariah. Angie's List is going to do the same. I simply don't understand people who make these decisions. Why risk your business for some silly posturing ?
Given how small the gay population is and how much people don't care about this issue (as said, "anti gay" CFA is doing well), where is the bad business in not being pro gay?
Sinz52-
The VA law prohibiting interracial marriage wasn't ancient. The law found unconstitutional was the Racial Integrity Act of 1924.
Terry asks: "If you are a gay couple, why on Earth would you want to force a person who opposes gay marriage to cater your wedding?"
For the same reason that black civil rights protesters refused to leave those Woolworth's lunch counters in the 1960s, even though the manager had made it clear that they weren't welcome there.
They were fighting for a principle, not just to get lunch.
Both the Establishment Clause and the RFRA are jokes.
SCOTUS is made up of 6 Roman Catholics and 3 Jews. There are no self-identified atheists in COTUS or POTUS, and few scientists, most of whom nationally are atheist or agnostic.
We have almost no atheists serving as chaplains in the military, in prisons or in hospitals.
What a Medieval country!
"For the same reason that black civil rights protesters refused to leave those Woolworth's lunch counters in the 1960s, even though the manager had made it clear that they weren't welcome there."
This is a very bad analogy, Sinz52. Are gays being denied services at lunch counters?
How is being gay anything like being black?
rhhardin:
You are incorrect.
In many states that had no Jim Crow laws, discrimination by white-owned private businesses against blacks was quite common.
The reasoning had NOTHING to do with existing laws forcing businesses to discrminate, but with businesses who chose to discriminate.
Congress passed the Civil Rights Act forbidding such discrimination by private business.
The Supreme Court had ruled that any business that engages in interstate commerce is subject to being regulated by Congress.
And they interpreted the Interstate Commerce clause of the Constitution so broadly that just about any business could be considered as engaging in interstate commerce.
A hotel owner "might" be serving guests from out of state. Interstate commerce! Gotcha!
A restaurant owner "might" be serving patrons from out of state. Interstate commerce! Gotcha!
Of course, today, even the tiniest business that has a website is engaging in interstate commerce, simply because its website is visible to citizens all over the country. Interstate commerce! Gotcha!
I wouldn't make an anti-gay cake or a gay marriage cake based on my views. Culture wars make bad public policy.
Lawyers are given quite a bit of freedom to decline clients, even if they have a case. I'm not talking mere disagreement or repugnancy of the client, but if active participation in a civil manner puts me in grave sin I'm protected to decline. I have to present myself with candor and not mislead the client. For instance I wouldn't engage in writing up a surrogacy contract or legal work for private adoption. Surrogacy is legal in Massachusetts, but private adoption is not. Private adoption (without a home study/procedural protection for birth parents) resembles pre-birth rehoming.
So well....
I'm refusing service, based on my beliefs.
OK or not OK?
The appropriate way to view the free exercise of religion should not be "Exquisitely distanced amusement." Not unless that's your view of the rest of the constitution.
I'm not sure if that's just you, the rest of the legal profession or just part of academia that teaches law to the next batch of baristas.
We may have a new established religion that doesn't like dissenters.
The very first amendment in the Bill of Rights guarantees freedom of religion. This is no accident. If you've had a public school education in the United States, you might think that this has something to do with the Pilgrims.
England went through a century and a half of bloody religious persecution between 1550 and 1700. The persecution of the Pilgrims was a tiny part of it. The goal of all the oppressors was to control a state church. The first amendment does not have an establishment clause to keep the church from controlling the state, but to keep the state from controlling the church. If you want to learn why we have an establishment clause, don't study the Pilgrims and Plymouth Colony, study the Bloody Assizes of 1685, or the Nonconformist Scots, or the Anabaptists, or the Scottish Presbyterians. Or the Catholics. In Elizabethans times, Catholic priests were publicly drawn and quartered.
Mark O. asks -- Would it be legal for me to refuse to serve Democrats in my restaurant? Refuse to bake a wedding cake for any Democrat?
Why?
That's a mischaracterization of the issue. It is not that anyone refuses to serve Democrats. It is that they don't want to be compelled to serve Democrats (or non-Democrats for that matter) who want you to write on the cake "Mark O. sucks" to be served at a function that says that everything Mark O. believes in and stands for is wrong.
If anyone refuses service simply because a customer is X or Y, that is wrong. But refusing service to X or Y because they do and advocate A or B is perfectly right and proper. No one should be forced to associate with a message they do not subscribe to, especially when government is favoring one message over another.
I am sure that each of these bakers, photographers, etc. would decline serving a function hosted by straight people if the function advocated "same-sex marriage" or some other ontological impossibility (or other thing that was contrary to their faith).
Imagine the horror a Christian baker might experience if he found out that he had once catered a birthday party for a child that later revealed that he was gay!
Be cause he was born that way!
The idea that gayness is like race is bizarre, anti-science propaganda.
Meanwhile, gay bakers and gay photographers are perfectly free to decline to work a Catholic wedding at a Catholic church, which necessarily holds that persons of the same sex cannot marry one another.
Let's ask a different question -- Is it OK to call for a boycott of Indiana now? Are all of these people calling for a boycott of Indiana bigoted against Indianians? Are they calling for a boycott merely because it is Indiana? Or is it something else?
Freedom of association (with persons or ideas) is what keeps the country (and world) from erupting constantly into vicious wars where one side tries to impose their views on the other.
Althouse @ 10:34am,
I love it when you channel Jerry Pournelle! I'm thinking of his statement (badly paraphrased by me here) that a stable polity depends on the law being what 80% of the population will put up with, rather than being what every bare temporary majority can force through every time power changes hands.
@Terry,
How is being gay anything like being black?
Are you completely unaware of the Civil War that was fought so that "fabulousness...should not perish from the face of the Earth"?
Or, how many gays died in the 19th C., for each Broadway show staged? "The show must go on!" was predicated on gay misery.
Or, how gays were chained to their stations in beauty parlors, working so hard they had to sing Barbra Steisand tunes to each other just to make it through the day?
