Scott Lloyd Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Here's a thoughtful analysis from a knowledgeable individual with a legal background regarding the concept of religious freedom and refusing service, written in the wake of this week's news conference. It's on the Meridian site, but I got to it by way of Daniel Peterson's blog. I'm going to link to Dan's site to give poor tonie more ammunition in the case she is making against me with the moderating team for allegedly linking to a "for-profit blog". 4
Bob Crockett Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 (edited) Well, as a libertarian I'm all for refusing service. Refuse all you want. Chicago school economic theory teaches the those who discriminate find themselves in a suboptimal competitive position and should be weeded out over time everything else being equal. However, the theory in California is that if you depend upon public services for your business (freeways, police, medical school licensing and such) then you can't discriminate. For that reason a fertility doctor cannot refuse service to a lesbian couple and a landlord cannot refuse to rent to gays. Edited January 29, 2015 by Bob Crockett 3
thesometimesaint Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Here's a thoughtful analysis from a knowledgeable individual with a legal background regarding the concept of religious freedom and refusing service, written in the wake of this week's news conference. It's on the Meridian site, but I got to it by way of Daniel Peterson's blog. I'm going to link to Dan's site to give poor tonie more ammunition in the case she is making against me with the moderating team for allegedly linking to a "for-profit blog". It is always a balancing act. We really don't want our government, or some other legal entity, telling us what we can and can't do in every instance. However the needs of any society may at some time have more weight than our claims of individual liberty. IE; I voluntarily give up my personal liberty to drive too fast on the public highways even if there is no one else around. As we say in the biz is an internal control. While getting a traffic ticket is an external control. As a society we have largely decided that whatever the real or supposed detriments of SSM, our individual liberty has more weight than legally mandated strict heterosexual marriage.
thesometimesaint Posted January 29, 2015 Posted January 29, 2015 Well, as a libertarian I'm all for refusing service. Refuse all you want. However, the theory in California is that if you depend upon public services for your business (freeways, police, medical school licensing and such) then you can't discriminate. For that reason a fertility doctor cannot refuse service to a lesbian couple and a landlord cannot refuse to rent to gays. A Libertarian society is oxymoronic.
Robert F. Smith Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Well, as a libertarian I'm all for refusing service. Refuse all you want. Chicago school economic theory teaches the those who discriminate find themselves in a suboptimal competitive position and should be weeded out over time everything else being equal. However, the theory in California is that if you depend upon public services for your business (freeways, police, medical school licensing and such) then you can't discriminate. For that reason a fertility doctor cannot refuse service to a lesbian couple and a landlord cannot refuse to rent to gays. So, is it your understanding that the LDS position should be parsed to exclude the former, and include the latter? The bolded portion.
Robert F. Smith Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 A Libertarian society is oxymoronic.Yeh, but is it Mormonic?
Robert F. Smith Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Here's a thoughtful analysis from a knowledgeable individual with a legal background regarding the concept of religious freedom and refusing service, written in the wake of this week's news conference. It's on the Meridian site, but I got to it by way of Daniel Peterson's blog. I'm going to link to Dan's site to give poor tonie more ammunition in the case she is making against me with the moderating team for allegedly linking to a "for-profit blog".What about refusing service in the military for reasons of religious conscientious objection?
Kenngo1969 Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 What about refusing service in the military for reasons of religious conscientious objection?If there isn't a draft, then it's pretty simple in my book: if you don't want to be ordered to fight, don't join. In the case of locales which have a compulsory military service requirement, perhaps there is a way for someone in such a position to request to be assigned to a non-combat role. Am I oversimplifying? If so, what am I missing?
pogi Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 (edited) Am I wrong in understanding that the church just backed legislation which "...protects gays against inequity in employment, housing and places of public accommodation...", according to the desert news? http://www.deseretne...ation-laws.html Generally speaking, it may help to think of public accommodations as most businesses or buildings that are open to, or offer services to, the general public. See more at: http://civilrights.f...h.iRbbTI0N.dpuf In other words, they are suggesting that we need to be willing to "give a little here, take a little there and work out compromises" according to Oaks. Edited January 30, 2015 by pogi 1
Bob Crockett Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 So, is it your understanding that the LDS position should be parsed to exclude the former, and include the latter? The bolded portion.I don't pretend to say the Church should do anything, and as a libertarian I don't agree with California's Unruh Act. Rather, we should be free to choose, good or bad, and government should enervate freedom and not coerce a doctor to treat anybody. For that reason abortion should be permitted but folks should be permitted to denounce it, and government should not enable it with funds. 2
Scott Lloyd Posted January 30, 2015 Author Posted January 30, 2015 What about refusing service in the military for reasons of religious conscientious objection?t I have no problem with that.
