How about non-believers and those who want to just run a business can have a big dollar sign?
1 Like
I suppose you could tell those family members they could choose not to avail themselves of any of those public services the rest of us maintain, nor cross over any public right-of-way that were constructed and maintained to benefit the entire community. Perhaps they could have the Nazis airdrop supplies, water, and the materials for the basic needs of life down to ‘their’ property. Unfortuantely, they’re on their own if a nearby neighbor wants to lay seige and conquer their home.
Can you tell we have similar relatives?
Thank goodness there is someone else that sees how stupid this article is. Like the laws you are supposed to follow to not run afoul of the government, aren’t made by the very government that is not forcing you to follow the laws. Dumb-as-a-rock indeed!!!
Bingo! Maybe to defuse this ridiculous controversy the government should drop the word marriage and substitute it with civil union.
Boy, that first paragraph is a convoluted masterpiece of logic. All laws give you the choice to obey or disobey them and suffer the consequences.
1 Like
It’s not just the word, yes, it’s the legal issue. Most businesses do not cover civil unions for benefits,etc. You would need to change the term for heterosexual marriage to civil union as well, and then make all of it legally binding.
“…private businesses get all kinds of government support…”
That is quite a list!
When you look at all the benefits businesses are getting, and all the profits they are reaping, it’s pretty clear businesses aren’t the oppressed party here.
well the bible did say. that they there would be false profits and that there would come as wolves in sheep’s clothing. Maybe they thought those were the commandments.
“Don’t like following the laws that apply to businesses—including serving all customers equally? Then don’t start a business. That’s your choice.”
but that would be persecuting them because of their “deeply held religious beliefs”! oh, wait, no it wouldn’t.
The biggest problem here are the Cafeteria Christians who only care about those parts of “God’s Laws” that fit their prejudices.
A caterer claims that catering a gay wedding offends his religious beliefs and has shrimp and cocktail wieners on the menu.
A dressmaker won’t make a wedding dress for a lesbian because religion, while making a dress that has cloth woven from linen and wool fibers.
A restaurant doesn’t want to serve gays, but the female cook is having her monthly visit from Aunt Flo.
See what I mean.
The stupidest thing to do is to give these people legal coverage. My state used to do that for business that didn’t want to serve Negroes…
1 Like
There is absolutely no force involved at all. Because the business owner made a choice to engage in a government sanctioned and supported activity, i.e. owning a business (a legal arrangement that only exists due to a government running a legal system). Anyone who owns a business should expect that certain requirements will be made of their business, such as reporting taxable income, hours worked, and not discriminating against customers based on any issue that is not directly related to the economic activity of the business. So you don’t have to serve people who have previously bounced checks, and you can eject someone who is damaging or disruptive from your premises. But if they want to buy your product, then you have an obligation to serve them.
As far as your examples, this is really simple. If the two people involved are the same gender, you should treat them exactly the same as if they are of opposite genders. If you are willing to make a sign that says “Bruce and Carol, a match made in Heaven”, then you have to make a sign that says “Bruce and Joe, a match made in Heaven”. If you won’t make that sign for anyone it’s possibly a different story. But any service you offer to a straight couple you have to offer to a gay couple too, or else accept the consequences of your discrimination.
If you really really want to make cakes and really really don’t want to serve gay people, then don’t open a public business. Have your church put in an oven, serve only church-approved individuals, and make no profit on it. There is no such thing as a “religious business”, or even a “religiously affiliated business”, there are only churches and businesses (well and arguably sole proprietorships, some exceptions there).
1 Like
There are two problems with Santorum’s reasoning. The first is that a printer doesn’t have to make such signs, under any law, because refusing to do so is not discrimination in any legally prohibited sense. A print shop can also refuse to print a poster that says, for instance, “F*ck Rick Santorum,” either because it disagrees with the language or the sentiment. Both are entirely legally permissible decisions any business can rightfully make.
But let’s say the printer is asked to make a communion sign or a gay wedding sign. In this case—especially in states that prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation as well as religion—refusing to print such a sign would indeed be illegal.
Which brings up the uncomfortable question: are “God Hates Fags” signs “speech”, or are they religious symbols, as much an expression of their hoister’s beliefs as a cross or star of david are of their respective religious orders? When does something cross that line from “speech” to “symbol”, given that rendering of speech is (under quite settled law) not required while rendering of other religious symbols is? Had the Westborough Moron Choir chosen a pictographic representation instead - perhaps a devilish pitchfork skewering a butt plug? - would that have qualified as a “symbol” and thus protected? How about in a century or two?