Yeah, I wonder how people make that equivalency, too. But they do, and all the time.
The first amendment does not have an establishment clause to keep the church from controlling the state, but to keep the state from controlling the church.
Magna Carta. 800 years ago this year.
"Give unto Caesar what belongs to Caesar; give unto God what belongs to God." Some carpenter from Nazareth 2000 years ago.
Despite the claims of ideologues today of a certain totalitarian bent (i.e. various species of left), the state does not have authority over everything. Its sphere of influence is limited. Both the civil society as a whole and religion, a/k/a the church, are both sovereign in their own way, in such a way that government has no rightful authority over them.
"Liberals (including, notably, Justice Brennan) want to protect minorities from oppression by the majority."
Well, that's nice. Except that's not in the constitution.
"All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws."
What part of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment does not protect minorities from majority oppression?
I really think that the religious stuff is window-dressing here. The issue is the right to free contract: The government has no more right to command you to sell to Jones than it does to command you to buy from Smith.
To be sure, it has the power to do so: You might recall that the Supreme Court flirted with constitutionalizing that right as an "unenumerated" right during the Lochner era, and pretty much everyone except a handful of academics like Randy Barnett are agreed that it was a bad idea. But it doesn't have the right.
To those who say that this is license to discriminate, my answer is: So what? In point of fact, the market will weed out discrimination; a baker in New York who refuses to sell to jews will tend to be driven out of business by competition from more liberal bakers. A shopkeep who refuses to buy from blacks will tend to be driven out of business by competition from cheaper competitors. And in today's climate, especially given the realities of globalized commerce, the notion that a gay couple will be unable to find someone to bake their cake doesn't even rise to the respectability of being wrong; it is anachronistic.
There is a glaring exception to this, of course. The public accommodation provisions of the Civil Rights Act. But those provisions, legitimate because enacted as an extraordinary remedy to an extraordinary problem, are incomprehensible unless understood against the background presumption that the right they purport to abridge exists, exceptio probat regulam.
There should be no need for laws of this kind—but there is: The use of the courts as a means of coercion and intimidation. Nevertheless, I would prefer to drop the religious contrivances and grasp the nettle. States should expressly protect the rights of their citizens to contract freely except where expressly abridged by federal law (states can hardly be expected to do much about that), and federal law should, in this day and age, when the extraordinary circumstances that originally justified abridgements in the 1960s, abandon such abridgements entirely. The question isn't religious liberty, it is liberty.
Deirdre Mundy said...
"Hey, Angie's list says the new law is why they won't expand further in Indiana."
They aren't the only ones. I say: Are we supposed to care that services I've never heard of (Uber and the like) will be no more a part of my life tomorrow than they were yesterday? Really?
We use to discuss issues/cases/laws with real life situations with the law applied, instead were faced with social media with our newsfeeds filled with satirical pieces, meme generated images, and comedic quotes on the subject matter. It's not remotely real or connected to our day to day lives where we have to make decisions.
The "I'm Christian and homosexuality offends me and my beliefs as it is a sin" is merely a mask for personal bigotry. After all, as Christ said, we're all sinners. Any "Christian" (so-called) businessperson should therefore refuse service to any person, anywhere, as they will be serving sinners (and thereby rewarding sinners for their behavior).
(Christ did not establish a hierarchy of sins, of which some are, you know, "really okay, because everybody does them" and others which are "absolutely verboten, as only real sickos do THAT!")
When it's peyote well then of course then Indians need it for their rituals. Religious freedom! RIght on!
When its gays forcing bakers to make cakes, why then it's oppression if they say no.
What religious freedom? That's extreme.
How many states have laws like this? What did Supreme Court just rule? When was RFRA passed BY DEMOCRATS?
Suddenly because it's gays,who might potentially have to suffer the indignity of not having a bigot make them a cake then its f all that crap.
Homosexuality isn't a sin according to the Catholic Church. Catechism 2357-2359
http://www.vatican.va/archive/ccc_css/archive/catechism/p3s2c2a6.htm
Terry wrote:
Imagine the horror a Christian baker might experience if he found out that he had once catered a birthday party for a child that later revealed that he was gay!
Be cause he was born that way!
None of the bigoted bakers objected to baking cakes for gay peoples birthdays. It was only for a specific ceremony. Its not a case of "no gays served". Rather its a case of, no cake for a specific ceremony. BUt if you, as a gay person, want something else, you're welcome to buy it.
Althouse, Gahrie provided the link and quote you asked for.
Going to respond?
"The media should be ashamed of themselves for the way they are reporting this whole thing. I think most people that are halfway paying attention think that just because the RFFA passed in Indiana, every Christian owned business in the State is going to put a sign on their door that says, "No Gays allowed."
The media presents it that way, but no person who refused to bake a gay wedding cake has a sign up that says no gays allowed.
They will sell gays all cakes except for a gay wedding cake.
Birches said...
" One could argue this is already happening to Evangelical Christians in certain sectors of American society. Why else would Ana Marie Cox have to come out as a Christian?"
And God bless her for that, by the way. I loved her announcement. It's very clear that she and I would disagree on a great deal where religion is concerned. And by her own concession, she isn't converted having worked out a fully-realized theological system—who of us has?
Terry said...
"If you are a gay couple, why on Earth would you want to force a person who opposes gay marriage to cater your wedding?"
It's my understanding that there was a recent movie adaptation of a book dedicated to the interest in having people do things against their will. Perhaps that would be instructive.
Mark O said...
"Would it be legal for me to refuse to serve Democrats in my restaurant? Refuse to bake a wedding cake for any Democrat?"
Obviously it should be. Suppose that I go up to the Covered Bridge festival in a GOP T-shirt, and the funnel-cake vendor says "sorry, son, we don't serve Republicans." What happens next? Well, I shrug and buy a funnel-cake from the funnel-cake vendor next door to him—who gets the money instead of the vendor who refused service. I might spread the word: Smith discriminated against me, Jones didn't. And so Jones gets much less money and Smith gets much more. And none of this takes place in a vacuum; obviously, if I'm Jones, I'm going to play it up, and make a point of how I serve any customers, unlike Smith. And so now Smith has a choice: Change his mind, or make much less money. Many are those who have opinions, but few are those ready to lose money over them.
