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

[Darren10]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

So should Jews be able to stone people who commit adultery?  How about just in their own community?  Do you think any religion should be bound by the laws of the country they live in?

Why, yes, they should stone people. That's exactly what I said. Thank you for your understanding me. 

[Scott Lloyd]

11 hours ago, california boy said:

Well congratulations for finally getting your post to go through.  I appreciate your answer, but that is not really what I asked.  I can certainly see how there are times that a person may not qualify for a job position.  That happens all the time.  But that is not the issue with the baker.  They aren't hiring someone who lacks the qualifications for a job.  They are selling a product to the public.  This is what I asked 

Scott, I think you would be the best person to ask this question.  Has religious belief ever been a legally valid reason for a business to discriminate against someone in the past?  Or is this a new right that religion is trying to assert.

By business, I meant using religion to legally discriminate against selling something to a customer that they provide to the general public. Is this a new right that religion is seeking?  Or have they always had that right in the past.

And I get if you don't feel qualified to answer the question.  It is just that I know you have strong feelings about this issue.  I was wondering what you legally base those opinions on.  I am trying to understand the legal argument that might be used by the bakers.  Law is usually based on precedence and existing laws.  I get that they are basing their case on the first amendment.  But has that amendment ever been used as a basis for this kind of business discrimination against a targeted group.  The only thing I could think of is when people claimed religious beliefs for not serving blacks.  And that, as you know has been struck down.  

I'm fairly sure you misunderstood my post.

I didn't say anything about "hiring someone who lacks qualifications for a job."

Let me try again to explain my analogies.

In the first hypothetical in my post, a Jewish family owns a printing and publishing establishment. A customer wants to pay the establishment to print and distribute anti-Semitic pamphlets and flyers. The establishment refuses to provide this service for obvious reasons.

In the other example in my post, Catholic agencies have been accustomed to providing adoption services to couples. The services are based on the Catholic Church's values and standards, which exclude placing children in homes in which there is not a marriage between a man and a woman. It now appears the Catholic Church must get out of the adoption business because it will no longer be allowed to be guided by its own values and standards in administering adoptions.

I had another example, but, as I indicated, was blocked from posting it for some reason.

In all three examples, businesses do what you phrase as "discriminate against selling something to a customer they provide to a general public." And no, I don't believe this is a new right they have been seeking. In my wildest speculation, I could not conceive of a Jewish owner of a print shop being required to provide services to a customer distributing anti-Semitic materials to the public.

But you ask about legality, and I really am out of my realm there, as I am not a lawyer. That's why I say I'm not the best person to pose this question to.

 

Edited September 14, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[Marginal Gains]

14 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm fairly sure you misunderstood my post.

I didn't say anything "hiring someone who lacks qualifications for a job."

Let me try again to explain my analogies.

In the first hypothetical in my post, a Jewish family owns a printing and publishing establishment. A customer wants to pay the establishment to print and distribute anti-Semitic pamphlets and flyers. The establishment refuses to provide this service for obvious reasons.

In the other example in my post, Catholic agencies have been accustomed to providing adoption services to couples. The services are based on the Catholic Church's values and standards, which exclude placing children in homes in which there is not a marriage between a man and a woman. It now appears the Catholic Church must get out of the adoption business because it will no longer be allowed to be guided by its own values and standards in administering adoptions.

I had another example, but, as I indicated, was blocked from posting it for some reason.

In all three examples, businesses do what you phrase as "discriminate against selling something to a customer they provide to a general public." And no, I don't believe this is a new right they have been seeking. In my wildest speculation, I could not conceive of a Jewish owner of a printer being required to provide services to a customer distributing anti-Semitic materials to the public.

But you ask about legality, and I really am out of my realm there, as I am not a lawyer. That's why I say I'm not the best person to pose this question to.

 

What would you suggest are the key differences between anti-Semitism, and anti-same sex marriagism?

[LittleNipper]

11 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

What would you suggest are the key differences between anti-Semitism, and anti-same sex marriagism?

A person cannot choose his or her skin color or national heritage. On the other hand behavior can be committed or abstained from.  It is like driving a car. Not everyone does nor needs to, and yet many enjoy driving. The very same can be said of marriage. Not everyone needs to marry because celibacy is certainly a gift of GOD. To suggest that marriage is a necessity to having children is to fully comprehend that marriage was designed by GOD to further the population and nurture and develop mature future generations. To insist that marriage is purely for sensual pleasure is to deny the existence of GOD and ignore the virtues of proper sexuality --- denying the value/virtue of friendship and love.