Robert F. Smith Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 If there isn't a draft, then it's pretty simple in my book: if you don't want to be ordered to fight, don't join. In the case of locales which have a compulsory military service requirement, perhaps there is a way for someone in such a position to request to be assigned to a non-combat role. Am I oversimplifying? If so, what am I missing?Pretty good summation, and some do choose to serve as medics (like Seventh Day Adventists). Some others refuse to serve in any capacity in a military organization. In the past such people were imprisoned. What sort of rules should apply to such people? Can Mormons claim conscientious objector status?
Robert F. Smith Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 I don't pretend to say the Church should do anything, and as a libertarian I don't agree with California's Unruh Act. Rather, we should be free to choose, good or bad, and government should enervate freedom and not coerce a doctor to treat anybody. For that reason abortion should be permitted but folks should be permitted to denounce it, and government should not enable it with funds.Enervate or energize freedom? I suspect you meant the latter.
tonie Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 I'm going to link to Dan's site to give poor tonie more ammunition in the case she is making against me with the moderating team for allegedly linking to a "for-profit blog". Patheos pays its bloggers, there is no "allegedly" about it. Here's a thoughtful analysis from a knowledgeable individual with a legal background regarding the concept of religious freedom and refusing service, written in the wake of this week's news conference. Her analysis, isn't very thoughtful. She creates her own standard then runs with, though her standard does not have basis in the law. Her attempt at logic is flawed. She first speaking of someone creating and building a brand as someone who should be protect to discriminate based on religious beliefs. She contrast this "creative person" with a taxi driver or cashier, who have less to be permitted to discriminate. She then distorts her "logic" with her assertion that a rentor or a phramasitics (who are essentially a taxi driver or cashier) is part of the "creative class" that needs to be permitted by law to discriminate. Her analysis, overall, lacks legal justification and lacks legal support. Which is why I do not find it very "thoughtful" or helpful. And by way of background, my educational background is in Civil Rights.
Scott Lloyd Posted January 30, 2015 Author Posted January 30, 2015 Patheos pays its bloggers, there is no "allegedly" about it.assuming that's true it's OK with me. Newspapers pay their writers. Does that mean we shouldn't link to newspapers?
Kenngo1969 Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 assuming that's true it's OK with me. Newspapers pay their writers. Does that mean we shouldn't link to newspapers?You mean, you actually get paid??!!! Scandal!
Scott Lloyd Posted January 30, 2015 Author Posted January 30, 2015 Pretty good summation, and some do choose to serve as medics (like Seventh Day Adventists). Some others refuse to serve in any capacity in a military organization. In the past such people were imprisoned. What sort of rules should apply to such people? Can Mormons claim conscientious objector status?Pretty good summation, and some do choose to serve as medics (like Seventh Day Adventists). Some others refuse to serve in any capacity in a military organization. In the past such people were imprisoned. What sort of rules should apply to such people? Can Mormons claim conscientious objector status?It would be OK with me. But then, I oppose a military draft. It's vestige of my liberal leanings backin my high scho an college days in the early '70s.
Kenngo1969 Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 It would be OK with me. But then, I oppose a military draft. It's vestige of my liberal leanings backin my high scho an college days in the early '70s.Why, you Reformed Rebel, you!
Scott Lloyd Posted January 30, 2015 Author Posted January 30, 2015 Why, you Reformed Rebel, you! The issues I was liberal about don't exist anymore.
Hillel2 Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Pretty good summation, and some do choose to serve as medics (like Seventh Day Adventists). Some others refuse to serve in any capacity in a military organization. In the past such people were imprisoned. What sort of rules should apply to such people? Can Mormons claim conscientious objector status?Any individual can prepare a claim of conscientious objector status. You simply have to locate one of a number of organizations and file with them the necessary paperwork. Then, if there is a conflict and the actual draft brought back, You can point to Your file and it is expected some kind of accomodation will be made (e.g. You would work in a medical corps...). The problem is when Person X says "as a member of Religious Organization Y, i am invoking conscientious objector status." Established Religious bodies don't usually declare one war or another immoral nor do they invoke a ban on participating in them. So if You don't have some kind of paperwork, the government can call You on Your claim..though that hasn't happened in more than 40 years.
