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:
«Oldest ‹Older 201 – 256 of 256The question isn't religious liberty, it is liberty.
Hear, hear!
Your rights end at the tip of my nose. They do not extend into MY bakery, nor MY photo studio, nor MY church.
You are not my lord, and I am not your surf. You are not my master, and I am not your slave. MY work is MY own. As a free man, I am not under your command.
The right of association implies the right NOT to associate. And no, I don't give a shit how you feel about my refusal to associate with you.
@Gahrie, it was my impression that althouse was offering that idea to the Republicans as a device to outflank the Democrats
Nope. The whole quote:
Of course, political advantage will be taken. This issue is served up nicely for Democrats. What can Republicans do? Personally, I recommend that the federal government directly pay for all birth control. Take the employers, all employers, out of the process of funding birth control and make it a straightforward public health program.
You know, we ought to be glad that women control their reproductive function to the extent that they do. We can't force women to use birth control. We should at least facilitate the voluntary behavior that benefits all of us. It's ridiculous that we've stumbled into a position where this perfectly wholesome governmental policy is bedeviling religious people.
makes it clear that Althouse was acknowledging that the Democrats were taking political advantage and the Republicans should shut up and take it.
She then argues that the government should be providing birth control to women for free as sound public policy, not a political move by the Republicans.
Surprise surprise...the answer is to give women more free stuff.
Not sure if you need to actually do anything about Abgie's list since it will probsbly implode on its own. Considering it has never been profitable in 3 years. And is being sued constantly for unfair business practices:
http://www.indystar.com/story/news/politics/2015/03/23/lawsuit-accuses-angies-list-manipulating-reviews/70338094/
BUT... No reason conservatives can't speed it along.
Simon wrote:
jr565 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"
No, the analogy would be, the kosher deli always served kosher food. But society changed the meaning of kosher. And now is demanding Thet the kosher deli serve non kosher food under the guise that it's kosher. And then targeting delis who serve kosher food the way they always did because they say they serve kosher but won't serve this food, which civil society says is kosher and which jews know is non kosher.
At the 'adult bookstore' you can never know when the man buying the three-foot yellow ribbed polyurethane dildo is buying it for his girlfriend, his boyfriend, or for himself. Unless he asks for something to be written on it with frosting. This does not make it a wedding cake. A wedding gift, maybe.
I am Laslo.
At the 'adult bookstore' a man buying the three-foot yellow ribbed polyurethane dildo might say it is for "Leslie". That could be a man's name, or a woman's name. Pretty tricky on his part.
I am Laslo.
Just because a man at the 'adult bookstore' buys a three-foot yellow ribbed polyurethane dildo along with a stack of male gay videos doesn't necessarily mean he's gay: his girlfriend may just be one of those chicks who likes to watch hot man-on-man action.
It might, however, provide a clue on how the dildo will be used.
I am Laslo.
Sometimes at the 'adult bookstore' you have to tell a customer that they cannot put their mouth around the end of a three-foot yellow ribbed polyurethane dildo until after the purchase.
Gay or straight, it is unsanitary for the next prospective customer.
If it is a chick sometimes the rule is allowed to slide.
I am Laslo.
Sometimes at the 'adult bookstore' a person tries to return a three-foot yellow ribbed polyurethane dildo; this is not allowed, no matter how new it still may look. Maybe try eBay.
I am Laslo.
At the 'adult bookstore' one of the theories is that women buy dildos for length, gay men buy them for girth. There are a lot of theories floating around an adult bookstore.
I am Laslo.
At the 'adult bookstore' there is a gigantic dildo called 'The Man-Pleaser', but a lot of women buy it, too. I don't see a problem with that.
I am Laslo.
But society changed the meaning of kosher.
But isn't kosher a religious construct? 'Society' can't change the meaning of kosher for an observant Jew can it?
Now, society could co-opt it to broaden its meaning (see: Sacrament of marriage), but in the place of worship, its meaning won't change.
People would likely complain though.
At the 'adult bookstore' some of the dildos are labeled 'kosher'. It is good to know there isn't pork or shellfish used in its manufacture.
This is where the joke about 'porking' would go.
I am Laslo.
At the 'organic farmers market' you can never be sure how that organic cucumber is going to be used.
