Passing these bill is nothing more then giving folks the right to discriminate.
"After a year of court rulings that strengthened and weakened religious
freedom protections for individuals and businesses..."Religious
freedoms have never been weakened in the United States. You are, and always have
been, free to practice your religion.You are not free to shove your
religion down the throats of other citizens. That is called "religious
hegemony" and you should be ashamed for thinking that you have a right to do
Religious liberty laws are the most discriminating laws on the books. Religion
is all about discriminating. How many religions preach "one and only"
doctrines? Religious right organizations are making real money today by
screaming discrimination. It's like Jason Chaffetz sending me a anti
government message with the standard "call to money" blather. It's
not about discrimination, it's about money! Real religious freedom is
freedom from spiritual coercion. It is about the freedom to believe without a
law telling us how to do so. It's about a society where an atheist is just
as moral a person as a religious guru. Laws themselves are not about freedom.
The religious right better stick to their pulpits rather than the legislatures.
The Hobby Lobby law is the worst religious freedom law ever decided. It is
starting to erode the First Amendment. Laws can never be spiritual unless they
try to force a person to believe in a particular religion, like they do in the
Arab countries. Is that what we really want ?
For a right-winger to claim the need for the 'expansion of religious
freedom' as a response to the court's legalization of marriage
equality is the same thing the Nazis did in pre-war Europe when they blamed the
Jews for the economic woes in Germany. What did the Nazis do? They enacted laws
to get rid of the jews. It is no different today with the religious right. I
beg anyone out there to explain to me how allowing a gay couple to marry takes
away their religious freedom.
@RedShirtUofU --"Why do you support state sanctioned
slavery?"Red, that question makes as much sense as if I asked
you why haven't you stopped beating your wife.Both questions
are nonsensical red herrings."If I don't want to work for a
person for whatever reason, political, racial, cultural, they smell funny, have
red hair, or any other reason I want, I am not allowed to do so."Sure you are.Nobody is forcing you to work. You
willingly decided that you want to work -- to run a business. In order to do so,
you willingly agreed to taking out a business license. As one of the
requirements of acquiring a business license, you willingly agreed to abide by
the laws of the jurisdiction in which you conduct business.There is
no slavery going on here, Red. You willingly agreed to these conditions. If you
no longer wish to abide by the laws of your local jurisdiction, you are free to
stop doing business -- or to do business elsewhere.
To "Contrariusester" still not answering the question. Why do you
support state sanctioned slavery?If I don't want to work for a
person for whatever reason, political, racial, cultural, they smell funny, have
red hair, or any other reason I want, I am not allowed to do so.You
have shown that you support the state sanctioned slavery that exists because of
the Anti-Discrimination laws. It doesn't matter if that is part of doing
business, the fact remains that thanks to well intentioned politicians we now
have government sanctioned slavery.So again, if I use the law to
force you to work for me despite your objections, using whatever laws are
necessary, would you consider that slavery?If that too difficult for
you to answer, can you tell us why you believe that legalized slavery is ok?Why do you believe that having the "Thought Police" forcing
people to act correctly is a good thing?
@RedShirtUofU --"If I use the law to force you to work for me
despite your objections, using whatever laws are necessary, would you consider
that slavery?"It's an irrelevant question, Red -- a red
herring. In terms of logical argumentation, it is one of the relevance
fallacies. Look em up -- there are lots and lots of web pages that will describe
logical fallacies for you.Nobody is forcing you to work. Therefore
your question is irrelevant in regards to questions of discrimination. It is no
more relevant to this discussion than it would be to ask me if I've stopped
beating my husband lately.Nobody is forcing you to do business --
nobody is forcing you to work. But when you WILLINGLY start a business and
obtain that business license, you then must uphold ALL the laws that you agreed
to obey when you got that business license.You WILLINGLY started a
business and agreed to the terms of your business license. You WILLINGLY set up
your business in that particular jurisdiction.Therefore, how is
fulfilling the requirements of a business license that you WILLINGLY agreed to
comparable to slavery?Keep trying, Red.
To "Contrariuserer" the the question remains that you refuse to answer.
If I use the law to force you to work for me despite your
objections, using whatever laws are necessary, would you consider that
slavery?Why won't you answer that simple question. Is it
because for you to answer honestly you would have to admit that using the law to
force somebody to work for you is slavery.Keep dancing around the
issue, but we know the truth about you and your ilk.
As a Mormon and business owner my view on this is… if you run a business
and you are serving the public then you need to serve all of the public…
not pick and choose who to serve, black or white, gay or not, etc.
@Redshirt1701 --"I have never brought up a business
license."It's a necessary part of your argument, Red. If
you are going to do business as a public accommodation, you must first have a
business license. And when you get that license, you WILLINGLY agree to obey the
business laws of your jurisdiction."I have stated that the
anti-discrimination laws are nothing more than legalized slavery."And you are wrong. Nobody is forcing you to do business in the first place.
But when you WILLINGLY start a business and obtain that business license, you
then must uphold ALL the laws that you agreed to obey when you got that business
license."If I use the law to force you to work for me"Nobody is forcing you to work, Red. You WILLINGLY started a business and
agreed to the terms of your business license. You WILLINGLY set up your business
in that particular jurisdiction.Therefore, how is fulfilling the
requirements of a business license that you WILLINGLY agreed to slavery?Keep trying, Red.
