Of course they are (nice article showing why).
They're simply attempts to legislate religious bigotry and hatred, tolerated for so long, but which have been "outed" recently.

So, we should endeavor to limit freedoms of individual and groups with whom we disagree or find offensive, eh?

You've got some good company historically in that pursuit. Though as you work toward that end, I imagine gun sales will continue to escalate among the lower classes.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, we should endeavor to limit freedoms of
> individual and groups with whom we disagree or
> find offensive, eh?

Did you even read the article?
The entire point was that no "limit of freedoms" is occurring. That the *claims* of "limit of religious freedom" are bogus, and nothing but attempts by certain religious people to be able to continue to practice discrimination and bigotry with religion as an excuse.

Everyone, religious or not, is still completely free to believe what they want, and live their own religion. What they're not free to do is impose their beliefs on others in public.
But of course, you think not allowing people to use religion as an excuse for bigotry IS limiting their freedom, huh?

> You've got some good company historically in that
> pursuit. Though as you work toward that end, I
> imagine gun sales will continue to escalate among
> the lower classes.

Ah, at least you're on target that it's the "lower classes" (i.e. least educated) that this irrationally upsets the most, and whose irrational response is to buy guns. I guess we do agree on one thing.

Honestly, I'm not sure of your desire here. Do you feel bigotry is protected speech (religious or otherwise)? Or you you suggest that whenever bigotry is deemed by some group to have occurred, there should be legislation enacted to prevent such speech or action and punish it?

I did read the article, and it seems he is encouraging a bit of newspeak. For millennia Jews and Christians have had a fairly well defined moral code with quite a few specific elements. Homosexual behavior is one of those things that has been contrary to the moral code embraced by most factions of these religions.

But it's no longer acceptable to hold this belief a part of a religious moral code. A category change is needed to further the agenda of detractors, so it is stripped of any religious significance and is now relegated to hateful bigotry. Now that newspeak has recategorized this, it can be dealt with as all hateful bigotry should be.

Perhaps you can take the narrative from there. Exactly how will you deal with this hateful bigotry? Should the state step in to force correct actions on the part of religious people who may choose to limit association with homosexuals? Exactly what role do you desire the state to take regarding the hateful bigotry of these religions?



Edited 3 time(s). Last edit at 08/03/2016 08:12PM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

"But it's no longer acceptable to hold this belief a part of a religious moral code."

I'm sorry, was anyone arrested for having such a "belief" or "religious moral code"? No, no one has. There has been no legislation introduced to even allow that to happen.

You're talking about speech as if that's what these religious protection laws are all about, they aren't. They are designed to allow people, business, etc to deny other people services and freedoms based on their religious beliefs. Thats where the problem lies. Denying other people their freedoms based on another person's beliefs.

Go right on ahead and spout whatever hateful bigoted garbage you want, call it your beliefs, no one will care (OK, they might care, but that doesn't make it illegal, it's not). The current laws under the constitution protect pretty much whatever you want to say (note that they don't protect you from the ramifications of what's said. Don't forget that what people say back is also protected).

When we do care is when you use your religion (or any other reason for that matter) to withhold services that you normally give to the public from a singled out group. Something that you would give everyone else, say a bakery that makes wedding cakes for example. That's where you're going to run into trouble. That's what these laws are attempting to allow people to do, hide behind their religion so they can refuse services. They have been shown time and time again that they are against the constitution.

No one is denying you your beliefs (the point of the article), what you don't have a right to do is force your beliefs on other people.

Finally Free! Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> When we do care is when you use your religion (or
> any other reason for that matter) to withhold
> services that you normally give to the public from
> a singled out group. Something that you would give
> everyone else, say a bakery that makes wedding
> cakes for example. That's where you're going to
> run into trouble. That's what these laws are
> attempting to allow people to do, hide behind
> their religion so they can refuse services. They
> have been shown time and time again that they are
> against the constitution.

