You’re still wrong.
All I’m saying is that they should obey the law—no force or coercion is inferred or implied.
You’re just stuck on your one-note defense of discriminatory practices.
And you’re an idiot.
And those caterers and florists—paid for their work—are “participating” in the wedding in the same way that a “Christian” gun shop owner is participating in a murder committed with a gun he sold.
These “religious freedom” laws being considered by states would not make such a distinction. And I’m not in favor of the government or the courts making the distinctions you seem to require. Talk about intrusive!
My point was that no ceremony at all is necessary to get married. People who want a ceremony want it for the, duh-uhh, ceremonial reasons. The judge can marry two people in less than 15 minutes, people have a wedding because they want more than than that. So call it religious, spiritual, ceremonial whatever. The wording is not a point I care about enough to debate over.
And this is very much a far, FAR cry from Jim Crow. Jim Crow was so many galaxies worse than this.
I can’t believe no one has pointed out that a marriage is a religious/spiritual ceremony by nature anyway. If you didn’t want the religiosity…
Who says gay people don’t want religion in their wedding?
Most gay people, like all people, are religious/spiritual - and lots of them do have religion involved in their marriage ceremonies - and plenty of religious institutions and clergy do perform same-sex weddings (even, !gasp!, christian ones).
They might not follow your specific doctrine - but your religious-sect is not all of religion.
Convincing argument. A law says it should therefore they should. But keep in mind the CRA didn’t force people or businesses to participate in activities they did not want to or to which they had a religious objection. The religious freedom bills in question, and the topic of this article, are about forcing someone with a moral objection to same sex marriage to participate, in one fashion or another, in that marriage. The bills do not change public accommodation laws. No one is claiming a religious exception to serving homosexuals or whoever. They just don’t want to participate in the activity they find morally objectionable.
Would you promote a muslim baker being forced to make pork chops? Or a muslim baker to make a Mohammad cartoon cake?
I favor allowing discrimination in businesses because 1. it forces the business to incur a cost for their bigotry and 2. it lets me know who the bigots are so I can take my money elsewhere.
The real question is why do you want to give bigots your money and why don’t you want them to incur a cost for being a bigot?
I will give you a single warning not to derail this thread, nor to provoke the commenters here. I am aware that you signed up with a bogus email account. Consider yourself lucky that you are not banned merely for that fact.
This will be your only warning.
How can an email account be bogus? It goes right to my gmail.
And as far as TPM rules, I am following all of them. I am on topic, and I’m not “provoking” anyone. I am asking for an explanation. So many people on here and in this national discussion seem to automatically think that any sort of discrimination is a bad thing. Everyone discriminates. Heck, even gay pride parades “discriminate” against NAMBLA. The question is what makes your discrimination “good” or “justifiable.” In that same vein we must question why the government, what is supposed to be an independent third party to all private interactions, should take a side in the determination of a moral question.
Lastly, the point of my comment that you called “provoking” (thought provoking) was the utilitarian question of does government banning public displays of bigotry actually do more harm than good? I personally think it does, as it brushes bigotry under the rug and lets business owners act under a veil of acceptance, just so they can turn around and hand the money you gave them to some cause or hate group. No, I’d rather them lose business. I want them to not only incur an immediate cost of denying business from whomever, but also face the public outrage.
Do you want that? If you are on TPM, chances are you do.
I am well aware of that, they are idiotic.
But on the catering, it’s not so easy. They are not a catering business. They are a restaurant who occasionally does catering it appears. And likely more for kids and sports parties, not weddings. They have no right to refuse business to any people who walk in for sure. But to force them to do catering is a tough call since that is not their primary business by any means. What if they are just having a busy month and don’t want to take on any more catering jobs. That’s their right. If they refuse the work and the couple happens to be Jewish, should they really be able to claim discrimination? They would have to show that another couple took the same time slot they were looking for to make that claim. Forcing a company to take a catering gig they don’t want to do is pretty intrusive also.
[quote=“stlounick, post:98, topic:18864”]
The “part” you are so whiny about is the role of paid help. That is not participation. But it does agree with the far right religious leaders who want to make the role of paid help as “participating” and “approving”. If that’s what you folks want then we all need to fill out a questionnaire before businesses let us in the door–adultery, fornication, lying, stealing, etc.
[/quote]Actually all we want is to not have the government force them to take part in a gay wedding, or any other wedding for that matter, in violation of whatever facet of their religion forces them to object…whether they are paid or unpaid.
[quote=“ThunderclapNewman, post:99, topic:18864”]
And those caterers and florists—paid for their work—are “participating” in the wedding in the same way that a “Christian” gun shop owner is participating in a murder committed with a gun he sold.
[/quote]IF…the murderer told the shop owner that he needed him to sell him a gun so that he could murder person X.
[quote=“ThunderclapNewman, post:99, topic:18864”]
All I’m saying is that they should obey the law—no force or coercion is inferred or implied.
[/quote]And I’m saying that not all laws are just. This law (albeit mostly case law, I believe) of forcing people who make cakes, take pictures, etc. to play roles in gay weddings when it’s against their religion is unjust.
To say that no force or coercion is implied in with a law is laughable.
In regards to this issue the use of force by the government has been stated outright and actually done. I’m also saying that you have basically said that you approve of it the use of said force. You’ve said more than enough for any reasonable person to reach that conclusion. The only thing you haven’t done is use my language verbatim.