To "Contrariuserer" you still like to twist things around to make
yourself feel good.I have never brought up a business license. I
have stated that the anti-discrimination laws are nothing more than legalized
slavery. Slavery, as I have shown, is defined as forcing others to work for
you.If I use the law to force you to work for me despite your
objections, using whatever laws are necessary, would you consider that
slavery?You ask questions but never answer them. Why don't you
try to answer the questions this time.
@Redshirt1701 --"so sad that you still don't understand
slavery, and are willing to force people into slavery for political
correctness."LOL.When you went into business, you
entered into an agreement with the municipality in which your business operates.
You willingly took out a business license and agreed to abide by the laws of
your jurisdiction. You WILLINGLY did this. Nobody forced you to take out that
business license, and nobody forced you to do business within that particular
jurisdiction.Therefore, how is fulfilling the requirements of a
business license slavery?Try to answer the question, Red.
To "Contrariuserer" so sad that you still don't understand slavery,
and are willing to force people into slavery for political correctness.To "TheTrueVoice" those are just a few recent incidences where people
were forced to serve others against their own desires.You are
straying from the topic. Would you think it is right to force a Gay
Photographer to work at a wedding at the Westboro Church? How about forcing a
minority owned catering business to cater a KKK event? Would you support laws
that caused those to happen?You even admit that anti-discrimination
laws remove freedom. Is that what you want so that you can force others to act
"if I am a baker, photographer, reception center, fertility doctor, or other
service provider there is a legal precedence for forcing them to serve
gays.""forcing them to serve gays..." I wonder if you
realize how this reads? It suggests there is something wrong to "serve
gays", which of course is nonsense. If someone is not able (or,
not willing), to follow the law when it comes to public accommodation, another
profession is indicated. If one desires to establish a business in our secular
society, there are specific laws that must be be followed: business licenses to
be procured, food service inspections, and anti-discrimination laws that must be
followed.If one's animus against a minority consumes them to
the point they can not meet the bare minimum requirements for public business,
then they can pursue a private venture where they are free to pursue their
bigotry without the law impacting them.
@Redshirt1701 --"You entered a contract with your landlord where
he provides shelter, and you pay him rent. That is a legal contract that you
willingly signed."YES!! Exactly.And when you went
into business, you entered into an agreement with the municipality in which your
business operates. You willingly took out a business license and agreed to abide
by the laws of your jurisdiction. You WILLINGLY did this. Nobody forced you to
take out that business license, and nobody forced you to do business within that
particular jurisdiction.Therefore, how is fulfilling the
requirements of a business license slavery?
This is really great news because I've been waking up lately just really
seriously feeling that my religious freedoms are being trampled and needed more
To "Contrarius" actually I am not being forced to serve my landlord, nor
am I being forced to work.You entered a contract with your landlord
where he provides shelter, and you pay him rent. That is a legal contract that
you willingly signed. Plus, your landlord doesn't care if you work for
your rent money, get it from your parents, or just have a large trust fund that
pays the rent. Does your landlord require you to do non-contractual labor for
him?How is a contract slavery?Nice try. Wanna try
@RedShirt --"Please name any other law that forces you to serve
another. How many laws do we have that force you to sever another?"You are being forced to serve your landlord whenever you pay him rent, Red.
You have to work in order to earn that rent money -- therefore you are being
forced to work. And the benefit of that work goes to the landlord in the form of
cash. Is the landlord therefore a slaveowner?
To "TheTrueVoice" but if I am a baker, photographer, reception center,
fertility doctor, or other service provider there is a legal precedence for
forcing them to serve gays.If I used every legal means available to
me to force you to come to my house and mow my lawn, would you consider yourself
a slave? Would you accept it? Even if I am a rich black man who has never
lived in poverty or lived under Jim Crowe laws?
To "Contrariuser" forcing you to serve another is slavery. It is
legalized slavery, but slavery none the less.Please name any other
law that forces you to serve another. How many laws do we have that force you
to sever another?The Collins English Dictionary has a great
definition of slavery that only proves you wrong:" 1. the state
or condition of being a slave; a civil relationship whereby one person has
absolute power over another and controls his life, liberty, and fortune2.
the subjection of a person to another person, esp in being forced into
work"So, legally, a gay person can force a baker who refuses to
make a cake for their wedding. According to the dictionary, that is slavery.So again, tell us how many laws force you to serve another or force you
to work? The primary laws that force you to work for another person have to do
with discrimination laws. Abiding traffic laws are not slavery, nor are most
laws. There are some laws that apply to physicians that state they must help if
they come across the scene of an accident where there are injuries, and that is
"Tell us, how is forcing people to do your will not slavery?"You have jumped from binary thinking to a non sequitur fallacy (when the
conclusion does not follow from the premise.)To wit: there is no
"forcing people to do your will" here. Are you being forced to be gay
married? No? Is your church being forced to perform SSM? No? Perhaps you are referring to the exhausted cases of "bakeries not making a
cake"? Have you ever heard of the legal construct called "public
accommodation laws"?The only thing being "forced" here
is that state-sponsored bigotry is no longer acceptable in 36 states, and this
June, SCOTUS will invalidate the remaining bans on marriage equality throughout
the country. This upsets you. We understand that. Cultural change can be
daunting to some folks. Here is how you can effectively deal with
this cultural change: If you don't like something, don't
pay attention to it. Simple, and effective.You need to realize that
not being able to unjustifiably force people to conform to how you want them to
be, isn't an infringement on your religious freedoms.