[Gray]

I'm looking forward to asserting my religious right to exempt myself from paying taxes. 

Edited September 14, 2017 by Gray

[Gray]

11 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

A person cannot choose his or her skin color or national heritage. On the other hand behavior can be committed or abstained from.  It is like driving a car. Not everyone does nor needs to, and yet many enjoy driving. The very same can be said of marriage. Not everyone needs to marry because celibacy is certainly a gift of GOD. To suggest that marriage is a necessity to having children is to fully comprehend that marriage was designed by GOD to further the population and nurture and develop mature future generations. To insist that marriage is purely for sensual pleasure is to deny the existence of GOD and ignore the virtues of proper sexuality --- denying the value/virtue of friendship and love.

Jewish people can chose not to practice their religion, too. Is it okay to discriminate against practicing Jewish people? 

[bluebell]

10 hours ago, california boy said:

You keep saying that.  But you never have stated how a man sees the world differently than how a woman sees the world.  

If you have n o answer to that, then I will quit asking.  I have probably repeated the question too many times already.  I am just interested in what the answer is for people who feel that the two sexes view things differently.  There was noting in the studies that you quoted that talked about different world views between the sexes.  

I honestly don't think there is a difference that can be ascribed to each sex.  I think everyone sees the world differently.  It has nothing to do with what sex you are.

I posted multiple articles that explained how men and women see things differently.  Having done that, I assumed you could do the rest.  Did you read them?

[Daniel2]

13 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

If a business refused to serve or sell to me because I was Mormon, I would think the owner(s) misguided, but that's as far as it would go. I wouldn't take them to court, especially if the product or service were readily available elsewhere. So to the extent the bakery is discriminating, I guess the answer to your question would be yes in my case.

Comments like these (those along the lines of 'Oh, I wouldn't mind it if someone could refuse service to me based on my/their religion... I'd just go somewhere else!') frustrate me for two reasons: 

a) they're really only lip service and can't be taken seriously, because it's evident that religion is already protected and it's protections are likely never going to be rescinded, despite people's professions that they wouldn't mind if it was; and

 

b) those making these types of comments seem to be oblivious to the fact that they are even able to be so dismissive of protections against religious discrimination is because we've all benefitted from 200+ years of cultural conditioning and history enforcing a mindset to not discriminate based on/against religion... 200+ years which have allowed us to apparently grow flippantly complacent about being dismissive of the religious protections that our country was founded on and sorely fought over, and

 

c) they seem oblivious to the plight of the very real ramifications from discrimination that minorities in our society face.  While it seems trite when the issue is framed as an issue of merely providing "cake" or not, public accommodations serve a very real and vital role in encouraging freedoms and equal treatment for ALL citizens across the board in public spaces (please see the video I'll post in my next post).

In other countries governed by totalitarian religious regimes and in which any of us may find ourselves outside the "approved" religious majority, I imagine such protections aren't or wouldn't be taken for granted and dismissively waved aside by saying, "I wouldn't care if businesses were allowed to discriminate against me and I'd just go somewhere else..."  

The "freedom of religion" our country was founded on, and which we've worked so hard to maintain, and which we (apparently) are becoming so complacent about, depends on NOT allowing individuals TO discriminate based ON religion.  That's a step backwards, not forwards, when it comes to preserving the religious freedoms of ALL citizens, because allowing discrimination IN THE NAME of religion undermines the VERY PROTECTIONS that religious freedom (and protecting against discrimination based on religion) seeks to promote and provide.

Edited September 14, 2017 by Daniel2

[LittleNipper]

1 hour ago, Gray said:

Jewish people can chose not to practice their religion, too. Is it okay to discriminate against practicing Jewish people? 

