Indiana Time Machine

[ConsiderTheSource]

Duderonomy,

My gay daughter is not expressing any belief set when she walks into a public place of business. She can no more stop being gay than I can will the hairs on my arm to stop growing.

As a law abiding citizen she has a reasonable expectation that when she enters a public business to be served in the same manner and to be able to purchase the same goods and services as anyone else and to not be singled out for something inborn. Anything less is dehumanizing.

Period.

[DragonTheDruid]

[[snipped]]

 

On the other hand, here is another scenario...

 

A Jerry Fallwell type walks into a cake shop to order a cake. The bakery is run by two gay people. The customer orders a cake and asks to have two figurines on top.  He asks that the figurines are shown crumpled to the ground with stones embedded in their foreheads. Underneath, he wants the inscription to read; "Homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord.  KEEP HIS LAWS!".

Do the bakery owners have to comply by law and make that cake if it goes against their core beliefs?

 

Is there a law already in place that would protect them from having to make such a cake, and if so, why can't the religious person also point to that same law if he doesn't want to make a cake that goes against what he believes?

 

I feel like any cake baker would be allowed to refuse a cake that is directly offending/harming others like that. I mean, unless they really wanted to make that cake and agreed with it, I don't see what the harm would be in saying: ''I'm sorry, I'm not comfortable making such a cake. Do you want something else, or do you want to take your services elsewhere?''

It's not like cakes are NECESSITIES, anyway. 

It's a completely different scenario than the gay couple refused a cake in Colorado, unless the couple wanted something explicit and offensive on their cake. If they just wanted a simple cake for their celebrations, and were turned away just because they were gay, then that's wrong.

 

''Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- the federal law which prohibits discrimination by private businesses which are places of public accommodation -- only prevents businesses from refusing service based on race, color, religion, or national origin''

 

According to this, you technically CAN be refused service due to your sexual orientation, but in 1964, I'm pretty sure not everyone was so open about it. And maybe it's changed in technicalities, but this was just the snippet that showed up on google when I asked it 'do businesses have the right to refuse service' or something along the lines of that

 

But it also doesn't say you can't refuse to service an asshole =D So, no, that cake baker does NOT have to make the asshole's 'homosexuality is an abomination' cake, or at least that's how I see it.

[mymistake]

We are steadily marching towards a new Civil Rights Act that extends protection to sexual orientation.  The Christians can see the writing on the wall.

[duderonomy]

Duderonomy,

 

My gay daughter is not expressing any belief set when she walks into a public place of business. She can no more stop being gay than I can will the hairs on my arm to stop growing.

 

As a law abiding citizen she has a reasonable expectation that when she enters a public business to be served in the same manner and to be able to purchase the same goods and services as anyone else and to not be singled out for something inborn. Anything less is dehumanizing.

 

Period.

 

I agree with you ConsiderTheSource, and I don't know why you think I feel otherwise.

[duderonomy]

 

[[snipped]]

 

On the other hand, here is another scenario...

 

A Jerry Fallwell type walks into a cake shop to order a cake. The bakery is run by two gay people. The customer orders a cake and asks to have two figurines on top.  He asks that the figurines are shown crumpled to the ground with stones embedded in their foreheads. Underneath, he wants the inscription to read; "Homosexuality is an abomination to the Lord.  KEEP HIS LAWS!".

Do the bakery owners have to comply by law and make that cake if it goes against their core beliefs?

 

Is there a law already in place that would protect them from having to make such a cake, and if so, why can't the religious person also point to that same law if he doesn't want to make a cake that goes against what he believes?

 

I feel like any cake baker would be allowed to refuse a cake that is directly offending/harming others like that. I mean, unless they really wanted to make that cake and agreed with it, I don't see what the harm would be in saying: ''I'm sorry, I'm not comfortable making such a cake. Do you want something else, or do you want to take your services elsewhere?''

It's not like cakes are NECESSITIES, anyway. 

It's a completely different scenario than the gay couple refused a cake in Colorado, unless the couple wanted something explicit and offensive on their cake. If they just wanted a simple cake for their celebrations, and were turned away just because they were gay, then that's wrong.

 

''Title II of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 -- the federal law which prohibits discrimination by private businesses which are places of public accommodation -- only prevents businesses from refusing service based on race, color, religion, or national origin''

 

According to this, you technically CAN be refused service due to your sexual orientation, but in 1964, I'm pretty sure not everyone was so open about it. And maybe it's changed in technicalities, but this was just the snippet that showed up on google when I asked it 'do businesses have the right to refuse service' or something along the lines of that

 

But it also doesn't say you can't refuse to service an asshole =D So, no, that cake baker does NOT have to make the asshole's 'homosexuality is an abomination' cake, or at least that's how I see it.

