Religious Freedom Bill (Az)

[emarkp]

A lot of my extended family members were very upset when a boycott was organized against the Ender's Game movie due to Orson Scott Card's involvement in the campaign against gay marriage.  And yet, they feel that anyone should be able to refuse to provide a service that is even tangentially related to a gay marriage.

 

For me, those two positions cannot logically be held by the same person.  

 

One of them was not enforced by law.  That's a pretty big difference.

[emarkp]

Must a photographer accept a contract at a marriage ceremony where the marriage is solemnized by a public sex act?

 

It would be a marriage, so how could he object to the ceremony?

 

If he can turn down such a contract, why can't he turn down any other one?

[Storm Rider]

By hanging a shingle(business license) out you are giving up your right to determine whom can purchase your services.

 

That is not accurate or true. There are many restaurants in the south that have signs that state, "No shirt, no shoes, no service".  Your position is that everyone should be served regardless of the way they are dressed or lack of dress. When is it okay to discriminate based on behavior and when is it not?  Is it fair that the behavior of one will get them tossed from a sporting event?  

 

No one has the right to force me or any independent company to work when they don't want to work. I think that there are differences between some businesses or what should be considered public and what should not. A local restaurant should serve all people if they require all people to meet a minimum standard of behavior. An individual that has a specialized service, imo, is not a public service company. If I don't want to work it does not matter what someone else thinks I am not going to work or exercise my professional abilities when I don't want to do so. 

 

What is interesting is that why on earth would anyone want to buy a cake from someone that tells you I don't want to make it or that your behavior is offensive to me?  God knows that there are numerous alternative sources for making that cake.  Why go to that specific bakery?  That's right, not because you want to buy the cake, but because you want the publicity and become the cause cause célèbre  du jour.  

 

This is not about rights, it is not about discrimination, it is about creating propaganda moments for the poor, terribly persecuted gay people. You know the ones; they have no creative abilities, cannot cook, cannot bake, and only serve in the most menial of jobs.  Let's talk about something where there is real discrimination and where there are real costs to society.  This is a farce.

[Daniel2]

I've been pondering a lot of what's been said in this thread. There have been some good points about drawing a line about refusing service to those that are being disruptive to a business, setting a dress code, etc.

Hypotheticals aside, I'd like to attempt to refocus the conversation back on the topic of my opening post by asking:

Is there anyone posting in this thread that is willing to admit that they support this actual/specific bill from Arizona...?

Daniel

[emarkp]

After reading the actual text of the bill (and after I stopped laughing from the ridiculously inaccurate reporting cited in the first post) yes I would vote for the bill.

It seems redundant given the 1st Amendment, but we seem to live in a world lacking common sense oreven understanding of language.

[Storm Rider]

No, I don't support it because I think it is poor/bad legislation; however, I think there needs to be laws that allow for distinctions between what is and is not public and when a business must serve all the public and when not. 

 

As a young man in the south I was not able to obtain several jobs because I was LDS and that was not an acceptable religious affiliation for employers in my community. To me I took it in stride because there were some jobs that I could get.  There is a huge difference between being inconvenienced and absolutely being cut off from opportunity. There is no place in the USA today where the later is experienced by gays; however, there is absolutely places where they are inconvenienced.  The real battle that is being waged is to force every citizen of the USA by legislation and any other means available to accept gays as completely acceptable regardless of one's religious beliefs or for any other personal reason. This pursuit of special rights is what rubs people wrong.

 

Each of us discriminate against others every day that we live and breathe and I believe that we are entitled to do so. We are social animals with preferences. At some point I would like the gay lobby to "man-up" a bit, slap some of their activities up side the head and encourage them to just walk down the street and buy their flowers, their cakes, rent the apartment, etc. from those that have no issues in this area.  When I walk into a store and I don't feel I am being well served I move on; I don't worry about why I am not being well served and hang my hat on a single, personal attribute for the way I am treated. I just walk down the way to the next shop.  This is why I believe this whole thing is farce and propaganda of the worst kind. Society will be no better for it and we will create far more problems than we think we will solve. 

[Daniel2]

After reading the actual text of the bill (and after I stopped laughing from the ridiculously inaccurate reporting cited in the first post) yes I would vote for the bill.It seems redundant given the 1st Amendment, but we seem to live in a world lacking common sense oreven understanding of language.