Then the two women with the organic cucumber got into a Subaru.
I am Laslo.
Women with Subarus tend to compost a LOT of cucumbers.
Maybe a Seattle thing.
I am Laslo.
"Sorry, Cook. It's not your place to decide for other people what their religion deems sinful or not sinful."
I didn't. I pointed out the hypocrisy of so-called "Christians" picking and choosing for themselves what sins they will take great offense at and which they will not.
"And, you ignorant fool, your claim that the church does not create a hierarchy of sins 180 percent wrong. The Catholic Church establishes a heirarchy of grave versus venial since, for example."
Ah...but that's not from Jesus. (I didn't say, "the church," if you read carefully; I said "Jesus," from whence, ahem, "Christianity" derives.)
The Catholic Church is heretical and non-Biblical in establishing hierarchies of sin. It reflects humankind's character--not Jesus' teachings--and our propensity for splitting hairs and finding exceptions and hidden rules where they are not.
I have no problem with two women enjoying an organic cucumber in the privacy of their home.
Let he who has not watched lesbian porn throw the first stone.
I am Laslo.
Not all women who drive Subarus in Seattle are lesbians. Some are just in an experimental phase.
Time will tell.
I am Laslo.
---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.---
Is this kind of like 'ISIS is not really islamic'. Who limited any Judeo-Christian concepts?
BTW, still haven’t heard from any libs here if its OK for a KKK’er to demand a black baker make him a Stars and Bars cake.
if its OK for a KKK’er to demand a black baker make him a Stars and Bars cake.
Miss Manners would not approve of the rudeness, Gentle Reader.
Miss Manners would not approve of the rudeness, Gentle Reader.
But it is not rude for homosexuals to make similar demands of Christians?
Your words, not mine.
A Business Owner -- a successful one -- deals with rude clients all the time.
Cook wrote: The Catholic Church is heretical and non-Biblical in establishing hierarchies of sin. It reflects humankind's character--not Jesus' teachings--and our propensity for splitting hairs and finding exceptions and hidden rules where they are not.
So you're suggesting that Christian hew only to the original teachings of Jesus even though He said that He came not to abolish the Law (Matthew 5:17)?
Glad to know you're an originalist when it comes to religious matters. I wonder if you're the same regarding the US Constitution?
Their is a Christian denomination that has a catechism made up entirely of the words of Christ in the New Testament. They are called Quakers.
Robert Cook shouldn't write about things he knows nothing about.
I have no sympathy for anyone who wishes to refuse service based on someone else's sexual orientation, any more than for someone who would refuse service based on race. But short of widespread, systemic discrimination such as during Jim Crow era (where blacks effectively couldn't get most services or certain jobs) the rule should still be that businesses be run the way the owners want to, and let others refuse to shop there if they prefer. Far better than using government power to decide these things.
Anti-gay discrimination is dying out. Let that continue rather than spark a backlash.
RFRA skeptics have the same accuracy track record of global warming advocates.
Now, society could co-opt it to broaden its meaning (see: Sacrament of marriage), but in the place of worship, its meaning won't change.
Except they'll make churches change also.
The Catholic Church is heretical and non-Biblical in establishing hierarchies of sin
Makes those SEVEN Deadly Sins odd, huh? You know, since all sins are equal according to you.
"People support laws when they picture good effects."
Emotional narratives seem a poor reason to support anything. BUT if that's your standard, perhaps you might question who's being bullied by whom here?
It's not as if gays can't find plenty of vendors to compete for their marriage-services business, it's that some need to bully all vendors into compliance with their worldview.
Woolly bully.
"Makes those SEVEN Deadly Sins odd, huh? You know, since all sins are equal according to you."
Again, the "seven deadly sins" are not from Jesus.
I don't say all sins are equal; I only point out that Jesus did not establish a hierarchy of greater and lesser sins; that was/is the doing of humankind.
Fen: Sorry, Cook. It's not your place to decide for other people what their religion deems sinful or not sinful."
Robert Cook: I didn't. I pointed out the hypocrisy of so-called "Christians" picking and choosing for themselves what sins they will take great offense at and which they will not.
Ah my bad. Now you're the arbiter of what Christians are allowed to take offense to. That's so different...
