Emerging Skirmishes along the "Religious Freedom" vs "LGBT Civil Rights" as related to Mormonism

[LittleNipper]

2 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

I'm not LittleNipper. But it doesn't seem to me that he "stands for discrimination of any kind." Rather, I humbly suggest that he stands for business owners being permitted to make those decisions themselves, rather than having them made for them by the coercive power of the state.

I suggest that that is a false dilemma. As far as I can tell, the court is being asked to rule on whether the "right" to compel service trumps freedom of conscience.

Perhaps it will instead revisit the question of whether privately owned businesses are really "public accommodations." The notion that hanging up a shingle and opening one's doors entails a surrendering of the right to freedom of association is a rather startling one to those of us who live in societies where freedom is lived more and talked about less.

 

I could not have said it better. Freedom does not in anyway mean that all accommodations will be forthcoming. Freedom allows a person to attempt to live as he wishes, but in no way suggests that anyone else is going to cooperate with the choice. One may have to find another place to live. And don't say that is not what others did. The wagon trains of the past were full of people trying to find a place they might live the way they wished, when they were discontented with things where they once resided...  Freedom and accommodation are entirely different animals.

Edited October 13, 2017 by LittleNipper

[Daniel2]

Another judge issued a ruling that religion cannot be used as a reason to fail to comply with anti-discrimination laws, this time in the realm of calligraphy in Arizona.  This one is significant because the ruling directly addresses issues of speech and creative/artistic customized works, both of which are central to the arguments in the Masterpiece Cake Shop case scheduled to go before SCOTUS next month:

Court: Phoenix wedding invitation designers must serve LGBT customers

Jessica Boehm, The Republic | azcentral.com Published 5:30 p.m. MT Oct. 26, 2017 | Updated 6:41 p.m. MT Oct. 26, 2017

 

A Phoenix wedding shop sued the city because of an ordinance that would require them to create invitations and artwork for same-sex weddings.

A Maricopa County Superior Court judge has quashed a local wedding shop's attempt to override a Phoenix ordinance that protects lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people from discrimination.

Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski, owners of Brush & Nib Studio and self-described evangelical Christians, create invitations and other handmade artwork for weddings and events.

They filed a lawsuit against Phoenix in May 2016 challenging the part of the city's nondiscrimination ordinance that prohibits discrimination based on sexual orientation. 

Their suit alleges the city's ordinance would compel them to create invitations or artwork for same-sex couples, which would conflict with their religious belief that marriage is between one man and one woman andviolate their freedoms of speech and religion.

No gay couple has requested the studio's services and no one has filed a complaint against the artists with the city.

This week, Judge Karen Mullins delivered a second legal blow to Duka and Koski, rejecting all of their arguments and confirming that the Phoenix ordinance does not violate Arizona's free speech and free exercise of religion laws.

Mullins also denied an earlier request to prevent Phoenix from enforcing the ordinance.

"The city considers this another victory that confirms Phoenix’s non-discrimination ordinance is legal and valid," city spokeswoman Julie Watters said in a statement. "The Maricopa County Superior Court has again ruled in favor of Phoenix’s non-discrimination ordinance that protects the rights of all residents."

What the ordinance prohibits

Phoenix has had a non-discrimination ordinance on the books since 1964, but the city council expanded it to protect against sexual orientation and gender identity bias in 2013. 

The ordinance bans discrimination in housing, employment and public accommodations, including privately owned businesses. Business owners and individuals who don’t comply can face criminal prosecution and a misdemeanor charge, with each violation punishable by up to six months in jail and a $2,500 fine.

In her written order, Mullins said Phoenix can prohibit Brush & Nib from refusing to serve clients based on their sexual orientation and prevent the owners from advertising that they will not serve same-sex couples.

"The government may permissibly regulate the sale of goods and services by businesses that sell those goods and services to the general public. This is true even if the goods and services at issue involve expression or artistic creativity," she said.

Duka and Koski can, however, publish their religious opinions about marriage so long as they don't "state or imply that same-sex couples are unwelcome as customers," Mullins said.

The judge also noted, "the printing of same-sex persons names on wedding invitations does not hinder in any way plaintiffs' independent exercise of (their) religious belief by attending the church of their choice, engaging in religious activities or functions, and expressing their beliefs on their business website and literature or in their personal lives."

Appeal promised

Scottsdale-based Alliance Defending Freedom filed the lawsuit on behalf of Duka and Koski. The conservative group also represented Hobby Lobby in its successful religious freedom case before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The high court ruled that employers can decline to provide employees insurance coverage for some forms of birth control that violate the religious beliefs of the owners.

Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Jonathan Scruggs said he was disappointed by the judge's decision, but plans to appeal.

He said the Brush & Nib lawsuit is about protecting not just Christians, but all American artists from having to create art that is inconsistent with their views. He said his logic would also allow a lesbian web designer to refuse to create a website for a church that criticizes gay people. 

His group has challenged similar non-discrimination ordinances in courts across the country. Their goal: Set precedent establishing that "people shouldn't be forced to promote views that they disagree with," he said.

Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, said he's seen very few cases brought by gay people who believe they've experienced discrimination — but he has seen the Alliance Defending Freedom drum up many cases based on hypothetical situations, like the Brush & Nib scenario.

"It's terrible that groups like the Alliance Defending Freedom want to create conflict and controversy and stir up bias against same-sex couples and LGBT people," Minter said. 

In the courtroom

During oral arguments in August, Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Samuel Green told the judge that forcing his clients to serve gay couples would be "compelled expression of speech."

He said many of Duka and Koski's designs include biblical scriptures about two people becoming one flesh. To use such words to describe a gay couple would be a forced expression, which is against the law, Green argued. 

He said the artists would not protest selling their non-personalized goods to gay people, but they shouldn't be forced to create artwork they don't want to create.

Attorney David Rosenbaum, who argued the case for the city, said Brush & Nib's arguments were "purely hypothetical," because no gay couple has asked for the artists' services.

Rosenbaum said the city is not forcing Duka and Koski to create custom artwork that says "God is dead," or that God condones gay marriage. The issue comes down to writing two male or two female names on an invitation, he argued.

"These concerns do not prevail over the government's interest in preventing discrimination," Rosenbaum said. 

In an interview Thursday, Mayor Greg Stanton called the judge's order "a complete victory for the city of Phoenix." 

"Today was a victory for civil rights and when there's a victory for civil rights, it's not just a victory for the LGBT community, it's a victory for everyone," he said.

[Daniel2]

It's ironic that "Alliance Defending Freedom" openly admits that their goal is to establish precedent that "people shouldn't be forced to promote views that they disagree with."  It appears they're efforts are creating a wealth of legal precedent with just the opposite effect--a growing body which suggests religion cannot be used as an excuse to refuse goods and services to protected classes...

Here's a great summary of recent rulings:

Six Times Courts Ruled That Anti-LGBTQ Religious Refusal Policies Are Discrimination

By George Simpson • September 8, 2017 • 1:01 am

As a nation, we decided a long time ago that businesses that are open to the public should be open to everyone on the same terms, and that includes customers who are lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgender. Nobody should be turned away from a business, denied service, fired from their job, or evicted from their home simply because of who they are or who they love.