Why would I want to do that? They hold to the 10 Commandments and more. Frankly, I find that it's the nominal Christians and Jews who cause the most heartache.  They tend to be very wishy washy and say things like, "They don't hurt me, so why bother?" The fact is that the reason our public school system has been on a rollercoaster for over 50 years has a lot more to do with people not willing to open their mouths for fear that they won get elected or someone will be offended.  And so we limit what can be said concerning Thanksgiving, we don't have the Christmas parties, we don't have the Halloween parties, we don't have Easter crafts, and we don't encourage Bible clubs,  we don't have Christmas programs, and the PTA  lacks attendance (likely because you cannot effect any change --- can't do this because---- can't do that because....).. So instead of being more inclusive, public schools have become more evasive and education suffers. And education becomes as fun as an Atheist who doesn't drink.  That's meant to be a joke  by the way.

Edited September 14, 2017 by LittleNipper

[Daniel2]

This video does a good job summarizing some of the arguments...

(Note: there is a gag meant to be humorous in the last few seconds of the video where the presenter is wearing only apron and turns around, but everything is pixilated, so nothing is shown.  Despite the questionable appearance of the screen-shot/grab in the video still below, the presenter is fully clothed for the duration of his commentary and I don't believe there's any inappropriate content).

This one is quite a bit longer, but it's very worth watching, too:

 

Edited September 14, 2017 by Daniel2

[Gray]

26 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

Why would I want to do that? They hold to the 10 Commandments and more. Frankly, I find that it's the nominal Christians and Jews who cause the most heartache.  They tend to be very wishy washy and say things like, "They don't hurt me, so why bother?" The fact is that the reason our public school system has been on a rollercoaster for over 50 years has a lot more to do with people not willing to open their mouths for fear that they won get elected or someone will be offended.  And so we limit what can be said concerning Thanksgiving, we don't have the Christmas parties, we don't have the Halloween parties, we don't have Easter crafts, and we don't encourage Bible clubs,  we don't have Christmas programs, and the PTA  lacks attendance (likely because you cannot effect any change --- can't do this because---- can't do that because....).. So instead of being more inclusive, public schools have become more evasive and education suffers. And education becomes as fun as an Atheist who doesn't drink.  That's meant to be a joke  by the way.

I don't know, why would anyone want to discriminate against gay couples? They're just as wonderful. But some people apparently feel it's their Christian duty to persecute them. 

[Daniel2]

3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I'm fairly sure you misunderstood my post.

I didn't say anything "hiring someone who lacks qualifications for a job."

Let me try again to explain my analogies.

In the first hypothetical in my post, a Jewish family owns a printing and publishing establishment. A customer wants to pay the establishment to print and distribute anti-Semitic pamphlets and flyers. The establishment refuses to provide this service for obvious reasons.

In the other example in my post, Catholic agencies have been accustomed to providing adoption services to couples. The services are based on the Catholic Church's values and standards, which exclude placing children in homes in which there is not a marriage between a man and a woman. It now appears the Catholic Church must get out of the adoption business because it will no longer be allowed to be guided by its own values and standards in administering adoptions.

I had another example, but, as I indicated, was blocked from posting it for some reason.

In all three examples, businesses do what you phrase as "discriminate against selling something to a customer they provide to a general public." And no, I don't believe this is a new right they have been seeking. In my wildest speculation, I could not conceive of a Jewish owner of a printer being required to provide services to a customer distributing anti-Semitic materials to the public.

But you ask about legality, and I really am out of my realm there, as I am not a lawyer. That's why I say I'm not the best person to pose this question to.

 

This HAS been discussed here on the board before, but it's worth repeating for any new participants:

a) Print letters/words are legally considered to be "inherently expressive."  So, a printing company, clothing company, lettering or sign company cannot be compelled to print letters/words with offensive material (and obscenity laws apply here, too).

b) Certain symbols or visual art are also presumed to be "inherently expressive," and can likewise be banned without violating freedom of speech laws (wearing Nazi, gang, or offensive imagery at school, for example, and likewise protecting printing/publishing companies form having to write them.

c) From what read, for something to be "inherently expressive," there's a standard that must be met that "any average person can reasonably understand the message being communicated."

d) From a legal perspective, things like creating goods or providing services (including decorating a wedding cake, arranging flowers, printing wedding invites, etc.) have historically been legally found not to fall into the "inherently expressive" category, because when one looks at a vase of flowers, a cake with icing and flowers/birds/bells/whatever, etc., "the average person" isn't presuming that whomever created those flowers, cake, or whatever was making any sort of "statement" (as protected by free speech laws) about the couple getting married... whether or not the creator considers their job well done as a testament to God or whatever, claims that is a "message" doesn't pass the "inherently expressive" legal test.

