The State Vs. Religious Freedom.

[thesometimesaint]

Mola Ram Suda Ram:

You still have that right. However if your were to say discriminate on the basis of relgion. Claiming the right to not cut a Mormon's hair. Then that would be a violation of law.

[LeSellers]

You still have that right. However if your were to say discriminate on the basis of relgion. Claiming the right to not cut a Mormon's hair. Then that would be a violation of law.

The question has nothign to do with the breaking of the law, but whether that law is "moral" (or "legitimate").

Why is it "moral" for the state to constrain the barber such he must cut person X's hair against his (the barber's) will? Why is person X more valuable than the barber that his invented right to service is of greater import than the barber's right to freely associate with whomever he wants to (and inherently distance himself from those he chooses to avoid)?

Why (and how) did a legislature or a judge determine that person X has the right to a haircut at any babershop he chooses, rather than one who mutally determines that cutting person X's hair is a good idea? How does setting up a barbershop (or tire store) make one a slave to any potential customer?

Being in business does not legitimately alienate one's rights.

Lehi

Edited July 27, 2011 by LeSellers

[thesometimesaint]

Lehi:

It has everything to do obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. The US has a well established method for changing its laws through peaceful, legal means. It is writen into the US Constitution, it is part of LDS religious doctrine.

Because in the US we have established laws that protect people in the race, color, creed, religion, etc.. We as a nation have decided that freedom of association is just one measure of what it takes to make a more perfect union, and establish justice... .

Further no right is an absolute. As a general principle you have the right to swing your arm, UNTIL it contacts my nose. More specifically; We have the right to freedom of speech. We don't have the right to yell FIRE in a crowed theater, unless there really is a fire.

Even then it wouldn't be a good idea.

Again it is not slavery to demand that someone live up to the requirements of the law. It is not slavery to require you to have autombile insurance if you drive on the public highway. Just as it is not slavery to require you to cut someones hair if you are in the public square of cutting hair. IE. When my kids were growing up my wife cut their hair. She could refuse to cut anyone elses hair at her choosing. However she was not in the public square offering hair cuts.

Edited July 27, 2011 by thesometimesaint

[Loran Blood]

CFR that the "christian [sic]" made an oath or a covenant, or even a contract (they are not the same thing, though you appear to have treated them as if they were) with any one.

Just because the state rams a law down our throats does not mean we have entered into such an agreement. Why does the innkeeper lose his right to freedom of association merely because he chooses to engage in a form of human activity the state (falsely*) assumes is in its purview?

* But as the state has more guns, bigger guns, and better guns than any of us, it is always right, as might makes right, doncha know?

Lehi

Indeed. The old saw that any laws made by the state equal defacto acquiescence by the citizenry is just excuse making for etatism, but etatism that punishes one's own percieved enemies while throwing roses on the path for one's own views of the way things should be.

[Jaybear]

I bet you were a great advocate of 1930's Russia

No Nazi reference this time. Is this your effort to elevate your level of discourse?

The freedom to associate with those one chooses is found in the Constitution ("the right of the people to peaceably assemble": Art of Amendment I; "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Art of Amendment IX)

"Assemble" .... "associate."

Note, those are two different words, each with a distinct meaning.

One word is found in the First Amendment.

The other word is not.

Immoral conduct is conduct that harms another person. It does not harm anyone if I, as a businessman, choose to deny service to those who have no prior right to that service. The state's telling me that people have a legal (not a moral) right to my service is to make me a slave.

Laws preventing business and employers from engaging in discrimination agaisnt certain protected groups have been around for nearly 50 years. Do you really want to rehash legal arguments that were soundly rejected by the courts in the 60s?

[Loran Blood]

He doesn't lose his right to freedom of association. That is just you, engaging in hyperbole.

As a business owner, he must comply with federal, state and local laws, governing his business operations. This is just another such law.

Should all laws be simply accepted without question or inspection, as beasts of burden are conditioned to accept rings in their noses? I've always been deeply, deeply suspicious of any argument that says, without question or analysis, "there outta be a law..." or "well, that's just the way things are." That way, yet again, lies the "road to serfdom." Just because you like the results of a particular law, or like a particular law because it rewards friends and punishes enemies in the broader culture, or supports your particular interests or ideology, does not make that law wither good or justifiable on other grounds. This is, yet again, another example of the war of all against all for "rights" that have come to determine much of the character of our present society.