In recent years, however, anti-LGBTQ forces have attempted to carve out so-called “religious exemptions” in order to cause harm to LGBTQ people and their families. Such changes to common-sense notions of fairness and how we do business as Americans pose an array of threats and potentially open a legal “can of worms,” allowing people to arbitrarily pick and choose which laws to follow and which laws to violate.

Freedom of religion is important – and that’s why it’s already protected by the First Amendment to the Constitution. But that freedom doesn’t give any of us the right to impose our beliefs on others, or to discriminate.

Opponents of LGBTQ non-discrimination have often brought their efforts to discriminate to court – and this winter, the United States Supreme Court will consider this specific question in the case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission. In the coming months it’s our duty to illustrate to the Justices that anti-LGBTQ discrimination is wrong and that a supermajority of Americans oppose anti-LGBTQ religious refusal laws. It’s also vital to remind the Supreme Court that judge after judge and court after court has not found arguments in favor of religiously motivated discrimination to be persuasive.

Take a look below at six significant legal victories in cases where opponents of LGBTQ equality failed to succeed in their efforts to create a carveout from a non-discrimination law:

Every Court to Review Masterpiece Cakeshop Rejects Anti-LGBTQ Arguments

The ACLU case Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, coming up on the Supreme Court docket for 2017-2018, concerns a business owner in Colorado who denied service to a same-sex couple.The baker, represented by the extreme anti-LGBTQ group Alliance Defending Freedom, is seeking a religious exemption to a longstanding non-discrimination law in Colorado that prohibits discrimination in public accommodations based on sexual orientation and gender identity.

Every lower court that has heard the case has affirmed the bakery is in no way entitled to a religious exemption from the Colorado Public Accommodations Law – and that businesses open to the public must be open to all.

These include the original ruling from Judge Robert Spencer of the Colorado Office of Administrative Courts on December 6, 2013, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission on June 2, 2014, the Colorado Court of Appeals on August 13, 2015, and the Colorado Supreme Court on April 25, 2016.

If a store serves a product on the marketplace, the store owners cannot pick and choose to which customers it will serve that product. If Masterpiece Cakeshop chooses to sell wedding cakes, it may not choose to only serve non-LGBTQ couples. It must serve everyone equally, just like any other business. That’s what the U.S. Supreme Court should affirm when it hears arguments in the case this winter.

Washington Supreme Court Unanimously Sides with Equal Treatment in Arlene’s Flowers

In February 2017 the Washington Supreme Court ruled unanimously in Ingersoll v. Arlene’s Flowers that a person’s individual religious beliefs could not be used as an excuse to discriminate against a same-sex couple.

The case concerned a florist who refused to sell flowers to a same-sex couple for their wedding, which she says would have violated her religious beliefs. The ACLU represented the same-sex couple in the case, Robert Ingersoll and Curt Freed, and the florist was represented by the Alliance Defending Freedom, an extreme anti-LGBTQ organization. The florist sought a religious exemption from the Washington State non-discrimination law that has protected LGBTQ residents from discrimination based on sexual orientation in public accommodations since 2006

The plaintiff in Arlene’s Flowers has requested review of the Washington Supreme Court’s ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Iowa Civil Rights Commission Affirms Non-Discrimination in Iowa

When Lee Stafford and Jared Ellars wanted to marry at Gortz Haus, a restaurant, gallery, and wedding venue open to the public in Des Moines, Iowa, they were turned away by the venue’s owners.

The couple sued the venue under Iowa’s state law that provides explicit protections from discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity, and in response, the owners of the venue, backed by a group that has worked to create anti-LGBTQ religious refusal policies, countersued, seeking an exemption from Iowa law.

The Iowa Civil Rights Commission sided with the same-sex couple, and ultimately the venue owners decided to stop holding weddings altogether in order to stop hosting same-sex couples equally.

Later, the Odgaards leveraged local interest in the case to launch a billboard campaign promoting their disapproval of marriage for same-sex couples and purporting to speak for God.

Vermont Human Rights Commission Rules That All Couples Must Be Treated Fairly

Kate Baker and Ming Linsley settled their suit against the Wildflower Inn on August 23, 2012. The business not only denied the same-sex couple use of its facilities for their wedding, but additionally tried to claim to simply be “discouraging” same-sex couples from seeking their business.

The Vermont Civil Rights Commission was not buying it, and the inn’s owners acknowledged that they had violated the law. In 2005, the same commission had prohibited discrimination based on sexual orientation, but familiar opponents Alliance Defending Freedom were attempting to carve out another exemption.

U.S. Supreme Court Denies Review of Victory in New Mexico Photographer Case

When New Mexico same-sex couple Vanessa Willock and Misti Collinsworth attempted to hire Elane Photography for their 2007 commitment ceremony, they were turned away. The issue went to court and worked its way up to the New Mexico Supreme Court, which ruled unanimously that the business’ choice to discriminate violated a state public accommodations statute that outlaws discrimination, the New Mexico Human Rights Act. The state Human Rights Commission had come to the same conclusion earlier.

On April 7, 2014, the U.S. Supreme Court declined to hear an appeal, without comment, leaving the victory for equal treatment in place.

U.S. District Court in Mississippi Blocks Anti-LGBTQ HB1523 From Becoming Law

In the spring of 2016 Mississippi lawmakers pushed through House Bill 1523, which would allow businesses and individuals the ability to cite their religious beliefs as an excuse to discriminate against same-sex couples, transgender people, or unmarried people who have sex. Almost immediately the Campaign for Southern Equality, the ACLU and Lambda Legal all brought cases against the blatantly discriminatory law, with the Campaign for Southern Equality asserting that the law would “favor some ‘religious beliefs’ over others.”

This toxic law passed was struck down by U.S. District Court Judge Carlton Reeves on June 30, 2016 – just minutes before it would have gone into effect.

Judge Reeves wrote, “Religious freedom was one of the building blocks of this great nation, and after the nation was torn apart, the guarantee of equal protection under law was used to stitch it back together. But HB 1523 does not honor that tradition of religion freedom, nor does it respect the equal dignity of all of Mississippi’s citizens. It is hereby ordered that the defendants; their officers, agents, servants, employees, and attorneys; and any other persons who are in active concert or participation with the defendants or their officers, agents, servants, employees, or attorneys; are hereby preliminarily enjoined from enacting or enforcing HB 1523.”

Mississippi Attorney General Jim Hood refused to appeal, stating the law had “tarnish[ed]” Mississippi’s image. Governor Phil Bryant, who signed the divisive legislation, continued to pursue the matter through private counsel, and on June 22, 2017, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 5th Circuit lifted the injunction, claiming plaintiffs lacked standing, since the discriminatory law hadn’t yet gone into effect. The technicality does not diminish the power and significance of Judge Reeves’ ruling.