I think this is actually at the heart of the debate, if there is a legitimate debate to be had. What is the difference between someone acting within the social compact of operating a business, and someone endorsing a position? Clearly printing or otherwise rendering sentences which espouse a point of view is outside the expected social contract. Clearly printing or otherwise rendering long-held sacred symbols appears to be within that social contract, although I’m not entirely convinced they should be. IMHO, the result of such a debate might well be “Oh, all those religious-symbol protections are not really valid either” so the atheist gravestone carver can refuse to carve crosses, etc.
The discussion has primarily been around the opposite side - what can we ask the business owner to compromise as a part of being a business owner. From that perspective, we clearly should not ask him to verbally espouse or print etc something which he does not agree with - and I suppose if the pizza parlor was asked to spell out “Gay Sex Rulez!” in pepperoni and onions on their delivered pizzas I suppose that would have applied to them as well. But we should ask a business owner to concede to depicting a symbol which some other religion holds sacred, presumably because such symbols would not generally be deemed innately offensive even to opposing religions. The slightly retarded conservative base folks appear to want to carve out “doing anything that might make it easy or easier for someone to do something that my religion disagrees with” as a bridge too far in line with writing out sentiments. Would that mean construction workers could refuse to repave roads which lead towards Planned Parenthood clinics or even rival sects’ church buildings?
I think fundamentally the main dysfunction here is that these people don’t get the difference between doing something and allowing or even helping someone else do something. It is no coincidence that it is the evangelical sects who are so enthralled with this misguided view - they have a long history of seeing forcing other peoples to live by the tenets of their faith as a legitimate evangelism activity.
Wingnut fringe of the Party of “No”
I actually kind of have a problem with political log used here. One of the defining factors of our government is that it has a monopoly on violence in america. Meaning, yes, in man cases they can “force” you to do something even in the most basic Hobbesean sense. I’m a little troubled that the author seems to believe that there is a difference between “forcing” you to do something and “punishing” you if you don’t. That logic can be used to absolve the government of all manner of sins. No one is forcing you to go to the free speech rally, so you have to accept the consequences of getting your head cracked open. In civil society we have generally agreed that laws are by the people for the people. “No one is forcing you to drive” or “no one is forcing you to be a business owners,” while on their face, these statements are true, but they are being approached in a dangerous way, with the premise that it is the government, not the citizen, who gets to decide things like this. Any time limits are placed on free enterprise (and yes these limits need to exist) they should be done with the broader public in mind and with their approval.
Now, do I buy the argument that a pizzeria should be able to refuse service to someone based on sexual preference? No. For a whole host of reasons, but mostly your business doesn’t (or at least shouldn’t) get a denomination, no where in your religion does it state you cant make transactions with sinners, and finally if you really want to embrace this line of thinking you have to accept the fact that a muslim hotel won’t serve jews or christians because they are infidels. If selling pizzas to a gay wedding (Ha) is tantamount to supporting homosexuality, what about all the pizzas you’ve sold to unwed mothers, drug addicts, atheists, criminals, blasphemers, adulterers, and people who don’t honor their fathers and mothers? If you want to pick and choose your clients be an independant consultant.
1 Like
It’s very interesting to see the examples Conservatives come up with as analogies to gay marriage and gay rights.
(1) Printing a sign that reads “God Hates Fags,” in order to harass mourners at a funeral, is the equivalent in their eyes of baking a cake to celebrate the wedding of a loving couple;
(2) Marrying your sister, dog, or toaster is the equivalent of two consenting, law-abiding adults marrying each other.
I’d be willing to wager that these people are totally unaware of the intense hatred that leads them to think these are logical counter-examples.
You can refuse all sorts of services, you just have to do it for legitimate reasons. I know for a fact small business owners give up a lot for their businesses, but they still have to follow laws. As to your “Gay Sex Rulez” example, the business owner could refuse to do so for two main reasons. First, that is simply not one of their advertised services, they don’t do designs, period, cross, butplug or otherwise. Secondly, you could refuse on the basis that you refuse to print anything with grammar issues. I know graphic artists who have declined jobs because the product, not the client, was something they didn’t want their business to be associated with (poorly/amateurishly done, pornographic, ect).
Though you are right the logic is getting more strained and more dangerous. My biggest issue is that the courts can never actually question if this thing affects your religious beliefs, courts try very very hard not to render theological decisions. They might be able to say that your religious belief does not trump public law but they will never be able to say that, no, delivering pizza is not a religious exercise.
1 Like
It’s just this simple: if one’s chosen profession conflicts with the tenets of their cult, they are forced to make a decision. These are choices, unlike being gay.
I’m no lawyer, but I imagine they could become a private enterprise delivering flowers only to Klan rallies if they choose.