Thank you for referring to me as a bigot. It's reassuring to know that the inability to reasonably discuss these topics without resorting to name calling remains unchanged among some of you.

Nobody I'm aware of is seeking to extend religious rights to vital services. This is actually what the initial civil rights laws were intended to protect. Freedom is messy, and should extend to all non-vital services. Housing, health care, transportation, food, etc., should be sacrosanct. The state had no compelling interest to step into a transaction between two people regarding catering an event. That's insane and it's intrusive.

When you start choosing photographers, bakers, and florists to put out of business due to their personal choice not to participate in something they object to morally, it's problematic. Each of these services is widely available, and there are likely gay proprietors of these services that would welcome the business. No gay person yet has claimed they were unable to procure these services. They complained that the religious person refused to serve them. And it's clear from each of these instances the religious person was targeted specifically because of their religion.

The point of each of these actions to isolate the religious person and penalize them for a religious action. The services they offer are not vital, and are widely available from other sources.

>"Thank you for referring to me as a bigot."

Where exactly have I called you specifically a bigot? I have said "spout whatever hateful bigoted garbage you want". That's calling the garbage being spouted "bigoted", not you. Nice try though.

>"Nobody I'm aware of is seeking to extend religious rights to vital services."

You mean like a county clerk refusing to do her job in the case of legal homosexual marriages. Yes, I guess you could argue that marriage isn't vital, but that an example of a government employee not doing their job.

>"This is actually what the initial civil rights laws were intended to protect."

Please cite your source for that. And, even if is truly what the "initial" were about, politicians and courts have changed since then. They now protect all public services.

>"Freedom is messy"

Yes it is. It seems particularly hard for some people to grasp that freedom extends to everyone, not just when they want it.

>"...Housing, health care, transportation, food, etc., should be sacrosanct."

You might want to tell the politicians who are writing these laws because these laws often specifically allow businesses to deny housing, health care, transportation, and food based on "strongly held religious beliefs" (also, you do know that cake is a food right?)

>"The state had no compelling interest to step into a transaction between two people regarding catering an event. That's insane and it's intrusive."

They broke the laws. that's why the state stepped in. Plain and simple. They were a public company that denied services based on a protected class.

I'm paraphrasing your next paragraph here, > "blah, blah, blah... gay people can use the back door and go elsewhere..."

Where have we heard that before??? Do you really want to go down that road? Seriously, did you learn anything about the civil rights movement in your history class at school?

>"And it's clear from each of these instances the religious person was targeted specifically because of their religion."

Not true, yes, some may have, not the majority. The first couple that went to get a marriage license from Kim Davis had no clue she'd react the way she did. Many more weren't targeted, they just wanted the services as advertised. It is not some huge conspiracy. If these businesses provided what they said they would, there wouldn't be a problem.

Paraphrasing again, >"Poor religious people who were caught breaking the law by not providing what they said they would because they couldn't separate they personal beliefs from their public business"

Sorry, not buying it. You can have whatever belief you want, if you want to have a public business, then you must provide the services equally to everyone.

You are right about the County Clerk. But since when are most bakeries, florists, photographers public?

Crazytapir Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You are right about the County Clerk. But since
> when are most bakeries, florists, photographers
> public?

Every business that's open to the public is public. Look up "public accommodation."

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> But it's no longer acceptable to hold this belief
> a part of a religious moral code.

Completely false. And the worst part -- you know that's a completely false statement. Yet you make it anyway, trying to portray the bigoted as the victims. Nobody's buying it. That, in fact, was the point of the article.

> Perhaps you can take the narrative from there.
> Exactly how will you deal with this hateful
> bigotry?

The same way we endeavor to deal with bigotry in all forms -- prescribe its application in public areas which have nothing to do with religion or speech, and everything to do with illegal discrimination. And try to get the bigoted to realize their bigotry through education. Nobody said anything about forcing anyone to stop believing anything, or speaking freely about their bigotry.

