Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Married gay couple challenges UT's surrogacy law/Colorado Baker Heads to SCOTUS


Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, sunstoned said:

The way this article was written gives the impression that religions are being targeted.  However, when more details are known, a different perspective emerges. Take the banning of Kosher slandering by Sweden, UK, and some other European countries. This is not an attack on the Jewish faith as some would like to think.  The motivation is to prevent unnecessary pain and cruelty to animals.  The Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), which advises the British government on how to avoid cruelty to livestock, says the way Jewish Kosher and Muslim Halal meat is produced causes severe suffering to animals.  

And this is concerning.  The details actually make me more afraid for religious liberty.  It doesn't matter to me that Judaism and Islam are not being targeted.  These countries are sending a clear message that religious expression is virtually meaningless.  Even animal rights are more important than being able to live your religion.  That logic is frightening. 

Link to comment
On 9/18/2017 at 5:01 PM, Amulek said:

I agree that upholding the case in favor of the baker on 'free excise' grounds would be problematic. It would open the door to a ton of litigation and force courts to engage in a balancing test every time somebody makes a claim they they are refusing to serve someone based on their sincere religious beliefs. 

However, if the case is decided on 'free speech' grounds, then there will be little confusion about how courts are to proceed. They simply have to determine if the contested activity is artistic expression and then rule accordingly. So photographers, musicians, custom cake makers, etc. all make the cut. Caterers, limousine services, hotel rentals, etc. are not eligible for any special protections though because they aren't actually producing speech.

 

One has every right to "free" speech ... as long as he says exactly what the Government wants him to say, exactly how the Government wants him to say it, exactly when the Government wants him to say it.  Simple!

-This Message Brought to You By Big Brother.

Link to comment
On 9/23/2017 at 10:10 AM, Daniel2 said:

Kllindly, I'm on vacation with my kids, and will give your post a more thorough response next week. But your dismissive response above makes me question all the more whether you bothered to actually READ the pages I posted of the actual ruling, because the Court of Appeals ruling actually CITES the rulings of SCOTUS and other courts upon which it made the ruling itself, showing that it's finding is in KEEPING with the very precedent you seem to think I'm suggesting you ignore (which is actually the opposite---virtually all of the lower courts in these types of cases have been consistent on this matter, including the ample rulings about "expressive" conduct). YOU are the one suggesting we ignore the actual law (of which this ruling is a part, but certainly not ALL--which is why it cites the other court rulings with which it sides).

That being said, I've never said that the outcome is certain or that SCOTUS couldn't overturn the ruling--in fact, I've acknowledged multiple times previously in this very thread that they certainly could and we'll all have to see whether or not they do.

More next week.

I think I can understand why my response leads you to question whether I actually read the ruling.  I have read it multiple times.  Not only during our discussion in the spring, but also after you posted it.  In this issue, the brief filed by the church really doesn't inform my opinion at all.  It is the brief filled by cake artists, supporting neither party, that contends that the creation of custom cakes is an inherently expressive act.  Their argument is persuasive.  

That, combined with the Colorado Court of Appeals' brief dismissal of complaints against Azucar Bakery, Le Bakery Sensual, and Gateaux, Ltd. leaves me unconvinced that it really addressed the "expressive nature"  issue.  I also admit that it is possible that there is a coherent argument about how to distinguish between the types of protected speech and compelled conduct that are unconstitutional and those that are not.  I do not believe the CCA fully addressed that.  

Again, in all of this, I am interested in making sure that the Law is coherent and actually does protect religious conduct.  Regarding specifics, I think Phillips was wrong. 

Link to comment
15 hours ago, sunstoned said:

The way this article was written gives the impression that religions are being targeted.  However, when more details are known, a different perspective emerges. Take the banning of Kosher slandering by Sweden, UK, and some other European countries. This is not an attack on the Jewish faith as some would like to think.  The motivation is to prevent unnecessary pain and cruelty to animals.  The Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC), which advises the British government on how to avoid cruelty to livestock, says the way Jewish Kosher and Muslim Halal meat is produced causes severe suffering to animals.  

I don't see how a quick slitting of the throat is excessive in comparison to the only reason the vast majority of the animals exist is for food.

http://m.wikihow.com/Properly-Slaughter-a-Cow-Under-the-Kosher-Method-Shechitah

Link to comment
2 hours ago, Calm said:

I don't see how a quick slitting of the throat is excessive in comparison to the only reason the vast majority of the animals exist is for food.

http://m.wikihow.com/Properly-Slaughter-a-Cow-Under-the-Kosher-Method-Shechitah

I admit I am not familiar with kosher requirements for slaughter, but based on the link you provided, there does seem to be a modern kosher form of slaughter that still allows for the use of the more humane incorporation of the stun gun (which causes immediate brain death by firing a piston into the brain at the same time the throat is being slit).  That seems like it would serve as an acceptable compromise that allows both groups (those concerned about animal cruelty and preserving humane slaughter treatments vs. those committed to their religious beliefs about slaughtering animals):

Are there any modern variations to kosher slaughtering?
  • Yes, you can slit the throat at the same time the animal is stunned by a stun gun. There is a device for this in most slaughterhouse equipment catalogues.