We’ll be watching this and other cases closely. Regardless of how they turn out, LGBTQ people know that seeing their basic dignity and right to be treated fairly in public debated in court and doggedly pursued by anti-LGBTQ politicians and forces, causes real harms to the community. That’s why Freedom for All Americans and all of our partners fighting so hard in the court of law will continue to keep the pressure on wherever the threat of “carve outs” arises. Together, we will continue building undeniable forward momentum.

 

 

[Storm Rider]

I wonder if it is possible to find common ground between conservative Christians - such as the Catholic Church, the Southern Baptists, and the LDS Church - and the LGBTQ agenda.  They simply are not compatible in any way.  It is not that the LGBTQ agenda is to receive the adulation of the government and that they have a plethora of options for all they want in life from buying food to renting a home, it is that their demand is that every knee shall bow to them whenever and wherever they choose to stand.  All must bend down or, at a minimum, move out of their way.  That really is not equality by any definition; however, it is the definition of new term, "protected minorities".  The legal system creates sacred cows and demands obeisance. 

On a personal level it really does not impact my actions, choices, or behavior.  I simply do not put myself in a position of needing to abuse my personal beliefs so that I can bend the knee to any protected class. 

The Social Pendulum swings and never stops.  It is never static and is seldom in balance. By its nature it swings too far one way and then the other.  The courts have a history of following after social agendas and creating new law out of whole cloth.  All it takes is activist judges (regardless of which side of the aisle they sit) and the result is what we see today. The laughing stock of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is beginning to moderate as the liberal judges appointed by Carter begin to die off and more moderate judges are appointed. 

Given the fact that a liberal judge and a conservative judge can be opposed on rulings I have concluded the Law is hardly always just or fair - it is whatever the people in the black robes say it is.  Justice, fairness becomes strictly the fruits of who ever is appointed to pick the fruit and the rest be damned. 

[Daniel2]

25 minutes ago, Storm Rider said:

I wonder if it is possible to find common ground between conservative Christians - such as the Catholic Church, the Southern Baptists, and the LDS Church - and the LGBTQ agenda.  They simply are not compatible in any way.  It is not that the LGBTQ agenda is to receive the adulation of the government and that they have a plethora of options for all they want in life from buying food to renting a home, it is that their demand is that every knee shall bow to them whenever and wherever they choose to stand.  All must bend down or, at a minimum, move out of their way.  That really is not equality by any definition; however, it is the definition of new term, "protected minorities".  The legal system creates sacred cows and demands obeisance. 

On a personal level it really does not impact my actions, choices, or behavior.  I simply do not put myself in a position of needing to abuse my personal beliefs so that I can bend the knee to any protected class. 

The Social Pendulum swings and never stops.  It is never static and is seldom in balance. By its nature it swings too far one way and then the other.  The courts have a history of following after social agendas and creating new law out of whole cloth.  All it takes is activist judges (regardless of which side of the aisle they sit) and the result is what we see today. The laughing stock of the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals is beginning to moderate as the liberal judges appointed by Carter begin to die off and more moderate judges are appointed. 

Given the fact that a liberal judge and a conservative judge can be opposed on rulings I have concluded the Law is hardly always just or fair - it is whatever the people in the black robes say it is.  Justice, fairness becomes strictly the fruits of who ever is appointed to pick the fruit and the rest be damned. 

I believe there IS common ground between Conservative Christians and those that identify as LGBT, and I believe the number of similarities that we share is far greater than the differences which some seek to use to divide us.

I don't believe that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered citizens expect to receive "the adulation of the government" any more or less than straight citizens have always historically received,  and we simply desire to have the same civil protections that you all continue to currently enjoy.  Further, I honestly believe that granting us the same constitutionally-mandated privileges, rights, and responsibilities doesn't take anything away from you other than any perceived sense of superiority or over-privileged protection.

I truly believe sentiments like "their demand is that every knee shall bow to them whenever and wherever they choose to stand" or "all must bend down or, at a minimum, move out of their way" is hyperbole of the most distorted kind and largely the result of propaganda produced in a culture war against civil equality for LGBT folks.  It certainly isn't reflective of the attitudes or behaviors of any of my LGBT friends, coworkers, and acquaintances, let alone my own beliefs and approach to the subject.

Yes, society is constantly in flux--it always has been, and likely ever shall be, because it's a reflection of the current, yet ever-shifting, zeitgeist.  And as such, laws will continually be in a state of adjustment.  However, history has shown that there's never been a better, safer, more stable time to be alive than today.  The world continues to improve across multiple measurements of health, longevity, peace, and prosperity.  We aren't a perfect world yet, and the potential for violence, greed, and corruption will be ever present threats that we must continually battle against, but on the whole, there is much to be grateful for.

And even though it's sometimes frustratingly slow, I fully agree with the words of the great Dr. King that "arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

Edited November 1, 2017 by Daniel2

[Storm Rider]

8 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

I believe there IS common ground between Conservative Christians and those that identify as LGBT, and I believe the number of similarities that we share is far greater than the differences which some seek to use to divide us.

I don't believe that gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgendered citizens expect to receive "the adulation of the government" any more or less than straight citizens have always historically received,  and we simply desire to have the same civil protections that you all continue to currently enjoy.  Further, I honestly believe that granting us the same constitutionally-mandated privileges, rights, and responsibilities doesn't take anything away from you other than any perceived sense of superiority or over-privileged protection.

I truly believe sentiments like "their demand is that every knee shall bow to them whenever and wherever they choose to stand" or "all must bend down or, at a minimum, move out of their way" is hyperbole of the most distorted kind and largely the result of propaganda produced in a culture war against civil equality for LGBT folks.  It certainly isn't reflective of the attitudes or behaviors of any of my LGBT friends, coworkers, and acquaintances, let alone my own beliefs and approach to the subject.

Yes, society is constantly in flux--it always has been, and likely ever shall be, because it's a reflection of the current, yet ever-shifting, zeitgeist.  And as such, laws will continually be in a state of adjustment.  However, history has shown that there's never been a better, safer, more stable time to be alive than today.  The world continues to improve across multiple measurements of health, longevity, peace, and prosperity.  We aren't a perfect world yet, and the potential for violence, greed, and corruption will be ever present threats that we must continually battle against, but on the whole, there is much to be grateful for.

And even though it's sometimes frustratingly slow, I fully agree with the words of the great Dr. King that "arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

Daniel - between humans, one on one, I am confident that cordial, loving, trusting relationships can exist and do exist. There is no question in my mind that that is true. However, I don't trust LGBTQ activists any farther than I trust any other political activist group. All activist groups, each and every one, seldom, if ever, is concerned about the polis, the community, the all.  Their focus is laser sharp on their own wants and needs. 

I went into a store last week and was the only one in line for a sandwich. A Latino fellow was behind the counter and he ignored me. I thought it odd and just continued to wait. Presently, another Latino walked in the door and the store representative immediately asked how he could be served. I looked at the new guy while he was being waited on and then looked the clerk and then turned around and walked out.  I decided that I did not need to frequent a store that treated me that way; walked down the street and got a sandwich from another establishment.  That is how humans act and react or at least, how I expect them to act.  I am not unique or strange; just human. 

