This op-ed isn’t about driving. But, if you don’t follow the speed limit, or choose to drive drunk, and you keep doing it, indeed, you may never drive again.
If one’s cult conflicts with one’s line of work, they have a choice to make. You make it out as if they can’t find another line of work that’s compatible with their superstition.
The analogy isn’t applicable, and the false choice ridiculous.
The op-ed makes the analogy to driving.
If the only two alternatives are to either violate motor vehicle regulations or not drive at all, I find that to be rather extreme shall we say. Same applies to one’s chosen line of work.
This is the same argument used for businesses that pollute. Their contention is that if government coercion doesn’t permit them to dump their toxins on the rest of us, their rights to operate a business are being violated. My view is that if they can’t profitably operate a business in a manner that doesn’t bring harm to society, they need to find another line of work, not just throw their hands up in the air and go on the public dole.
The writer claims no one is forcing Christian business owners to do anything… It’s just the law. They can always disobey it and pay the consequences? The same “logic” could have been used against Rosa Parks. No one was forcing her to sit in the back. It was just the law. She was free to pay the consequences, too. Of course we see that today as an unkind and insensitive attitude, but the attitude in this article comes from the same logic. It only feels justified as logic (just as segregationists felt their argument was valid) because the group on the other side is looked down upon. It would be better in my opinion, to simply argue why the law SHOULD be used against these Christian business owners, and I assume Muslim business owners, too. It would be better to simply own it, and say yes of course we should force/coerce/whatever business owners to do this. To make some argument that they aren’t “forced” because they are “free” to be punished, is well… insensitive and juvenile.
I agree with alot of what you’re saying vthomas. But I think you can draw a distinction between refusing to serve a customer who happens to walk into your restaurant versus providing a catering service to a same-sex wedding. In the first instance, it would be discrminatory because someone is just wandering in off the street, and your restaurant appears to be open to the general public. On the other hand, with a wedding, you’re talking about actively participating in a quasi-religious ceremony. You could easily make the first type of discrimination illegal while still protecting the rights of religious minorities who do not wish to actively participate in rituals or ceremonies that defy their religious beliefs. Of course, there are gray areas and this law isn’t perfect, but no law is perfect, and liberals pass 10,000-page laws all the time that are full of contradictions, vagueness, and dangerous gray areas. For some reason, the Left is very choosy about when it wants to complaint about poorly-written laws.
You do see how you’re begging the question, correct?
A: “These laws are wrong becuase members of religious minorities should be free not to participate in weddings and other quasi-religious ceremonies that violate their beliefs.”
B: “You’re free to break the law and suffer the consequences!”
A: “Okay, but we all know that. Of course, we can break the law and live with the consequences. But we’re talking about whether the law itself violates the rights of religious minorities.”
B: “If you don’t like the law, you can move to another country!”
A: “Sure, we know that’s always an option. But again, you’re evading the real issue: Is this a good law or not?”
B: “If you don’t like the law, you can always choose not to run a business or engage in commerce and go live in a hut in the desert. See how you like THAT!”
A: “Again, we were trying to talk about the wisdom of the law itself - not whether we have some metaphysical freedom to comply with it or not. Yes, civil rights heros like Rosa Parks defied the law and lived with the consequences in order to prove a point - but their goal was to change the law in order to protect minorities. How is this any different?”
B: “Afterall, the government builds the roads you drive in, so you need to shut up and quit complaining about any laws! If you don’t like it go live on an island!”
A: “Okay, by your logic no totalitarian state has ever really existed? Because the people who suffered under oppressive governments were free to comply with the crazy laws their governments imposed or not?”
B: “Racist Bigot!!”
Since, as you rightly pointed out, marriage is a contract with the State, that also means that virtually every marriage performed in a church or by a minister is a civil union, and the minister is a representative of the State. That’s why I have to sign the documents from the courthouse and return them when I perform a marriage. Since the State is indeed in charge of marriage from a legal standpoint, then of course the State will not be able to allow discrimination inside those churches or by ministers outside those churches. It will be allowed for awhile, but since it goes against the discrimination law, the courts will eventually put an end to it. Some churches, and ministers, will then be out of the marriage business so to speak.
If you don’t want to abide by laws/regulations impacting businesses that are open to the public, then don’t have a business open to the general public. Put together a private club where you have to apply to get membership based on set of criteria that align with your beliefs and then provide services only to members of that club. Oh, you won’t be making as much money? Tough shit.
Okay…so let’s do it and put an end to all this useless bickering.
The Religious Freedom Act is simply a farce!
These so called “christians” need to be forced to explain to the public, why they are not attempting to protect their “religious freedoms” when they encounter a child molester as a client or an adulterer or a thief or a liar? I NEVER hear the “christians” mention any other SINNER that they are wanting to protect themselves from.
This fact alone proves their hypocrisy at its best. For their goal is to go back to their haydays of being discriminating towards anyone who does not fit into their own image. NOW THAT’S SINFUL FOLKS, at its best!