Hopefully the above explain your answers about the printing company's rights as related to "freedom of speech" vs. "public accommodations law."  By their very nature, law must consider how to balance rights, especially when weighing the right(s) of one person/groups vs. those of another, including, sometimes, whether the government has a vested interest in decreasing discrimination and upholding equal treatment of all.

Regarding Catholic Adoption agencies, from what I know of all of those instances, the Catholic Adoption services had been taking public funds (that is, tax-payer funds paid by all citizens) in helping the government find prospective homes.  So long as such Catholic charities take public funds, they cannot discriminate because their being funded by a portion of all citizens (public) funds, so they can't discriminate by saying "we only adopt to Catholic families, or families that fall in to certain Catholic-based qualifications."  Because Catholic charities were funded by so much tax money that they couldn't operate without those funds, when they were told they couldn't discriminate if they continued to accept public funds, they chose to close their doors.  From what I understand, if a religion wants to provide adoption services to members of its Faith, they're entirely free to stay open as long as they don't use public funds.  Based on what I've read in the past, that's true of LDS Adoption services, so they were unaffected at the time (not sure if they're still open or not).

So, again, not a violation of religious freedom--just maintaining a standard that if you accept public taxes to pay for your operation, you cannot discriminate against the public.

Edited September 14, 2017 by Daniel2

[LittleNipper]

The silly question would be, what makes baking a wedding cake any different than performing the ceremony? Pastors are licensed by the State. and churches are public buildings. If, you do not believe this, just try to build a sanctuary today. Exit signs, elevators, height of plumbing fixtures, egress windows, the way a door swings, the height of ceilings, the placement of fire extinguishers. I understand some of this; however, whose building is it, the state's or GOD's? And why should a church wait months and months and years in order to get an ok of a architectural design and a  certificate of occupancy from the STATE?  I don't think I'm being unreasonable.  The Church must accommodate the STATE. But where does the STATE have to accommodate the CHURCH and my beliefs? Do only secular feeling count?  

 

Do only the feelings and beliefs of Atheists and gays matter?  

Edited September 14, 2017 by LittleNipper

[Daniel2]

13 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

The silly question would be, what makes baking a wedding cake any different than performing the ceremony? Pastors are licensed by the State. and churches are public buildings. If, you do not believe this, just try to build a sanctuary today. Exit signs, elevators, height of plumbing fixtures, egress windows, the way a door swings, the height of ceilings, the placement of fire extinguishers. I understand some of this; however, whose building is it, the state's or GOD's? And why should a church wait months and months and years in order to get an ok of a architectural design and a  certificate of occupancy from the STATE?  I don't think I'm being unreasonable.  The Church must accommodate the STATE. But where does the STATE have to accommodate the CHURCH and my beliefs? Do only secular feeling count?  

 

Do only the feelings and beliefs of Atheists and gays matter?  

Yes, I agree that question is rather silly, because religion, religious organizations, and religious leaders are exempt from public accommodations law.  Religions are considered private entities and not public ones, and if buildings, universities, or companies are owned by religions, they are exempt and protected.  Religious leaders acting in their role as a religious leader cannot be compelled to act on behalf of the state, even though the state recognizes their authority to perform marriages according to the dictates of their Faith, and even though the state also likewise recognizes their marriages as civil marriages when so performed.

Edited September 14, 2017 by Daniel2

[Calm]

"a) they're really only lip service and can't be taken seriously, because it's evident that religion is already protected and it's protections are likely never going to be rescinded, despite people's professions that they wouldn't mind if it was"

Some of us have lived outside the States and been refused service for various reasons or treated like dirt even if served.  It is not that hard to project this on to this situation.

In my experience, it was a shock the first time we were refused ( probably because we were Americans, but since they refused to talk to us can't know for sure).  After that first time, when it happened again we simply went a block or two further to find a store where it wasn't an issue.  There was one case where that was not possible and I did without a new hat.  I am not denying it was extremely awkward to be looked at with hate and disdain and at times I was angry, but mostly I felt sad that these people had been so programmed by their government to fear and hate and willing to hold on to those beliefs even when their government wasn't  because what an awful way for them to live.

There was another case where it was because I was an English speaker, but once I apologized for not knowing French due to being an American and that I only had high school Spanish available, he was all smilies and quite accommodating.