> Should the state step in to force correct
> actions on the part of religious people who may
> choose to limit association with homosexuals?

If that "choice" is in public business, public voting, public politics, and other public affairs -- yep. Anything else -- nope.

> Exactly what role do you desire the state to take
> regarding the hateful bigotry of these religions?

To prevent the hateful bigotry from being used in public arenas where bigotry is already not allowed.

Seriously, you know exactly what's going on -- people whose rights the religious have ignored (and actively taken away) for centuries are finally getting the same rights as the religious. That's not impinging on "religious freedom" at all and you know it. Stop pretending otherwise, and playing the victim.

The religious can no longer use their religion as an excuse to discriminate. Deal with it.

You see, you betray the actual motive of these actions and demonstrate that the movement to quell religious freedom is alive and well.

Six photographers have shops on Main Street. A gay couple bypasses the one who advertises he specializes in gay weddings and heads toward the one with the scripture verse on the door.

The photographer there hears their request and politely declines. She views her photography as an expression of her personal creativity, and she personally believes gay marriage is immoral. She feels she should no more be compelled to photograph their wedding than an oil painter should be compelled to paint a scene he or she finds morally objectionable. She suggests they patronize the openly gay photographer down the street, but they refuse.

The gay couple makes a few phone calls, and the local press quickly picks up on the hateful bigot photographer who so cruelly refused to help them. False online reviews, personal threats, and government sanctions ensue. The photographer is forced out of business.

Having accomplished their goal, the gay couple pays a visit to the gay photographer who gladly accepts their business.

The gay couple is the victim here, though they have suffered no negative impact whatsoever. They were never in danger of having the service they desire withheld, and they specifically chose the Christian photographer to damage their business. They are not satisfied with having won the right to marry. They want to damage those who have moral objections to their lifestyle.

This is why religious freedom laws will be fought for by people of faith.

So in other words, you support "religious freedom" laws because you are afraid of all the gay people who are out to get you?

Every time you say "gay" replace that with the word "black" and hopefully you see how the "religious photographer" comes across.

Having a scripture in the window is no guarantee that the photographer would deny their services to a homosexual couple. Surely you're aware that there are religious people, Christians even, who don't discriminate against homosexuals, not all do. So your argument that they picked that one on purpose to hurt their business, could fall apart right there.

Also, why should the couple be forced to only go to the one business that directly advertised to them. Perhaps they didn't like that photographers style, packages, or prices. Photographers do offer different services after all. So, they went to another photographer who was running a public business that they hoped would meet their needs based on what that photographer advertised. Only to be turned away, not because that photographer couldn't do the work, but because they wouldn't due to their (illegal) discriminatory policies.

In other words, a public business denied services to a potentially paying client. I do not feel bad for such businesses. It not a good business practice to follow anyway.

So, yah, they'd get some bad reviewed and negative publicity for that.

And, yes, the couple may have been able to get the photography done, but it may not have been the style they wanted or at the same price or package that the other photographer offered. So, while you might be ok telling people which businesses they can and can't go to, the law isn't so happy about that. That couple was denied a choice that was offered to everyone else, so yes, they are the victims in your story. The photographer could have done the work that they advertised that that they do, it was their choice to descriminate that caused the problem.

Also, instead of hiding behind a scripture in the window, which may or may not mean a business discriminates, maybe they should just hang a nice friendly "No Gays" sign up to be completely clear... (You know, similar to the "No Blacks" signs that were so popular in the south) That way, even in locations where there are currently laws protecting people who want to use their religion to descriminate (hopefully all these will be overturned soon) it won't be ambiguous.

Oh give me a break. If a photographer is so against taking pictures of a gay wedding then that photographer is free to refund the gay couple all of the taxes they paid to subsidize the photographer's business. How well would that photographer do without roads and other utilities paid for by tax payers?