Using the author’s logic, no one if forced to do anything.
That is absurd. Using your rationale, a Catholic Church should be forced to do a Jewish wedding.
The state ALLOWS the church to perform wedding ceremonies. The church can in turn do whatever wedding ceremonies they want to do. They are not a business open to the public.
The state is the one that makes the call on WHICH marriages are legal, etc. But they can’t force the church to do a marriage.
I would note that if you want a legal divorce, the church will tell you that you need a lawyer. That’s because the actual contract of marriage is with the state, not the church.
OK…Sally dear, so there have been death threats and you think Christian business are NOT being forced… of course they are being forced…the media is lying about it and the threats are coming. How many companies are forced down because they are gay? ZERO… How many Christian owned companies are forced to close or hide because of homosexuals? Do the math.
The supreme court has already ruled on this “since you’re in business you have to do x y and z” logic. It was Hobby lobby. The court specifically said that one does not forfeit their religious liberty simply by engaging in business activity. The court further stated that the government cant compel a person to violate their beliefs unless there is a significant burden placed on the state… This is exactly the same scenario as HHS trying to mandate a business comply with a law that forces them to do something contrary to their beliefs. The government is attempting to mandate a business comply with antidiscrimination laws, in which doing so compels people to do things they might otherwise not. the “youre in business” is a straw argument that falls flat against recent scotus rulings. These exceptions where businesses would be allowed to “discriminate” (your word not mine) would be such a narrow window that only applied when people were put in a position of having to contribute or participate in an event they felt was against their beliefs. All this coming from the so called party of tolerance. Its unbelievable that someone would attempt to force anyone against their will to be apart of something they find offensive. "ILL put you out of business !! " The intolerance from the left is only superseded by its hypocrisy.
As liberals are fond of saying about Obamacare, the religious freedom law is now the “law of the land” in the state of Indiana. It’s been settled. It passed the legislature and was signed by the governor. It’s old news. Time to move on. Quit living in denial. It’s not even possible to repeal it now.
Look, if liberals can offer sensible plans for fixing or amending the religious liberty law, we’ll listen to them. But right now they’re just spreading misinformation, using it to raise more money from their base, and not setting forth any realistic proposals of their own to protect religious liberty in Indiana.
Liberals, please tell us, where is YOUR plan to protect religious liberty in Indiana? You’re so negative. All you want to do is block new religious liberty protections and repeal workable plans passed by the other side - but you refuse to offer us any plan of your own.
Annoying isn’t it?
The Court will have to further define their Hobby Lobby ruling–which applied to business owners and their employees, BTW, and not to business customers.
There is a significant burden placed on an unsuspecting potential customer with the Indiana law merely by walking in the door. Further, there is nothing, nada, zip that this customer can do to alter their race, gender, sexual orientation, etc. Even the conservative religious leaders who signed the Manhattan Declaration acknowledged that sexual orientation was perhaps not alterable.
So this unsuspecting person can do nothing to alter their state–this is different from a required dress code (easily alterable), etc. You are suggesting that the more compelling argument belongs to the business person (or their employees) who can refuse service based on an attribute that the potential customer cannot change. This is a return to Jim Crow and any other prejudicial nonsense thrust on the public (No Jews Allowed comes to mind).
The need for these business owners to stay comfortable with their world view is not compelling enough to override the potential customer’s liberty.
Religious freedom is the law of the land in Indiana. You guys are the ones that need to accept the law as it is. Tough shit.
Oh, my, now “religious liberty” requires that a business owner remain perfectly comfortable with who manages to walk through the business door. If one wants this level of comfort, I would suggest a private club instead of a public business.
There is nothing “workable” with a business wanting to not serve folks who walk through their door and who cannot change some attribute that makes that said owner uncomfortable. Cannot change one’s sex, race, sexual orientation, etc. It would be like demanding that only customers with a shoe size less than a size 9 enter through the door. It’s stupid and unnecessary.
When a business wants to open doors to the public, then this is to be expected in America. If the business owner does not want to be uncomfortable, then find another job. I suggest a private club.
SORRY–DIDN’T MEAN TO REPLY TO MYSELF. THIS IS A REPLY TO THE REPLY TO MY ORIGINAL POST.
I used the examples I did because the writer claimed a business can refuse to create something if it doesn’t agree with its sentiment.
In that sense, the Bruce and Joe sign expresses a different sentiment than the Bruce and Carol sign: not that they are getting married (which, for all I know, the business may be fine with), but that their union is sanctioned by a higher power.
After all, what is religion (or faith, or religiosity), if not sentiment?
Would the printer be justified in providing the sign with the marriage announcement to the gay couple, but refusing to provide the “A Match Made in Heaven” part?
Do pro-life OBGYNs have to perform abortions? Do pro- life nurses have to assist them? Why wouldn’t a wedding planner or a marriage counselor have the same rights?