@RedShirt --"If it is so obvious, why can't you explain it
either?"I already did, Red. According to your argument, forcing
you to obey ANY law is slavery. Forcing you to pay taxes is slavery. Forcing you
to pay rent is slavery (after all, you have to work to earn money to pay that
rent, so your landlord has forced you to work -- oh no!).You insult
all the people who have actually had to live through slavery when you make such
To "Contrariuser" sad, you don't realize that forcing people to
work for you is slavery.If it is so obvious, why can't you
explain it either? Logically, what I have posted is right since it has been
explained in a simple logical manner using facts. You and "The True
Voice" use an argument that consists of opinion only, not facts.Go and look up the definition of slavery, think about it (that may be hard for
you), then let me know what your thoughts are.
@RedShirt --"To "TheTrueVoice" that is a nice rant, but
you still don't explain why it is false."It's very
obvious, Red. According to your argument, being forced to obey ANY
law is slavery.
To "TheTrueVoice" that is a nice rant, but you still don't explain
why it is false.However, despite what you think that is what you
have.You can either allow discrimination or you can enslave people
through political correctness. Yes that is binary, but that is how this
situation is.Tell us, how is forcing people to do your will not
slavery? Tell us how allowing discrimination takes away from your freedom? (it
may cut back on shops, but shopping is not freedom.)
"If you don't allow discrimination then you give us slavery. Which is
the greater evil? Which one represents freedom?"This sentence is
an example of a "false dilemma" fallacy (otherwise known as "binary
thinking"), and represents a prime example why the opponents of marriage
equality have been tossed out of one court after another in the past year. The "false dilemma" fallacy is an insidious tactic that has the
appearance of forming a logical argument, but under closer scrutiny, it becomes
evident that there are more possibilities than the either/or choice that is
presented. Binary, black-or-white thinking doesn't allow for
the many different variables, conditions, and contexts in which there would
exist more than just the two possibilities put forth. It frames the argument
misleadingly and obscures rational, honest debate.
@antodav --"You fail to explain why ..."I
don't really need to explain anything. The fact is that they DO exist.But if you want reasons, here's a couple:Marriages
promote societal stability by creating stable family units. This stability
encourages financial growth as well as societal cohesion, and is therefore worth
rewarding.Also, marriage indicates a long-term intimate commitment
between two people. People who have made such commitments both need and deserve
the recognition of their bond in protections like hospital visitation rights,
inheritance rights, and so on."...a special legal arrangement
with a strong religious connotation"Millions of people marry in
civil ceremonies with no religious participation whatsoever."as
opposed to just anyone who signs a contract so that they can acquire such
benefits"That contract is called a MARRIAGE contract. There is
no other single contract that can convey so many rights and privileges at one
time."What I do with my wife and our bishop or in the temple
ought to have no more legal significance than my baptism."And it
doesn't. Only the MARRIAGE CONTRACT conveys the rights -- not the ceremony
you hold in the church.
To "TheTrueVoice" which would you rather have, legalized discrimination
(discrimination already exists in government contracting, scholarship, and many
other areas involving the government) or legalized slavery?If you
don't allow discrimination then you give us slavery. Which is the greater
evil? Which one represents freedom?
@Contrariuser,You fail to explain why any such benefits ought to
exist for people who are "married" in the first place--certainly, why
they should exist for people who enter into a special legal arrangement with a
strong religious connotation, as opposed to just anyone who signs a contract so
that they can acquire such benefits, which need not be called "marriage"
and need not be recognized as such. What I do with my wife and our bishop or in
the temple ought to have no more legal significance than my baptism. Neither
should corresponding activities by anyone else; that is the very nature of
separation of church and state. The Jim Crow argument is a straw
man. There's no reason to believe that sort of system would voluntarily
arise again anywhere in absence of government coercion (that was how it arose
the first time, after all). And if any business owner were foolish enough to
turn away paying customers because of race, he'd quickly find his business
failing due to competiton from other more sensible business owners, not to
mention boycotts. The market works just fine if you let it.
@Aurelius maximus --"It really isn't too hard to imagine
how deeply uncomfortable it might make someone who is deeply religious to
essentially be forced to attend a same-sex wedding."It takes an
incredible stretch of credulity to equate baking a cake with attending a
wedding.@antodav --"These kinds of laws
wouldn't be necessary if government wasn't trying to legislate,
regulate, or license personal relationships in the first place."More than 1000 legal benefits are contingent on marital status. If you want to
forego all these benefits, then by all means stay single. But don't expect
the rest of society to live without them."And let private
businesses choose to serve and/or employ whomever they choose, or not, as is
their right--if you don't like it, work or shop somewhere else."Oh, sure. The good ol' days of "whites only" and "we
don't serve your kind". Good times, good times....
These kinds of laws wouldn't be necessary if government wasn't trying
to legislate, regulate, or license personal relationships in the first place.
Compounding a problem caused initially by unwarranted government intrusion into
the private sector through unnecessary and unconstitutional laws with even more
unnecessary and, frankly, redundant laws (given that religious freedom is
already guaranteed in the First Amendment and that that guarantee is already
binding upon the states as well by the 14th Amendment) is not the solution to
the problem. Strike marriage from law books. Stop trying to force people to
accept any one definition of what it should or shouldn't be. Stop trying to
dictate who can or cannot enter into legal contracts with others, and leave
marriage to churches to carry out as they see fit. And let private businesses
choose to serve and/or employ whomever they choose, or not, as is their
right--if you don't like it, work or shop somewhere else. That is the
beauty of a free market, in a society which actually allows one to function the
way it is supposed to: there is no compulsion or coercion anywhere, and total
freedom of choice.