So there is your solution.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/04/2016 07:27AM by Atari.

I pay taxes, some of which go towards road building. Does that mean I should have unfettered access to anything that touches a public road? For example, if there is a women's only yoga class, and I am a male, they should let me participate or refund my taxes?

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> You see, you betray the actual motive of these
> actions and demonstrate that the movement to quell
> religious freedom is alive and well.


This country was born to quell the "religious freedom" of those who would demand that the public abide by their beliefs. "Make NO LAW..." I understand that the majority, the religous, would like to nullify that part of the constitution, but we would eventually land in a situation like much of Europe and all of the Middle East.


> Six photographers have shops on Main Street. A
> gay couple bypasses the one who advertises he
> specializes in gay weddings and heads toward the
> one with the scripture verse on the door.


And therein you betray yourself. Because you KNOW that no gay couple could love or be loved by your God. They could not possibly find a scripture verse to be the draw that leads them into the shop.

Your Jesus could not possibly love these sinners, and would tell the gathering crowd to cast the stones. (Remember the reason that he said he spoke in parables?)

In fact, it was their love of that verse on the shop wherein they found their salvation. So their hearts warm, they go in, only to be told by another human that SHE has a greater understanding of Jesus than the two women, who are "politely" told that their religious freedom has no meaning or worth at this public place of business, and they will not be served.

Both "sides" have looked at and accepted that verse, but one side has a god-like (majority) claim on the current "meaning of God." In very large swaths of the planet, religious freedoms are protected by sharia.

Since you don't believe that basic human needs, such as the right to not live in a war-torn nation, should not be denied anyone, am I to assume that you welcome the droves of "peaceful" Muslim refugees, along with the right to their religious freedom?


>
> This is why religious freedom laws will be fought
> for by people of faith.


That is exactly what is happening in much of the world, the war-torn situation the constitution seeks to avoid, and why there must remain a separation of church and state.

If you wish to claim that the founders grounded the constitution on a strong faith in God, I might even agree with you, but, argue that their faith took their beliefs seriously. They were no cherry-pickers. They may have been as afraid of casting stones as they were of denying Jesus himself.

Christians are the majority in the US right now, but not all of them are so arrogant and shortsighted to believe that they KNOW the thoughts and intent of THE ONE TRUE GOD, nor are they willing to impose their beliefs on others.

In fact, there are enough stones for the KY clerk on her fourth marriage, the bakers who cannot possibly be "without sin," (think through that verse) men who refuse to or must wear a beard, women who won't cover their shoulders, female children who are raped...

"Religious freedom" is in the eye of the beholder, and therefore, not of worldly law, and the reason for the parable of "render unto Caesar," that the founders respected. But since it is within your rights to ignore the parts of Christianity that you find unpalatable, you go right ahead. Just don't ask the rest of us to impose our wills on other human beings, God, Jesus or Caesar or our founders. References: Bible and Constitution.

You'll have no further response from me. You need to catch up on your reading. You need to understand who it is, exactly, that you are following.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> Six photographers have shops on Main Street. A
> gay couple bypasses the one who advertises he
> specializes in gay weddings and heads toward the
> one with the scripture verse on the door.

Sure, let's make up contrived cases that never happen in real life. That's useful. Oh, wait, no it's not...

> The gay couple makes a few phone calls, and the
> local press quickly picks up on the hateful bigot
> photographer who so cruelly refused to help them.
> False online reviews, personal threats, and
> government sanctions ensue. The photographer is
> forced out of business.

Since nothing of the sort has ever occurred, I can't imagine why you think it's a good example to use. But in any case, if you operate a "public accommodation" business, you offer the same services to anyone who walks in the door. If you refuse to do business with someone SOLELY because of their religion, their skin color, their ethnicity, or -- yes -- their sexual orientation or their gender, then you're illegally discriminating. And you merit whatever legal action comes your way.