Let’s go back to civics 101. In order to live in a peaceful society, we all give the government the rightful power to use physical force. The government has a monopoly on the rightful use of physical force, and all laws, regulations, and directives are backed by the threat of physical force. If you get caught not wearing your seatbelt, the officer will tell you to put it on and may impose a fine. If you refuse to put on the belt or refuse to pay the fine, he will use physical force to arrest you. If you attempt to evade arrest he will shoot you. True, in many instances you may not get caught. But if the government does catch you, they will use force against you. True, most civilized law-abiding people will immediately comply with the state’s directives, so the state doesn’t literally have to get out a gun and come after them 99% of the time, but that doesn’t mean the state doesn’t employ the threat of physical force. Nothing the government does is a suggestion. If you have any doubts that what I’m saying is true, simply let the IRS know that you’ve “chosen” not to pay your taxes this year. See what happens.
Liberals refuse to even acknowledge the fundamental fact that all government laws are backed by force and coercion. They don’t understand that because of this basic fact, over thousands of years advanced human societies have developed layers of protections (such as separation of powers, individual rights, and due process of law) in order to make sure that government force is limited and utilized properly.
If a Christian floral shop refuses to participate in a same-sex wedding, they’re simply choosing not to associate with you. Live and let live. Basic individual rights. That’s how free societies have operated for centuries. If you turn around and sue them under the ever-expanding “anti-discrimination” laws, you’re trying to use the coercive power of the state to punish them, harass them, and force them into compliance with your beliefs. The Indiana law - and laws like it - are simply protections for Christian business owners from state coercion. (They won’t work, of course, because liberals always get their way, but that’s another story.) There’s nothing radical about these laws. Bakeries and florists, etc., have always been able to refuse to participate in gay weddings, so the Indiana law is simply protecting the longstanding status quo.
Sally makes the strange claim that because the business owners choose to engage in business, nobody has forced them to do anything. By that reasoning, the IRS doesn’t force you to pay taxes because you could “choose” not to earn any money and live on the street. And the tens of thousands of pages of illiterate regulations that the EPA, the STB, the ITC, the Department of Commerce, the ATF, etc., issue every month? No coercion there - because we could all shut down our lives and go live in a vacuum somewhere. And the government doesn’t force anyone to join the draft I guess because those people could always “choose” to kill themselves. And I guess there was nothing coercive about the sodomy laws because gays and lesbians could “choose” not to engage in sodomy. Freedom means the freedom to engage in business and engage in the other normal activities of life. Sally defines freedom out of existence.
Sally also makes a related point that you’re always “free” to comply or not to comply with the law. Again, that misses the point. By Sally’s logic, there’s never been an oppressive or totalitarian regime in all of history because the citizens of a totalitarian state are still “free” to comply with the state’s edicts or defy them and live with the consequences.
A couple years back it was Arizona immigration. A year ago it was Florida “stand your ground.” A few months ago it was Missouri racist cops. Now it’s Indiana’s turn to be the object of the left-wing media’s ten minutes of hate. Give it another month, and it’ll be something else that the Little Children of the Left are all worked up about. And Sally will be twisting her brain into pretzel shapes in an effort to make sense out of the mob’s insanity.
1 Like
What libertarian gobbledegook. The reason the government engages in “coercion” is because of attitudes like yours. Most people comply without screaming about being coerced because they understand that living in a society has responsibilities, but no, not you. You’re way too wise and verbose for that nonsense.
This isn’t about Indiana save the bigots in their government and the subset of bigots among the population who put them there. And this isn’t about hate, but scorn. Because those bigots deserve scorn. They’ve earned it. But of course, right wing Christo-fascist loonies are deft at playing the victim card.
The bottom line is that if the bigoted and hateful teachings of one’s cult conflicts with their chosen line of work, they’re going to have to make a decision. Unlike being gay, those are choices. Just like you choose to be self-righteous and ignorant of your place in society.
EDIT: Upon further reflection, it occurs to me that you’re living in upside-down land so typical of the right. Let’s recap.
First, it was the “coercive government” that passed a law empowering business owners to act in a discriminatory manner towards LGBT customers. The wonderful and all-powerful libertarian god of the free market swooped in and spaketh the only language right wingers understand: the language of Mammon. Grand Imam Mike Pence and his disciples had little choice but to bow to their god. Seems to me that if you had your head screwed on straight, and your vision wasn’t tainted by your superstition, you’d be applauding this victory for freedom.
3 Likes
According to this op-ed, we’re not forced to follow the speed limit because we could just never drive again. And we’re not forced to follow business regulations because we could just never work again.
The problem with the op-ed is that never driving again and never working again aren’t reasonable alternatives for some of us.
1 Like