YoungHegelian said...
"Miz Scarlett can sometimes be a pretty demanding young lady, ya know."
And boy is she young. When Marvel announced Phase Three sine Vidua Nigra, I was about to say, with exasperation, that that was it, that, at __, she would be too old to play that character in Phase Four. Then I went and looked up her age to fill in that blank and thought better of it. Boy is she young. Talented, too. And just keeps getting better.
Drafting people into involuntary service to the State was once considered a “Bad Thing™.” So even the military services, which were once the only institution which filled its ranks with draftees became voluntary. Now the State is drafting certain people who would rather not follow the State’s zeitgeist.
To be sure, they are relatively few (how many fundamentalist Christian bakers and wedding photographers are there after all) and, with the exception of a relatively few other Christians, despised and branded by the Ruling Class. As a futurist I see a need and plan to fill it by starting a small business making armbands with a large “C” in the center. If I do it right, I can get a copyright and make a fortune.
Which brings me to doctors. Thanks to our new medical masters the cost of medical insurance is beginning its death spiral. According to the Manhattan Institute, premiums climbed by 41 percent on average from 2013 to 2014, and premiums are likely to rise sharply again after two insurance company bailout programs included in Obamacare expire in 2017.
One way is to control the amount of service we provide. Ann has a prior post on just this subject. But if we draft doctors and pay them like they do in Cuba, a country that is reputed to have the best medical care in the world, think of the savings.
Using the same strategy to bring the out-of-control cost of higher education is next on the list. Next step, nirvana! Look, this isn’t rocket science, there are a number of countries where this has been tried. Not all were a success, but with the right people, I think we can do it here. Amirite?
sinz52 wrote:
For the same reason that black civil rights protesters refused to leave those Woolworth's lunch counters in the 1960s, even though the manager had made it clear that they weren't welcome there.
They were fighting for a principle, not just to get lunch.
what principle? To force a person who has a religious objection to something to make him violate his religion to serve you?
Scalia was ruled against a religious rite, not everyday conduct motivated by bigotry. The RFRA was in response. I would say that there is a huge difference between the freedom to practice religious rites and using religion to justify discrimination in your everyday secular business.
Secular society did this and caused this conflict be redefining marriage as opposed to setting up a separate civil union for gays.
Because prior to this civil marriage and traditional marriage were the same in this country. But now they create a conflict by forcing the new civil view of marriage down the religious persons throat on pain of govt encroachment. And that is simply wrong.
The easy fix is have them be two separate things. And then let Christians, or other religious types cater to religious marriages (which would also be civil if they were a man and a woman)and let bakers who have no objection cater to all.
I'm saying because society forced this change they need to accommodate both sides here.
Robert Cook is an authority on genuine Christianity and pronounces that people who claim that as Christians they don't want to bake wedding cakes for gays are not real Christians.
Does anyone else hear an echo from a certain Barack Obama who tells us that people who claim to be followers of Islam are not real Islamists because of what they do?
Can we have a meeting of the religious referees for just a moment?
Cajsa Lilliehook said...
"Scalia was ruled against a religious rite, not everyday conduct motivated by bigotry. The RFRA was in response. I would say that there is a huge difference between the freedom to practice religious rites and using religion to justify discrimination in your everyday secular business."
That clean distinction that you propose did not exist in Smith where there was not a clean division between religious rite in one's private life and secular employment in one's public life. Mr. Smith worked for drug rehab program, which, funnily enough, did not look kindly on its employees using hallucinogenic drugs. There are not two separate spheres, religious life and secular life, which never interact. That is a fantasy of irreligious progressives.
In many states that had no Jim Crow laws, discrimination by white-owned private businesses against blacks was quite common.
Law or private violence. Nice business you have here, it would be a shame if anything happened to it.
The fact is that you can make more money serving everybody, unless the competitive market is kept from operating.
Businesses like money.
Making it a law that you can't discriminnate removes the threat of private violence. In effect the state's violence is bigger, at bottom, so the former threat no longer works.
Which brings me to doctors.
With doctors, the assertion (already made) is that if a woman comes in and asks for an abortion, the doctor must provide it. Otherwise, the doctor is guilty of discrimination against women.
See how the whole concept of the person gets equated with the conduct of the person. Never mind that if a man were to come in and ask for an abortion (laugh if you will, but in many areas of "reproductive justice" it is bigotry to say that only women can have an abortion because of gender identity, etc.) that the doctor who refuse then as well.
" Is it OK to call for a boycott of Indiana now? "
I think this might just be a bad idea for the private businesses like Angie's List. They have a business model that is under pressure from internet and other services. Gays are 1% and the left is another 20%.
The MSNBC business model again.
Mark,
What if there were no abortion doctors/nurses?
What if there really no medical professional willing to perform an abortion?
I mean how many people go to medical/nursing school really wanting to perform abortions?
Suppose someone came in and asked for a polygamy cake (or a cake for a polygamous wedding). Could someone refuse to bake it on either religious grounds, moral grounds, or simply because the state doesn't recognize polygamy? What if the people who came in all happened to be gay, so it was a gay polygamous wedding, or a lesbian polygamous wedding?
would the fact that they were gay and women mean you couldn't discriminate even if the marriage in question wans't yet legal?
if Angie's List wants to pull business because of the passage of laws that enforce the RFRA then religious folks using Angie's list should boycott it utterly. Lets see who's audience is bigger.
What if there really no medical professional willing to perform an abortion?
Among other things, we would not have 55 million dead babies.
All people from Indiana who suppot this law who haven't created an account with Angie's List should do so, then immediately cancel them with a word about how Angie's List is opposed to religious freedom (which was just upheld by the Supreme Court, and which is legal in many other states).