 

 

Dragon, I think the idea is that to the Christian cake baker, a cake representing or celebrating gay marriage might be explicit and offensive. The problem is equal protection under the law, with one side being as equal and protected as the other.

 

A lot of people don't like it, but here in the US religious freedoms are (to a point) guaranteed and absolute, barring a constitutional amendment.

My thoughts are is this RFRA law even needed, and is it as I said, really a Religious Preferential Treatment Act.

[ConsiderTheSource]

Hey Duderonmy,

 

Oops....I did not mean for my post to come across like that. I should of started with Hi Duder... or something.

 

I should of read my post before I posted it. My intent was to support... bit in a more personal way via my daughter (I have her permission to tell her story). After just reading what wrote...well it is clear I ventured to close to proud fatherhoodland.

 

Please forgive my poor word choices and choose either:

 

1. My apologies.

 

2. A full Friday or Saturday night of microbrewery hopping in Portland Oregon.

 

3. Both 1 and 2 above.

[♦ ficino ♦]

This article discusses religious freedom acts passed, some over 20 years ago, in other states, plus the federal act.  One of the questions is, did Obama earlier in his career vote for a law in Illinois that was just like the recent Indiana law?  That question is talked about also in this article. One point is that 20 yrs ago, such laws were aimed at protecting members of minority religions: a Muslim prisoner's being allowed to wear a beard, etc.  There was still the recognition, present in the Indiana law as well, that courts may have to balance a compelling state interest against a burden on religious belief - or even, as I understand it, a "likely burden" (so the religious owner can act in advance rather than be limited to going to court after the fact):

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/31/us/politics/eroding-freedom-in-the-name-of-religious-freedom.html?ref=todayspaper&_r=0&assetType=nyt_now

 

I can't figure out what should be done in each individual case.  I think in general, a business that deals with the public is discriminatory if it excludes certain clients on the basis of ascribed characteristics (race, religion, sexual orientation, national origin, etc.).  I also think it's discriminatory if it excludes them because the business owner does not like their "lifestyle."

[mymistake]

 A full Friday or Saturday night of microbrewery hopping in Portland Oregon.

 

 

I didn't realize you were a militant atheist.    

[ExCBooster]

The way I see it, the problem is in refusal of service to people based not on what they do, but membership in whatever social group. That's where it's discriminatory. That's why signs like: "no solicitations" are allowed, but "no dogs or Irishmen" are not allowed. Refusal of service or denial of rights based purely on membership in a social group - race, age, sex, religion, ethnicity, hair color, sexual orientation - that's the literal definition of discrimination. 

 

People should - earth-shattering concept here, I know - be treated based on their choices and actions.

 

Choices and actions have legally actionable force. Identity does not. That's the whole point of our political system - without this principle, the idea of "rights" has no meaning. Seriously, sit down and read Two Treatises of Government by John Locke (1689). It probably should have been required reading in any civics class? So, maybe everybody's already familiar with it, I've posted the link in case you need a refresher. This work is pretty much the theoretical backbone behind the American system of government. Also, these works outline the framework on which personal rights are to be weighed when it comes to conflict between individual rights, as in this case. Basically, one person's rights end, where another's begins. That's the principle that makes discrimination corrosive to democratic governance as a contract between government and people.

 

Therefore what freedom of religion means, is the power to not suffer discrimination, not a carte-blanche to discriminate. That's the line where that right ends.

 

That's my problem with the Indiana bill. It's discriminatory, in the clearest possible way. Good gravy, the flippin' governor actually had one of those "this isn't racist but..." type lines that you just know is going to precede anything massively racist. I think it was a very tight-lipped and pre-emptive "If I thought it was discriminatory, I would not have signed it." Guess what? If you have to justify anything like that... it's pretty damn discriminatory.

 

Also, I'm seriously beginning to resent this hiding behind religion as an attempt to reinforce their privilege. It's cowardly.

 

Here's a bunch of other primary-source reading for the founding materials that influenced the creation of the United States, so that you can see what I mean:

 

The Magna Carta - mostly only famous now for establishing that a King still had duties to his (wealthy landowner) council who could force him to sign just such a document. This is the foundation of English government, right here. Notice that this in the American National Archives site? It's because the revolution arguably happened, because the rebellious colonists were insisting on their rights as Englishmen.