Link to comment
8 hours ago, Calm said:

I don't see how a quick slitting of the throat is excessive in comparison to the only reason the vast majority of the animals exist is for food.

http://m.wikihow.com/Properly-Slaughter-a-Cow-Under-the-Kosher-Method-Shechitah

I don't have enough experience to respond intelligently on this.  My experience with butchering animals is limited.  But the experts at the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) thinks it causes severe suffering to animals.  

Link to comment
9 hours ago, kllindley said:

And this is concerning.  The details actually make me more afraid for religious liberty.  It doesn't matter to me that Judaism and Islam are not being targeted.  These countries are sending a clear message that religious expression is virtually meaningless.  Even animal rights are more important than being able to live your religion.  That logic is frightening. 

 My experience with butchering animals is limited.  But the experts at the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) thinks it causes severe suffering to animals.  I think cruelty to animals should rank high on our list of things to address.  This in not an attack on religious freedom.  It is preventing cruelty.  

A person still has the right and religious freedom to believe it is okay to slit animals throats (Kosher butchering) or even to slit people's throats (blood atonement) and no one is going to prevent that belief.  Problems arise when you put a belief into action that affects something or someone that is not part of your religion in a negative way. Then this is no longer the practice of religious freedom. It is a boundary issue. Dumb animals don't have a voice.  But people do, and most don't want to be told by a religious organization they don't belong to how to behave, or who they can marry.  

Edited by sunstoned
Link to comment

I just think it is hypocritical to use animals in the amount most countries do for food and yet think themselves humane because of sparing them a few seconds of pain when their entire lifespan is solely for human enjoyment.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, sunstoned said:

My experience with [Fill-In-The-Blank Here] is limited.  But the experts at the [Fill-In-The-Organization Here] think it causes [Fill-In-Adverse-Consequence-To-Person/Group/Entity We're Privileging Over Religious Believers Here]. [Fill-In-The-Blank Here] should rank high on our list of things to address.  This in not an attack on religious freedom.  It's not about religious freedom, it's about [Fill-In-The-Blank-With-Cause Here: Saving The Earth, Protecting Animals, Protecting Everyone and Everything Else, Whose Rights/The Rights of Which Automatically Take Precedence Over Those of Religious Believers, ad infinitum and ad nauseam]. ...    

I don't think you realized the amazing utility of the first part of your argument.  It can be made to fit anyone's pet cause, which is, ipse dixit and res ipsa loquitur, more important than religious freedom.  I get not wanting to live in a Theocracy (at least, not until God Himself, rather than anyone acting or claiming to act on His behalf, is in charge).  But there's no limiting principle to your argument.  Essentially, you propose (although I doubt you'll want to admit this) that religious "freedom" means "Being able to do and to say whatever one wishes ... within the walls of one's Holy Place on one's Holy Day ... but shut up about it and don't let it influence your behavior in any way during the rest of the week."

As much as someone else doesn't want to live in a world in which [Fill-In-The-Blank, Which Is Ipse Dixit And Res Ipsa Loquitur More Important Than Religious Freedom, Does/Does Not Occur], some of us don't want to live in a world in which the Government tells us what we have to say, and tells us exactly how and when to say it.

Edited by Kenngo1969
Link to comment

Here's how the decision in the Cake Case will shake out.  It will be a plurality decision, not a majority decision, so nobody will be happy.  It will be a 20-part opinion: Four Justices will write separate opinions concurring (in part) with Parts I, III, V, VII, IX, XI, XIII, XV, XVII, and XIX.  Four Justices will write separate opinions concurring (in part) with Parts II, IV, VI, VIII, X, XII, XIV, XVI, XVIII, and XX.  And one Justice will write a separate opinion concurring in (in part) with Parts I, IV, VII, X, XIII, XVI, and XIX. 

:rolleyes::huh::rolleyes: 

Link to comment
20 hours ago, kllindley said:

Even animal rights are more important than being able to live your religion.  That logic is frightening. 

Hm.  If an individual is asserting it's his religious right to inflict unnecessary suffering on another life--whether it's an animal, or a newborn child--I question whether or not such a religious practice should be allowed. 