Ya know why I disregard you so readily on this blog? Because when you comment on something I have direct knowledge or experience of, you are always dead wrong.
Robert Cook has invented Protestantism. Sheesh.
Madison Man wrote:
But isn't kosher a religious construct? 'Society' can't change the meaning of kosher for an observant Jew can it?
But delis are businesses that serve people food. so its not exactly in the context of religion alone.
It's funny to see all the defenses of Christian bigotry, without any substantiation that such bigotry comes from or is supported by Christ's teachings.
Robert Cook wrote:
I don't say all sins are equal; I only point out that Jesus did not establish a hierarchy of greater and lesser sins; that was/is the doing of humankind.
If it was already established that there was a hierarchy of sins (7 deadly sins, 10 commandments etc)or established sins , and Christ is their to uphold the religion, why would he need to reformulate the hierarchy of sins?
Robert Cook wrote:
t's funny to see all the defenses of Christian bigotry, without any substantiation that such bigotry comes from or is supported by Christ's teachings.
So which of the sins established in christianity do you say Christ in fact said were ok?
He did tell the crowd not to stone a women but then he turned to her and said "Now go and sin no more" what was her sin? Isn't telling her to stop doing it judging that the sin was in fact a sin?
jr565:
I didn't say Jesus said any sins were "okay." I said he didn't establish a hierarchy of sins, of which some could be ignored while others were to be reviled.
So-called "Christian" businesspersons who justify their refusal to provide services to paying customers because said customers are gay (and because they believe this to be a sin), are not being coherent or consistent; in order to be coherent and consistent, they must either serve all sinners or refuse to serve all sinners.
For them to pick and choose is not Christian, and they are defaming their claimed faith by blaming their personal bigotry on their religion.
Except they'll make churches change also.
You don't actually believe that. The Government is never going to tell the Catholic Church (for example) what its sacraments mean. You are stunningly wrong if you think that will happen.
There are plenty of churches that can supply a altar-type blessing on a same-sex couple if that's what a couple wants. Why would the Federal Government intervene here in a re-write of the First Amendment?
Robert Cook, you are not informed on this topic. You might want to look up the word "exegesis". You might also ponder where Christ said that his followers did not need to be circumsised or keep a kosher diet.
Terry, why don't you simply tell me how I am "not informed" on this topic? Looking up the word "exegesis", (which I already know), does not illuminate the matter.
I also don't see what Christ said to his followers about circumcision or kosher diets has to do at all with my remarks.
Robert Cook, I am trying to point out to you that you are making a fool of yourself by trying to discuss things about which you are ignorant.
"Exegesis" is critical in discussing the Christian concept of sin. Christ was a Jew. His followers and others sometimes called him "rabbi". In some statements Christ contradicted accepted Jewish law. On other topics he did not speak. The reason Christians do not follow Jewish dietary laws is not found in the Gospels, but in the book of Acts. Catholics believe authority comes from the Church founded by Christ as well as the words of the Bible.
If you want orders from God, explicitly laid out by his prophet, become a Muslim.
Terry,
"On other topics he did not speak."
And he did not speak on the matter of homosexuality.
It is not I who want orders from God, "explicitly laid out by his prophet," I'm an atheist. I'm simply pointing out that those claiming to be Christians who excuse their refusal to provide business services to homosexuals on the basis of their religious faith are liars, or don't know what Christ actually said or didn't say.
In fact, don't Christians say "we are all sinners and we are all unworthy?" Some are more unworthy than others, apparently.
You fail to show how I am wrong.
Cookie,
As usual, you totally miss the point.
I told you, "it's not your place."
It's not your place to decide for other people what are sins and what are not, and what, if any, hierarchies are established for them.
It's not your place to decide on articles of faith for Catholics, Protestants, Jews, Hindus, Hondas or Hyundais, and say which are acceptable and which are not.
You are simply digging a deeper hole for yourself by demonstrating further your own set of bigotries, your own ignorance of the topic, and your own unfailing instinct - which you share in common with all leftists - for totalitarianism, authoritarianism, anti-individualism and fascism.
No one owes you any substantiation. You are not entitled to any substantiation from anyone of faith or non-faith. You are not entitled to any kind of justification for their religious beliefs and practices whatsoever.
