Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Religious Viewpoint, Legal Viewpoint, and Public Viewpoint


Recommended Posts

On 6/25/2019 at 5:10 PM, CV75 said:

I think the religious viewpoint would support the free exercise and expression of religion in a business and institutional setting; the legal viewpoint also, but within the parameters of laws for non-discrimination and allowed exceptions; the public viewpoint would depend on the community (it could go either way). Which of these do you think reflects George Wallace's view?

I think that is exactly the stance that George Wallace took.  He was ok with other states not allowing discrimination, but he felt that his state had the right to decide whether discrimination was a valid community standard to uphold.  The only way to start allowing discrimination again due to personally held views IS to get rid of the civil rights laws.  Those are the very laws that prevent that kind of behavior.

Link to comment
18 minutes ago, california boy said:

It was meant to be an honest question.  Do you support the ability of a business to discriminate for any personally held belief?  You may not personally support discrimination, but you seem to be ok with others supporting discrimination based on personal beliefs without government stopping them.  And that is the same stance George Wallace took.  I am confused by your response.  Do you think more education would have changed those that think like George Wallace and truly believe they have a right to discriminate in their businesses?  Without accommodation laws, and the civil right laws that have been in place for over 50 years, how would governors like George Wallace be prevented from doing what he did.  I get that you don't want to talk about George Wallace,  but how can you possibly ignore what the changing of the rules could do.  Given the political climate we are in today, I can certainly see someone running as governor on the same type of platform as George Wallace today in some states and winning.  How in your world do you prevent that from happening.  Or do you just let it happen?  I seriously want to know what your plan is if we eliminate the accommodation and civil rights laws of this country.  Education?  You really think that would work?

You believe George Wallace could get elected today, and that could happen without eliminating any accommodation and civil rights laws. So it seems you believe the same as he did on that score.

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, CV75 said:

You believe George Wallace could get elected today, and that could happen without eliminating any accommodation and civil rights laws. So it seems you believe the same as he did on that score.

Absolutely I do believe George Wallace type could be elected today.  And yes, he could be elected on the same platform of discrimination.  It is only the civil rights laws and accommodation laws that prevent that from happening.  I used to think this country was further along on this issue.  The last couple of years have shown to me that there are still plenty of people who have no problem discriminating if they think they can get away with it.

I also believe there are currently politicians that believe in the right to discriminate.  But their hands are tied due to the laws thet prevent that from happening.  Taking those laws off the books would be a game changer.

Edited by california boy
Link to comment
29 minutes ago, california boy said:

Do you support the ability of a business to discriminate for any personally held belief?  

Yes, in some circumstances, such as to those who are underage, (if I sold alcohol, or to those who have ebola, etc.) you get the picture. I think some people only see what they want to see. I think you are one of those persons. This is what I see, from my perspective; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has hurt and/or offended you in the past, it appears to me you cannot get past that. Additionally, you are gay man with a strong desire to change the LDs members views because if we simply cannot see it your way, well, then we must be bigoted and homophobic.

I know you feel private businesses should not discriminate for any reason, but from my point of view you must believe it is alright when a govt entity discriminates. It is obvious to me that Phillips was exercising his constitutional right to the freedom of religion. Phillips said he would have sold them other items, including cakes, just not a wedding cake. Now, as a businessman myself, I would have baked the cake, but the Court is not going by my beliefs, your beliefs, but by Phillips beliefs. When the state of Colorado ordered random warrantless searches of Phillips business records, fined him an unproportionately amount of money (compared to the charge), AND ordered Phillips and all his employees to undergo therapy they were the people showing discrimination when they [Colorado] violated  Phillips constitutional right of believing how he wishes.  

Bottomline, I think it is wrong to force a person how to believe, even if that belief is prejudicial.

 

Quote

You may not personally support discrimination, but you seem to be ok with others supporting discrimination based on personal beliefs without government stopping them.  

I just answered this, see above. The government was the discriminator.

 

Quote

Do you think more education would have changed those that think like George Wallace

Yes I do. The Little Rock Nine, the young girl who was following  a black girl to school yelling obscenities and racial slurs has come out and apologized and said she was raised to hate blacks and it was through education that she had come to find how wrong she was. https://news.wttw.com/sites/default/files/field/image/LittleRockNine_0925_0.jpg

 

Quote

 I get that you don't want to talk about George Wallace,  but how can you possibly ignore what the changing of the rules could do.

Stop it already. I never implied I do not want to talk about George Wallace at all and I am not ignoring anything. Please, be cognizant of your wording, you do not have the power to know what I think.

Quote

How in your world[...]

Please clean up the tone and be more respectful.