CI says:"I find it ironic that many of the posters on this site
who decry the imposition of religion onto them, have no problem forcing others
to violate their religious beliefs."--- Where in your scriptures
does it say that providing a product or service to a sinner is against your
"religious beliefs"?@Gildas;So now you're
judging business owners who are FOR equality and claiming they have "no
conscience"? And again, where in your scriptures does it say that
providing a product or service to a sinner is against your "religious
conscience"?@Sqweebie;Your experience is exactly what we
oppose happening. I hope you can empathize with those who experience this kind
of situation pretty much everywhere they go. I hope you would oppose
legislation allowing this kind of action.@Aurelius maximus;It isn't really too hard to imagine how deeply uncomfortable it might
make someone to walk into a business establishment and be told "Sorry, we
don't serve your kind here".
"It is not a front for bigotry or prejudice".A specious
claim that is intellectually dishonest.These recent attempts to
legalize discrimination by hiding behind the skirts of dogma has only come about
since the Windsor decision. It was clear then (to those possessing critical
thinking skills) that the handwriting was on the wall, and marriage equality
will soon be the law of the land. So the detractors had to find
another way to express their moral disapproval of their fellow citizens who do
not behave as they wish them to behave. Where were all these attempts to
discriminate through legislation prior to the Windsor decision?
@ The Wraith"I simply do not understand how taking pictures or
baking a cake for a same sex wedding violates a persons deeply help"
religious beliefs."It really isn't too hard to imagine how
deeply uncomfortable it might make someone who is deeply religious to
essentially be forced to attend a same-sex wedding.
To "The Wraith" you are confusinig. You say that you don't want
to force people to serve others, then the next sentence you state that you want
to force businesses to serve everybody. Can you make up your mind?Either you allow people to exhibit their biases and let them decline to serve
some people or your force them to serve others (slavery).You may not
like slavery, but you sure are pushing for it.
@Ranchhand "Why don't we go find someone else? Let me ask you. Have you
ever walked into a business and had them tell you "we don't serve your
kind here"?I was actually evicted from an apartment on the east
coast over 30 years ago except they said "We don't want your kind
here" I'm straight, was married at the time and LDS. I asked what
kind? They refused to give me an answer. But they did have a lot of JWs living
in the complex so I'm assuming it was because of my being LDS.
@mufasta"It is not a front for bigotry or prejudice"These laws seek to give permission to business owners to discriminate against
certain customers based on religious reasons (mostly sexual orientation).
@Gildas --"It is the denial of the free exercise of religion to
force someone to act against his or her conscience. It is a denial of freedom to
so closely control people as so many laws now do. "Sorry, but
religious belief does not trump civil law.Even U.S. Supreme Court
Justice Antonin Scalia, a devoutly religious Catholic, has recognized this
simple principle.In the Employment Division v. Smith decision, 1990,
he said that to allow anyone to excuse their actions solely because of religious
belief "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," something which could not be allowed.Later
Supreme Court decisions, said Justice Scalia, "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)."Even religious people must obey the law.
The problem we have is with business-owners that do NOT have a conscience not
with those who do.It is the denial of the free exercise of religion
to force someone to act against his or her conscience. It is a denial of
freedom to so closely control people as so many laws now do. As
Martin Luther once said: It is neither wise nor safe to act against conscience.
@mufasta "If a youth wants to do a report on a biblical figure or
biblical story in school he/she should be allowed to do that."Are you implying current system does not allow that?
Counter IntelligenceIt is against my moral principles that the non
worship activities of church organizations escape taxation. I believe we should
equally share in the revenue burdens of our society. My moral principles are as
important to me as are yours regarding birth control. However, I acknowledge we
live in a diverse society in which at present it is perfectly legal for churches
to avoid taxes in their extra-worshipful enterprises. In other words, I can
live with, but don't like it. Why is it suddenly a newly
discovered right of yours to claim objection to something like birth control or
gay marriage? No one is coercing you into having abortions or becoming married
to someone of the same sex. No one is asking your church to marry a same sex
couple. Yet you seem to insist that the rest of us follow your
sensibilities.Why can not you accommodate yourself to a diverse
culture as I have? Is it that hard to do?
@RedShirtCalTechI'm sorry Red but it's a terrible analogy.
It doesn't "hit me hard" what is says is that your side is so
desperate to maintain their ability to discriminate that they are willing to
stretch reality beyond reason and logic. When I advised not to use the analogy
again I was trying to help you not look silly. Instead you decided to double
down. I think your side is seeing this wrong. In reality I do not
want to force you to serve gays. Instead I want to make sure that all businesses
are required to serve the public on equal terms. That would include gays yes,
but it also includes Blacks, Hispanics, Mormons, Anti-Mormons, Christians, Jews,
Muslims, Atheists, Hindus, Vietnamese, Chinese, French, English, Native
Americans, Peruvians, Egyptians, Scandinavians, old people, young people,
middle-aged people, people with blue eyes, people with brown eyes, people with
red hair, people with brown hair, Japanese, Lebanese, Russians, alcoholics,
teetotalers, Norwegians, Serbs, Wiccans, Jazz lovers, rock lovers, baseball
fans, football fans, soccer fans, soccer hooligans, police officers, teachers,
grocery store clerks, movie stars, sanitation workers, etc. etc. etc.