In fact all states that have such laws on the books who have Christians who have angie's lists acocunts should pull their accounts across the country. And let them know they don't appreciate companies trying to f with people's religious freedom.
Renee wrote:
I mean how many people go to medical/nursing school really wanting to perform abortions?
If Mengele were still around he might sign up to be an abortion doctor. Maybe we should let Gosnell out too.
But you're right. A lot of doctors have a problem with telling women not to smoke during a pregnancy but then pretend like the thing they are vaccuming fro a uterus is not a living thing.
This isn't principally about religion or moral philosophy, or even equal protection. It is about criteria used to normalize, tolerate, and reject behaviors, not orientations. The trans movement's adoption of pro-choice policy has created moral hazards. There is a reason why this political movement has a home in the Democrat party, which is notorious for holding positions that can only be reconciled with pro-choice or selective principles.
Michael K wrote:
I think this might just be a bad idea for the private businesses like Angie's List. They have a business model that is under pressure from internet and other services. Gays are 1% and the left is another 20%.
The MSNBC business model again.
Not only that, there have been calls to boycott Angie's list already:
http://www.remodeling.hw.net/business/operations/should-remodelers-try-to-kill-angies-list-by-boycotting-it_o
Remodelers are already pissed at Angie's list shoddy service. And note that last year, or two years ago Angie's list lost 33 million dollars. Maybe not a good idea for a business to boycott a state if they are losing 33 million dollars a year.
"He actually believed that the people of Indiana (and the country) would hail his state’s adoption of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act because that’s what everyone inside his bubble believed."
American Indian "mushroom" and Amish school cases????
American Indian "mushroom" and Amish school cases????
@machine,
Your idea of a comment is to post an anonymous quotation that turns out to be from Washington Monthly. This quotation turns out to be based on an opinion writer's idea that it's an example of epistemic closure. No polling, no detailed legal analysis, just some lefty asswipe's opinion of a law she doesn't like duly passed by the Indiana legislature, which is in turned modeled after the RFRA, passed by legislative landslide under a Democratic administration.
I think you can look in the mirror & find a much closer example of epistemic closure.
Hotair brought up the argument about how, if Yelp is going to have an issuew with these types of laws they might as well stop reviewing restaurants since many offer restrictions on how can serve there. i.e. if you are required to wear a suit and tie, they can refuse you if you come in from a gay pride parade wearing assless chaps. Even if you're gay.
https://www.restaurants.com/blog/can-a-restaurant-legally-refuse-to-take-my-order/#.VRhr4XYpDct
The article makes this distinction:
It depends on why they refused service. In short, if you are discriminated against because of something you cannot change, or control, then it is illegal. If you are discriminated against because of a choice you made, it is legal.
Choosing to marry is not beyond your control. Not baking a cake for a function is not denying someone service because they are gay.If bakers refused ANY service then it would be discrimination.
""He actually believed that the people of Indiana (and the country) would hail his state’s adoption of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act because that’s what everyone inside his bubble believed."
Just because gay activists and Angie's list don't believe it, doesn't mean Pence wont have PLENTY of supporters. And he's got the law on his side.
Hobby Lobby was only a year ago. I realize that the left's butt still smarts but that's the reality.
Pence should point out all the other states that have similar laws on the books and ask Angie's list if they are boycotting them too, and why not? Make Angie's List live by their rules. Put their money where their mouth is.
"What if there were no abortion doctors/nurses? "
That's why money was invented. You surely don't think Planned Parenthood was doing this as a public service do you ?
Some doctors do abortions out of conviction. Some do it for money. Some do it to convenience their own patients who otherwise come to them for care.
There is no lack of providers although you would think so from the left's propaganda. Maybe some small communities are not provided but the next town down the road probably has one.
The people posting comments at HuffPo have no idea of what this bill actually says. Nothing new.
RFRA wouldn't have been needed if the "There oughta be a LAW" busybody Mrs. Grundies could have given up their fascist tendencies.
Back in the bad old 70s, our family doctor was a practicing Roman Catholic and did not prescribe birth control under any circumstance.
Did my mom and his other female patients picket his office? Demand he be stripped of his MD? Write voluminous Letters to the Editor on what a cad and misogynist he was, depriving women of healthcare?
Nope. Like my mom, they respected his right to his beliefs and got their prescriptions from another doctor.
Voluntary association between all parties to a transaction must be the default position. And especially if the transaction involves messaging, forcing a person to participate in a message they disagree with must be looked at with great suspicion.
A photographer is as creative in their product as a writer, film maker or, even, a custom t-shirt shop.
Would members of the Progressive Brownshirts allow the law to force gay t-shirt owners print "G-d hates F-gs" shirts for Westboro Church?
I wouldn't. But then, I actually agree with the First Amendment and the government to butt out of 99.9% of voluntary transactions between consenting adults.
It's not about RFRA per se. The Civil Rights Act forbade businesses from discrimination of various bases (and upheld by Court interpretation of the Commerce Clause), but sexual orientation was not one of them. Congress could simply update the Act to include this basis, thereby making this a compelling government interest.
It should also be noted that religion was used as a justification for discrimination before the Civil Rights Act was passed. Ginsburg mentioned the Piggy Park case in her Hobby Lobby dissent.
Numerous states that have RFRA on the books also have laws also forbid discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, so it would be a compelling government interest in those states to not allow discrimination on that basis.
I noticed that AZ was a state that had RFRA on the books already, yet their legislature still saw fit to pass this same law, which was vetoed by Brewer. What does this new law add to states that already have RFRA on the books, out of curiosity?
Renee,
Homosexuality is not a sin according to the Church, but homosexual acts are. The Church states the following regarding such acts:
Basing itself on Sacred Scripture, which presents homosexual acts as acts of grave depravity,141 tradition has always declared that "homosexual acts are intrinsically disordered."142 They are contrary to the natural law. They close the sexual act to the gift of life. They do not proceed from a genuine affective and sexual complementarity. Under no circumstances can they be approved.
It's the standard Catholic emphasis on acts.