 

Quote

I seriously want to know what your plan is if we eliminate the accommodation and civil rights laws of this country.  Education?  You really think that would work?

Wow, what a jump. I do not want, nor have I ever implied that my plan is to eliminate accommodation or civil rights laws.  No, elimination of them would not work. I am saying discriminatory statutes are being weaponized to force people how to think, that is what I feel is wrong.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, california boy said:

Absolutely I do believe George Wallace type could be elected today.  And yes, he could be elected on the same platform of discrimination.  It is only the civil rights laws and accommodation laws that prevent that from happening.  I used to think this country was further along on this issue.  The last couple of years have shown to me that there are still plenty of people who have no problem discriminating if they think they can get away with it.

I also believe there are currently politicians that believe in the right to discriminate.  But their hands are tied due to the laws thet prevent that from happening.  Taking those laws off the books would be a game changer.

It is kept from happening yet it could happen? Okaaaaaay….

But I think you’re conflating religious, legal and public definitions of discrimination.

As far as George Wallace, with enemies like you, who needs friends? LOL

And as far as taking laws off the books, the Equality Act's Section 1107 basically takes The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.) off the books, resulting in the very abuses you condemn others for, pointing to your own belief in the right to discriminate, as conflated as your understanding seems to be.

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
28 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Yes, in some circumstances, such as to those who are underage, (if I sold alcohol, or to those who have ebola, etc.) you get the picture.

You know that is not the type of discrimination we are talking about.

28 minutes ago, Anijen said:

I think some people only see what they want to see. I think you are one of those persons. This is what I see, from my perspective; The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints has hurt and/or offended you in the past, it appears to me you cannot get past that. Additionally, you are gay man with a strong desire to change the LDs members views because if we simply cannot see it your way, well, then we must be bigoted and homophobic.

Not sure why you want to make this personal.  But I have never brought up either the Church or LGBT issues in this thread.  We are talking about the ability to discriminate against ANYONE due to personally held beliefs.  That applies across the board for any type of personally held religious belief.  And believe me, I have NO agenda to change the beliefs or policies of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.  You guys are welcome to have any belief or policy you wish to have.  When those beliefs start affecting those outside your religion then YES I do have issues with that.  

28 minutes ago, Anijen said:

I know you feel private businesses should not discriminate for any reason, but from my point of view you must believe it is alright when a govt entity discriminates. 

We haven't been talking about a govt entity discriminating.  But you have assumed wrong.  I don't believe a government entity has any right to discriminate.  And no that does not mean underage kids should be allowed to buy alcohol.  Please.

28 minutes ago, Anijen said:

It is obvious to me that Phillips was exercising his constitutional right to the freedom of religion. Phillips said he would have sold them other items, including cakes, just not a wedding cake. Now, as a businessman myself, I would have baked the cake, but the Court is not going by my beliefs, your beliefs, but by Phillips beliefs. When the state of Colorado ordered random warrantless searches of Phillips business records, fined him an unproportionately amount of money (compared to the charge), AND ordered Phillips and all his employees to undergo therapy they were the people showing discrimination when they [Colorado] violated  Phillips constitutional right of believing how he wishes.  

I totally agree that the State of Colorado overreached in the Phillips case.  And I support the Supreme Court ruling handed down.  But that ruling did not address the right to discriminate against the gay couple.  And yes, by definition, if the baker is baking cakes for straight couples, then not baking a cake for a gay couple is discrimination.  Just because one sometimes doesn't discriminate, does not mean that they always don't discriminate. The question that is before the Supreme Court is Does a business have a right to trump the civil rights laws and public accommodation laws because of personally held beliefs.  Does baking a cake challenge a persons religious beliefs.

 Lets see where this goes.  Does a Muslin have a right to not ring up bacon at the grocery store?  Does a grocery store owner have a right to fire said Muslin because of their religious beliefs?  Does a Mormon waiter have the right to not serve coffee in a restaurant?  Does a Christian have the right to refuse service to a Jew because they believe that those who believe the Jewish religion are responsible for killing their Lord and Savior?  Does a person have a right to refuse service to a black man because their personally held belief is that they are an inferior race and they should never be required to serve them.  Yeah an extreme case, but if the courts rule that religion trumps discrimination laws, then where can this lead to legally?  

28 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Bottomline, I think it is wrong to force a person how to believe, even if that belief is prejudicial.

I agree.  I just don't think baking a cake is forcing anyone to believe anything.

 

28 minutes ago, Anijen said:

 

I just answered this, see above. The government was the discriminator.