BTW, I thought Mormons believed in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, and in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

Yes, with clear and unequivocal caveats:

We believe that no government can exist in peace, except such laws are framed and held inviolate as will secure to each individual the free exercise of conscience, the right and control of property, and the protection of life.

We believe that all governments necessarily require civil officers and magistrates to enforce the laws of the same; and that such as will administer the law in equity and justice should be sought for and upheld by the voice of the people if a republic, or the will of the sovereign.

We believe that all men are bound to sustain and uphold the respective governments in which they reside, while protected in their inherent and inalienable rights by the laws of such governments; and that sedition and rebellion are unbecoming every citizen thus protected, and should be punished accordingly; and that governments have a right to enact such laws as in their own judgments are best calculated to secure the public interest; at the same time, however, holding sacred the freedom of conscience.

Edited July 27, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Jeff K.]

Jeff K., on 27 July 2011 - 10:12 AM, said:

I bet you were a great advocate of 1930's Russia

No Nazi reference this time. Is this your effort to elevate your level of discourse?

Same building, different doorman. You are the advocate of the state, except of course when it comes to attacking members of the church. Then the state should let it happen. I have to chuckle at the situational ethics, it must make life confusing and easy for you simultaneously.

Now what was it you said... Oh yes

Jaybear, on 26 July 2011 - 03:32 PM, said:

He doesn't lose his right to freedom of association. That is just you, engaging in hyperbole.

As a business owner, he must comply with federal, state and local laws, governing his business operations. This is just another such law.

BTW, I thought Mormons believed in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, and in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

Yep, my answer fits quite well....

[LeSellers]

It has everything to do obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law. The US has a well established method for changing its laws through peaceful, legal means. It is writen into the US Constitution, it is part of LDS religious doctrine.

Could you point me to the place I advocated anything other than peaceful changing of these laws?

Further, I suggest that the phrase “obeying, honoring and sustaining the law” does not apply to individual laws, but to the concept of “The Law”. And with that we can focus on the idea of being ruled by laws and not by men. The very idea of individual laws requiring us to obey them for no other reason than that they are “the law” is antithetical to both USmerican and LDS history. We have been a civilly disobedient people in the past—it’s a part of our heritage.

Because in the US we have established laws that protect people in the race, color, creed, religion, etc.. We as a nation have decided that freedom of association is just one measure of what it takes to make a more perfect union, and establish justice... .

The history of “civil rights” legislation is not as clear-cut as this sentence makes it sound. But, as we see later, in order to “protect” some people’s “rights”, there was a very great sacrifice of others people’s legitimate rights.

Were we to take this to its logical conclusion, we would see the state choosing who marries whom (not reference to same-sex “marriage”, this is about eliminating “race” or “religion”, or “ethnicity” from the culture, you know, diversity by mélange). You have, after all, no right to continue to create people who are different from the rest: all must be equal, so we’ll force the next generation to be identical to each other by means of dictating the gene pool.

There is no unalienable right to have one’s tire changed if the service provider does not want to do it for the money one offers. The tire store owner has the right to control his property and his life. I have no right to dictate to him how he will use either.

Further no right is an absolute. As a general principle you have the right to swing your arm, UNTIL it contacts my nose. More specifically; We have the right to freedom of speech. We don't have the right to yell FIRE in a crowed theater, unless there really is a fire.

You are stating the obvious, but drawing the wrong conclusions.

Every true right is absolute. I have the right to swing my fist any place I choose to, however, I do not have the right to harm you.

I have the right to yell anything I want any place and any time I choose, however, I do not have the right to put you in harm’s way.

Anytime I harm you, I have created a contract whereby you become entitled to anything I have, including my services and time (e.g., my life), until I make you whole. Since I drew up the contract by striking you in the nose, creating a situation where you were trampled, I am responsible for making you whole, and have no recourse against my own contract.