It's the role of governments to weigh the balance of rights when deciding which rights may supersede a potentially 'competing' right...  If the best of circumstances, win/wins are preferable... (in the case of animal rights vs religious rite rights, such a win/win would be the modernized kosher ritual killing as outlined in the article that allows for stun guns at the same time that an animal's throat is being ceremoniously slit, allowing kosher rules while preserving humane slaughter practices). 

Sometimes, one right is deemed to be more important than others.  In all honesty, regarding the circumcision debate, I'm not sure I side with the religious rite of circumcision.  As a male myself who was circumcised at birth and therefore unable to make such a decision for myself, I wish my parents had left the matter up to me to decide (which is the decision I made for my own son at the time of his birth).  While my parents aren't Jewish and performed the ceremony more out of a cultural belief that circumcision was better (despite modern medicine suggesting that there's not really any credible health benefits to circumcision in the Western world), had my folks been Jewish, I still don't feel that their religious beliefs should have extended to the right to inflict permanent bodily harm to their children.  I mean, if a religion believed that the left hand was of the devil and it should be cut off at birth, I don't think anyone would suggest that said parents should have the right to cut off their children's left hands in the name of freedom of religion...  the same is true of any other body part that I can think of (the tongue?  a finger tip?  an ear?  female genital mutilation?  nope... the thought just doesn't carry through...).

Obviously, I think most would object to religious rites including human sacrifice, even if the victims were entirely willing participants.  We don't even allow physician-assisted end-of-life options (a.k.a. physician-assisted suicide).

Sometimes, it's the governments' role to protect the most vulnerable.  That's why some parents who refuse medical care for their underage children face prosecution.  There's something to be said for protecting innocents. 

In sum, I don't find that logic as "frightening" as you make it sound.  Religious freedom DOES and SHOULD have bounds it cannot supersede, especially when others' rights are infringed upon, and especially when the most vulnerable are at stake.

Link to comment
11 hours ago, sunstoned said:

 My experience with butchering animals is limited.  But the experts at the Farm Animal Welfare Council (FAWC) thinks it causes severe suffering to animals.  I think cruelty to animals should rank high on our list of things to address.  This in not an attack on religious freedom.  It is preventing cruelty.  

A person still has the right and religious freedom to believe it is okay to slit animals throats (Kosher butchering) or even to slit people's throats (blood atonement) and no one is going to prevent that belief.  Problems arise when you put a belief into action that affects something or someone that is not part of your religion in a negative way. Then this is no longer the practice of religious freedom. It is a boundary issue. Dumb animals don't have a voice.  But people do, and most don't want to be told by a religious organization they don't belong to how to behave, or who they can marry.  

While attending BYU, I was a pre-Vet Animal Science major for a few semesters (before changing to another career path).  During that time, I worked as an Assistant Shepherd at the BYU Sheep Unit (which, sadly, is now a soccer field).  I spent a year in the service of our flock (and I mean this in a literal sense, not an allegorical one... ha).

The head shepherd was a crusty old man named Warren Kuhl.  Surprisingly, he was not (and never had been) a member of the LDS church, but he was a deeply spiritual man and very connected to his flock.  He cared for their wellbeing and I learned a lot from watching how he nurtured each member of the flock, from sleeping in the barn to hand-bottle-feeding bummer (orphaned) lambs throughout each night, to administering medicine and medical care to ailing sheep, to providing comfort and help to those in need of extra attention.  As a fresh-faced recently-returned missionary, I was experienced enough to know I didn't know everything, and I was often in awe of his gentle and grounded spirituality.  

Warren gravitated towards many Native American beliefs displaying a profound reverence and gratitude towards animals who's lives we ultimately took for our own sustenance, and it was his belief that anyone who eats meat should experience having to slaughter an animal at least once in their lives, not out of a blood-lust, but as an act of understanding and appreciating that we benefit from other beings routinely losing their lives in order for us to continue our own.  He felt that today's generation had grown so accustomed to meat coming from neatly-wrapped packages of cellophane at the grocery store that we forgot how profound it is that we regularly consume the flesh of other beings in order to survive, and deeply felt that every meat-eating human (which he was, himself) should experience the act.  As such, one day he took me out to the BYU Slaughterhouse and gave me a tour, culminating in having me hold the head of a sheep as I looked in its eyes, held the piston, and fired the stun gun into it's forehead.  I remember whispering a prayer and expressing my gratitude to that sheep as I looked into it's eyes just before taking it's life.  It was a moment I will never forget, and it made me love and care for the members of our flock with an attentiveness and appreciation I hadn't had before.

Thanks for your post above, Sunstoned.  I, too, believe that government should be a voice for those who don't have one.  Well said.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...