The Nehor Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 Well, as a libertarian I'm all for refusing service. Refuse all you want. Chicago school economic theory teaches the those who discriminate find themselves in a suboptimal competitive position and should be weeded out over time everything else being equal. However, the theory in California is that if you depend upon public services for your business (freeways, police, medical school licensing and such) then you can't discriminate. For that reason a fertility doctor cannot refuse service to a lesbian couple and a landlord cannot refuse to rent to gays.Assuming of course that your customers do not discriminate. Of course if you go back in time and you open a restaurant in the 40s and let black people in to increase your customer base you will find that many of your white customers refuse to patronize your establishment because of your decision and you end up losing money.Racism cannot be solved by the free market. 3
Bob Crockett Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 (edited) Assuming of course that your customers do not discriminate. Of course if you go back in time and you open a restaurant in the 40s and let black people in to increase your customer base you will find that many of your white customers refuse to patronize your establishment because of your decision and you end up losing money.Racism cannot be solved by the free market.The doctrine of "freedom to chose" does not assume that people are perfect, that God is everywhere, and there is, in fact, freedom to choose. Discrimination in the deep south after reconstruction until the present day continues, for example, because of the problems of human nature and government oppression. Blacks could not send their kids to public schools or universities, ride on buses, attend movie theaters and sit at restaurant counters because of the force of law and not because of economics. One of the essential messages of the Book of Mormon is that God has given man the agency to choose. Governments should empower the freedom to choose, not restrict it. To that end: 1. There should be freedom in the public marketplace of ideas by people of religious faith. The District Court struck down Prop 8 because religious people were behind the proposition. 2. Government should decouple from "marriage" if it gives licenses to pastors to perform the marriages. Government should get out of the marriage business. But, if not, religious voices should have unfettered right to argue what marriage means and what it doesn't. 3. Freedom from immigration restrictions; decriminalize drugs, etc. Edited January 30, 2015 by Bob Crockett 1
The Nehor Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 The doctrine of "freedom to chose" does not assume that people are perfect, that God is everywhere, and there is, in fact, freedom to choose. Discrimination in the deep south after reconstruction until the present day continues, for example, because of the problems of human nature and government oppression. Blacks could not send their kids to public schools or universities, ride on buses, attend movie theaters and sit at restaurant counters because of the force of law and not because of economics. One of the essential messages of the Book of Mormon is that God has given man the agency to choose. Governments should empower the freedom to choose, not restrict it. To that end: 1. There should be freedom in the public marketplace of ideas by people of religious faith. The District Court struck down Prop 8 because religious people were behind the proposition. 2. Government should decouple from "marriage" if it gives licenses to pastors to perform the marriages. Government should get out of the marriage business. But, if not, religious voices should have unfettered right to argue what marriage means and what it doesn't. 3. Freedom from immigration restrictions; decriminalize drugs, etc.Would you like to explain why racism continues in the South due to government oppression? That is a radical interpretation of history. I have heard it before but the reasoning was, to put it mildly, asinine.Actually blacks were not kept from most of the things you mentioned through force of law. A white theater or restaurant owner could let black in if they chose to. The school boards decided who went to which school and could in theory have integrated. It was through force of culture. When the federal government stepped in they forced it to stop.Agency and freedom are not the same thing. Agency is a gift of God that neither man nor Devils can restrict. Freedom is a political question of how much freedom should be allowed, what behaviors should be curtailed, and how they should be curtailed and all of this is done in the interests of giving up some freedom to get more freedom.
The Nehor Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 2. Government should decouple from "marriage" if it gives licenses to pastors to perform the marriages. Government should get out of the marriage business. But, if not, religious voices should have unfettered right to argue what marriage means and what it doesn't.Which is diagnosing society's treatment of marriage as abusive and euthanizing the victim to make it stop.
KevinG Posted January 30, 2015 Posted January 30, 2015 I wish y'all would stop portraying Southerners as racist. As an adopted Northerner, I can vouch for the vile, ugly racism I witnessed in the North being as viscous as any I have witnessed living in Tennessee, South Carolina and Georgia. In fact the South has worked through many of their issues during the civil rights era that the North has not even admitted to having. I have been told by more than one black friend that they prefer the bigots in the South because they get in your face, and you can avoid them. Not like the ones up North that talk pretty then stab you in the back. 2
Recommended Posts