Which parts of the reporting did you find to be "ridiculously inaccurate"?

[rockpond]

I agree that those positions should not exist. If we insist that someone has the right to refuse, we need to include a viable way for the person refuse to respond. The whole point for me is that people have to deal with the consequences of their beliefs and feelings and are not protected from them because the government forces them to act like decent people.

And I think people should be proud to stand up for their religious beliefs in any situation, even if they are persecuted for them. It should never be 'we should be able to refuse others because we don't believe in their religious beliefs but we should be protected from being refused in any way for our own'.

Boycotting can be taken too far, but I do think a business that refuses service should be able to be boycotted. I don't think a private donation should lead to a public boycott or forcing of someone out of job.

Why should a private donation to a campaign be exempt from a boycott? Also note that OSC did not just make a private donation. He was on the board of NOM... that's a very public thing.

[rockpond]

After reading the actual text of the bill (and after I stopped laughing from the ridiculously inaccurate reporting cited in the first post) yes I would vote for the bill.

It seems redundant given the 1st Amendment, but we seem to live in a world lacking common sense oreven understanding of language.

It is redundant. And, if signed into law, it will be overturned (see Romer v Evans).

[Calm]

Why should a private donation to a campaign be exempt from a boycott? Also note that OSC did not just make a private donation. He was on the board of NOM... that's a very public thing.

You think people should be able to picket someone's house?

I was not commenting on OSC with the private comment. In fact didn't I say in a previous comment that those who thought there should be protection of refusing service while boycotting someone like Card was wrong was an inconsistent position? He had made plenty of public statements.

By private, I mean no public statements, as a private person totally unconnected with a business and not a public persona associated with a cause...say like if I send in a donation to the Diabetes Association, just slip it in an envelope and no one would know about it unless someone looked into my finances or the Association. This would be different then if it was publicised I was an official sponsor.

[BCSpace]

It is redundant.

 

 

This issue alone shows the need for redundancy.

 

And, if signed into law, it will be overturned (see Romer v Evans).

 

Maybe.  We've found recently that even the Supreme Court will not abide by the Constitution from time to time.  However, in Romer vs. Evans, the Colorado law was overturned because it was "at once too narrow and too broad" and left open the question of 'arbitrary discrimination'.  The Arizona law seems actually to have a specific purpose.

[Buzzard]

So just exactly why should a bakery discriminate against the immorality of a gay couple when as you say, we are all immoral about something?  Is the standard for this bakery, "We only serve those that are pure and without sin?"  Or is this just bigotry against gays under the guise of "religion".  Typical religious hypocrisy.  And some wonder why so many people are leaving religion.  

You totally missed my point. Every business serves exclusively sinners. There is no getting around it. But the business isn't refusing to serve gays, it's refusing to service/support an occasion, that in the moral opinion of the owners, celebrates sin and denigrates that which they hold sacred. They might feel the same way about a Wiccan solstice cake. Or not. But if you don't see the difference between refusing to help a person and refusing to support a particular ceremony, I didn't communicate very well.

[emarkp]

Which parts of the reporting did you find to be "ridiculously inaccurate"?

Answer my question first.

[BCSpace]

You totally missed my point. Every business serves exclusively sinners. There is no getting around it. But the business isn't refusing to serve gays, it's refusing to service/support an occasion, that in the moral opinion of the owners, celebrates sin and denigrates that which they hold sacred. They might feel the same way about a Wiccan solstice cake. Or not. But if you don't see the difference between refusing to help a person and refusing to support a particular ceremony, I didn't communicate very well.

 

The bottom line is no one is being discriminated against. Gays would be just as within their rights to not serve Mormons because of disagreement with their doctrinal beliefs. And if one (Gay or Mormon) were to be found beaten and robbed in the street, then one could choose to walk around on the other side or stop and render aid if such is their choice.   And thus the Plan of Salvation (2 Nephi 2) served with just laws such as this.  We are free to choose in both the plan of salvation and laws that reflect it; and such choices provide real growth and show which enticements we are are willing to follow (Abraham 3:25).