The greatest Christian Commandment ever given was when Jesus replied:
“'Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul
and with all your mind.' This is the first and greatest commandment. And
the second is like it: 'Love your neighbor as yourself.' All the Law
and the Prophets hang on these two commandments.” These words now have the
nation divided over what is acceptable and what is not. Why not live the words
that were spoken Love your neighbor as yourself. In todays society there
must be a very large number of people that dislike themselves very, very much.
@mufasta"This has nothing to do with anti-gay
legislation"It sure does and a lot more. It's
unconstitutional legislation to give Christians--I guarantee that no one
proposing such legislation had Muslims, Jews, Hindu's, or Buddhists in mind
when they drafted it--special rights to refuse to honor the rights, in the
public square, of those who do not kowtow to their dogma.
Bigotry is usually nothing more than a good idea combined with a zealot. Yet I
find it ironic that those who decry intolerance in the name of God, motherhood
or patriotism, often cannot comprehend that they can also be intolerant in the
name of gay, civil or women's rights. They are all worthy causes, but they
are all also great smokescreens for hate in the hands of a zealot. Except the
latter group is more socially acceptable and therefore more insidious. The concept of tolerance means that sometimes people need to accept that
others will do things that they themselves find distasteful. I find it ironic
that many of the posters on this site who decry the imposition of religion onto
them, have no problem forcing others to violate their religious beliefs. I.e
"Don't expect me to tolerate a Christian image on public property
because that is a government imposition of religion, but its ok for me to have
government force you to pay for birth control against your religious beliefs
(even though it is cheap, widely available and I can do it myself)".
Ironically, the latter is a far more direct impostion than the former.
I agree with the legislation. It is not a front for bigotry or prejudice. It is
for much needed protections of religious liberties. If a youth wants to do a
report on a biblical figure or biblical story in school he/she should be allowed
to do that. This has nothing to do with anti-gay legislation, it has everything
to do with pro-religious legislation.
@Liberty for All"The GOP is already taking steps to with hold the pay
of judges who fail to honor the will of the people."That'd
be an unconstitutional bill and something more emblematic of a fascist state to
take away pay from judges just because they don't agree with you. Judges
have the authority to strike down laws that have majority support if they are
unconstitutional, otherwise what would be the point of ever bringing a lawsuit
against any bill since everything had majority support either amongst the people
Thought exercise inspired by recent headlines: You belong to a well-established
religion whose tradition holds that printed depictions of your faith's
prophet are blasphemous. Your scriptures teach that blasphemers should be
killed. Do you have legal protection under the RFRAs if you:1. kill the
blasphemer2. flog the blasphemer3. destroy the blasphemer's
artwork4. refuse to sell pens to the blaspheming artist5. picket
the blasphemer's workplaceAre these the exercise of
religion?Obviously, the need to preserve civil order overrides the
unfettered exercise of religion at some point and the secular government is
rightfully allowed to interfere with religious practice. The question is where
to draw the line. What exactly is an exercise of religious belief? What is the
difference between being offended and being sinned against? At what point does
doing business with a sinner amount to endorsing, facilitating, or participating
in the sin? When a faith's founder teaches to turn the other cheek and go
the extra mile when wronged, how is refusing to serve a business client an
exercise of that same religion and not a repudiation of it?
@RedShirtCalTech"The owners that wanted to discriminate would
quickly let their views be known."Funny you should say that.
When businesses in Mississippi began to post stickers in their establishments
stating “We don’t discriminate – If you’re buying,
we’re selling!” in response to the State's religious freedom
law, the American Family Association cried fowl. They claimed posting the
sticker was tantamount to bullying "Christians." In other words, some
"Christians" want the right to selectively discriminate when it suits
their fancy but don't want anyone else to know about it should it cut into
their bottom line. So, if you mandate they wear their bigotry on their sleves,
their bigotry will go away, IMHO.
Correction - SCOTUS will be dealing with just two issues:"The
cases are consolidated and the petitions for writs of certiorari are granted
limited to the following questions: 1) Does the Fourteenth Amendment
require a state to license a marriage between two people of the same sex? 2) Does the Fourteenth Amendment require a state to recognize a marriage
between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and
Ach, if only the Nuremburg laws had been crafted as religious freedom.
So -- All of the remaining marriage cases have just been granted cert by SCOTUS.
They've been consolidated so SCOTUS will be dealing with not only the
merits, but a few side issues such as recognition of out of state marriages.
To "The Wraith" actually, slavery is a very appropriate term. The fact
that it hits you so hard is actually a good thing. According to the Webster
Dictionary, slavery is "submission to a dominating influence". A Slave
is "a person who is strongly influenced and controlled by something".
When a person is forced to serve another, the state is forcing them into
submission and is controlling them.While you may not like the term
slave, that is what forcing a person or a business to serve you is.Right now it is acceptable to force some people serve gays. Now think of
something you find objectionable, would you like to be forced to do what you
think is objectionable? Wouldn't you fight back if you were forced to go
against or support an event that is contrary your core beliefs?