 

The works of Thomas Hobbes - the originator of all modern political theory, specifically the idea that governance is a contract between government and people.

 

The works of John Locke - note especially the Letter Concerning Toleration: it is here that the freedom of religion thing comes into play.

 

I just can't go without mentioning the complete works of Thomas Paine. I mean, seriously, dude had an interesting life, and a large impact.

 

American Declaration of Independence, Constitution of the United States of America, Bill of Rights, Amendments to the Constitution (If you're from the United States, you should have read these, seriously, but these are for reference, and you can compare them side-by-side to get the influences from political philosophy, especially English political philosophy.)

 

Let's not forget the historical context, here, too: right before the American Revolution, and heavily influencing the work of Locke and Hobbes, the European subcontinent was rocked by a long, complicated, series of incredibly devastating religious wars.

 

(I assume you guys stayed awake in history class, or can at least look this next bit up, if you don't know what the heck I'm talking about.) The Thirty Years' War, for example, and the English Civil War, including the turbulence of English history, over politicized religion. There's very, VERY good reasons that these theorists are writing at the point in time that they are, and that they specifically posit freedom of religion, but also strict limits to this freedom, including a disengagement from politics. This is where church and state separation is born. These political treatises are basically after-action analysis of what went so drastically wrong, and how to construct a government that wouldn't fall prey to the same destructive impulses. There's historical context for everything. And the immediate lead-up to the American Revolution was yet another of these conflicts - the "French and Indian War" was just one theater of the much larger Seven Years' War. Not to mention the fact that a lot of the colonists were in North America anyway because of the fallout from the English Civil war, so, yeah. There's very good reasons that this is a very American struggle, over religion and politics.

 

These political theorists didn't want to see society make those same mistakes over again, by over-privileging religion, and neither do I.

[duderonomy]

Hey Duderonmy,

 

Oops....I did not mean for my post to come across like that. I should of started with Hi Duder... or something.

 

I should of read my post before I posted it. My intent was to support... bit in a more personal way via my daughter (I have her permission to tell her story). After just reading what wrote...well it is clear I ventured to close to proud fatherhoodland.

 

Please forgive my poor word choices and choose either:

 

1. My apologies.

 

2. A full Friday or Saturday night of microbrewery hopping in Portland Oregon.

 

3. Both 1 and 2 above.

 

Well, ConsiderTheSource, your apology isn't necessary, so I'll take the pub hopping!         

[Sybaris]

Two hermaphrodites walk into an Indiana bakery and tell the baker they want a wedding cake.........

[bornagainathiest]

The way I see it, the problem is in refusal of service to people based not on what they do, but membership in whatever social group. That's where it's discriminatory. That's why signs like: "no solicitations" are allowed, but "no dogs or Irishmen" are not allowed. Refusal of service or denial of rights based purely on membership in a social group - race, age, sex, religion, ethnicity, hair color, sexual orientation - that's the literal definition of discrimination. 

 

People should - earth-shattering concept here, I know - be treated based on their choices and actions.

 

Choices and actions have legally actionable force. Identity does not. That's the whole point of our political system - without this principle, the idea of "rights" has no meaning. Seriously, sit down and read Two Treatises of Government by John Locke (1689). It probably should have been required reading in any civics class? So, maybe everybody's already familiar with it, I've posted the link in case you need a refresher. This work is pretty much the theoretical backbone behind the American system of government. Also, these works outline the framework on which personal rights are to be weighed when it comes to conflict between individual rights, as in this case. Basically, one person's rights end, where another's begins. That's the principle that makes discrimination corrosive to democratic governance as a contract between government and people.

 

Therefore what freedom of religion means, is the power to not suffer discrimination, not a carte-blanche to discriminate. That's the line where that right ends.

 

That's my problem with the Indiana bill. It's discriminatory, in the clearest possible way. Good gravy, the flippin' governor actually had one of those "this isn't racist but..." type lines that you just know is going to precede anything massively racist. I think it was a very tight-lipped and pre-emptive "If I thought it was discriminatory, I would not have signed it." Guess what? If you have to justify anything like that... it's pretty damn discriminatory.

 

Also, I'm seriously beginning to resent this hiding behind religion as an attempt to reinforce their privilege. It's cowardly.

