Jump to content

Daniel2

Contributor
  • Content count

    2,802
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1,599 Excellent

About Daniel2

  • Rank
    Culturally-Mormon Gay Dad
  • Birthday 01/01/1973

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Male
  • Location
    Utah

Recent Profile Visitors

2,531 profile views
  1. Me, too. I hope Scott takes the time to answer them.
  2. KLlindley, It should surprise no one that reading the amici briefs (which are NOT law) which support your preconceived notions on the matter confirm your opinions. That's classic confirmation bias at work. However, as mentioned above, amici briefs aren't legal rulings--they represent the lega arguements being asserted in support of whichever side on whose behalf the brief is filed. Your accusation that my post explainging that "from a legal perspective, conduct must be 'inherently expressive'" has no legal foundation and is a dodge implies to me that you actually haven't read the actual ruling--which IS the law--that is in dispute. Because THAT ruling DOES lay out exactly what I said about conduct being required to be "inherently expressive." In particular, I recommend pages 23-31 of the actual ruling itself. I'd post it here, but am on my phone.
  3. It's ironic that your statement above brought to mind the title and gist of this article: It was the sort of shove where his hands were already moving really fast when they hit my chest, and it made a pretty loud noise. All of his bench-pressing muscles let lose on me — this person who dared question his right of way — and I was knocked about two steps back. I walked away from him, and I could feel my heart beating in my ears. I thought about what I should do, if I should say something to a manager (that didn’t seem like a good idea), if I should say anything more to Chuck (that seemed like an even worse idea). I decided to just try to avoid him for a bit and let him cool off. About 15 minutes later, the GM asked to talk to me. He said that a guest had seen Chuck angrily shove me, and had complained and described what happened (describing it as him “hitting” me, but it was definitely a shove). I told him what happened — about him always assuming I was going to move, about me simply walking and not moving, and about the arguing and the shove that followed. It was a corporate restaurant, so he took everything very seriously. He filled out an incident report, asked me if I wanted to press charges, and told me if I wanted him gone, he was fired. I said that I didn’t want the guy to lose his job. I just wanted him to recognize that other people had every right to be there that he did. And so, I recently thought about this story again after I had just read this amazing quote (a quote for which I tried very hard to find an attribution, but kept coming up “Unknown): “When you’re accustomed to privilege, equality feels like oppression.” And things started making a little more sense to me. All this anger we see from people screaming “All Lives Matter” in response to black protesters at rallies. All this anger we see from people insisting that their “religious freedom” is being infringed because a gay couple wants to get married. All these people angry about immigrants, angry about Muslims, angry about “Happy Holidays,” angry about not being able to say bigoted things without being called a bigot... They all basically boil down to people who have grown accustomed to walking straight at other folks, and expecting them to move. So when “those people” in their path don’t move — when those people start wondering, “Why am I always moving out of this guy’s way?”; when those people start asking themselves, “What if I didn’t move? What if I just kept walking too?”; when those people start believing that they have every bit as much right to that aisle as anyone else — it can seem like their rights are being taken away. Can a brother get some “peach”? Equality can feel like oppression. But it’s not. What you’re feeling is just the discomfort of losing a little bit of your privilege — the same discomfort that an only child feels when she goes to preschool and discovers that there are other kids who want to play with the same toys as she does. It’s like an old man being used to having a community pool all to himself, having that pool actually opened up to everyone in the community, and then that old man yelling, “But what about MY right to swim in a pool all by myself?!” And what we’re seeing politically right now is a bit of anger from both sides. On one side, we see people who are angry about “those people” being let into “our” pool. They’re angry about sharing their toys with the other kids in the classroom. They’re angry about being labeled a “racist,” just because they say racist things and have racist beliefs. They’re angry about having to consider others who might be walking toward them, strangely exerting their right to exist. This is the “Again” of “Make America Great Again.” Don’t worry, they’ll just open some swim clubs and make the membership really expensive... On the other side, we see people who believe that pool is for everyone. We see people who realize that when our kids throw a fit in preschool, we teach them about how sharing is the right thing to do. We see people who understand being careful with their language as a way of being respectful to others. We see people who are attempting to stand in solidarity with the ones who are claiming their right to exist — the ones who are rightfully angry about having to always move out of the way, people who are asking themselves the question, “What if I just keep walking?” Which kind of person are you? I should mention that “Chuck” and I eventually became friends, proving that people who see the world very differently can get along when they are open to change, and when they are willing to try to see the world though another person’s eyes. There is hope. The reason I don't believe I'm confusing "liberty" with "entitlement" is because you already enjoy the protections afforded to your Faith due to it's recognition as a protected class and the enjoyment of anti-discrimination protections in public accommodation laws, while as a gay man, I am not afforded those same protections. What I am seeking for is EQUAL treatment. IF the law said, as you do now, that any business CAN discriminate against anyone for any reason, I wouldn't be asserting a right to not be discriminated against on the basis of the gender of my spouse. But since current law prohibits such discrimination for some classes of people, I'm asking for the same protective treatment under the law. That isn't "entitlement"---that's equality. Unless you're suggesting that those classes enjoying protections from discrimination are actually also "entitled"...and are likewise deserving of "entitlement" treatment that I and my husband (and couples like us) don't deserve?