If the law can override an objection on religious grounds as long as the law is "generally applicable," then how do we establish the status of a conscientious objector on religious grounds during times of conscription?
forbid discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation
I really would like someone to answer how declining to participate in an event is the exact same thing as banning an individual from one's business.
In the cases of the baker, the gays that sued her were long time customers.
Obviously she did not discriminate against them due to their orientation.
The photographer even offered to do other pictures for the lesbians, she just did not want to lend her artistic messaging to their ceremony (same-sem marriage wasn't even legal at the time)
This has never been about discrimination, it has been about harassing and lawfare against people the Gay Mafia has targeted for destruction.
You surely don't think Planned Parenthood was doing this as a public service do you ?
I think that is exactly what Sanger thought when she created the organization, and then found it was a lot easier to spend government money than your own or what you can raise.
The Church further states:
This inclination, which is objectively disordered, constitutes for most of them a trial. They must be accepted with respect, compassion, and sensitivity. Every sign of unjust discrimination in their regard should be avoided
So basically the Church's position is treat them with compassion but don't condone the acts.
From the Post story:
"The federal law says that the government may not pass a law that “substantially burdens a person’s exercise of religion.” But now some businesses -- including the ones who are challenging the Affordable Care Act's contraception coverage mandate in the Supreme Court -- are arguing that they don't have to meet this substantial-burden test."
This sentence confuses me. Is the author arguing that the challengers now have to meet the government's burden? Or is the author saying that the challengers are allowing the government to avoid the burden stated in the law?
------For the same reason that black civil rights protesters refused to leave those Woolworth's lunch counters in the 1960s,
For the same reason that the Nazi’s marched in Skokie in the 1960’s. Because there were lots of Jews there, victims of the Holocaust, and those were the victims that the Nazi’s got sexual pleasure in persecuting.
Let's see if I have this right. There are a couple of my co-workers who claim to be neo-nazis. They should be able to go to a Jewish owned bakery and order a cake for their next meeting that has "Sieg Heil" and "Kill all the Jews" on it in a nice buttercream frosting. And maybe surrounded with a nice wreath of swastikas. Right?
"They should be able to go to a Jewish owned bakery and order a cake for their next meeting that has "Sieg Heil" and "Kill all the Jews" on it in a nice buttercream frosting. And maybe surrounded with a nice wreath of swastikas. Right?"
According to the Left, yes.
Also, if your Jewish friends refuse to add "Kill all the Jews" to the cake, they should be run out of business and imprisoned. According to the Left.
Choey
A baker refused to bake a "Happy Birthday Adolf Hitler" cake for a child actually named Adolf Hitler" and I don't recall the Leftist hangwringers demanding boycotts.
http://www.cbsnews.com/news/store-wont-make-cake-for-adolf-hitler/
And KKK claven members should be able to go to a black owned bakery and order a 'Burning Cross' cake.
And if the black businessman should refuse to add "Kill all the ()#((" to the cake, they should be run out of business and imprisoned. According to the Left.
Bigotry against religious beliefs won't sell in America. Indiana did the right thing and a handful of protesters, celebrities, and grandstanding CEOs is not going to change that, no matter how much the media pushes its "rising backlash" BS. This is a tiny tempest in a tiny teapot. Most Americans love this bill protecting their sacred beliefs from heavy-handed government coercion on behalf of liberal bigots.
"So are you for RFRA or against it?
Be careful. It's a trap."
I haven't read the law, its amazing how few details the media has provided. However, if it prevents businesses from being sued by the Gov't for not selling to Gays in violation of their Religion, I'm for it.
I assume I've been trapped.
@ Renee
I admire your convictions.
Terry asks: "Are gays being denied services at lunch counters?
How is being gay anything like being black? "
When it comes to MARRIAGE, they are similar situations.
One CHOOSES whether to get married, and if so, to whom to get married to.
As recently as 50 years ago, millions of devout Americans believed that God Almighty had ordained separation of the races--and refused to do business with interracial couples getting married on that basis.
As I said,
I cannot see how you can argue that a Christian business owner can't discriminate against interracial marriages if his faith requires him to, but he can discriminate against gay marriages on that basis.
I cannot see how you can argue that a Christian business owner can't discriminate against interracial marriages if his faith requires him to, but he can discriminate against gay marriages on that basis.
Super easy fix for this. Get rid of handholding nondiscrimination laws and let people decide like free citizens with whom they wish to associate socially or do business with based on whatever criteria they choose. Let society and the market sort it out.
The Supreme Court gave Congress broad powers to regulate business as it sees fit, using the Interstate Commerce Clause as its justification. It stated that a private business is actually a "public accommodation," and hence is subject to Interstate Commerce regulation.
Hence if Congress wants to pass a law stating that businesses can't discriminate against gays or transgenders or whoever, it has that power.
What is clear is that so many Americans had no clue just how the black civil rights struggle was won. It wasn't won just by overturning Jim Crow laws. It was won by Congress and the Supreme Court forcing private business into implementing nondiscrimination policies. (That's why all businesses have those "Equal Opportunity Employer" clauses in their hiring ads. The Civil Rights Act required private business to stop discriminating against minorities.)
I guess that they don't teach that in today's schools anymore.
how about if the peterpuffers and dikes just leave decent people alone??
There was once bipartisan support to avoid creating moral hazards through selective exclusion. Today, the Democrats are defined and contained by their pro-choice or selective doctrine, beginning with elective abortion, and continuing with selective exclusion rather than principled tolerance. Perhaps like the unprecedented debt created through liberal fiscal policies, they hope to defer resolving moral hazards to an American or alien Posterity.
@John C.
It's not your average gay folk creating this campaign.
Sure we may disagree, but the most vocal in the hysteria are not gay in my social media feed. Corporations - celebrities, and my friends who identify strongly as progressives.
It would help if a Christian business owner remembered that he is not his business. You run a bakery; you are not a bakery.
