rockpond Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 What makes this controversial is that this issue is about whether or not it should be legal to discriminate against an activity (SSM for example) while other discrimination issues (like civil rights) are about whether it should be legal to discriminate against a person. I've read the bill and I don't see anything the distinguishes between discriminating against and activity vs a person. It seems to say that you can refuse service to anyone if it would interfere with your free exercise of religion. Very broad. That's why I think that it just won't hold up.
rockpond Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 Some conscious objectors refused to serve in any capacity. They were generally exempted from the draft and someone else was drafted to serve in their place. It may be argued that exempting such a CO did actual harm to someone else. At a minimum, the person drafted in the place of that CO had to defer educational, professional and personal opportunities. In all probability, some were seriously wounded and even killed because a CO was exempted from the draft. On the other hand, not even the “victims“ of the cake maker and photographer claim they were not able to easily get comparable (and maybe even better) goods and services elsewhere. The only “harm” was a little inconvenience and (perhaps) hurt feelings. On an individual level, yes, refusing to photograph a wedding or make a cake just results in some hurt feelings. These days they have other businesses who won't discriminate against them. But on a macro level, I believe that much harm has been done over the past decades through prejudice and discrimination against homosexuals.
bluebell Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 I've read the bill and I don't see anything the distinguishes between discriminating against and activity vs a person. It seems to say that you can refuse service to anyone if it would interfere with your free exercise of religion. Very broad. That's why I think that it just won't hold up. Exactly. The bill is way to broad. I can't imagine anyone thinking it has a chance of passing or being upheld if it does. I think the issue behind the bill though, of whether or not someone should be forced by the government to participate in something they religiously find immoral, distinguishes between the activity vs. person. At least it seems to as I've seen it argued on this thread.
The Nehor Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 I think the question is framed wrong. I don't think those wanting to withhold services to gays and lesbians or birth control pills from women or whatever are really concerned that doing so will soil their saintly purity. From a charitable point of view they are discouraging sin by not endorsing or helping with it and that opens a whole new can of worms. Following that stance we should be much more discriminatory. We should set a maximum BMI at which you are allowed to buy fast food to prevent gluttony, give a ration card for how much alcohol a week you are allowed to purchase to prevent drunkenness, and all kinds of other limits. From a less charitable point of view they want to indulge in divinely approved hatred or bask in an air of superiority. The reason the Satanist cults and the like were latched on to by some segments of society is that it created a true evil to fight. It was easy because you did not have to deal with any worry that you are a Satanist so you avoid the discomfort of condemning a sin you commit. It is a cheap virtue with the added bonus of making you a hero fighting incredible evil while encouraging no action. I am always wary of cheap virtues. Usually when I feel I am being good it means I am leaning too far off of one side of the horse or I don't understand what the virtue actually entails.
bluebell Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 I think the question is framed wrong. I don't think those wanting to withhold services to gays and lesbians or birth control pills from women or whatever are really concerned that doing so will soil their saintly purity. I don't know that anyone who objects to being a participant in something they find immoral does so because they don't want to 'soil their purity.' If I understand correctly, it's because they don't want to offend God and they sincerely believe participating in the activity will do just that. But, i'm sure there are people out there for whom this is all an issue of self-righteousness. No group of people, whether religious, anti-religious, gay, straight, liberal or conservative, is free of that human weakness. We all like to get up on our high horse every now and then.
Sleeper Cell Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 I'm conflicted about a Draft. I'm not a pacifist, I joined the US Air Force, but as a general rule I abhor violence. Some allowance should be made for COs'. OTOH there are times when personal beliefs must take a back seat to necessity. The down side is there is always disagreements as to what is necessity. So am I. If we are going to make some allowances for those COs who refuse to participate in war, why not also make similar allowances for COs. who refuse to participate in other things that violate their deeply held religious beliefs? While there may be some times when personal beliefs must take a back seat to necessity, what is the necessity for forcing someone to provide goods and services if comparable (and perhaps even better) goods and services are readily available nearby? As I previously pointed out, exempting the CO does significant harm to the guy drafted in his place. This is not true for the cake maker and photographer.
rockpond Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 I think the issue behind the bill though, of whether or not someone should be forced by the government to participate in something they religiously find immoral, distinguishes between the activity vs. person. At least it seems to as I've seen it argued on this thread. That does seem to be what is being discussed on this thread but I don't see it reflected in the language of the bill. I am open to someone explaining the text of the bill but honestly it seems to me that it just says a person or business can refuse service if it interferes with their free exercise of religion. I think that the authors probably were going for something along the lines of what you are saying -- I just don't see that in the bill.