  4. Do you mean to imply that Dr. King, Jr. and his followers within the Civil Rights Movement that fought at sit-ins for the right to be served at restaurants were really just feeling "entitled" to be served and are really comparable to this "age of the snowflake" mindset you refer to...?
  5. Are you also suggesting you would/do support efforts to abolish "religion" as a protected class and exempt it from any protections against discrimination in public accommodation laws?
  6. So, if your state's government-funded adoption agency (meaning, funded by your tax dollars) refused to consider married LDS couples as potential adoptive or foster parents because those running the agency felt that Mormons are Satanic, you don't feel that would be unjust religious discrimination? (given that you could try to find another state that does allow adoptions to LDS families, of course...)
  7. Are you saying you wouldn't consider it an attack on religion or religious liberty if businesses and government agents and contractors were free to refuse services to any given citizen based on the religion of said potential patron?
  8. Can you imagine the response of the LDS Church if a group was pressing for an going, DAILY constitutionally-protected ability to decline goods and services to others based on objecting to such potential customers' religious lifestyle? Would the church and it's members classify THAT as "an attack on religion/religious freedom"?
  9. Kllindley, This is not the first time you've accused me of "rudeness" and being "guilty of using inflammatory and emotion to shut out reasonable disagreement." (please note: my words in the post you were referring to were not directed at you, but were in regard to "The Alliance Defending Freedom," designated as a Hate Group by the Southern Poverty Law Center). I've gone to great lengths to strive to be patient, respectful, rational, and reasonable in answering many of these same claims repeatedly spanning many years. As I look back over my posts, despite being heartfelt (as in, "deeply and strongly felt") in my views, I don't believe I was being ill-mannered or inappropriate. If you feel I'm being rude, as you've accused me of doing on multiple occasions, I'm happy to extend a friendly handshake, wish you well, and disengage from conversing further with you on these matters.
  10. For the life of me, I truly, genuinely, cannot understand how those defending the baker cannot see that granting businesses the ABILITY to discriminate on the basis of the "deeply-held religious beliefs" of business owners/clerks (even in the name of "creative freedom of speech") UNDERMINES protection AGAINST discrimination because OF religion. By allowing people to discriminate on the basis of their religious views, you are destroying the very protections safeguarding against discrimination based ON religion. No longer is religion protected in any realm where services can be linked to any sort of religious objection, because now anyone should be able to refuse services because they disapprove of someone else. How is this not obvious? And please, don't misunderstand me... I'm not name-calling, nor trying to insult others... I am genuinely flabbergasted here. It seems SO shortsighted for religious folks to claim an ability to refuse service to others today, only to fail to realize that the protections safeguarding their religious freedoms have been obliterated when they become the target of religious disapproval from the majority...
  11. People have been SO focused on defending "religious liberty" that they don't realize that the law has to weigh one person's liberty against another ALL THE TIME, and sometimes, even pitting one person's seeming "religious liberty" against another's. Even in such cases, though, what people are CALLING "religious liberty" really isn't what is meant by the constitutional protections afforded to religion in the Constitution. For example, let's say a Mom and Pop bakery has enough money to hire an extra cake decorator. They interview several, and one candidate is clearly far more qualified than her competition, so the Mom and Pop hire her on the spot. The next day, she reports for duty, and is trained for a week on how to cover the shop, work the till, take care of the ordering process, and decorate the cakes. Mom and Pop leave for a much-needed extended vacation over the weekend, where their candidate covers the shop on Friday and Saturday. When Mom and Pop return, they're astonished because for the first time ever, they have a bunch of complaints from several of their customers who they'd been serving for years. Turns out that their extremely talented cake decorator is a member of the Jehovah's Witness Faith, and all day Friday and Saturday, she declined multiple customer requests to write "Happy Birthday" on the cake... What happens next? Are Mom and Pop able to fire their newly-hired cake decorator? Is that a violation of the cake decorator's "religious freedom"? Or is she protected from being fired because that would be a violation of her "religious freedom"? But what about Mom and Pop's freedoms? They aren't Jehovah's Witnesses, and they've provided "Happy Birthday" cakes to their clientele for decades. Should they be forced to keep paying a woman who refuses to do the job for which she's hired, forcing them to pay for a back-up person to cover the store who is willing to write "Happy Birthday" for those customers who so desire? Most people I know would side with Mom and Pop here. They say that if their cake decorator is unwilling to do the job she's hired for, it's unjust and unfair to force Mom and Pop to keep her on the payroll if she refuses to do the job. But wait... isn't that a violation of the cake decorator's religious liberty? No... because she's free to go