An activist would have immediately called the local radio and TV station; hired an attorney, and sued the store owner.  I hate activists because they distort our community and they make a spectacle out of being human.  In time, that store would recognize they are losing business and ask why.  It would not take a rocket scientist to discover they need to treat all people better.  It will not take a court of law, protests, whining, gnashing of teeth, nothing but simple market behavior.  If they don't change they will go out of business or not make as much money as they could.  This is how society should function. 

No, Daniel, Sacred cows are real; they are not just a protected class only; they become a special class and everyone in society is aware of it.  If you don't think every small business walks on pins and needles - those that have moral convictions contrary to the LGBTQ agenda - when a gay person frequents their business you don't understand humans.  When they know they can lose their entire business if a gay person is offended or that they perceive they have been offended, the store owners bend over backwards to serve them - that is not normal, but it is what happens with special classes of people are created. Equality is not what is won; preference is designated and given, if not demanded.

We do not live in a just society and we never have.  There has always been and will always be the haves and the have nots.  The pendulum swings and it will swing back again and again.

Edited November 2, 2017 by Storm Rider

[thesometimesaint]

2 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Daniel - between humans, one on one, I am confident that cordial, loving, trusting relationships can exist and do exist. There is no question in my mind that that is true. However, I don't trust LGBTQ activists any farther than I trust any other political activist group. All activist groups, each and every one, seldom, if ever, is concerned about the polis, the community, the all.  Their focus is laser sharp on their own wants and needs. 

I went into a store last week and was the only one in line for a sandwich. A Latino fellow was behind the counter and he ignored me. I thought it odd and just continued to wait. Presently, another Latino walked in the door and the store representative immediately asked how he could be served. I looked at the new guy while he was being waited on and then looked the clerk and then turned around and walked out.  I decided that I did not need to frequent a store that treated me that way; walked down the street and got a sandwich from another establishment.  That is how humans act and react or at least, how I expect them to act.  I am not unique or strange; just human. 

An activist would have immediately called the local radio and TV station; hired an attorney, and sued the store owner.  I hate activists because they distort our community and they make a spectacle out of being human.  In time, that store would recognize they are losing business and ask why.  It would not take a rocket scientist to discover they need to treat all people better.  It will not take a court of law, protests, whining, gnashing of teeth, nothing but simple market behavior.  If they don't change they will go out of business or not make as much money as they could.  This is how society should function. 

No, Daniel, Sacred cows are real; they are not just a protected class only; they become a special class and everyone in society is aware of it.  If you don't think every small business walks on pins and needles - those that have moral convictions contrary to the LGBTQ agenda - when a gay person frequents their business you don't understand humans.  When they know they can lose their entire business if a gay person is offended or that they perceive they have been offended, the store owners bend over backwards to serve them - that is not normal, but it is what happens with special classes of people are created. Equality is not what is won; preference is designated and given, if not demanded.

We do not live in a just society and we never have.  There has always been and will always be the haves and the have nots.  The pendulum swings and it will swing back again and again.

You do realize that the exact same arguments have been used against every minority in US history?  Your fabled market didn't eliminate racial discrimination it codified it in the South, and made it standard practice in the North. Black people were denied even the ability to function in white society, even after the 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868.

BTW When you serve the public, you don't get to choose whom that public is.

[Storm Rider]

20 hours ago, thesometimesaint said:

You do realize that the exact same arguments have been used against every minority in US history?  Your fabled market didn't eliminate racial discrimination it codified it in the South, and made it standard practice in the North. Black people were denied even the ability to function in white society, even after the 14th Amendment was adopted in 1868.

BTW When you serve the public, you don't get to choose whom that public is.

Tired argument and I reject it.  That sandwich shop I went into was in the present - guess what?  I didn't sue anyone; did not raise a stink; never talked to a lawyer; and never called the local TV or radio station. In fact, this is the only place I have mentioned it - have not mentioned it to anyone else. Why? Because I had two feet and could walk 50 steps to another establishment and buy a sandwich.  Today is not 1868 and it is not 1960, - it is today. 

Serving the public by selling canned beans or any commodity is one thing; serving the public by coming into a store and requesting a special service for an event that is against my moral standards is totally different. More importantly, there are 20 other shops providing the same service and I am the only with my personal set of standards.  What is the harm to anyone?  That is right - there is no harm to anyone because the options for obtaining the same service are overwhelming and staring everyone in the face. 

What you are demanding is that every knee bow to the sacred cow of today's judicially chosen people.  I am not going to do it and will never put myself in the situation where I have to. I have a niece who lived a gay lifestyle for over ten years and we supported her and her partner.  That relationship fell apart; she moved away and just got married to a wonderful man. 

IF our nation is built on the rights of every citizen then individual rights should be respected and there should not be special, protected subgroups.  The moment that happens there is no justice and there is no equality.  There is the special, protected groups and everyone else becomes second class citizens.  If you don't think it is true then I challenge you to offend a member of the second class and see what happens - that is right; nothing will happen.  Now, offend a member of the judicially chosen people and see what happens.  When you do this I hope that you don't own a business because you won't own that business for very long. 

Edited November 3, 2017 by Storm Rider

[kllindley]

So, Daniel, help me understand "the attitudes or behaviors of any of [your] LGBT friends, coworkers, and acquaintances," and "[your] own beliefs and approach to the subject."

Is this the sort of thing that we should just get used to or simply another "unfortunate incident?"

This former professional women's basketball player was denied employment because of her sexual orientation and religious beliefs.

If understandable and appropriate, please explain please explain how this is not an example of discrimination based on sexual orientation.

If an unfortunate incident, it will be reasonable to expect many LGBT voices speaking up against this injustice. I guess we'll see if that actually happens.

[Daniel2]

4 hours ago, kllindley said:

So, Daniel, help me understand "the attitudes or behaviors of any of [your] LGBT friends, coworkers, and acquaintances," and "[your] own beliefs and approach to the subject."

Is this the sort of thing that we should just get used to or simply another "unfortunate incident?"

This former professional women's basketball player was denied employment because of her sexual orientation and religious beliefs.

If understandable and appropriate, please explain please explain how this is not an example of discrimination based on sexual orientation.

If an unfortunate incident, it will be reasonable to expect many LGBT voices speaking up against this injustice. I guess we'll see if that actually happens.

I'm glad you brought this example up, Kllindley, because I think it perfectly illustrates why Stormrider's assertion that a "special class' is being created is misguided and wrong.

Just like prohibiting religious discrimination protects all religions/religious affiliations, prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is designed to protect EVERYONE, regardless of the nature of their orientation (the same is true that non-discrimination regarding race protects all races, non-discrimination based on gender protects all genders, etc. etc. etc.)