Sleeper Cell Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 On an individual level, yes, refusing to photograph a wedding or make a cake just results in some hurt feelings. These days they have other businesses who won't discriminate against them. But on a macro level, I believe that much harm has been done over the past decades through prejudice and discrimination against homosexuals. Certainly. But why punish those individuals who didn’t’ cause the harm? IIRC, the cake maker had no problem with serving homosexuals, and had even served this particular couple previously.
rockpond Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 Certainly. But why punish those individuals who didn’t’ cause the harm? IIRC, the cake maker had no problem with serving homosexuals, and had even served this particular couple previously. If the cake maker broke the law (an anti-discrimination law) than s/he has to face the consequences. I think the point of the discussion here is to examine these types of laws and the rational behind them.
bluebell Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 That does seem to be what is being discussed on this thread but I don't see it reflected in the language of the bill. I am open to someone explaining the text of the bill but honestly it seems to me that it just says a person or business can refuse service if it interferes with their free exercise of religion. I think that the authors probably were going for something along the lines of what you are saying -- I just don't see that in the bill. I agree, i don't see it in the bill either. But I also have trouble understanding exactly what the bill is saying, legal speak being what it is and all.
california boy Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 I don't know if it matters, but I just learned that this law represents the current status quo in Arizona; at least, in relation to gay people. At present, gay people can be fired and refused serviced solely based on their sexual orientation. So why are Arizona lawmakers wasting their time on this issue anyway? I heard one lawmaker argue that it was a "preemptive" move to stem the tide of lawsuits that have arisen elsewhere. Of course, a state law will not achieve this purpose because any constitutional challenge will trump a mere state law. Likewise, if the federal government were to pass a law protecting gays from discrimination, the federal law would preempt state law. So, once again, why have this law at all? I can think of only two reasons: (1) The lawmakers are trying to establish their "homophobia cred" with their base; or (2) They're coming to get us. With respect to gay people, this law will only maintain the status quo, but with regards to religious and racial minorities, it will expand the field of lawful discrimination. The person who still believes that blacks are under the curse of Cain can decide that he is religiously obligated to extend to avoid all contact with the accursed. And certainly, the person who believes that Mormonism is "a cult from the pit of hell," can advertise a room for rent stating, "No Mormons allowed." After all, Paul said, "Neither give place to the devil." Of course, this law will be preempted as it applies to blacks and Mormons because of federal law. So exactly what is the purpose of this law again?I completely agree with your analysis. I personally am not worried at all if this becomes law. I actually think it will be another Prop 8 type law. If it does pass, then there will be challenges to this law that eventually may lead to a supreme court ruling outlawing all discrimination against a citizen just because they are gay. The bottom line is this is just a back door discrimination law. Either we believe in discrimination in this country or we do not. What everyone thought was settled 30 years ago, evidently is still not settled. From reading some of the posts in this thread, I realize that there are still some that want to bring back the good old days where discrimination was a way of life especially in some parts of the country. I personally do not support discrimination of any kind. I don't think discrimination is a part of Christianity and those that use Christ to promote discrimination should be ashamed of themselves.
bluebell Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 From reading some of the posts in this thread, I realize that there are still some that want to bring back the good old days where discrimination was a way of life especially in some parts of the country. Can you point out which specific posts have caused you to realize this? It's a serious accusation so I think it's fair to ask you to defend it.
Gray Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 Not really though. As a nation, we are very comfortable discriminating against some things (like shirtless people, as a funny example, or felons, or pet owners, or smokers or people who supported Prop 8 ), while believing that discriminating against others is very bad. So as a nation, we don't really value fair play for all. We value fair play for specific groups. I'm not suggesting that's bad so much as I'm challenging the idea that it HAS to be that way. While a convincing case might be made that we are all born shirtless and shoeless, I don't think there is any evidence to support the idea that shirtlessness is a gender, a sexual orientation, or a race. It seems to be a matter of choice, unlike the categories I mentioned.