elsewhere and get a job at a bakery that doesn't sell birthday cakes, or switch careers. Now, why do I bring this up? Clearly, the circumstances are different to what we're discussing. So to make sure there isn't any confusing as to why I'm posting it, here's my take-away point: sometimes, courts have to weigh and balance conflicting alleged claims to "liberty" against another competing claim. And sometimes, both sides offer compelling-sounding arguments. From what I understand in cases like these, the Supreme Court has said that laws providing boundaries and attempting to balance seemingly-conflicting claims to liberty against a certain ideal, and the ideal is this: when it comes to religious liberty and placing boundaries thereon, does the law appear to be designed to "single out" a specific religion to either punish or promote it in a way that's above (or beneath) any/all other ideologies, OR is the law applicable, across the board, to all religious ideologies, equally? In this case, public accommodations law is NOT "singling out" the beliefs of Masterpiece Bakery (or even "Christianity," in general). It's saying that if a business provides a specific good or service to some customers (in this case, wedding cakes---whether they ARE 'custom' or NOT is entirely relevant, as related to the religious liberty argument), said businesses cannot refuse to provide wedding cakes (again, whether custom or not) to members of legally protected classes. So far as "religious liberty" is concerned, there's a preponderance of case law that already addresses this issue. Obviously, as I and others (on both sides of this argument) have said, it seems like the crux of THIS particular Masterpiece Bakery case will be decided on whether or not it's a violation of the baker's freedoms of speech. But let's stop calling it a matter of "religious liberty." That ship has said... that case has been closed... The law doesn't single out any religion or even any protected class to penalize NOR reward them-----it requires business to serve ALL, without discriminating NOR elevating any other protected class over the other. Whites/blacks/Hispanics/Asians have to serve members of other races or mixed races, despite their differences (even religious objections).... Atheists/Christians/Jews/Muslims/Mormons have to serve everyone not of their own non-religious/religious persuasion, despite their differences (even religious ones)...etc (you may continue to fill in the 'protected class' and it's analogous difference, even religious ones). That's why Masterpiece is focusing entirely on claims to the "artistic expression" of these cakes. As mentioned previously, that's likely to be the only possible grounds they may win on, despite the odds against them. D
  12. California Boy already addressed these points here, so I assumed the issue was already settled. But since--and ONLY because--you've asked, I'll take yet another few whacks at the long-since-deceased equine: In each of your examples above, based on my understanding of the laws and rulings I have read: Printing Companies: cannot be forced to print material(s) which is "inherently expressive" to which they personally object. If the messages (through words, symbols, or pictures) violate their religious Faith, they cannot (and should not, IMO) be compelled to print it. This is the clearest example of "First Amendment Freedom of Speech" protections, IMO. Already addressed the MAGA hat in a previous post. While bakeries refusing to bake such cakes are discriminating, it's legally acceptable discrimination because a) the message is "inherently expressive" and thus protected by Freedom of Speech, and b) bakers are not withholding goods based on a protected class (of which "political affiliation" is not), so they're not subject to public accommodations law. Landlords: yes, landlords can choose not to rent to liquor stores or adult businesses, because neither liquor nor 'adult businesses' are members of protected classes, and are therefore not subject to public accommodations law (and, in fact, are subject to zoning laws and regulations, which may even prohibit such establishments in some neighborhoods and/or cities or states). Liberal Atheist Landlords: As mentioned above, public zoning laws and public accommodation laws must be followed, but even so, "political action groups" are not members of protected classes, so I don't believe a liberal atheist can choose not to rent out to them. Now... instead of focusing on all these hypothetical "what ifs," how about we focus on the REAL issues that are happening, instead of trying to complicate/confuse/inflame the issue with hypotheticals that are not legally similarly situated...? D
  13. This very example has already been discussed in this thread. Why do people like you keep bringing up the same exact examples, over and over and over, when answers continue to be given, then ignored??? The answer is if a custom product is "inherently expressive," meaning, it contains letters or symbols which fall within the bounds of "inherently expressive" (words or symbols falling within the legal definition), a business owner does not have to provide that product (whether it's a cake baker, a printer, or a T-shirt manufacturer). Additionally, businesses can decline to provide services for a variety of reasons, but not if it violates the protections of what the government deems "protected classes" (religion, race, age, gender, national origin, veteran status, etc.). Political affiliation is not a protected class. Thus, in response to your question: a baker SHOULD be allowed to refuse to bake any cake advocating for ANY politician or political platform. Period. That case is clear, easy, and should be simple to understand. But dishonest companies advocating for unjust practices try to confuse the issue and cloud it with emotional buzz words or inflammatory and seemingly similar (but entirely unrelated, from a legal perspective) scenarios. The fact that "The Alliance Defending Freedom" is using that example on their website to try to gain support, but at the same time is clearly confusing the facts (they claim their lawsuit on behalf of Masterpiece is "a lawsuit that is reminiscent of [refusing to back a cake for a Donald Trump birthday party]") tells me all I need to know about both their honesty and their true motives.
×