You should really pay attention to how short-sighted your position is, especially given the declining number of christians. You're trying to argue that it's OK to discriminate based on religious beliefs -- which puts you in the position of having to agree it's OK to discriminate against YOU because of religious beliefs. Are you OK with Muslims refusing to do business with you because you're a christian? Are you OK with Jews refusing to do business with anyone who eats a bacon cheeseburger (not that they would)? Do you see the ridiculousness of the "religious freedom" you're advocating -- that anybody can refuse to have anything to do with anyone who doesn't share ALL of their particular religious beliefs?

Your attempt above to bring Jews onto your side is quite dishonest, as well. They're not on your side on this. Perhaps because they've experienced, as a group, blatant discrimination and persecution for their beliefs and actions -- and largely from christians and muslims (other religious people). Will it take that kind of experience for christians to recognize the absurdity of their demand to be able to discriminate because of religion?

Let's not forget, by the way, that you'll search in vain for any teaching of bible jesus telling followers to not do business with gays (or blacks, or Jews, or any of the other groups they've historically discriminated against for so long). Which makes your position even less tenable, since it's actually *not* a teaching of the religious leader you claim to follow, it's what I mentioned above -- using religion as an excuse to be a bigot. Frankly, if there were an actual Jesus, he'd be ashamed of the bigots who try to use him as an excuse for bigotry.

> This is why religious freedom laws will be fought
> for by people of faith.

One more time: you're not fighting for "religious freedom." You're fighting for the "right" to use religion as an excuse for bigotry. And you're losing -- for good reasons.

Tall Man, Short Hair Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> So, we should endeavor to limit freedoms of
> individual and groups with whom we disagree or
> find offensive, eh?
>
Yes, in the same way we endeavored to limit the freedoms of white people to have the front of the bus all to themselves.

> You've got some good company historically in that
> pursuit. Though as you work toward that end, I
> imagine gun sales will continue to escalate among
> the lower classes.

So you're saying that Jesus Freaks are prepping for violence in order suppress the right of gay people to get married? Kind of like white people who wanted to lynch black people who drank from the wrong fountain? What kind of person are you?

Humberto, you're a bit of an alarmist, aren't you?

Question: Do you believe people should be allowed to engage in speech that you find offensive? Should someone be allowed to call a gay person, a Jew, or a black person by some of the commonly used pejorative terms, or should such speech be outlawed and those who engage in it punished?

Likewise, should a church be required to hire a gay person on their staff if they believe that homosexual activity is a sin? Or should a gay outreach center be required to hire a Christian who finds homosexual activity a sin?

If you're personally aware of a group that is preparing to commit violence, have you notified the authorities? Or is this a group that exists in your imagination and appears only when you wish to make some inane point?



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 08/03/2016 07:49PM by Tall Man, Short Hair.

You seem really confused. Speech and beliefs are protected. Business discrimination is not protected. If you offer a public service, it has to be to all classes of people. Period. If you don't feel you can serve all classes of people, don't become a business open to all the public.

And one more thing. Churches are not businesses in the usual sense. They are also protected and can discriminate at will. So can church services such as church hospitals.

That my comments are so obviously in reference to your fantasies regarding increased gun ownership -- not ideas of my own but simply a hyperbolic restatement of yours, reveals the unsophisticated nature of your attempt to deflect your ideas onto me. I'm a bit confused why you would do such a thing.

This all seems to have blown-up even more after the gay marriage issue was settled. This is a huge thorn in the side for Ark believing crazies and Mormons etc. They always said is was a sign that Jesus is a commin. No Jesus yet, no calamities, no nothing other than the religious nut jobs want a law allowing them to discriminate, hate and prop up their cults.