I am not supporting any position as the world is not simple and I have yet to see what is the most effective way to promote understanding and compassion or if there even, but forcing people to do so appears to me to have the opposite effect.  I am just pointing out it may not be lip service for many because they have had similar experiences and know the costs and are willing to pay them even if they think the chances are low.  From what I have seen, I think many who support religious choice in service believe the law has dramatically changed in a short time and therefore they do believe that even if not immediately, there is a very good chance that their children will live in a time where religion is no longer protected; they sincerely believe religious protections will be removed and thus it is not lip service for those as well.

Edited September 14, 2017 by Calm

[LittleNipper]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

I don't know, why would anyone want to discriminate against gay couples? They're just as wonderful. But some people apparently feel it's their Christian duty to persecute them. 

I understand that there were gangsters back in the 1920's and 30's who were considered very very family oriented and socially acceptable. That doesn't mean that what they did didn't have any impact on society. I feel that most Christians would just rather homosexuals leave them alone. I'm sure the Christian baker thinks that and the Christian Photographer. I certainly wouldn't wish to take photographs of two guys slipping each other the tongue at their "social" event.  Obviously there are individuals who are in it for the money only and or don't care. However, personal prerogative should not be limited to the gay community only. I certainly would not turn any gay person away from visiting my church, however, I wouldn't change GOD's message to be accommodatingly inclusive................................................. This needs to be formally addressed or there are eventually going to be more and more issues. And the fact is that the ACLU loves a fight, and generally enjoys being on the side that offers the most publicity. And frankly, churches  today finding themselves the butt of jokes --- the ones like were also once directed towards gays, and the races but are now politically incorrect (selectively). 

Edited September 14, 2017 by LittleNipper

[Marginal Gains]

30 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

The silly question would be, what makes baking a wedding cake any different than performing the ceremony? Pastors are licensed by the State. and churches are public buildings. If, you do not believe this, just try to build a sanctuary today. Exit signs, elevators, height of plumbing fixtures, egress windows, the way a door swings, the height of ceilings, the placement of fire extinguishers. I understand some of this; however, whose building is it, the state's or GOD's? And why should a church wait months and months and years in order to get an ok of a architectural design and a  certificate of occupancy from the STATE?  I don't think I'm being unreasonable.  The Church must accommodate the STATE. But where does the STATE have to accommodate the CHURCH and my beliefs? Do only secular feeling count?  

 

Do only the feelings and beliefs of Atheists and gays matter?  

Do the rights, feelings and beliefs of atheists and gays not matter? Are the rights, feelings and beliefs of atheists and gays less important than religious beliefs?

Nobody is forcing the baker to be a baker. But once he has chosen to be a baker serving the public, the law doesn’t allow for him to discriminate about who he will or will not serve. He knew that when he set up in business. If he has now had a change of heart and doesn’t want to comply with the requirements of a baker, guess what...he can stop being a baker and go and do something else which better fits his religious conscience. Nobody is forcing him into making cakes.

Edited September 14, 2017 by Marginal Gains

[LittleNipper]

18 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Yes, I agree that question is rather silly, because religion, religious organizations, and religious leaders are exempt from public accommodations law.  Religions are considered private entities and not public ones, and if buildings, universities, or companies are owned by religions, they are exempt and protected.  Religious leaders acting in their role as a religious leader cannot be compelled to act on behalf of the state, even though the state recognizes their authority to perform marriages according to the dictates of their Faith, and even though the state also likewise recognizes their marriages as civil marriages when so performed.

There has been serious discussions up until the time of the last Presidential election of denying just "religious" marriages. They would have to be performed AFTER a Civil marriage. And this is how it is in many foreign countries handle the situation. And no building in my State is able to just be erected without following bureaucratic protocol.  You maybe able to build Mormon Temples as you wish in Utah, but it ain't that way everywhere. There has been a court case where a Catholic organization was being compelled to provide abortion health coverage to it's female workers. If I not mistaken the entire thing is still up in the air; however, such organizations are still encountering heavy court costs that could be applied toward other programs, etc... Christian's are not exempt from following the law.  However, the law is being reestablished to protect only select parties that are presently popular. 

[LittleNipper]

24 minutes ago, Marginal Gains said:

Do the rights, feelings and beliefs of atheists and gays not matter? Are the rights, feelings and beliefs of atheists and gays less important than religious beliefs?