BCSpace Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 From reading some of the posts in this thread, I realize that there are still some that want to bring back the good old days where discrimination was a way of life especially in some parts of the country. Are you saying we should be indiscriminate then? What we see now in full bloom is the homosexual agenda allied with the 'Progressive' (aka Communist) agenda in taking down religion and liberty in general. Sure, pass all the 'anti discrimination' laws you want IF they benefit homosexuals, but if religions and speech freedoms are to be protected, no way.
BCSpace Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 I don't think there is any evidence to support the idea that shirtlessness is a gender, a sexual orientation, or a race There is nothing that ties the homosexuality issue to the race issue or makes them similar.
rockpond Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 There is nothing that ties the homosexuality issue to the race issue or makes them similar. Immutability (generally speaking, not in all cases). And oppression based on religious beliefs.
rockpond Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 Are you saying we should be indiscriminate then? What we see now in full bloom is the homosexual agenda allied with the 'Progressive' (aka Communist) agenda in taking down religion and liberty in general. Sure, pass all the 'anti discrimination' laws you want IF they benefit homosexuals, but if religions and speech freedoms are to be protected, no way. I think that the problem here lies in the idea that either we support legalized gay marriage or we support freedom of religion. The two are not mutually exclusive. We can legally recognize gay marriage and still have freedom of religion (greater religious freedom, in fact).
BCSpace Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 Immutability (generally speaking, not in all cases). And oppression based on religious beliefs. Incorrect. Even in law, fortunately, homosexuality does not rise to the level of suspect classification. Plus, there is no 'gay gene'. On top of that, there is no law being proposed that discriminates against gays. I think that the problem here lies in the idea that either we support legalized gay marriage or we support freedom of religion. The two are not mutually exclusive. We can legally recognize gay marriage and still have freedom of religion (greater religious freedom, in fact). Then you should have no problem with the Arizona bill.
Gray Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 There is nothing that ties the homosexuality issue to the race issue or makes them similar. Sexual orientation, like race, is something you're born with, and something that has been historically been used to marginalized people who are the "wrong" color or orientation.
Daniel2 Posted February 25, 2014 Author Posted February 25, 2014 Mitt Romney joins John McCain in calling for a veto if this bill:http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-vQ7EW9jOqgE/Uw0Sk0Xiu7I/AAAAAAACwk8/_cEIY03FENo/s1600/RomneyVeto.JPG
bluebell Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 While a convincing case might be made that we are all born shirtless and shoeless, I don't think there is any evidence to support the idea that shirtlessness is a gender, a sexual orientation, or a race. It seems to be a matter of choice, unlike the categories I mentioned. But... As i said earlier, this issue is not about refusing to serve anyone because of who they are. It's about refusing to serve someone because of what they want you to do. Chosing a baker for your SSM is definitely a choice.
Gray Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 But... As i said earlier, this issue is not about refusing to serve anyone because of who they are. It's about refusing to serve someone because of what they want you to do. Chosing a baker for your SSM is definitely a choice. Who they are is wrapped up in what they want to do.
Calm Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 Can you point out which specific posts have caused you to realize this? It's a serious accusation so I think it's fair to ask you to defend it.From what I've read, those of us who don't believe a law should force people to act like they like others are also perfectly happy with using other forms of social pressure and education to actually eliminate discrimination rather than just mask it.
bluebell Posted February 25, 2014 Posted February 25, 2014 Who they are is wrapped up in what they want to do. That might be true, but it doesn't have anything to do with anti-discriminatory laws. A Jewish man, to use a very simple example, can legally force a restaurant to serve him dinner. But can he legally force them to serve a kosher dinner? Being Jewish (who he is) is wrapped up in him wanting to eat a kosher meal (what he wants to do), but that doesn't mean we have a duty to make sure that all restaurants legally HAVE to serve it to him. Neither does it make him wanting to eat kosher the same as him being Jewish.
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.