I have a serious question. As a Libertarian I've always thought gay marriage should be legal. If anyone wants to get married and it's consensual it's your business and no one else's. I do have a problem forcing a private business to provide a service they don't want to provide, I don't care what the reason is they don't want to provide it. But that's not my question. The question is, if you need a wedding cake for a gay wedding (which I just call weddings) and the bakery says "well we don't feel comfortable with that" why would you want your money to go towards supporting a bakery that you ethically disagree with. Even if they're forced to bake a cake they're still going to disagree with you. That's how the free market works, you disagree with a business you don't provide that business with your capital.

Because the free market, as powerful as it is, doesn't correct for systemic injustice. In fact, it can enhance it and further entrench it. Imagine, for a minute, that the majority of the people in your area hated black people. The choices made by the hateful majority in such a market would serve to further entrench that hate: there would be vast support for "white only" services, and extreme opposition to anyone who served blacks. Now, you see, this example isn't a hypothetical, but was a reality, and it required a lot more than the free market to start to change that reality.

The free market doesn't change people's erroneous perceptions -- it can entrench them.

Yeah, because free market worked so well at getting rid of all those "no libritari...", um, "no blacks allowed" businesses, eh?

Free markets are not perfect, but they are still better than any alternative.

Take Putin in Russia for example. He is very anti-homosexual and anti free markets.

Socialism is when the government controls the means of production. Communism is when the government owns the means of production.

While it may be true to that letting the government control the means of production may solve some problems it also creates worse problems which in the long run may not be as good as you hope.

Just look at Venezuela. Hugo Chavez went in as a champion of the little people who were being taken advantage of by big business. Now the little people are worse off as they are now being taken advantage of by the government.

Just to be clear, I am an atheist. I do not agree with people who discriminate against homosexuals, blacks or any other group. But as a libertarian, I find it unsettling we would tell other people what to do with their private property, their own private businesses. As despicable as their business practices may be it's still their private property.

Exactly. Statists gonna state tho.

Crazytapir Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> As despicable as their
> business practices may be it's still their private
> property.

It's "private property" whose operation depends on public resources like public roads, public utilities, etc., and hence is a "public accommodation." This isn't anything new, the definition of public accommodation business (with exemptions for churches and other religious entities) has been around a very long time.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_accommodations

Microsoft and Apple stop selling their operating systems to Christians for religious reasons. Is that OK?

Yeah, because free market worked so well at getting rid of all those "no libritari...", um, "no blacks allowed" businesses, eh?

Isn't it ironic that the calls for religious freedom did not occur until after religious nutjobs lost the battle over same-sex marriage? Where were the calls for religious freedoms when they were pushing to limit the religious freedoms of gay people by banning their religious right to marry?

No one has addressed this yet, or at least adequately:

How is it any different for a cake shop, a photographer, a restaurant, or any business that purports to provide services to consumers at large, to discriminate against gay people, than it is different for those same businesses to discriminate against black people, Jews, Muslims, white people, etc. etc.?

It is a protected class of people (gay people). Except in Indiana and North Carolina, I guess. Maybe we'll live in a world some day when these delineations are no longer necessary, perhaps when the world intermarries to the point that racial lines no longer exist because we are all racially homogeneous (my prediction for what may occur in the next 1000 years). Perhaps by then we will be open minded enough that the notion of men marrying men and women marrying women will be considered strange, wrong, or taboo; it just will BE.

I'm an atheist who thinks religion is poison.

Having said that, I think the government has no right to force a shop owner to offer services to people they don't want to serve.

A free market adjusts for this automatically.

If the moral majority are outraged that a baker won't bake a cake for a gay wedding, they won't shop there. Neither would I.

If the majority won't shop there, the bakery might go out of business. And that's cool.

If a few people still shop there, and that's enough to keep the bakery in business, but never be able to branch out, then that's fine.

Let the free market do what it does.

I will say that an individual running a business is not the same thing as a government official conducting government business.

I think a baker should be able to choose who they bake for, but a government official must accommodate equal protection under the law.

Flame away...

Why bother flaming you, all your arguments are addressed above if you had bothered to read them.