And you should be glad. As the owner of a business, you get better tax breaks than you would as a private individual. For example, if you purchase health insurance for yourself, the deduction for premiums is only what you paid above a 2% floor. But if you purchase it as part of the cost of running your business, you don't have that 2% floor.
A private, limited-liability corporation does have some of the legal rights and responsibilities of personhood. But a single proprietorship (like a "mom-and-pop" small business) does not.
Thus, no one is forcing a baker to attend a same-sex wedding as a person. He can even hate gays personally.
He just can't run his business that way. He should think of his business as having a different persona and a different social network than he does.
Sinz can jews run kosher delicatessens?
Sinz could a baker refuse to bake a cake for a polygamous wedding? what if the wedding was all gay?
Before you say polygamy is illegal, it also was in CO when the baker got in trouble for not baking a cake for a gay couple.
Bricap sez: "Congress could simply update the Act to include this basis [nondiscrimination against gays], thereby making this a compelling government interest. "
The state of New Mexico doesn't think those two concepts are in conflict.
New Mexico has enacted *both* an RFRA law *and* a law prohibiting discrimination against gays and lesbians.
This seems to restrict RFRA to its original purpose in the 1990s: Allow Americans to practice their personal religious rituals free from government interference.
American Indians could use peyote in their religious ceremonies without being arrested by the DEA.
jr565:
What I believe is that it is no longer possible for an American business to tell a prospective customer:
"We don't serve your kind here."
I can see that Xsinss (sounds snakelike) psycho-erotically identifies with the Nazi's in Skokie. Equating sexual behavior with race allows him that pleasure.
Sins wrote:
Terry asks: "Are gays being denied services at lunch counters?
How is being gay anything like being black? "
When it comes to MARRIAGE, they are similar situations.
When it comes to sitting at lunch counters it's not really analogous. Since no black was allowed to sit at lunch counters. Here gays are allowed service unless they ask for one specific thing which the owner won't accomodate.
But suppose instead it was a marriage between a brother and sister. I imagine many bakers might not take such an assignment. suppose it were a black brother and sister?
Are they being discriminated against because they are black or because they want a cake with a marriage the baker doesn't feel like participating in by baking a cake. Should a baker be obligated to bake thst cake even if society hasn't yet come around to legalizing thst marriage?
Sinz52 wrote:
jr565:
What I believe is that it is no longer possible for an American business to tell a prospective customer:
"We don't serve your kind here."
so then a Jewish delicatessen has to serve non kosher food?
@sinz52,
He just can't run his business that way. He should think of his business as having a different persona and a different social network than he does.
You're saying then that corporations can't have a moral conscience, then? That when lefties ask corporations to be "good corporate citizens" they are asking them to do something they can't really do?
Because, it makes no moral sense to say that the collective owners can act morally through their corporation, they just can't let their religious beliefs influence those actions. What are religious beliefs for, except to guide moral action in every aspect of one's life, including one's work life. There is no Archimedean point of secular morality where one can stand & say "Well, everyone's got to look at this & say this is good & rational". It doesn't exist philosophically & it doesn't exist in American jurisprudence, either. Fundamental disagreement doesn't just bedevil religious vs secular moral reasoning. It bedevils secular moral reasoning, too.
I think you're twisting yourself up in moral knots here because you just don't like the idea of public & political religious moral action. Unfortunately, for believers, it's impossible to make clean delineations where the private ends & the public begins.
Anyone can refuse to service anyone as long as you don't tell them the real reason why. Just tell them you have a headache.
I am not Laslo, either.
It would help if a Christian business owner remembered that he is not his business
So a gay-owned t-shirt shopped should just shutup and print the "G-d hates F-gs" t-shirts?
How about writers, lawyers, film makers? If I have the money to hire them, they HAVE to take me as a client and prepare whatever message I demand?
Last I looked, my 1A rights are NOT dependant on what I choose to do for my lively hood.
---Thus, no one is forcing a baker to attend a same-sex wedding as a person. ---
sssxxiinnss is conssssssstructing a ssssssstttrrrawman here.
Well meaning religious people are being forced to ssssserrve a cccccceremony which violates their fundamental beliefs.
And they are being fined and financially ruined.
And they are being malevolently singled out by repeat customers
We were told that this wouldn't happen.
We see your lie in equating this to race. Its equated to Yellow stars.
Can a restuarant refuse to, let a transgendered male who thinks he's a woman use the woman's bathroom? (She can still use the men's gsthroom)
Here's the future you seek sssxxxiiinsssss
A Swedish pastor who preached a sermon on the Biblical prohibitions against homosexual behavior is waiting to see if the Supreme Court of Sweden will send him to jail for six months for doing so.
http://chalcedon.edu/research/articles/swedish-pastor-faces-jail-for-preaching-against-homosexuality/
What if someone wanted you to bake a cake that celebrated an abortion?
What if they wanted to celebrate a sex-selective abortion?
What if Somali taxi drivers in Minneapolis wanted to not drive someone who had been drinking?
What if someone in Seattle wanted to ban using the same grill in a restaurant to cook vegetables and meat?
Ann, the reason is that the Hobby Lobby ruling has made these laws unpopular among the top echelons of the left, so lefty propagandists are telling blatant lies about them in order to discredit them. Then the media (which is, of course, composed of lefty sympathizers when they aren't outright co-propagandists), rather then call them on the lies, is amplifying them. And as a result, a huge section of the ignorant masses, regardless of viewpoint, nod along with the uncontradicted propaganda.
After all, the only thing even slightly different about this state RFRA's wording (I actually sat down and read all of them over on the RFRA-hostile RFRAperils.com to compare) is the explicit provision that it applies in private lawsuits . . . a provision which has been read into other RFRAs by the courts in a number of places. The claim it has anything at all to do with businesses serving gays is blatantly ludicrous, given that the whole Elaine Photography case (where the wedding photographer refused the photograph a lesbian commitment ceremony) happened in a state (New Mexico) with a state RFRA.
Can a black owned busines refuse to serve KKK members? What if they walkee in wearing their KKK outfits?
Can a pro life organization force a feminist publisher to Print out pro life material? Or vice versa?