Nobody is forcing the baker to be a baker. But once he has chosen to be a baker serving the public, the law doesn’t allow for him to discriminate about who he will or will not serve. He knew that when he set up in business. If he has now had a change of heart and doesn’t want to comply with the requirements of a baker, guess what...he can stop being a baker and go and do something else which better fits his religious conscience. Nobody is forcing him into making cakes.

I'd sell cake to anyone. I certainly wouldn't knowingly deliver it, anymore than I'd knowingly deliver a cake to a Nazi convention. That is MY prerogative! I don't want to hear that nazism is against the law and being gay is not ---- that is not the issue. It should be the determination of the individual and not entirely under the control of the STATE!

PS> I noticed you didn't mention the photographer ---- I imagine that is a little to hard to swallow even for yourself. 

Edited September 14, 2017 by LittleNipper

[Daniel2]

16 minutes ago, LittleNipper said:

There has been serious discussions up until the time of the last Presidential election of denying just "religious" marriages. They would have to be performed AFTER a Civil marriage. 

Where are and whom was having these "serious discussions" of "denying just 'religious' marriages" and suggesting they "would have to be performed after a civil marriage"?

Can you please clarify?

[Scott Lloyd]

3 hours ago, Marginal Gains said:

What would you suggest are the key differences between anti-Semitism, and anti-same sex marriagism?

Non-sequitur.

The principle in both the analogy I gave and the pending SCOTUS case is whether a business owner should be required to provide non-essential goods/services in violation of his/her own deeply held values and standards.

[Daniel2]

On ‎9‎/‎12‎/‎2017 at 10:46 PM, Scott Lloyd said:

From the document it appears there is a variety of ecclesiastical support for the defendant. I saw Lutheran, Evangelical and Jewish interests represented along with the Church of Jesus Christ. 

While there may be "a variety of ecclesiastical support" for the defendant, it appears the majority of citizens--even those that are religious--don't support carving out the ability to withhold services based on religious objections...

Think Progress sheds some further light on a recent study, per below. 

The money quote:  "In 2015, the only two religious groups where a majority favored religion-based service refusals were Mormons and white evangelical Protestants. This year, however, the number of Mormons in favor of such refusals dropped from 58 to 42 percent, while the number of white evangelical Protestants in favor dropped from 56 to 50 percent. Almost every other religious group saw the percentage of people in favor of such refusals drop, and none saw it rise. This declining support for religion-based discrimination across the board, combined with 2016 being the first year that white evangelical Protestants didn’t have a majority in support, could suggest that the country is on the path toward a major change in public opinion."

Christians disagree with the religious right on refusing to serve LGBTQ people

New poll finds fewer Americans than ever support religiously based refusals to serve gay and lesbian people.

Annabel Thompson Twitter Jun 21, 2017, 4:09 pm

 

The Human Rights Campaign celebrates a ruling in a religious liberty case. CREDIT: AP Photo/Rogelio V. Solis

A new survey claims that more Americans than ever oppose allowing businesses to refuse products or services to gay and lesbian people if they claim doing so violates their religious beliefs.

Conservatives on the religious right have argued that allowing businesses to turn away LGBTQ people is an issue of “religious freedom,” and that such discrimination is their right.

But according to a PRRI study unveiled on Wednesday, 61 percent of the 40,000 people surveyed said they opposed letting businesses refuse to serve LGBTQ people by citing “religious beliefs,” with just 30 percent in favor. This is a shift from the survey results released by the organization last year, in which 59 percent opposed and 35 percent were in favor.

More notable changes in opinion from previous surveys showed up both along party lines and in religious groups. In 2015, PRRI found that a majority (55 percent) of Republicans favored allowing businesses to refuse service to gay or lesbian people on religious grounds. This year, that number dropped to just below half (49 percent).

“At a time when Americans appear more divided than ever by partisanship and religion, there is increasing evidence that debates over LGBT rights have a short shelf life,” said PRRI research director Dan Cox in a press release the center released on Wednesday. 

Hundreds of faith leaders already oppose Trump’s planned ‘religious liberty’ order

They say religious freedom is “already protected by the First Amendment.”