[mormonnewb]

You totally missed my point. Every business serves exclusively sinners. There is no getting around it. But the business isn't refusing to serve gays, it's refusing to service/support an occasion, that in the moral opinion of the owners, celebrates sin and denigrates that which they hold sacred. They might feel the same way about a Wiccan solstice cake. Or not. But if you don't see the difference between refusing to help a person and refusing to support a particular ceremony, I didn't communicate very well.

 

No, the business is refusing to serve gays ... period.  A wedding baker or photographer doesn't evaluate the customer on the basis of their "religious righteousness," except with regard to homosexuality.  The vendor doesn't say, "Ted is a Catholic and Julie is Jewish, which means they are not 'equally yoked' as required by scripture.  No cake for you!"  However, the vendor wants the right to discriminate on the basis of this ONE particular religious belief.

 

Also, let's be clear.  The vendor in this example isn't be asked to do anything to contribute to the "sin" of gay marriage.  The couple will be married with or without cake.  Is there something in our theology that prevents us from baking a cake for sinners?

 

Which brings us to the real problem in this bill -- Who determines whether the person is acting on the basis of a "religious belief"?  As Mormons, we argue on this board all the time about what is or is not doctrine.  For example, there is currently a debate going on over whether a Mormon can donate funds to, say, Planned Parenthood, or march in a gay pride parade and not run afoul of the temple recommend question about affiliating with groups "opposed" to the church.  There is no consensus to this question even amongst Mormons.  So how do we expect a Methodist judge to interpret whether baking a cake for a gay wedding reception goes against the teachings of Scientology?

 

She can't.  So that will leave us with two choices: (1) to simply take the person's word for it and allow for the person to refuse service to any person on any basis; or (2) to invalidate the law as overbroad and vague.  I don't see how the court can possible choose Door #1, Monty.  If it did, then discrimination would be lawful under any basis whatsoever.  After all, how is a Jewish judge going to tell a Jehovah's Witness that their religious creed doesn't require refusing service to an interracial couple?  I'm pretty sure that the JW's don't have this belief, but who am I to tell a JW what they believe?

 

As for "forcing" someone to work for another, I thought we resolved that issue almost 50 years ago with the Civil Rights Act, the Fair Housing Act, etc.  In the 1960s, many white Americans felt just as much disdain for black people as some straight people feel for gays today.  By and large, white people have gotten over it.  Straight people will too.

 

But hey, why not just find another baker, photographer, etc.?  Because social pressure may make it impossible to find one.  In the 1960s, black people didn't just have a problem sitting at a Woolworth's counter, but any lunch counter.  And this wasn't because all restaurant owners were racist.  It was also because even the most progressive restaurant owner wouldn't dare to allow blacks to sit with whites.  If he did, he could expect to be boycotted, or just as likely, run out of town.  As a result, the Civil Rights Act didn't just force the racists to provide services to blacks, it provided cover for the fair-minded citizen to do so ("Hey, what can I do?  It's the law.").

 

I'm a little disappointed that anyone in MY church would even consider going back to those dreadful days (because remember, what's to prevent the vendor from saying their religion is opposed to interracial marriage or MORMONS).

[Storm Rider]

Last time I looked religious views, ideas, and convictions were personal and exist regardless of the position of an organized religion. Do you think only members of organized religion have standards or heart-felt convictions about their personal beliefs?  

 

Freedom of religion does not mean that citizens only get to believe what a church tells them to; each of us has the right to believe whatever we want and what we believe is what we say we believe.  

 

Selling a cake for someone to take home and eat is different from selling a cake so that someone can celebrate a Satanic mass. If I am baking the cake you better believe I am not interested in participating directly or indirectly in such an event. This goes for civil unions, marriages, etc. We have small business people who have every right to say this is what I will do and what I will not do.  When you hear this go down the street to the next vendor and buy the silly cake. Hells-bells, go to the gay baker that makes wonderful cakes and buy it.  

 

As I said above, this is an inconvenience; it is not a problem except a modicum of understanding. You get to believe what you want and if you don't want to take my money, don't.  I would prefer to spend my money where it is appreciated.  This is total propaganda and has nothing to do with rights. 

[Avatar4321]

The exact same argument was used to deny blacks a seat at the lunch tables, buses, and movie theaters for generations of Americans.