Here's the only substantiation to which you are entitled.
Feck. Off.
Jason,
You managed to type all those words and not say anything at all. Impressive.
Robert Cook wrote:
"And he did not speak on the matter of homosexuality."
Your ignorance is showing again, Mr. Cook.
Earlier I mentioned the Christian tradition of exegesis when finding meaning in the work of literature known as the Bible. A common use of exegesis is to assume that what is in the New Testament is in it for a reason. Christ's views on divorce are considerably different than Jewish law (Matthew 19:4-6). If Christ does not speak on a matter, and it is not written of by the apostles, it is thought that this means that the old covenant is still valid. Christ does not speak to us about homosexuality (or some other matters) because he had nothing to add to Jewish law.
You do not know what you are talking about on this topic, Robert Cook.
Terry,
Exegesis is a simply a fancy word for "interpretation." Man's intepretation. Jesus did not in any way assert it was appropriate for his followers to shun sinners of one stripe, while accepting into the fold sinners of other stripes.
You have not shown this to be so. It does not reflect well on Christ to use him as one's excuse for bigotry against a persecuted minority, so why are trying to do so?
"Jesus did not in any way assert it was appropriate for his followers to shun sinners of one stripe, while accepting into the fold sinners of other stripes."
As I wrote earlier, Robert Cook, if you prefer the kind of religion that is based entirely on the word of God, you can always become a Quaker or a Muslim. You won't find your beliefs reflected in Catholicism or mainstream Protestantism.
If you want the government to assert what religious belief is acceptable, you are establishing a religion. That strikes at the core of our constitution and what it means to be an American.
Intelligent criticism of religion requires and intelligent understanding of religion.
Cook: It's funny to see all the defenses of Christian bigotry
What bigotry? That Christians refuse to cheerlead some guy sticking his dick up some other guy's asshole?
Why don't you go back to your bunk and flail that strawman some more.
Terry,
As I said before, I have no preference for any kind of religion, being an atheist. Neither do I wish for government to assert what religious belief is acceptable. You infer that which I have not implied. I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy and lack of grounding in Jesus' teachings of so-called "Christians" who use their declared faith as an excuse for their bigotry.
You managed to type all those words and not say anything at all. Impressive.
You wish, putz. You have a blind spot, like all libtards, when it comes to liberty. You cannot abide by it.
The fact your little Stalinist pea-brain can't comprehend what liberty means is not my concern.
"I am simply pointing out the hypocrisy and lack of grounding in Jesus' teachings of so-called "Christians" who use their declared faith as an excuse for their bigotry."
The only bigotry on display here -- bigotry defined as stubbornly holding opinions which are not based on reason -- is on your part, Robert Cook.
You do not know enough about religion to criticize it intelligently.
So you keep saying, Terry, yet you still have not shown where I am wrong.
Actually, I'm not criticizing religion, I'm criticizing some adherents of a religion for their misuse (or ignorance) of their claimed faith.
You're not in a position to assess it, putz. You're too ignorant of the topic.
Ironically for all concerned, this debate has been far more damaging than helpful. There are myriad ways to discriminate, and many businesses that decry this law openly discriminate against applicants who are older, male, politically adverse, etc. The christian baker has options: He or she can refuse because "they just checked their calendar and found have a conflict." Or they can take the business, and the payment, but tell the customer "by law I have to accommodate you, but I don't like it and now I have to get another person to bake your cake/take pictures/etc so there might be some issues there." And with a proper no-refund policy, it could actually be profitable. Finally, there is the "best defense is a good offense" gambit. They sue you, you sue them back--after all, they could have gone anywhere but selected you because they knew you'd refuse. If you can prove they canvassed other providers, or sought a lawyer beforehand, it looks like they were seeking to be litigious and that invites a counterclaim that plenty of conservative legal groups might fund.
Also, Indiana businesses didn't need RFRA except for certain cities. Gays aren't a protected class there, so even if someone can prove your deception is really discrimination, so what? There is no cause of action.
ATEOTD, I can't see how this helps, and I can easily see how it hurts. And I wouldn't want to be the gay person who is a name plaintiff on any future lawsuit against a baker.
Post a Comment