This reasoning in this article is so poor that it is difficult to believe someone with a law degree wrote it. Yes, the government does force us to obey laws. Disobey any law long and publicly enough (unless it’s immigration laws under the current administration) and yes, a law enforcement officer will force you to go with him to jail. And if needed he will even hold a gun to your head. Laws are backed by force. If they aren’t they are only suggestions.
Your narrow definition is not what these laws say. These laws did not want to target gays because that would be both backward and very unpopular so it was written in a very general way. As such, other groups could be targeted. Open up that church in your family room, set your creed, declare yourselves members and away we go–anti-Muslims or anti-Jews or whatever.
So these legislators and governors were caught red-handed. Passing a law that targeted gays (and the resulting businesses who were not going to expand into the state or were halting their business in the state) yet written broadly enough to catch other groups in the net is simply not acceptable. There are alternative ways to practice such a religion–operating a club open only to members of one’s choosing is one option.
Discomfort is not a compelling reason for this law.
Except mukansamon- there is force. Don’t sell cakes? Police come to your door. Refuse to go with them because you disagree with the law? You will be murdered. An “obligation” is force- it is backed up by men with guns.
Its a red herring to say “don’t open a business”. If you can’t open a business, then you are not free, and that is also backed by force.
Its not that difficult
I’m not sure what laws you are referring to. I think you mean the Indiana and Arkansas law but your wording could be referring to the “mostly case law” that I mentioned.
If you mean the case I was referring to then it is exactly what I said it is. The government is forcing people to be a part of gay weddings against their will.
If you mean the Indiana law, I say the laws doesn’t refer to gays, gay sex, etc. at all. But I believe and I think you, as well, believe that it was passed in response to the case law I mentioned. It basically gives a freedom of religion in personal transactions and (I don’t know the correct word, pro-gay lobby, or pro-gay forces?) freaked because they want government to force people to violate their religion in personal transactions.
The original Indiana law and people who agree with it are on the right side of this issue. People like freedom.
The case law, and people who agree with it, are on the wrong side of this issue. They got short-term mini victory in Indiana and Arkansas. But if this issue remains in the national dialogue they’ll lose. The more it’s talked about, the more it’s understood. The more it’s understood, the less popular it’ll be, because the reality is toxic. The bottom line is “The government is going to force you to go to gay weddings whether you want to or not”.
Sally Kohn seems to misunderstand basic civics, and her readers are falling all over themselves to cheer her on. They think that Christians are misunderstanding the way the law works. It is lamentable that these people actually think they are liberals. This is about as illiberal as you can get. And then they cheerfully opine that anyone who has a problem with obeying an unjust law can simply withdraw themselves from engaging in commerce, and thereby avoid the consequences.
I can’t wait until that is the society we live in. They are going to let us choose between practicing immorality, or putting food on the table. Some real Orwellian garbage this is!
not sure what your point is… a business owner isn’t forced to participate in a wedding s/he doesn’t approve of… all that’s being is asked is for them to provide the service they offer… bake a cake… that act doesn’t imply approval or disapproval of anything…
if you don’t like a law you can disobey it… ever drive faster than 65? or change it… doesn’t mean you need to move…
providing a service… bake a cake… provide flowers… isn’t being forced on you by a totalitarian government… it was YOUR choice to do it… once you choose it you have to comply with regulations, much like driving a car, that a government imposes… wash you hands after you pee… pay your employees on time and if they work overtime pay them for that…
Darrrius, I do not consider business owners performing their business function to be facing a toxic reality when they are the paid help at a gay wedding.
psych495, I do not consider business owners performing their business function to be practicing immorality when they are the paid help at a gay wedding.
Our opinions on this differ dramatically. I simply do not view it as a “religious liberty” issue. I understand your discomfort but the rhetoric of “toxic” and “immorality” is simply judgmental nonsense.
It is silly to say that the absolutely novel extension of anti-discrimination principles to matters of faith and morals–so that a person may be constrained to act contrary to conscience–is nothing new. What is chiefly revealed in this commentary is the near-inconceivability to the author that anyone’s conscience on a matter of sexual morality could differ from his own, such that celebrating a certain type of relation could be a violation of conscience. But we are not a confessional state that requires an oath of respect for the act of sodomy. If people wish to do this, and form a life around it that is their business. But they have absolutely no right to constrain others to contribute to celebrating it. The same goes for religious believers with respect to their confessional activities: if someone believes that Catholic weddings are bad, that person ought not be required to contribute to them. This is entirely different from whether someone serves a Catholic in a restaurant. It is a question of contributing to an event with a moral and religious nature. It is also interesting to see how two-faced and dishonest progressives are on this issue. When sodomy was still illegal, Scalia wrote an opinion stating that if state sodomy laws were struck down by the court, states could then be constrained to legally recognize sodomy and to force persons to honor it (and now it is further: one must contribute to its celebration, although a homosexual baker can refuse to decorate cakes with anti-sodomy messages). This was roundly denied. Now, a few years later, the same persons on SCOTUS who denied it are the first to insist on what Scalia predicted. There is a phrase to cover this: hypocritical liars.
So, Jews shouldn’t view it as toxic to be required to be “hired help” at a Nazi rally either? All consciences are equal, but some are “more equal” than others? Why would someone who considers such activity to be morally wrong be constrained by state power to support and celebrate it?
So, [Segregationists] shouldn’t view it as toxic to be required to be “hired help” at a [miscegenation wedding] either? All consciences are equal, but some are “more equal” than others? Why would someone who considers such activity to be morally wrong be constrained by state power to support and celebrate it?