Althouse: Judicial protection against burdens on religion is supported because the democratic process is not trusted when it comes to religions that are disliked, considered weird (in a bad way), or not known. This is a standard thing for liberals to want law to do.
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha!!!
HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!!!
To me it comes down to the difference between a business discriminating on the people it serves and discriminating in the services it offers.
For example, if a gay couple comes into a bakery orders Cake #5, a simple cream cake with the word "Congratulations" on it, and the baker refuses, he is discriminating against them as people because he is choosing not to sell a product which he has already decided to produce or has already produced.
On the other hand, if a gay couple tries to contract with the baker to make a specialty cake for their wedding and the baker refuses because "he doesn't do gay weddings" he is not discriminating against them as people but declining to work on a specific and new creation for that event.
Every business discriminates when it chooses to offer some services and not others. Even the decision to build a grocery store on the east side of the city discriminates against people who live on the west side.
So business owners must make decisions about where to put their efforts and treasure. Oftentimes these decisions are based on nothing more than what makes the owner happy and fulfilled in his or her occupation.
I fail to see why a person who decides to become a wedding planner specializing in Catholic weddings for example, is doing anything illegal. But that seems to be what some people are claiming.
If he or she decides to do only Catholic weddings, it is not proof of any animus towards Jews, Muslims, Buddhists, or homosexuals. It merely indicates what business that person is undertaking to the exclusion of other possible business models.
To be sure there are gray areas and a good discussion is to figure out where those gray areas are and how best to resolve them. But with all the nonsense being posted, you'd think that allowing a baker to choose whether or not to participate in gay wedding is equivalent allowing a doctor to refuse treatment to a dying man because he's a homosexual.
In the end, we need to think better of one another and act with charity and forbearance. Not every wedding cake is a lawsuit waiting to happen or an opportunity for the heavy hand of government to act.
Terry said...
If you are a gay couple, why on Earth would you want to force a person who opposes gay marriage to cater your wedding?
Because they can.
This is always so much easier than we make it out.
The government ought not descrimate. Private individuals, and even groups of individuals who incorporate, ought to be able to discriminate however they please.
Some of the comments here -- e.g., sinz52 -- keep pushing the analogy between racial discrimination and sex. They are making at least 2 serious errors.
1. No, it was about getting lunch, not entirely about principle. The degree of discrimination against blacks prior to the 1960s in many parts of the country can hardly be imagined today. No, they could not get lunch, they couldn't get a photographer, they couldn't get a hotel room, they couldn't get a job, except as menial labor.
It is preposterous to compare the situation of LGBT in 2015 to blacks in 1955. Just silly.
2. Contrary to claims here, there was never any traditional Christian teaching against racial intermarriage or racial integration. In fact, this sort of stupid thinking was only a couple hundred years old and really only applied to the US. Elsewhere in the world, throughout most of history, people of different races regularly intermarried with no problem in Christian churches. In fact, many of the early Fathers of the Church were not white.
So, there is no traditional Christian -- or Jewish or Muslim -- teaching against interracial marriage at all. None. In contrast, there is a 4,000 year old Judeo-Christian-Muslim teaching against homosexual acts.
Try to be honest.
Questions for liberals:
Should the State, by force of law, compel a tattoo artist to draw a swastika or other known Nazi symbol on a skinhead?
Should the state, by force of law, compel a gay tattoo artist to paint a Westboro Baptist logo on a customer's skin, with the words "God hates fags?"
Should the state, by force of law, compel a veteran tattoo artist to draw a likeness of the ISIS flag on a customer's skin?
I am particularly interested in response to the last one, because a Muslim is a member of a protected class when it comes to public accommodation laws.
Sorry, Cook. It's not your place to decide for other people what their religion deems sinful or not sinful.
And, you ignorant fool, your claim that the church does not create a hierarchy of sins 180 percent wrong. The Catholic Church establishes a heiarchy of grave versus venial since, for example.
Terry said...
If you are a gay couple, why on Earth would you want to force a person who opposes gay marriage to cater your wedding?
Because the essential issue here is not simply one of tolerance but demand for approval. People simply cannot be allowed to think that homosexuality is wrong be left to their lives. Instead their bigotry must be punished and they endure public shaming and their livelihoods threatened.
Lincoln in his address at Cooper Union explained this attitude very well in regards to slavery issue of his time and why it would not be sufficient to simply "tolerate" slavery in the states where it currently existed.
You can see the parallels to today's discussion in this excerpt:
==============
"The question recurs, what will satisfy them [regarding slavery]? Simply this: We must not only let them alone, but we must somehow, convince them that we do let them alone. This, we know by experience, is no easy task. We have been so trying to convince them from the very beginning of our organization, but with no success. In all our platforms and speeches we have constantly protested our purpose to let them alone; but this has had no tendency to convince them. Alike unavailing to convince them, is the fact that they have never detected a man of us in any attempt to disturb them.
These natural, and apparently adequate means all failing, what will convince them? This, and this only: cease to call slavery wrong, and join them in calling it right. And this must be done thoroughly - done in acts as well as in words. Silence will not be tolerated - we must place ourselves avowedly with them ...
The whole atmosphere must be disinfected from all taint of opposition to slavery, before they will cease to believe that all their troubles proceed from us.
I am quite aware they do not state their case precisely in this way. Most of them would probably say to us, "Let us alone, do nothing to us, and say what you please about slavery." But we do let them alone - have never disturbed them - so that, after all, it is what we say, which dissatisfies them. They will continue to accuse us of doing, until we cease saying.
===============
Blogger Fen said...
"They should be able to go to a Jewish owned bakery and order a cake for their next meeting that has "Sieg Heil" and "Kill all the Jews" on it in a nice buttercream frosting. And maybe surrounded with a nice wreath of swastikas. Right?"
According to the Left, yes.
Actually I think the view of the 1A had been steadily evolving on the Left. As far as I can tell now, leftists believe the 1A only applies to right-thinking people and their progressive, inclusive opinions.