 

So that makes it okay to use violence to force people together?

[Avatar4321]

I think most people would agree with my opinion on this (and most people support gay marriage), but that's beside the point. 

 

It's not reasonable to suppose that providing cake in exchange for money amounts to meaningful participating in a gay wedding, unless the cake also contains the pastor who will be marrying the happy couple. 

 

Really? Cause the cake seems to be an important part of the wedding ceramony to many people.

[Avatar4321]

I don't understand why anyone would think this is an issue for those of us who think it might not be a good idea to force someone to participate (by their own definition) in an activity they believe is wrong….especially since refusing someone for being LDS has been used as an example already by at least me and bluebell has indicated that she agrees with me.

 

I will not argue with someone if they say they won't do something for me because I am LDS.  I believe they should have the right to do so.  God will judge them just as he will judge me on allowing them their full agency as opposed to trying to force them to do right (he would, imo, judge me foolish if I tried to force them to do right as in my view that is an impossibility…even if the outward behaviour is "right", the inner behaviour is "wrong" and I prefer to know how people actually feel rather than promoting a society that lives behind masks even if those masks cover hate and bigotry; one can't try to help heal a wound that one doesn't know exists).

 

Problem is many of those arguing don't believe there is a God to judge them. Which, ironically, makes their viewpoints and values completely arbitrary.

[Avatar4321]

Last time I looked religious views, ideas, and convictions were personal and exist regardless of the position of an organized religion. Do you think only members of organized religion have standards or heart-felt convictions about their personal beliefs?  

 

Freedom of religion does not mean that citizens only get to believe what a church tells them to; each of us has the right to believe whatever we want and what we believe is what we say we believe.  

 

Selling a cake for someone to take home and eat is different from selling a cake so that someone can celebrate a Satanic mass. If I am baking the cake you better believe I am not interested in participating directly or indirectly in such an event. This goes for civil unions, marriages, etc. We have small business people who have every right to say this is what I will do and what I will not do.  When you hear this go down the street to the next vendor and buy the silly cake. Hells-bells, go to the gay baker that makes wonderful cakes and buy it.  

 

As I said above, this is an inconvenience; it is not a problem except a modicum of understanding. You get to believe what you want and if you don't want to take my money, don't.  I would prefer to spend my money where it is appreciated.  This is total propaganda and has nothing to do with rights. 

 

It's more than propaganda. It's a deliberate attack on people of faith. Which is the point of forcing gay marriage laws on the people in the first place. As a Church, we've already seen the Adversary use marriage laws to attack and persecute us, does anyone really think it will be different this time?

[rockpond]

You think people should be able to picket someone's house?

I was not commenting on OSC with the private comment. In fact didn't I say in a previous comment that those who thought there should be protection of refusing service while boycotting someone like Card was wrong was an inconsistent position? He had made plenty of public statements.

By private, I mean no public statements, as a private person totally unconnected with a business and not a public persona associated with a cause...say like if I send in a donation to the Diabetes Association, just slip it in an envelope and no one would know about it unless someone looked into my finances or the Association. This would be different then if it was publicised I was an official sponsor.

Sorry, I think I understand now. And agree.

[rockpond]

It's more than propaganda. It's a deliberate attack on people of faith. Which is the point of forcing gay marriage laws on the people in the first place. As a Church, we've already seen the Adversary use marriage laws to attack and persecute us, does anyone really think it will be different this time?

Wow. Homosexuals asking for equality is now "a deliberate attack on people of faith"? That is some crazy victim mentality.

[Traela]

All those who are against this legislation, are you also against granting a potential soldier Conscientious Objector status? If not, what do you see as the difference?

[bluebell]

I'm a little disappointed that anyone in MY church would even consider going back to those dreadful days (because remember, what's to prevent the vendor from saying their religion is opposed to interracial marriage or MORMONS).

 

I guess we need to start making sure that members know to asked themselves 'what would mormonweb do?' before they make decisions like this.  After all, it is YOUR church.  

 

Seriously and sincerely though, I completely agree that it is beyond frustrating when people do not behave in the only way that seems reasonable to us.  Sometimes we are probably more right in our frustrations than others, but it's still difficult regardless.

[Daniel2]

Answer my question first.

What question? I don't see one you directed at me....