Your example is a fantastic one highlighting that the injustice endured by this woman (presuming the details of the article are accurate, which I don't have any reason to believe otherwise based on what I've read thus far), demonstrating that laws designed to protect sexual orientation and gender identity should be protecting individuals from discrimination regardless of which orientation is being discriminated against.

One's sexual orientation, race, or religious affiliation absolutely should not be considered when judging whether or not someone is capable and competent in playing basketball.  In fact, it's really rather offensive that anyone is suggesting otherwise when it comes to a women's basketball couch.  The presumption there is a woman must be lesbian in order to be good at sports, which is a pretty horrific stereotype.  It's just as bad as saying a gay man couldn't be good at sports and that only straight men should coach.

In short, your example is DEFINTELY an example of discrimination based on sexual orientation, and it's a fantastic illustration that laws preventing discrimination don't just elevate a few to protect; they're designed to protect us ALL, regardless of our sexual orientation.

Again assuming this woman's account is accurate, I hope she seeks out and is awarded the justice she deserves.

Thanks for sharing and helping illustrate the point for Stormrider.

D

Edited November 2, 2017 by Daniel2

[thesometimesaint]

12 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Tired argument and I reject it.  That sandwich shop I went into was in the present - guess what?  Didn't sue anyone; did not raise a stink; never talked to a lawyer; and never called the local TV or radio station. In fact, this is the only time I have mentioned to anyone. Why? Because I had two feet and could walk 50 steps to another establishment and buy a sandwich.  Today is not 1868 and it is not 1960, 1970, - it is only today.  Serving the public by selling canned beans is one thing; serving the public by people coming into a store and requesting a special service for an event that is against my moral standards is totally different. More importantly, there are 20 other shops providing the same service and I am the only with my personal set of standards.  What is the harm to anyone?  That is right - there is no harm to anyone because the options for obtaining the service are overwhelming and staring everyone in the face.  What you are demanding is that every knee bow to the sacred cow of today's chosen people.  Not going to do it and will never be put in the situation where I have to. 

IF our nation is built on the right of every citizen to have rights; then individual rights should be respected and there should not be a special, protected subgroup.  The moment that happens there is no justice and there is no equality.  There is the special, protected groups and the second class citizens.

You've never heard of the Jim Crow laws have you? The reason for protected classes is that white American's couldn't respect the rights of other nonwhite American's.

History is what separates us from animals and despots.

From 2014 SEE https://forwardprogressives.com/sc-restaurant-owner-refuses-serve-blacks-cites-religious-beliefs/

 

[Storm Rider]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

You've never heard of the Jim Crow laws have you? The reason for protected classes is that white American's couldn't respect the rights of other nonwhite American's.

History is what separates us from animals and despots.

From 2014 SEE https://forwardprogressives.com/sc-restaurant-owner-refuses-serve-blacks-cites-religious-beliefs/

 

Jim Crow; well, let me see. Hmmmmm, nope! Don't have a clue what you are talking about.  History is what separates us from despots - well, as I look at the world around us no one must have any history because it is a joke of a world for the most part. We have small places that seem peaceful, but for the most part not so much.  It is a trite phrase with little relation to valuable meaning - need another shtick to get your point across.

Special classes are, by their very nature, a cause for disunity and inequality.  They guarantee that some people will get better benefits than all others. These special classes are elevated over all others.  If you want equality in a society then create laws that guarantee equality; laws that ensure that there are no special classes just citizens with the same rights. 

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

I'm glad you brought this example up, Kllindley, because I think it perfectly illustrates why Stormrider's assertion that a "special class' is being created is misguided and wrong.

Just like prohibiting religious discrimination protects all religions/religious affiliations, prohibiting discrimination based on sexual orientation and gender identity is designed to protect EVERYONE, regardless of the nature of their orientation (the same is true that non-discrimination regarding race protects all races, non-discrimination based on gender protects all genders, etc. etc. etc.)

Your example is a fantastic one highlighting that the injustice endured by this woman (presuming the details of the article are accurate, which I don't have any reason to believe otherwise based on what I've read thus far), demonstrating that laws designed to protect sexual orientation and gender identity should be protecting individuals from discrimination regardless of which orientation is being discriminated against.

One's sexual orientation, race, or religious affiliation absolutely should not be considered when judging whether or not someone is capable and competent in playing basketball.  In fact, it's really rather offensive that anyone is suggesting otherwise when it comes to a women's basketball couch.  The presumption there is a woman must be lesbian in order to be good at sports, which is a pretty horrific stereotype.  It's just as bad as saying a gay man couldn't be good at sports and that only straight men should coach.

In short, your example is DEFINTELY an example of discrimination based on sexual orientation, and it's a fantastic illustration that laws preventing discrimination don't just elevate a few to protect; they're designed to protect us ALL, regardless of our sexual orientation.

Again assuming this woman's account is accurate, I hope she seeks out and is awarded the justice she deserves.

Thanks for sharing and helping illustrate the point for Stormrider.

D

I appreciate your logical consistency. 

I admit that I am pessimistic that other LGBT voices or the Court will follow your lead.  I haven't read any other LGBT voices that condemned Bedlam Coffee either.  While numerous individuals and prominent outlets praised the owner for his moral courage.  

However, I do acknowledge that there are likely others who feel and think similarly to you.  Sadly, that message is not especially prominent. 

[Daniel2]

39 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I appreciate your logical consistency. 

I admit that I am pessimistic that other LGBT voices or the Court will follow your lead.  I haven't read any other LGBT voices that condemned Bedlam Coffee either.  While numerous individuals and prominent outlets praised the owner for his moral courage.  

However, I do acknowledge that there are likely others who feel and think similarly to you.  Sadly, that message is not especially prominent. 

I agree and feel it's unfortunate that the most prominent and publicized voices from social justice movements are often the more aggressive and radical ones.  Voices like mine don't provide click-bait advertising opportunities, and it's always easier to jump on the emotional, crowd-mentality bandwagon.  Those more radical voices are often the more attention-grabbing when it comes to headlines, and I think there's a perception among some that I speak with that by being more aggressive in their approach, they're likely to be more successful and ending up in the middle; that isn't an approach I find compelling.

The good news is the courts are often more consistent in their application of logic when it comes to ruling on the constitutionality of law and it's consistent application to all, and the most radical voices in social movements such as those you refer to aren't the cooler heads that prevail. 

I haven't seen evidence yet that the courts won't follow my lead... In fact, I think they've been fairly consistent in their legal rulings while applying universal applications of the principles of public accommodation law (for example, this one "Ruling: Refusal to Print Gay Pride Shirts Not Discrimination").  If this woman's story pans out, I see no reason at all why the Courts wouldn't rule in her favor.... Heck, as I mentioned before, I think it's offensive to suggest sexual orientation is in any way related to sports-related abilities, and a ruling otherwise would be offensive to many in the LGBT community!

Are there any specific rulings that you can provide that you feel the Courts haven't been consistent in their application of the law regarding these issues thus far...?