Again it is not slavery to demand that someone live up to the requirements of the law. It is not slavery to require you to have autombile insurance if you drive on the public highway. Just as it is not slavery to require you to cut someones hair if you are in the public square of cutting hair. IE. When my kids were growing up my wife cut their hair. She could refuse to cut anyone elses hair at her choosing. However she was not in the public square offering hair cuts.

It is slavery to require, by the use of force, that a person give up his unalienable rights in order to exercise other rights, e.g., the right to earn a living without harming other people. A private slave owner controls other people’s lives and these others must submit to his dictates under the threat of force. How is slavery to the state any different?

It is slavery to require automobile insurance, however, in the case of a crash where another person’s property or life is damaged, the offending driver is responsible for making the injured party whole. Insurance is nothing more than an assurance that this “whole making” will be carried out.

In a car crash, it is easy to see that party A harmed party B: party B is worse off than he had been, and due to the actions of party A. But if my tire is not repaired because party A refused to fix it, how am I worse off than I was? The answer is that I am not worse off. My situation is unchanged. Party A had nothing to do with my tire’s being flat, and he has no obligation to do anything to ameliorate my situation. I have no legitimate right to his services. If I can persuade him to fix it, by offering him more money, or suggesting that he do it after dark or on Tuesday for the same amount (or more), then he has accepted and entered into a contract. Now, if he reneges on our contract (oral though it may be) he does incur the obligation to perform, and I can collect damages. Prior to the contract, here was no obligation. .

Lehi

Edited July 27, 2011 by LeSellers

[LeSellers]

"Assemble" .... "associate."

Note, those are two different words, each with a distinct meaning.

One word is found in the First Amendment.

The other word is not.

Even were I to grant your premise, and I do not, you ignore the IX which clearly says that just because a specific right (freedom of association) is not mentioned in the consitution, that fact does not deny or disparage any other rights we may have.

Laws preventing business and employers from engaging in discrimination agaisnt certain protected groups have been around for nearly 50 years. Do you really want to rehash legal arguments that were soundly rejected by the courts in the 60s?

Yes.

Lehi

[thesometimesaint]

Jaybear:

""Assemble" .... "associate."

Note, those are two different words, each with a distinct meaning.

One word is found in the First Amendment.

The other word is not."

Techically true, but irrelevent. To associate in the political sense of the word is to assemble.

I have no desire to relitigate the Civil Rights legislation of the 50's, 60's, or even the 70's

[Loran Blood]

Are you actually saying that the government has no business forcing the LDS Church to perform gay marriage ceremonies in their temples? Preposterous! (tic)

Perhaps such a thing will be forced upon us some day. It might just count as the "abomination of desolation."

This has actually been coming for quite sometime (see Mark Steyn's struggles with Canada's "human rights" commissions, for an example in another area).

http://www.whatispro...ment-fines.html

This is just "political correctness" in action "on the ground," so to speak.

The Ocean Grove case is probably the most frightening and egregious to date (here in the U.S.) and was well documented when it took place:

http://www.frc.org/p...inous-precedent

http://www.npr.org/t...toryId=91486340

A quick jaunt over to this Church's website now:

http://www.oceangroveunited.org/

Shows the degree to which this Christian church has been, for all intents, thoroughly compromised morally and intellectually through state and activist pressure since the SSM controversy over the pavilion in 2008.

Since then, a portion of the Methodist clergy, it seems, have reached a great compromise with the Great and Spacious Building:

http://articles.bost...rgy-gay-couples

Worse...much worse is coming, I fear, before the morning breaks and the shadows finally flee.

Edited July 27, 2011 by Loran Blood

[subgenius]

"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits [businesses] from refusing service to patrons on the basis of race, color, religion, or natural origin"

homosexuality is none of the above. Service can refused on the basis of homosexuality or length

The argument then brings up the primary buttress to homosexuality being forced upon modern society via the 14th amendment. (equal protection laws)

However, many courts have noted (ie Washington state supreme court) that homosexuality has not been proven nor established as being an immutable condition.

In other words a white guy can never choose to be a not-white guy. Which is the crux of equal protection, protecting those who can not change their condition. That being said, the refusal of service to the homosexual reception is within their current rights and supported by law....but laws are constantly challenged and currently the challenge is on its last leg, the ambiguity of the 14th amendment.