 

Yes I do. The Little Rock Nine, the young girl who was following  a black girl to school yelling obscenities and racial slurs has come out and apologized and said she was raised to hate blacks and it was through education that she had come to find how wrong she was. https://news.wttw.com/sites/default/files/field/image/LittleRockNine_0925_0.jpg

Can you make the claim that education works every time?  Can you even make the claim that education works most of the time?  If so, CFR.

28 minutes ago, Anijen said:

 

Stop it already. I never implied I do not want to talk about George Wallace at all and I am not ignoring anything. Please, be cognizant of your wording, you do not have the power to know what I think.

Please clean up the tone and be more respectful.

You are the one that called George Wallace a straw man.  That doesn't really sound like someone who takes the question seriously.

28 minutes ago, Anijen said:

 

Wow, what a jump. I do not want, nor have I ever implied that my plan is to eliminate accommodation or civil rights laws.  No, elimination of them would not work. I am saying discriminatory statutes are being weaponized to force people how to think, that is what I feel is wrong.

How can you allow religion to decide who they will discriminate against and who they won't without throwing out accommodation laws or civil rights laws.  If religion can trump those laws, then what are those laws worth?  Couldn't anyone use personally held beliefs as justification for ANY discrimination?

There is an interesting article in the Deseret News about Hobby Lobby that pretains directly to what we have been discussing.  I think it is worth a read.  Here is the link.

 
Quote

 

" Hobby Lobby said some extreme things about what counts as a substantial burden on the exercise of religion, suggesting that pretty much anything a claimant says is a substantial burden has to be accepted as a substantial burden. I don't think the Supreme Court will be able to live with it in the long run. "
Douglas Laycock, a professor of law and religious studies at the University of Virginia

 

 
Link to comment
3 hours ago, CV75 said:

It is kept from happening yet it could happen? Okaaaaaay….

But I think you’re conflating religious, legal and public definitions of discrimination.

As far as George Wallace, with enemies like you, who needs friends? LOL

And as far as taking laws off the books, the Equality Act's Section 1107 basically takes The Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (42 U.S.C. 2000bb et seq.) off the books, resulting in the very abuses you condemn others for, pointing to your own belief in the right to discriminate, as conflated as your understanding seems to be.

You might want to read the article I referred to above.  It addresses some of what you are attacking.

Quote

 

Although the Religious Freedom Restoration Act received widespread support when it passed in 1993, it's become increasingly controversial. Legal experts often clash over how it's applied, and the Hobby Lobby case was no exception.

The biggest sticking point in the case was whether a for-profit corporation is covered by religious freedom protections. The Supreme Court said yes, and many liberal legal scholars are still upset about it.

"The ruling in Hobby Lobby was shocking for a number of reasons. The first is the Supreme Court's finding that a corporation could have religious beliefs," said Katherine Franke, a professor of law, gender and sexuality studies at Columbia University.

Lawmakers who voted for the act in 1993 weren't anticipating that kind of outcome, Ravitch said.

"If for-profit entities had been included in the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, it would have never been passed," he said.

 

Quote

 

"It’s weaponizing RFRA to undermine civil rights protections, deny people access to health care and government services, and even deny children loving homes," said Rachel Laser, president and CEO of Americans United for Separation of Church and State, during her testimony at this week's congressional hearing.

Durso, who opposed the Hobby Lobby ruling, said the case changed the public's perception of religious freedom. It's now increasingly seen as a weapon to wield against less powerful Americans instead of an important protection for members of minority faiths.

 

I believe when people start using religion as a weapon, there may be a very strong backlash against religion and the very protection they are looking for.  It is just one of the reasons why so many are leaving organized religion and the attitude towards religion is shifting from a positive image to a negative issue.  The trend that started back in the 80's is gaining momentum where, belonging to a religion is turning into a political statement.  That by definition is setting up an opposing party that will start to look at religion as the reason for a particular agenda and fight that very agenda.  When that political party is in power, religion will loose, because it has become no longer politically neutral.  

Quote

 

But, in another sense, the ruling harmed religious freedom by making it seem like a dangerously powerful protection that could limit access to quality health care and other human rights, said Laura Durso, vice president of the LGBT Research and Communications Project at the Center for American Progress.

"It was a real red flag," she said, noting that the case is one of the reasons the Equality Act, which was passed by the House of Representatives last month and would create federal LGBTQ nondiscrimination protections, seeks to limit the application of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

 

 

Edited by california boy
Link to comment
23 minutes ago, california boy said:

believe when people start using religion as a weapon, there may be a very strong backlash against religion and the very protection they are looking fo

There are many who view much of the more insistent activist push of acceptance of sexual orientations as part of social norms as weaponizing public opinion. Do you see potential for backlash there?