To "Contrarius" but the Jim Crowe laws were just as bad as the laws that
force you to serve people. Jim Crowe laws forced people that didn't care
about race to abide by racist codes of conduct. The Civil Rights Act did not
force others to serve others, that came after.Why is it ok to force
others to act against their nature? If it was bad under the Jim Crowe laws, why
is it good now?Would you eat a restaurant where you knew that the
cook or servers hated you, even if they put on a happy face whenever you came
in?To "my_two_cents_worth" I wouldn't worry about that.
The owners that wanted to discriminate would quickly let their views be known.
Laws would not be necessary since their reputations would spread faster than any
law could get going.
Woops, Maudine, sorry for the duplicate!
@rhappahannock --"There was a case where a man asked 13
different gay bakeries to make cakes with a pro-traditional marriage message.
"Okay, I checked -- and no, this guy was NOT asking for a
"pro-traditional marriage message".He was specifically
asking for cakes that read "Gay Marriage is Wrong."Again --
this is a difference in WHAT is being baked, rather than WHO it is being baked
for. When a business refuses to provide a product that they never normally
provide (cakes with hateful messages), that is not discrimination. But when a
business refuses to provide a product that they DO normally provide (wedding
cakes) just because of the identity of the client, that IS discrimination.Why is this simple principle so hard for some people to understand?
@ Rapp: The message he requested was "Gay marriage is wrong." Several of
the bakeries stayed they would make the cake, but he would have to put the
writing on himself. Many of them stated the message is, or is similar to, hate
speech or pornography, and since they don't make cakes like that for
anyone, they are not required to make a cake like that for him. (With the SSM cakes objected to by "Christian" bakers, they refused to
make the cake at all, even if the objectional topper &/or words were added
later.)If he would like to sue any of the bakers involved, he
certainly has that right - but as part of the suit he would need to prove an
actual harm occurred (he really did want the cake) and that it was not just a
publicity stunt. His own blog works against him on that one.
@RedShirtCalTech" Let business owners show their prejudices and
biases. "I'd support that so long as the business owners
make "their prejudices and biases" publicly known as to prevent
confusion and disappointment on the part of consumers when deciding who they
should and should not avoid when making purchase decisions. Require, by law,
disclaimers by business owners indicating who they will not serve and why on all
business advertising and on their virtual and brick & mortar store fronts.
Are you willing to support that?
@RedShirtCalTechYou must not be aware of the fact that this country
did in fact have a system in place once where business owners could
discriminate. As it turns out they did just fine and stayed in business quite a
while. If you think they wouldn’t fare as well today then you have a lot
to learn about human nature.I fail to see how saying that the law
should apply to everyone equally is somehow hypocritical. A business should
serve the public that is my belief. I can only speak for me but I can tell you
that if a gay business turned away a christian I would be against that too. Finally slavery is being forced to work without compensation. Having a
bakery bake a cake and get paid for it is not slavery. It’s a horrible
analogy and should not be brought up again.
On another thread about homosexuality, it was suggested that readers check the
Bible to see what Paul has to say about homosexuality. So I did. Now, of course, Paul never uses the word "homosexuality" - that
word wasn't invented until relatively recently. He uses
"effeminate" and "abusers of themselves with mankind" - which
have been taken to mean homosexuality, but further reading of that chapter
implies the "abusers" comment refers to prostitution. I
digress. Paul not only speaks against "homosexuality," he
speaks against fornication, adultery, theft, idolaters, the covetous,
extortionists, revilers, and drunkards. He speaks against all of them equally -
he does not condemn one above another. As has been mentioned
earlier, if the objection truly is on religious grounds, you must treat all
these the same. If you don't turn away all sinners, than it is
bigotry - not religious belief.
@RanchHandI think it goes even further, in the sense that you can ban a
specific behavior, ie some bars and restaurants have a dress code, and they
won't admit anyone who doesn't follow the dress code. But it has to be
applied equally to everyone, regardless of race or (in some places) sexual
@rhappahannock --"If people of conscience (or scientific
reasoning) are force to support gay marriage, shouldn't the gay bakers be
forced to make cakes with a religious or scientific message?"First, I don't believe it for a second -- unless the messages were
hateful. If the guy actually had a case, he'd take it to court.And second, that's the difference -- THE MESSAGE. The anti-gay baker
refused to BAKE A CAKE. The pro-gay baker, in Values Voter's example,
AGREED to bake the cake.I could no more force someone to write a
hateful message than I could force someone to bake a pornographic cake. That is
a material difference in the PRODUCT rather than a difference in the client
being served. In contrast, the anti-gay baker was baking exactly the same cake
for everyone -- it was a difference in the CLIENT rather than the product.And discriminating against CLIENTS is against the law.@Redshirt --"I say we get rid of laws that force you to serve
people that you do not agree with or like."Sorry, but that
attitude went out with Jim Crow and the Civil Rights Act.
@rhappahannock;What was the message being asked of the gay bakers?
"We support traditional marriage"? Any gay baker would have provided
that cake as they also, with almost 100% certainty, support "traditional
marriage" as the baking of "traditional wedding cakes" is probably a
large percentage of their income.Was it perhaps "Gay marriages
are counterfeit marriages" (as we see here on the DN so often)? Or perhaps
"Do not allow SSM to destroy tradional marriage"? These are not
"pro-traditional marriage" messages, rather they're anti-gay.Your comment is ridiculous and needs further clarification for any
degree of credibility.