If you notice, most homosexual arguments, socially, are forcibly associated with civil rights, when in fact no correlation exists. To even attempt to associate the struggles that women and african-americans have endured to the current quasi-plight of homosexuals is insulting to the former and arrogance in the latter. Homosexuals may have increased political power but that does not entitle them (yet) to legislative power.

what any of this has to do with haircuts may escape me.....

[Loran Blood]

The freedom to associate with those one chooses is found in the Constitution ("the right of the people to peaceably assemble": Art of Amendment I; "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." Art of Amendment IX)

You see, Jaybear, this is what the Great and Spacious Building can never accept; they can never accept that those who do not agree with their beliefs about the world and who do not wish to associate with them in any direct way, need not do so, and cannot be forced to do so, against their will. That is one of the fundamental implications of the 10th amendment (which is why it has all but officially been removed from the constitution, at this juncture), and one of the core provisions that separates any society taking it seriously from an authoritarian or totalitarian society in which certain groups and interests impose their beliefs and values on other by arbitrary force (at whatever degree of coercion is necessary to compel compliance).

The GASB (the broad Telestial society, its political structures and supporting "pop" culture) will use any means it can get away with - including the criminalization of beliefs, values, and preferences not its own - to see that others must associate with them by law under or face punishment, and not only this, but to see that others must be complicit, through taxation or the forced use of private property, in their lifestyle choices.

Edited July 27, 2011 by Loran Blood

[LeSellers]

what any of this has to do with haircuts may escape me.....

It's all the same question.

If the state has the power to force you to perform same-sex "marriages", it has the power to force you to cut anyone's hair, or fix anyone's flat tire. The right to choose with whom one associates is fundamental to individual freedom. When the state forces a church to go against its own doctrine or practice, it has infringed on the individuals' rights to believe as they will, act as they will, and think as they will.

Forced haircuts are a perfect example of the overstepping of the bounds of the state. It's the camel's nose.

Lehi

Edited July 27, 2011 by LeSellers

[Loran Blood]

If the state has the power to force you to perfornm same-sex "marriages", it has the pwoer to force you to cut anyone's hair, or fix anyone's flat tire.

And to eat nutritious foods, to avoid too much red meat, sugar, salt, saturated fat, soda pop, potato chips, fast food, and twinkies; to exercise daily, avoid being overweight, and avoid accidents around the house; to drive tiny, small wheeled cars if we choose to drive around heavily congested "smart growth" designed urban and suburban areas, or use, ideally, government approved forms of transportation (buses and light rail); to make sure that there is no second hand smoke anywhere within thousands of feet of us, and to ensure that there are no endangered species (or could be, in the future) in our backyard (as the cure for AIDS might just be in that one species of tree slug you just hit with your weedeater).

The state, as we all know, has a compelling interest to see that all of its citizens are healthy, happy, and contented, and live lives free from risk, conflict, and the disapproval of others regarding their lifestyles and values. To achieve these ends, it must then - obviously - have the necessary power to see these outcomes realized.

It must, bring us all together as one for a great big 12 step group hug - by whatever means necessary.

Edited July 27, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Jaybear]

"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 explicitly prohibits [businesses] from refusing service to patrons on the basis of race, color, religion, or natural origin"

homosexuality is none of the above. Service can refused on the basis of homosexuality or length

For federal purposes, that is true. The law at issue in this case was passed by Vermont legislature.

The argument then brings up the primary buttress to homosexuality being forced upon modern society via the 14th amendment. (equal protection laws)

No it doesn't. The 14th amendment applies to actions by state, not actions by private business owners.

That being said, the refusal of service to the homosexual reception is within their current rights and supported by law....

Not in Vermont. Not in New Jersey. Not in New Mexico.

In Utah, sure, you can get away with firing gay employees, and refusing to provide service to gay couples.

[LeSellers]

I have no desire to relitigate the Civil Rights legislation of the 50's, 60's, or even the 70's

He didn't ask if I wanted to "relitigate" these questions, he asked if I wanted to "rehash" them.

We didn't "hash" them in the 60s. Johnson twisted Congress' arm until he got what he wanted.

Even though I think it stupid, there is no harm done when a person refuses to to serve anyone, for any reason, no harm, that it, except to himself by his forgoing the income he would have received had he done it.