Link to comment
49 minutes ago, Calm said:

There are many who view much of the more insistent activist push of acceptance of sexual orientations as part of social norms as weaponizing public opinion. Do you see potential for backlash there?

yes.  I think there is backlash against that weaponization of LGBT issues as well. Both sides loose when extremes are demanded.  

A number of months ago, I made a prediction concerning the 5 LGBT cases now before the Supreme Court on this board.  I believe that by the end of the year, the Supreme Court will rule that religious institutions have every right to discriminate against those who they hire.  I actually support that as well.  Those that demand gay teachers, for example, not be denied teaching positions in religious schools are an example of the weaponizing of some in the LGBT community causes the backlash you are asking about.  I also predicted that even with this extremely conservative court will rule against any right to discriminate  by businesses based on  personally held beliefs.  The other extreme weaponization of religion.  I guess we will have to wait and see.

Edit to add:  I believe the denying of gay marriage by Prop 8 was the turning point against religion imposing it's will against the gay community.  That was the last straw of religion being viewed as a neutral  political entity.  They won the battle but not only lost the war, but suffered damage that it may never fully recover from.

Edited by california boy
Link to comment
5 hours ago, Calm said:

There are many who view much of the more insistent activist push of acceptance of sexual orientations as part of social norms as weaponizing public opinion. Do you see potential for backlash there?

Yes, it is already happening to the horror of the sane on both sides. Anger and a sense of revenge makes people do terrible things. Both sides are demanding absurd freedoms to impose themselves or subvery law itself which undermine their own goals.

There was an old quote about every organization and movement eventually having to face a faction within itself that undermines the goals of its own original mission but I can't find it.

Link to comment
On 6/24/2019 at 5:27 PM, Anijen said:

I would like to discuss from these viewpoints laws on abortion, same sex marriage, forced cake baking, flower arrangement, and photography for gay couples.

So, here are my abbreviated thoughts on these topics:

Abortion

Religiously - I believe abortion is only morally acceptable when God approves of it. We are acting as co-creators with God in this endeavor, and so long as His will is being accomplished there can be no sin.

Legally - Despite the hot mess that is Roe v Wade, I think the end result that abortion should be available is correct. Once you get to that point, everything else is just a matter of either how permissive or restrictive one thinks access should be, and that’s bound to largely be informed by ones political views (which would take us beyond the purview of this forum / discussion).

Same Sex Marriage

Religiously - I believe marriage is ordained by God and that the institution of marriage as presently revealed by God and His prophets is limited to opposite sex couples. I have pondered how the sealing of same sex couples could fit into our understanding of the plan of salvation as it has been revealed thus far, but I just haven’t been able to get there. So, while I do believe God will yet reveal many great and important things pertaining to the kingdom of God, I have my doubts that same sex marriage will be among them.

Legally - I don’t believe the Constitution requires government recognition of any marriage, technically, but we crossed that bridge a long time ago. With respect to the Constitution, I thought there were good arguments both in favor of and in opposition to the Constitutional right to same sex marriage, and I wish we had gotten a better legal mind than Justice Kennedy to have authored the opinion in Obergefell v Hodges. But, as they saying goes, you get what you get and you don’t get upset.

Cake Baking / Flower Arranging / Photography

Religiously - I believe one has an obligation to do his best regardless of occupation, but I also believe one has a primary duty to follow his conscience with respect to God regardless of the consequences (see, e.g., Rack, Shack, and Benny).

Legally - All of these cases come down to this basic determination: widgets or speech.

If you are selling widgets, generally applicable anti-discrimination laws are going to rule the day. However, if you are selling speech then the rights imbued by the state-law-trumping First Amendment come into play, protecting both your right to speak and your right to not speak.

So, for a quick rundown: Is photography protected by the First Amendment? Absolutely, and I think Elane Photography was wrongly decided by the New Mexico Supreme Court (and I know gay rights lawyers specializing in 1A law who believe the same). Cake baking and flower arranging? As I’ve said before, these are the kinds of cases where the line starts to blur for me. I can see arguments both for and against – I don’t think one side is miles ahead of the other.

Something interesting I’ve noticed though: Back when the SSM debates were ongoing, I remember bringing up concerns about how SSM might potentially cause other issues down the road with respect to anti-discrimination laws. I remember being told that that was no reason to oppose same sex marriage because anti-discrimination laws are totally separate and that I was fearmongering / making an appeal to a slippery slope.

However, now that a Constitutional right has been found for same sex marriage and these very situations are coming up, it is the gay rights crowd who is fearmongering / making an appeal to the slippery slope about how society will revert back to the Jim Crow era if the courts hold (as they should) that the First Amendment protects people who do not want to provide their speech for same sex wedding celebrations.

 

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