Edited November 2, 2017 by Daniel2

[thesometimesaint]

20 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Jim Crow; well, let me see. Hmmmmm, nope! Don't have a clue what you are talking about.  History is what separates us from despots - well, as I look at the world around us no one must have any history because it is a joke of a world for the most part. We have small places that seem peaceful, but for the most part not so much.  It is a trite phrase with little relation to valuable meaning - need another shtick to get your point across.

Special classes are, by their very nature, a cause for disunity and inequality.  They guarantee that some people will get better benefits than all others. These special classes are elevated over all others.  If you want equality in a society then create laws that guarantee equality; laws that ensure that there are no special classes just citizens with the same rights. 

Jim Crow laws

SEE https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jim_Crow_laws

You said there is only today. "Today is not 1868 and it is not 1960, 1970, - it is only today".  That is exactly what despots want you to believe. Forget when it was just yesterday he beat you up, that today he is threatening to beat up tomorrow, he will  beat you up. But today his asleep so it is all good.

NO! Inequality and disunity sometimes cause Special Classes. We already did, it is called the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. It took over another 100 years of inequality and disunity to start to diminish. We are still fighting that battle for a more perfect union.

[Daniel2]

On ‎11‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 2:35 PM, kllindley said:

I appreciate your logical consistency. 

I admit that I am pessimistic that other LGBT voices or the Court will follow your lead.  I haven't read any other LGBT voices that condemned Bedlam Coffee either.  While numerous individuals and prominent outlets praised the owner for his moral courage.  

However, I do acknowledge that there are likely others who feel and think similarly to you.  Sadly, that message is not especially prominent. 

Hey, by the way, if you hear any updates to Coach Lenoir's story, can you keep us updated?  I'd love to hear how her case concludes.

[Daniel2]

On ‎11‎/‎1‎/‎2017 at 9:07 PM, Storm Rider said:

Daniel - between humans, one on one, I am confident that cordial, loving, trusting relationships can exist and do exist. There is no question in my mind that that is true. However, I don't trust LGBTQ activists any farther than I trust any other political activist group. All activist groups, each and every one, seldom, if ever, is concerned about the polis, the community, the all.  Their focus is laser sharp on their own wants and needs. 

I went into a store last week and was the only one in line for a sandwich. A Latino fellow was behind the counter and he ignored me. I thought it odd and just continued to wait. Presently, another Latino walked in the door and the store representative immediately asked how he could be served. I looked at the new guy while he was being waited on and then looked the clerk and then turned around and walked out.  I decided that I did not need to frequent a store that treated me that way; walked down the street and got a sandwich from another establishment.  That is how humans act and react or at least, how I expect them to act.  I am not unique or strange; just human. 

An activist would have immediately called the local radio and TV station; hired an attorney, and sued the store owner.  I hate activists because they distort our community and they make a spectacle out of being human.  In time, that store would recognize they are losing business and ask why.  It would not take a rocket scientist to discover they need to treat all people better.  It will not take a court of law, protests, whining, gnashing of teeth, nothing but simple market behavior.  If they don't change they will go out of business or not make as much money as they could.  This is how society should function. 

No, Daniel, Sacred cows are real; they are not just a protected class only; they become a special class and everyone in society is aware of it.  If you don't think every small business walks on pins and needles - those that have moral convictions contrary to the LGBTQ agenda - when a gay person frequents their business you don't understand humans.  When they know they can lose their entire business if a gay person is offended or that they perceive they have been offended, the store owners bend over backwards to serve them - that is not normal, but it is what happens with special classes of people are created. Equality is not what is won; preference is designated and given, if not demanded.

We do not live in a just society and we never have.  There has always been and will always be the haves and the have nots.  The pendulum swings and it will swing back again and again.

Hi, Storm Rider,

I can appreciate that you don't trust activists of any political activist groups and remain wary of their motives. Many of us likewise feel that way when some religious leaders wade into political waters to defend what they label "a moral issue" (or often an issue of so-called "religious liberty"); that said religious leaders are likewise 'not truly concerned about the polis, the community, the all,' and that their 'focus is laser sharp on their own wants and needs,’ or at least, those of their religious community. And I imagine there's some truth to both of our positions, but it doesn't have to be "either/or"--perhaps there's also some room for altruistic motives from both groups, as well.  Either way, neither of us has to "trust" anyone who's views we don't find compelling, even if and when we have to comply with laws with which we disagree (or make a choice to defy law as an act of civil disobedience, of course).

Regarding your sandwich deli scenario: as I've said repeatedly, consumers are free to take their business elsewhere and choose not to press charges when and if businesses refuse to comply with public accommodation laws.  And while I've never been denied service, I imagine if I were, I am not the type to make it an issue to spend my time and energies on prosecuting a business for doing so in real life.  I've had enough personal interaction with the law regarding my divorce to know that I don't want to waste any more time and life than I have to within the walls of a courtroom. 

But even if you or I choose not to press charges, I can still admire and respect the likes of those that choose the road less travelled and made a difference in the world... those like Fredrick Douglas, Abraham Lincoln, Susan B. Anthony, Oliver Brown, Estelle Griswold, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King, Jr.,  Annie Newman, Harvey Milk, Eddie Windsor, and Jim Obergefell (I realize the list of those whom we admire most will vary from person to person, depending on our ideological paradigm).  Whether or not you or I choose to pursue justice according to what the law says, other citizens retain that right and are welcome to exercise it.  And, as mentioned previously, in some cases, the government itself has a vested interest in upholding the law and reducing unjust discrimination in the public square, even if some consumers chose not to prosecute individually.

As others have said, your suggestion that "the market will sort itself out" didn't work 60 years ago, and it is unlikely to work any more today, especially when taking a look at states where certain religious ideologies hold majority views.  For example, as a gay man living in Utah, I found this recent article somewhat troubling--albeit not entirely surprising--when I realized that most of my fellow citizens believe that Utah-based businesses should be able to deny wedding goods and services to couples like my husband and I:  Most Utahns say a baker with a religious objection shouldn’t have to sell a wedding cake to a same-sex couple.  From what I've read, Utah diverges from the national norm, where a large majority believe business owners should not be able to discriminate based on their religious beliefs.  Knowing that I live in a highly conservative state, a majority of businesses here reflect the values of the conservative majority, and most would flourish in a free-market system (just as diners in the South who continued to refuse service to black citizens would likely have been financially unaffected because their refusal to serve blacks reflected the dominant views of their local communities).  No... as you noted in your post, capitalism hasn't created a perfectly just society on it's own, and if we've learned anything from history, it isn't likely ever going to.  More on this later, though.

Three years ago, while we were living and seeking to get married in a state where the majority can enforce community standards allowing businesses to refuse services, it was certainly disconcerting when my then-fiance and I were trying to find wedding venders.  We were hoping and praying no one would ask us about the bride, or, if they did, would accept our business, regardless.  Thankfully, none asked about where the bride might be, and our wedding proceeded as planned.  While I realize that it may seem trivial or petty or merely a matter of 'not getting our feelings hurt' to seemingly get flustered about insignificant things like cakes or flowers or tuxedos or venues, but while we hopefully would have been able to find someone who was willing to serve us, the bigger, broader, and fundamental underlying issue is whether or not an individual operating a business in the public square can refuse service to someone based on religious objections. 