The ability to use religious liberty as a license to discriminate against LGBTQ people has been pushed by conservative politicians, including Vice President Mike Pence, who sat beside an anti-LGBTQ activist as he signed a “religious freedom” bill into law in Indiana when he was the state’s governor in 2015. The religious right held up businesses like the bakery that refused to sell a wedding cake to lesbian couple and the printing company that refused to print T-shirts for a Pride festival as victims of coercion whose First Amendment rights were being infringed upon.

Religious groups, however, often disagree with that notion. Several faith groups spoke out against Pence’s law (which has since been amended to protect LGBTQ people from discrimination) back in 2015, and hundreds of religious leaders publicly opposed a “religious liberty” executive order signed by President Donald Trump earlier this year.

The sense among religious groups that conservative definitions of “religious freedom” are flawed only increased over the past year, as shown in the survey. In 2015, the only two religious groups where a majority favored religion-based service refusals were Mormons and white evangelical Protestants. This year, however, the number of Mormons in favor of such refusals dropped from 58 to 42 percent, while the number of white evangelical Protestants in favor dropped from 56 to 50 percent. Almost every other religious group saw the percentage of people in favor of such refusals drop, and none saw it rise. This declining support for religion-based discrimination across the board, combined with 2016 being the first year that white evangelical Protestants didn’t have a majority in support, could suggest that the country is on the path toward a major change in public opinion.

PRRI’s phrasing of the question didn’t mention bisexual or transgender people, although a smaller-scale survey they conducted earlier this year found that a majority of Americans opposed laws restricting which bathroom trans people could use.

Laws allowing businesses to discriminate against LGBTQ people on religious grounds are still being passed in different states. But with less than half of all Republicans supporting such laws and without even a majority in any religion supporting them, it’s increasingly unclear just who they’re for.

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Comments like these (those along the lines of 'Oh, I wouldn't mind it if someone could refuse service to me based on my/their religion... I'd just go somewhere else!') frustrate me for two reasons: 

 

I didn't say I wouldn't mind it. I said I would view it as misguided, but it wouldn't bother me to the point that I would take someone to court over it. You see, I recognize the right of a business owner to set his own standards about whether and to whom to offer non-essential services, even If the way he exercises his right annoys or even angers me.

Quote

a) they're really only lip service and can't be taken seriously, because it's evident that religion is already protected and it's protections are likely never going to be rescinded, despite people's professions that they wouldn't mind if it was; and

I assure you its not lip service on my part. I was earnestly responding to a question that was posed by Marginal Gains. It's your choice to take my response seriously or not, but I alone am qualified to say whether I was engaging in "lip service."

Furthermore, Mormons have been discriminated in the past by reason of religion, and its not impossible that such a thing would happen in the future.

 

Quote

 

b) those making these types of comments seem to be oblivious to the fact that they are even able to be so dismissive of protections against religious discrimination is because we've all benefitted from 200+ years of cultural conditioning and history enforcing a mindset to not discriminate based on/against religion... 200+ years which have allowed us to apparently grow flippantly complacent about being dismissive of the religious protections that our country was founded on and sorely fought over, and

 

 

 

I"m not flippantly complacent, especially when I see the hatred expressed against Mormonism on social media, message boards, reader comment boards and elsewhere. I'm simply saying that it is prudent to choose one's battles carefully. Forcing a baker to make a cake in violation of his principles is not only an imprudent thing to pick a fight over, it is manifestly unjust.

Quote

c) they seem oblivious to the plight of the very real ramifications from discrimination that minorities in our society face.  While it seems trite when the issue is framed as an issue of merely providing "cake" or not, public accommodations serve a very real and vital role in encouraging freedoms and equal treatment for ALL citizens across the board in public spaces (please see the video I'll post in my next post).

I'm in accord with the so-called "Utah compromise" as it pertains to public accommodation in such life's essentials housing and employment. Forcing a baker to make a cake in violation of his principles, though, strikes me as beyond the pale.

Quote

In other countries governed by totalitarian religious regimes and in which any of us may find ourselves outside the "approved" religious majority, I imagine such protections aren't or wouldn't be taken for granted and dismissively waved aside by saying, "I wouldn't care if businesses were allowed to discriminate against me and I'd just go somewhere else..."  

It is in totalitarian countries where I would expect to see coercion brought to bear against family-owned businesses forcing them to violate their freedom of conscious. We have the First Amendment to prohibit such a thing.