I say we get rid of laws that force you to serve people that you do not agree
with or like. Let business owners show their prejudices and biases. Can you
imagine how long most of those businesses would last once we could see the
prejudices of the owners? How long do you think a photographer would last in
New York that didn't go to black or gay weddings?You liberals
show your hypocrisy about claiming to promote freedom when you insist that
people act and conform to your desires. If a person is a bigot, who are you to
force them to act contrary to their character? Unless the bigot is injuring
somebody or is taking away somebody's rights, why force them into temporary
This is fantastic and sorely needed economic stimulus for the legal
profession! A very warm and heartfelt thanks to all Utah taxpayers
for the new family yacht and Mercedes for the wife.
It is so very telling that this "newspaper" chose to characterize almost
250 yrs. of bigotry ,discrimination and hatred as a "rush" to ensure
equality for all.
There was a case where a man asked 13 different gay bakeries to make cakes with
a pro-traditional marriage message. All 13 refused. He posted his experience
on youtube. If people of conscience (or scientific reasoning) are force to
support gay marriage, shouldn't the gay bakers be forced to make cakes with
a religious or scientific message?
I suppose sorting through these issues is all going to get very convoluted. In
an attempt to turn the tables (I guess), there's this stunt out of
Colorado:"PRO-LGBT COLORADO BAKER SLAPPED WITH RELIGIOUS
DISCRIMINATION COMPLAINT"In a nutshell - A
"professional-looking" gentleman walks into a Colorado bakery and
requests a "Bible Cake" decorated with anti-gay slurs.From
the news story:"However uncomfortable the request made the pair,
both maintain that he was never refused service.“I told him
that I would bake the cake in the shape of a Bible,” says Marjorie.
“Then I told him I’d sell him a [decorating] bag with the right tip
and the right icing so he could write those things himself.”Apparently that was not enough, lawyers were contacted, and a complaint (which
will go nowhere) has been filed.
@Liberty For All"I'm sure glad I live in Utah where these
protections will most likely pass."I'm sure glad I left
Utah where the people of "Faith" are wanting to hide behind their
"faith" to institutionalize bigotry and discrimination all in
Jesus' name. I'm surprise thare has not been a groundswell of support
form the "Christian" community to rewrite Matthew 22:39 to read "And
the second is like it: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself' except for
the gays, the Muslims, the Democrats, Women, non-Christians, and Barrack
Obama" Nice, albeit less than truthful, moniker, by-the-way.@Tami"Whatever happened to the good old "We reserve the
right to refuse service to anyone.""These laws highlight the
hypocrisy of the argument. Take the case of the florist in Washington. They
admitted that they knew the couple was gay long before their services were
requested and had, in fact been selling to them on a regular basis without
issue. They were all for taking "gay" money so long as they could
pretend they didn't know it was "gay."
@ Shane333 "It won't matter what laws are passed. All it will take is
an activist judge to legislate from the bench and make the legislative branch
inconsequential...all in the name of political correctness."Activist judges are against the democratic process. The GOP is already taking
steps to with hold the pay of judges who fail to honor the will of the people.
@Tami: The phrase "we reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is
not actually law. No one ever had the right to refuse service to protected
groups that included race, religion, national origin, etc. You can't merely
put up a sign and it therefore exempts you from the law. It would be as if
someone posted "We reserve the right to refuse to clear our sidewalk of snow
and ice." Or "We reserve the right to drive 100 mph on the Interstate
and all roads."
These bakers and photographers and hall rental places---why do you think they
don't post a prominent notice in their advertising that says, "We will
not do business with a gay couple who wants to buy our services for their
wedding"? Answer: Because, in a heartbeat, at least half of
their straight customers would go elsewhere.
@Tami;"We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone" is
not legal unless you have a *valid* reason to refuse service; like no shoes or
shirt, which violate health code requirements.Why don't we go
find someone else? Let me ask you. Have you ever walked into a business and
had them tell you "we don't serve your kind here"? How do you
think you would feel?Additionally, you say: "Find another
florist or baker! There are plenty of businesses out there who will take your
money no matter what." - what if we can't find someone else to take
our money? What if we live in a small town with only one baker or florist?
Should we then have to drive miles/hours to find the services we need?
Sweetheart, bigotry is NOT a religious value.If you plan on using
religious conscience as an excuse for bigotry, be prepared to refuse service to
all sinners, otherwise, you're going to be called on the carpet for
Lund said "These bills are being debated and conceived of as being about
florists, photographers and landlords, (but) a lot of (other) merits get
overlooked."Name one, Mr. Lund.
@Tami wrote, "As far as the boycotts go, it goes both ways. We cancelled a
trip to Arizona last year because they failed to pass the law."Perhaps you'd like to take your next vacation in Algeria? Or Iran? You
could try Mississippi, where the Evangelicals run the ship, but just don't
let on that you're LDS. You will be greeted with about as much warmth
as...well, if your neighbors share your feelings, about as much warmth as a gay
couple might get when visiting Herriman.
It won't matter what laws are passed. All it will take is an activist
judge to legislate from the bench and make the legislative branch
inconsequential...all in the name of political correctness.
@TamiAlso, why do the Christians have to push so much? If someone is
so opposed to a Christian relationship, are they really going to do a good job
with their service if they are FORCED to accept this business? Find another
florist or baker! There are plenty of businesses out there who will take your
money no matter what.