As I've said before, if you allow Christians to discriminate against gays, then why can't Christians refuse service based on their religious objections against Jews or Muslims or Atheists or people of other/mixed races or abilities or veteran status or marital status, etc. etc.  If religious freedom as a means of preventing discrimination AGAINST members of any given religious affiliation because of religious bias, then the government cannot create a loophole allowing discrimination against customers in the name OF religion.  It undercuts religious liberty entirely.

As Kllindley's article (subsequent to your post above) illustrates, laws prohibiting against discrimination based on sexual orientation should and will protect those who are straight just as much as they protect those that are gay.  Your allegations of the creation of "special classes" is simply, demonstrably false.  If we were to accept your erroneous proposition that 'prohibiting against discriminating based on sexual orientation' elevates gays above straights, it would be like saying laws prohibiting against discrimination based on gender elevates women above men in the eyes of the law, or that prohibiting against discrimination based on religion elevates Mormons over Jews; or Muslims over Atheists.  It simply doesn't make sense.

Finally, I never said nor did I mean to imply that the society we currently live in is now fully "a just society."  A "just society" would be perfect in it's application of everything, and as you noted, there have always been haves and have nots.  Yes, we don't yet live in a perfect world--which is what I acknowledged when I said, "that there's never been a better, safer, more stable time to be alive than today.  The world continues to improve across multiple measurements of health, longevity, peace, and prosperity.  We aren't a perfect world yet, and the potential for violence, greed, and corruption will be ever present threats that we must continually battle against, but on the whole, there is much to be grateful for.  And even though it's sometimes frustratingly slow, I fully agree with the words of the great Dr. King that 'arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice'."

Thanks,

Daniel

 

Edited November 6, 2017 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

On ‎11‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 2:35 PM, kllindley said:

I admit that I am pessimistic that ... the Court will follow your lead.

Given your pessimism that the court will "follow my lead," I'm curious as to whether or not you feel the Supreme Court made the right decision in the following case?  All other posters are welcome to share their opinions, too. (this is the one mentioned in Sometimesaint's link):

A barbecue case that helped the cause of civil rights

By Jim Shahin By Jim Shahin 

Food

August 2, 2016 Follow @jimshahin

 

A chain of local barbecue restaurants in Columbia, S.C., lost a well-known civil rights case in the 1960s. (Courtesy Maurice's Piggie Park)

Shortly after the passage of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Anne P. Newman, an African American woman, was refused service at a restaurant named Piggie Park, part of a South Carolina chain owned by avowed segregationist Maurice Bessinger. There followed a class-action lawsuit, Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises.

Bessinger argued, among other things, that the Civil Rights Act “contravenes the will of God” and thereby violated his constitutional right to religious freedom.

When the dust finally cleared — some aspects of the case were argued all the way to the Supreme Court — the plaintiff had scored a victory that helped the cause of civil rights on more than one front. First, the case helped to establish the concept that religious views do not trump civil rights. It also affirmed that successful plaintiffs in civil rights cases may generally recover attorneys’ fees, a decision that discouraged defendants from dragging out litigation as a way to forestall the act’s implementation.

Do you believe the government had the ability in 1968 to tell the owner of Piggie Park that he couldn't deny selling his goods and services to black people...?  (This isn't meant to be a trap or a trick question... I'm trying to figure out where you and others draw the line of where, if ever, religious freedom intersects with civil rights).

D

[thesometimesaint]

I believe we all have the right to believe anything we want. When we act on that belief the government may have an affirmative responsibility to protect the citizen acted against.

[kllindley]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

Given your pessimism that the court will "follow my lead," I'm curious as to whether or not you feel the Supreme Court made the right decision in the following case?  All other posters are welcome to share their opinions, too. (this is the one mentioned in Sometimesaint's link):

 

 

I'm afraid I don't follow your logic here at all.  How is this case connected to my skepticism that the courts will likewise protect Ms. LeNoir?  

[Kenngo1969]

1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said:

I believe we all have the right to believe anything we want. When we act on that belief the government may have an affirmative responsibility to protect the citizen acted against.

Right.  It's not as though, amidst a surfeit of providers of a specific good or service, a militant gay or lesbian (or two) would actually seek out a religiously devout service provider actually hoping that the provider,  on religious grounds, would refuse, thereby giving the militant gay(s) or lesbian(s) the convenient opportunity to subject that business owner to public opprobrium.

Noooooo.  That would never happen ...  would it?

 

Edited November 6, 2017 by Kenngo1969

[Daniel2]

On ‎11‎/‎2‎/‎2017 at 2:35 PM, kllindley said:

I appreciate your logical consistency. 

I admit that I am pessimistic that other LGBT voices or the Court will follow your lead.  I haven't read any other LGBT voices that condemned Bedlam Coffee either.  While numerous individuals and prominent outlets praised the owner for his moral courage.  

However, I do acknowledge that there are likely others who feel and think similarly to you.  Sadly, that message is not especially prominent. 

 

On ‎11‎/‎3‎/‎2017 at 2:39 PM, Daniel2 said:

Hey, by the way, if you hear any updates to Coach Lenoir's story, can you keep us updated?  I'd love to hear how her case concludes.

Hey, Kllindley,

I figured I'd try and to a bit more research into the story you posted, and I'm happy to share some additional context, including:

a) According to USAToday, the website that first broke Ms. LeNoir's story is the liberal-leaning site www.thinkprogress.com, which describes itself as "a news site dedicated to providing our readers with rigorous reporting and analysis from a progressive perspective. Founded in 2005, ThinkProgress is an editorially independent project of the Center for American Progress Action Fund. Over the past decade, the site has evolved from a small rapid response blog to a newsroom of reporters and editors covering the intersections between politics, policy, culture, and social justice."  Gratifying to learn that the news was broke by a more progressive source.

b) It's probably unsurprising to anyone that the University denies that the decision to rescind the verbal offer she'd received was based on Ms. LeNoir's sexual orientation or sexuality (Ms. LeNoir's lawsuit states she is pursuing damages due to discrimination "on the basis of sex," but oddly--at least to me--not on the basis of religion--see "Plaintiff's Position" in Section C, page 4 of the lawsuit). However, I find it disappointing that the University's only rationale aside from it's denial is that the offer Ms. LeNoir received was inappropriately made because it doesn't authorize verbal offers; therefore the agent that extended the offer did so inappropriately without the University's authorization and not through the University's normal channels).

c) I think the following context about the current socio-political climate is in the WNBA is also helpful: 

NMSU denies that LeNoir’s offer was revoked because of her sex, sexual orientation, or religion — and further argues that it was not bound by the informal oral offer anyway. Trakh made the offer “outside of NMSU’s job posting procedures,” the university contends, which require a public posting and standard recruitment process. “Therefore, irrespective of the online video, Ms. LeNoir very well may not have been hired,” the university concludes.