 

Here's a bunch of other primary-source reading for the founding materials that influenced the creation of the United States, so that you can see what I mean:

 

The Magna Carta - mostly only famous now for establishing that a King still had duties to his (wealthy landowner) council who could force him to sign just such a document. This is the foundation of English government, right here. Notice that this in the American National Archives site? It's because the revolution arguably happened, because the rebellious colonists were insisting on their rights as Englishmen.

 

The works of Thomas Hobbes - the originator of all modern political theory, specifically the idea that governance is a contract between government and people.

 

The works of John Locke - note especially the Letter Concerning Toleration: it is here that the freedom of religion thing comes into play.

 

I just can't go without mentioning the complete works of Thomas Paine. I mean, seriously, dude had an interesting life, and a large impact.

 

American Declaration of Independence, Constitution of the United States of America, Bill of Rights, Amendments to the Constitution (If you're from the United States, you should have read these, seriously, but these are for reference, and you can compare them side-by-side to get the influences from political philosophy, especially English political philosophy.)

 

Let's not forget the historical context, here, too: right before the American Revolution, and heavily influencing the work of Locke and Hobbes, the European subcontinent was rocked by a long, complicated, series of incredibly devastating religious wars.

 

(I assume you guys stayed awake in history class, or can at least look this next bit up, if you don't know what the heck I'm talking about.) The Thirty Years' War, for example, and the English Civil War, including the turbulence of English history, over politicized religion. There's very, VERY good reasons that these theorists are writing at the point in time that they are, and that they specifically posit freedom of religion, but also strict limits to this freedom, including a disengagement from politics. This is where church and state separation is born. These political treatises are basically after-action analysis of what went so drastically wrong, and how to construct a government that wouldn't fall prey to the same destructive impulses. There's historical context for everything. And the immediate lead-up to the American Revolution was yet another of these conflicts - the "French and Indian War" was just one theater of the much larger Seven Years' War. Not to mention the fact that a lot of the colonists were in North America anyway because of the fallout from the English Civil war, so, yeah. There's very good reasons that this is a very American struggle, over religion and politics.

 

These political theorists didn't want to see society make those same mistakes over again, by over-privileging religion, and neither do I.

 

Uh no, ExC.

 

My attitude in school stank and I've been regretting that mistake ever since.  

How could I be falling asleep in history class when I was either playing hooky or in the principals office?  Anyway, I digress.

.

.

.

Can you help me out a bit please?

You seem to be setting up a dichotomy -  suggesting that what people do (their choices) and their membership of a social group  (race, age, sex, religion, ethnicity, hair color, sexual orientation) are two separate things.  Is that correct? 

 

If so, doesn't that the fact that personal choice can affect some of these things (religion and hair color) but not others (race and age) undermine the dichotomy I see you making here?

 

Also, since people can elect to change their sex by surgery, doesn't that blur the line of demarcation even more?

 

And what about the fraught issue of sexual orientation being (as some claim) a matter of choice?

 

On which side of the line does it fall - a choice or a social group?

.

.

.

Apologies in advance if I'm reading you wrong here about that dichotomy.  Please correct and enlighten me further.  

Thanks,

 

BAA. 

[♦ ficino ♦]

Ex-C will explain herself, of course, but I thought her point was that a store might refuse service to someone because that person did/does damaging things in the store: e.g. tries to pass bad checks, shoplifts, starts a fight, etc.  But it would be unjustly discriminatory if the store refused service for that person's having some ascribed characteristic like belonging to a certain race or having a given sexual orientation.

 

"You did X, which directly damages my business" is not the same as "You are X, and I have issues with group X."

 

It's technically someone's choice to belong to a religious group (though this is muddied - e.g. Jews are also an ethnic group, and not all ethnic Jews are religious), but I thought Ex-C Booster is saying that the choice to belong to religion X does not directly damage someone's business, since membership in that religion is not a behavior conducted in the place of business.  I don't know why a store owner should, say, be forced to allow religious customers to conduct rituals of their religion right there on store property, since that would be a distraction to other customers and employees created on private property.

[Sybaris]

Sharia Law Comes to Indiana Thanks to RFRA

[Jeff]

Ironic if Christians end up making sharia possible in the us due to their short sightedness

[duderonomy]

Ironic if Christians end up making sharia possible in the us due to their short sightedness

 

 

Wait!   Christians have the mind of Christ. Muslims say that the Bible as Christians know it is corrupted. Jesus was just a prophet.

Who rides victorious into Indiana then?  Thanks to the mind of Christ, it's Jesus, the second to last prophet, ahead of the final prophet to come.

 

Maybe this Mohammed thing is real after all. (Poobah)