Whatever happened to the good old "We reserve the right to refuse service to
anyone." I remember seeing those signs all the time. Also, why do the gays
have to push so much? If someone is so opposed to a homosexual relationship, are
they really going to do a good job with their service if they are FORCED to
accept this business? Find another florist or baker! There are plenty of
businesses out there who will take your money no matter what. I support laws for
religious protection. As far as the boycotts go, it goes both ways. We cancelled
a trip to Arizona last year because they failed to pass the law.
Corrected headline: State lawmakers eye legalizing discrimination and
bigotry@Liberty For All;The only violation of your
religious beliefs would be if YOU married someone of your own gender; providing
services to others who do it is not a violation of your religious conscience.
Refusing those services however would be. Jesus said: "Do unto others as
you would have them do unto you." He didn't say: "Treat others
badly if you disapprove of how they live their lives".As cjb
stated above, unless you're going to refuse to provide your products and
services to all "sinners" who "violate your religious
conscience", then its nothing more than plain old-fashioned bigotry dressed
up as religion.
"The rush to enforce same-sex marriage across the country"...Say what?Now there are laws forcing people to marry someone of the
same sex?How about an alternate caption: "The steady march of
rulings denying states the right to discriminate against gays"..
@ FatherOfFourYou are right on point. To be specific and to offer
just one example, after the Civil Rights Act passed, the owner of the Piggie
Park restaurant chain in South Carolina advanced the argument that he could
refuse to serve black people because his religious beliefs very emphatically
forbade the mixing of the races. I'm sure these beliefs of his were
"deeply and sincerely held" too -- or perhaps he was just using his
religious beliefs to justify an existing set of prejudices.Anyway,
these phrases "religious freedom" and "religious freedom
protections" just seem like dogwhistle phrases to me.
I simply do not understand how taking pictures or baking a cake for a same sex
wedding violates a persons "deeply help" religious beliefs. It
doesn't make any sense to me. If your god would judge you harshly simply
for providing services to the public in an equal and kind way then that god
isn't worth worshiping.
A solution looking for a problem.
To everyone who thinks this is a great idea: Beware unintended consequences.
You may not be as happy with the equal rights for people of ALL religions as you
think you will be.
I remember when "religious freedom" meant denying business to blacks
too. Nothing has changed.
I can not wait until some state law which enshrines religious bigotry is used
against the religious majority in Utah. When the shoe is on the other foot, it
usually does not fit too well. Of course, the LDS has forgotten its
history of religious persecution by the religious majority in its exodus to
Utah. So, no sympathy for those who are differently oriented or religious
obtuse. How sad.
As we take it case by case, line by line, our religious rights slowly but
steadily erode till what was once thought impossible becomes commonplace.
On the other hand . . . . there is a need for protection of religious
organizations and people of religious conscience. It seems to me, with
today's legal environment, the rights of such organizations and people need
laws passed such as RFRA. If there is no protection, I believe the opposing
side will take whatever it can get till no rights are left. It's about
some principles and legal doctrine the Founding Fathers held very dear.Long before the 14th amendment, the first clause of the first sentence of the
first amendment stated, "Congress shall make no law respecting an
establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
Obviously they felt strongly about it. As someone put it,
“Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is
wholly inadequate to the government of any other.” (John Adams, 11
October, 1798.) He's proving to be right in my opinion.Another
put it this way: “Whereas it is the duty of all nations to acknowledge the
providence of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for His benefits,
and humbly to implore His protection and favor...” (George Washington,3
Just remember, if you really intend to set religion aside for protection
you're going to have to acknowledge and provide equal protection for all.
Including the ones with which you disagree,and those that disagree with you.
Equal for all, proof from none.
I'm sure glad I live in Utah where these protections will most likely pass.
People of faith or conscience should not be forced to violate strongly held and
deeply personal religious beliefs. Protections for pharmacy dispensaries
against providing abortion pills or birth control already exist. This is
logical extension of those protections for all business who have similar rights
for same gender couples and their marriages.
Well said cjb (1/15/2015 5:33 p.m.) -- exactly right. The laws in question
aren't about religion or freedom. They are intended to promote prejudice
and discrimination. If so-called "religious freedom" laws
are passed in any state, the stickers from Mississippi should immediately be
used. You know the ones -- they say "We don't discriminate. If
you're buying, we're selling." Interesting to note -- business
owners in Mississippi tried to get those window stickers banned because people
opposed to prejudice and discrimination would not do business with those
businesses that refused to say they were not prejudiced or discriminatory.If the stickers became needed here, my husband and I would also refuse
to do business with a business that did not have that type of sticker in its
window or on its premises. "Pick your approved sinner and refuse to do
business withany else" laws and practices just don't work for us.
There was a case in the news a while back where a lady had a photography
business and didn't want to be forced to take pictures of a gay wedding
even though the law in her state forbid businesses from discriminating against
gays. The judge eventually ruled against her.The judge should have
asked her what would she do if a woman who had been divorced wanted to marry,
would she take pictures of that wedding. If she said no, because such marriages
are counter to teachings of the Bible and the Book of Mormon, the judge should
have ruled in her favor.If she said yes of course she would take
pictures of that wedding, the judge should have ruled against her and pointed
out that such a marriage was also against her religion or at least the
scriptures that she claims she wants to abide by. That if she wants to run her
business according to the dictates of her religion she is free to do that, but
she can't pick and choose which parts of her religion to obey and then use
religion as a cover to discriminate against other people contrary to the law.