 

But the lawsuit does say that Trakh advised LeNoir to take down the video, noting that the video “would make it difficult for her to find a job in women’s college basketball.”

 

That seems to be a fair statement. After all, not only does LeNoir say horrendous things about homosexuality, she also declares that she is leaving professional sports because “God — He has shown me just how evil sports really are.” She says that sports are laden with “idol worship, greed, the level of money, the hatred, the envy” and she could not be “equally yoked with non-believers.” She explains that “competition came from Satan, not from God,” and that “everything that Jesus preached from the Sermon on the Mount contradicts everything the sports atmosphere promotes. Everything.”

 

In the lawsuit, LeNoir says she stands by her comments, which she describes as “intimately personal and an expression of her love for her faith and how she identified herself sexually.”

 

LeNoir also says in her YouTube video that “homosexuality in women’s college basketball has become the norm” — a statement reminiscent of comments made earlier this year by former WNBA star Candice Wiggins, who claimed that 98 percent of the WNBA is gay and that she was bullied for being straight and feminine during her time in the league.

 

Such comments not only contradict the diverse, inclusive environment that the WNBA has worked hard to cultivate, but also make it seem like women’s basketball is a homophobia-free zone. That’s far from the case. 

Outsports reports that while there are expected to be “a lot” of lesbian coaches in women’s college basketball, only two are publicly out right now — Vanderbilt head coach Stephanie White and La Verne (California) head coach Julie Shaw.  In fact, homophobia is so rampant that colleges go overboard to emphasize their “family” (a.k.a heterosexual) environment during recruiting visits. “Negative recruiting” — when colleges spread rumors that rival programs have LGBTQ coaches or star athletes to try and dissuade recruits from signing with them — is still a common tactic, even in the year 2017. 

 

This spring, an assistant coach for Dawn Staley at the University of South Carolina said that homophobia is the “white elephant” in the women’s college basketball world that doesn’t get talked about.

 

“There is still a lot of fear out there among lesbian coaches about coming out and suffering professional consequences as a result,”  Pat Griffin, a Massachusetts Amherst professor who has studied and written about homophobia and sports, told Shannon Ryan of the Chicago Tribune in January. This fear is exacerbated by the fact that since 1973, the number of female head coaches in women’s college sports has decreased by nearly 50 percent since 1973.

 

d) Here's a link to the video (dated in 2011 on YouTube) so you can watch it for yourself:

 My thoughts after watching the video... I can understand how recruiters in professional basketball would be concerned about someone who said many of the negative things that Ms. LeNoir said about the industry itself, regardless of the issues about sexual orientation.  I can also understand a recruiter recommending to her that she should probably take it down if she'd like to get back into the pro women's basketball industry.  My company monitors social media, and if we post things negative to our industry or company, we are held accountable for that and could face action up to an including termination.  We always have the right to freedom of speech, but we don't have the right to choose the consequences of our speech.  And I think companies would be averse to hiring you if you said the following things about the industry that you were seeking employment in:

"God — He has shown me just how evil sports really are.” She says that sports are laden with “idol worship, greed, the level of money, the hatred, the envy” and she could not be “equally yoked with non-believers.” She explains that “competition came from Satan, not from God,” and that “everything that Jesus preached from the Sermon on the Mount contradicts everything the sports atmosphere promotes. Everything.”

[/quote]

That being said, is it religious discrimination not to hire on those things?  I don't think we'll ever know in this case, since Ms. LeNoir's official position, at least according to the lawsuit, is that she's seeking damages "on the basis of sex," not religion.

e)  Before closing, Thinkprogress.com summarizes the events of the case by attempting what seems to me to be a worthy attempt to cover the nuances of both sides of this story:

"

New Mexico state law

 

, as well as NMSU’s

own policies

, prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.

It would be wrong for LeNoir to lose an opportunity to coach merely because of her personal religious beliefs and her heterosexual orientation

—

but it’s also

understandable why a team with openly LGBTQ assistant coaches 

that is trying to cultivate an

inclusive environment

would be

wary of LeNoir’s extremely vocal position

that homosexuality is a sin and that gay people need to be rescued. Likewise,

it’s hard to see how a coach that blatantly describes professional sports as evil and says that competition came from Satan would be a good fit in any locker room."

With all of the above in mind, ThinkProgress concludes by saying, "But, for now, LeNoir’s lawsuit will press onward. She is requesting $6 million in damages."  It's worth noting Ms. LeNoir's case comes just four months afterJane Meyer, the former senior associate athletic director at the University of Iowa (and a lesbian, herself), won

$1.43 million

in a landmark Title IX lawsuit over gender and sexual orientation discrimination.

I read the judge's decision to allow the case to move forward (see

here

), and most of the context about the University and the WMBA in the article above is absent. It seems to me that the case itself reads more in favor of Ms. LeNoir thus far, though no discoveries (proffered witness testimony, evidence, etc) have yet begun.  It will be interesting to follow the case to it's outcome.  I'm glad she's been allowed to proceed and hope and trust that the judge will rule on the merits of the evidence.

D

Edited November 6, 2017 by Daniel2

[thesometimesaint]

21 minutes ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Right.  It's not as though, amidst a surfeit of providers of a specific good or service, a militant gay or lesbian (or two) would actually seek out a religiously devout service provider actually hoping that the provider,  on religious grounds, would refuse, thereby giving the militant gay(s) or lesbian(s) the convenient opportunity to subject that business owner to public opprobrium.

Noooooo.  That would never happen ...  would it?

 

When that "business owner" uses his religion to violate the law. That "business owner" deserves all the public opprobrium they get.

[Daniel2]

56 minutes ago, kllindley said:

I'm afraid I don't follow your logic here at all.  How is this case connected to my skepticism that the courts will likewise protect Ms. LeNoir?  

Sorry--I wasn't very clear and the quote feature failed to separate out my closing questions directed at you from the quoted article itself, in which I asked:

Do you believe the government had the ability in 1968 to tell the owner of Piggie Park that he couldn't deny selling his goods and services to black people...?  (This isn't meant to be a trap or a trick question... I'm trying to figure out where you and others draw the line of where, if ever, religious freedom intersects with civil rights).

I would presume you would agree that restaurants shouldn't be allowed to refuse to allow blacks into their restaurants because their religious beliefs objected to any type of integration between the races (even though he was perfectly willing to sell them food for them to take to eat elsewhere), and that that judge made the correct ruling.  But I don't know that that's the case.  Perhaps you feel the government oversteps it's legal bounds by having done so?

Understanding your views on that would help me try to see if you feel the courts have been inconsistent or not in their rulings, which presumably would lead to your lack of Faith that Ms. LeNoir will be successful in her case...  At least, that's what I got from your previous comment that you are skeptical that the courts will protect Ms. LeNoir, should her story pan out?

D

[Daniel2]

I give up on trying to keep the formatting straight in that previous post.  Since the update, I've never gotten it to format the way it used to be so easy to do.  Hopefully, everyone got the references and links.  If I missed something because of formatting, let me know and I'll try and repost it.