Quote

The "freedom of religion" our country was founded on, and which we've worked so hard to maintain, and which we (apparently) are becoming so complacent about, depends on NOT allowing individuals TO discriminate based ON religion.  That's a step backwards, not forwards, when it comes to preserving the religious freedoms of ALL citizens, because allowing discrimination IN THE NAME of religion undermines the VERY PROTECTIONS that religious freedom (and protecting against discrimination based on religion) seeks to promote and provide.

The First Amendment states in part: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof." Explain how that can be construed to force a person of faith to provide services that violate his conscience.

Edited September 14, 2017 by Scott Lloyd

[LittleNipper]

25 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

While there may be "a variety of ecclesiastical support" for the defendant, it appears the majority of citizens--even those that are religious--don't support carving out the ability to withhold services based on religious objections...

Think Progress sheds some further light on a recent study, per below. 

The money quote:  "In 2015, the only two religious groups where a majority favored religion-based service refusals were Mormons and white evangelical Protestants. This year, however, the number of Mormons in favor of such refusals dropped from 58 to 42 percent, while the number of white evangelical Protestants in favor dropped from 56 to 50 percent. Almost every other religious group saw the percentage of people in favor of such refusals drop, and none saw it rise. This declining support for religion-based discrimination across the board, combined with 2016 being the first year that white evangelical Protestants didn’t have a majority in support, could suggest that the country is on the path toward a major change in public opinion."

 

 

Politicians are afraid of not getting elected. That's the way with most politicians. As for "Christian" groups ---- some really either have no clue what Jesus would say, or may not actually care. It's known as apostasy (which if it existed 200 years ago, hasn't changed).  And it was because of bleeding hearts among select "Christians " that opening Bible reading and even a moment's silence were allowed to be ejected from Public school in 1963 without a real fight. And when was the last time you saw the pictures of Washington and Lincoln hanging in the front of the classroom? That's what happens with a slippery slope. And we wonder what became of the Mr & Mrs. Cleaver type family. It didn't happen over night ----oh wait I need another tattoo...

Edited September 14, 2017 by LittleNipper

[Scott Lloyd]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

This HAS been discussed here on the board before, but it's worth repeating for any new participants: [snip]

I think all this is beside the point.

California Boy asked for past instances in which religious principles have come to bear in providing commercial goods or services. I said I would have to research it, but it's not hard to conceive of such an instance. I then gave as a hypothetical example a Jewish print shop where a business owner could reasonably refuse to provide a service that violated his principles (the dissemination of anti-Semitic literature). It doesn't matter whether you think such a person would be legally protected or not; it's an example that fits the sort of circumstance that CB was asking about.

Maybe I could express here the other hypothetical I tried to post but was blocked from doing so, presumably because of a word or phrase that triggered the blocking (I'll use a euphemism).

Suppose a church decides to rent out its meeting facility midweek when the facility is not needed by the church for its worship services. A customer comes along and wants to rent the church's meeting facility to use as a location for what I shall euphemistically call a "gentleman's club." The church refuses because such a use of its facility would violate the church's expressed religious standards.
 

Quote

 

Regarding Catholic Adoption agencies, from what I know of all of those instances, the Catholic Adoption services had been taking public funds (that is, tax-payer funds paid by all citizens) in helping the government find prospective homes.  So long as such Catholic charities take public funds, they cannot discriminate because their being funded by a portion of all citizens (public) funds, so they can't discriminate by saying "we only adopt to Catholic families, or families that fall in to certain Catholic-based qualifications."  Because Catholic charities were funded by so much tax money that they couldn't operate without those funds, when they were told they couldn't discriminate if they continued to accept public funds, they chose to close their doors.  From what I understand, if a religion wants to provide adoption services to members of its Faith, they're entirely free to stay open as long as they don't use public funds.  Based on what I've read in the past, that's true of LDS Adoption services, so they were unaffected at the time (not sure if they're still open or not).

So, again, not a violation of religious freedom--just maintaining a standard that if you accept public taxes to pay for your operation, you cannot discriminate against the public.

 

Here's a case where Catholic Charities of the Archdiocese of Washington elected to close down its foster care and public adoption services rather than be forced to provide such services to same-sex couples. There's nothing in there about the move being occasioned by lack of access to public monies.

 

Edited September 14, 2017 by Scott Lloyd