Edited July 27, 2011 by LeSellers

[Loran Blood]

Forced haircuts are a perfect example of the overstepping of the bounds of the state. It's the camel's nose.

Yes, they are.

Edited July 27, 2011 by Loran Blood

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

It's all the same question.

Forced haircuts are a perfect example of the overstepping of the bounds of the state. It's the camel's nose.

Lehi

You get it. The idea was that I was setting up a scenario were a business owner discriminated against anyone that was not in his neighborhood. Discrimination is discrimination. Both situations from a business standpoint, don't make much sense. However I ask, what is the fundamental difference, if one takes out the argument that "it is against the law to discriminate based on race" between the 2?

The other application is the idea of a "protected class". What that does is it sets some groups up that are more equal than other groups. Now, the main idea is that I (generally speaking) do have a right to refuse service for any reason precisely because the business is privately owned.

[Loran Blood]

No it doesn't. The 14th amendment applies to actions by state, not actions by private business owners.

The interesting thing here is that the entire Bill of Rights was relevant only to the federal government before incorporation was complete.

[LeSellers]

The interesting thing here is that the entire Bill of Rights was relevant only to the federal government before incorporation was complete.

While you're right, it is in dispute that the "Bill of Rights" has been completely incoporated; only parts have. For instance, the II is not. Many states have very much infringed on the right to keep and bear arms.

Lehi

[Loran Blood]

While you're right, it is in dispute that the "Bill of Rights" has been completely incoporated; only parts have. For instance, the II is not. Many states have very much infringed on the right to keep and bear arms.

Lehi

I think there are only a couple that remain. Much of it was pretty much complete, if I recall correctly, by the end of the forties.

[frankenstein]

The Ocean Grove case is probably the most frightening and egregious to date (here in the U.S.) and was well documented when it took place:

http://www.frc.org/p...inous-precedent

http://www.npr.org/t...toryId=91486340

A quick jaunt over to this Church's website now:

http://www.oceangroveunited.org/

Shows the degree to which this Christian church has been, for all intents, thoroughly compromised morally and intellectually through state and activist pressure since the SSM controversy over the pavilion in 2008.

The Ocean Grove Church dishonored its agreement with the State and the People, the Church got what it deserved for not keeping its end of the bargain. When two people agreement a quid pro quo a contract of sorts have been formed, Ocean Grove did not want to honor that contract but wanted to retain the benefits of the contract.....why so many here support the dishonoring of contracts is astounding. Didn't Jesus say something about all one dealings being "yah, yah, or nay nay". Ocean Grove did not want to keep its word, and Ocean Grove was punished, so please stop with the strawman presentations.

--------------------

The other application is the idea of a "protected class". What that does is it sets some groups up that are more equal than other groups. Now, the main idea is that I (generally speaking) do have a right to refuse service for any reason precisely because the business is privately owned.

Based on the black letter written law, can you provide reasonable examples of "protected class" setting up some group more equal than others? Can you identify a person that is not protected?

Edited July 27, 2011 by frankenstein

[Jaybear]

Even though I think it stupid, there is no harm done when a person refuses to to serve anyone, for any reason, no harm, that it, except to himself by his forgoing the income he would have received had he done it.

What is the harm in making black sit in the back of the bus, or drink from a separate fountain?

You see, Jaybear, this is what the Great and Spacious Building can never accept; they can never accept that those who do not agree with their beliefs about the world and who do not wish to associate with them in any direct way, need not do so, and cannot be forced to do so, against their will.

You need to take up your objections with the democratically elected Vermont legislature. That is the "they" you are referring to. If its important to you that business owners and employers are be free to openly discriminate agaisnt gay employees and gay couples, then perhaps its best that you not move to a state where such discrimination is considered odious and offensive.

[Jeff K.]

LeSellers, on 27 July 2011 - 01:55 PM, said:

Even though I think it stupid, there is no harm done when a person refuses to to serve anyone, for any reason, no harm, that it, except to himself by his forgoing the income he would have received had he done it.

What is the harm in making black sit in the back of the bus, or drink from a separate fountain?

The economics changed things more than the "law" did. You in inadvertantly confirm Lehi's point.