Wrong-thinking people deserve no 1A protection for spreading their "hateful" thoughts.
There have been thse RFRA there laws on the books for a while now. In fact Obama himself pushed one. Yeah yeah, he evolved on this issue too. Where are all the instances of said laws working to outlaw gayness, and where were all the calls to repudiate said laws Lo these many years. Why hasn't obama repudiated his own involvement in said laws.
It almost seems like dems and libs didn't relalize said laws were already on the books.unles they answer for Clinton and Obama, I don't want to hear the scaremongering.
As a Hoosier I'm finding myself at the meeting of a real committee of straw men.
The set up of religion vs. secular or gay vs. straight in this entire issue is just a diversion from the real issue here: do we as Americans have private property rights or not? Does my business belong to me or not?
In my view a private business owner should have the choice to refuse service to anyone I wish for whatever reason I wish: religion, color, hair color, bad breath, sexual orientation, anything as the business is private property.
Mind you I'm not suggesting that as a business strategy; quite the contrary. Turning away paying customers is a pretty poor business practice, but it should be private choice.
The blowback you typically get is along the ... Well, the private business is using public roads, utilities, etc ... lines. If that argument holds then indeed there is no such thing as private property in today's America.
Job, by your logic, anti-Semitism and slavery should be covered under RFRA absent any compelling gov't interest, given how long they have been religiously condoned. On another note, how long has evangelical Protestantism been in existence? Do we need a minimum number of years for a religion's existence? Do we further delineate among denominations, since there is disagreement among demoninations regarding what is a sin and treatment of sin, and if so, how long do we need for a denomination's unique beliefs to qualify for protection under RFRA? I'm sure Mormons would like to know how long they need before they can enjoy the benefits of RFRA for their unique beliefs.
jr565 said...
"a Jewish delicatessen has to serve non kosher food?"
I don't think that's the right analogy—what they're arguing is that your deli must serve its wares to all comers, not that they must change what they sell to accommodate customers. The principle that they are apt to tout is: "People can believe whatever they like, privately, but when they take the decision to enter the marketplace, they must serve all comers without discrimination." The problem is that that principle is entirely contrived (not to mention that it's hard to reconcile with the Civil Rights Act, which presupposes the exact opposite).
When our labors are no longer our own, but may be dictated by someone else, when we no longer may choose whom to work for and whom not to work for, we are no longer free. That is the definition of slavery.
I know the 14th supposedly incorporates the bill of rights to all govt entities, no matter how small. But this would be a non problem if the federal constitution protected the citizens from the federal govt only.
it's probably up thread, I came late and haven't perused in it's entirety.
So how can a business refuse to service a person exercising their enumerated civil right to carry a gun?
Job wrote:
"In fact, this sort of stupid thinking was only a couple hundred years old and really only applied to the US."
The Virginia anti-miscegination law overturned in 1967 was passed in 1924.
Liberals really need to study more history. In 1860, there were no 13th or 14th amendments, and the evidence of history and science indicated that the races were NOT equal. Yet the nastiest racism didn't emerge until the turn of the 20th century. They had evolution, then, and a scientific theory of breeding and heredity. These men of science (not religion) believed that certain races had an inborn tendency to produce geniuses or idiots, thieves or philosophers. This is clear from reading the literature of the time.
When progressives assign behavior -- like sexual behavior -- to biology they have taken the first steps towards death camps. If some people are born with an attraction to other people of the same sex, then it is certain that some people can be born with a sexual attraction to children, to rape, to thievery, or to murder, and it is only our forbearance that allows them to walk the streets (for now).
iowan2 said...
"So how can a business refuse to service a person exercising their enumerated civil right to carry a gun?"
Because constitutional rights are against government action. If I decide (foolishly) that I don't want armed customers on my private property, that's my business. My right to control my property trumps your right to defend yourself, just as, on your property, your right to be armed trumps my disapproval of guns. Property rights are fundamental—it is to private property that a man may retreat and be untouched by Locke's social contract.
Does my business belong to me or not?
Oh, that ship sailed long ago, and you can thank bigots who did so much that the Government felt compelled to step in and fix things.
Blogger Simon said...
I don't think that's the right analogy—what they're arguing is that your deli must serve its wares to all comers, not that they must change what they sell to accommodate customers. The principle that they are apt to tout is: "People can believe whatever they like, privately, but when they take the decision to enter the marketplace, they must serve all comers without discrimination."
3/29/15, 9:43 PM
Another sticking point with this issue is how do you determine whether two products or services are identical?
In the case of wedding services, a wedding photography, cake maker, wedding planner, etc. might very well feel that working on a gay wedding ceremony than working on a heterosexual marriage ceremony.
I don't think this is something that society can answer. It can only be answered by the individual offering the service whether he or she feels that the two services are identical or essentially different.
The burden of proof to overcome that objection should rest on the people attempting to purchase the good or service and not on the seller.
But even beyond that, the idea that you could compel someone to enter into a contract without their consent is opposite to everything I believe about freedom and liberty.
I also think if Pence really believed in this bill, he would have signed it in public, not private ceremony. No one likes a coward politician.
P.S. Go Sparty!!!
@Gahrie, it was my impression that althouse was offering that idea to the Republicans as a device to outflank the Democrats.
Job:
The Judeo-Christian proscription was limited to Israel, the nation founded by God. It does not have a general application outside that one-time society established and advised by this extra-universal entity. Only a record that homosexual behavior, especially male, is dysfunctional remains, but is accompanied with an advisory of principled tolerance.
That said, the natural law, including the Homo sapien fitness function, predates the religious or moral philosophy of man. Homosexual and generally trans orientations are incompatible with evolutionary fitness, other than through the morally ambiguous and debasing practices of womb banks and sperm depositors.
So, whether it is science (i.e. our knowledge and skill constrained to a limited frame of reference in time and space) or religion (i.e. moral philosophy), there is a sound basis for principled tolerance, rather than selective exclusion and its associated consequences, that is integral to the trans behavioral -- not orientation -- normalization movement.
Post a Comment