tonie Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 (edited) In a discussion with the Salt Lake Tribune, Elder Oaks did not want to discuss the hypothetical of allowing religious freedom to extend to discrimination against other religious people. The specific hypothetical was a Evangelical resturant owner refusing service to LDS Missionaries. Additionally, a bill (HB322) recently proposed in the Utah, makes it unlawful to discriminate against a person due to that persons religious beliefs. For our consideration: Religion is a choice.Religion is a choice that people often change.Religion is a choice that many religions actively seek to change in other people.Religion is a choice to believe in things which is are not see and are virtually unprovable. This begs two questions: Why should a religious persons individual choice in life be entitled to protection from discrimination? Why should a non-religious personnal choice not be afforded the same protection as a religious choice? Edited February 16, 2015 by tonie
rongo Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 I don't have a problem with people refusing to serve Mormons in a restaurant for religious reasons (or whatever reasons). I would go to a restaurant that doesn't have a problem serving me. I don't want to be where I'm not wanted. It seems to me that the "social check" on this behavior is powerful. That is, even if people would love not to serve Mormons, it would be economically disadvantageous not to, so most who don't want to will do it, anyway. In this modern climate, those who refuse to bake a cake, take wedding pictures, etc. for gay marriages are seen as "jerks" by most people, so there is an economic incentive to do it, anyway. The kicker is that I think people should be able to refuse service, even if this will be economically or socially disadvantageous to them (conventional wisdom or "on paper"). The more liberal camp believes that people should not be free to discriminate, for any reason, no matter what. 1
thesometimesaint Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 I don't have a problem with people refusing to serve Mormons in a restaurant for religious reasons (or whatever reasons). I would go to a restaurant that doesn't have a problem serving me. I don't want to be where I'm not wanted. It seems to me that the "social check" on this behavior is powerful. That is, even if people would love not to serve Mormons, it would be economically disadvantageous not to, so most who don't want to will do it, anyway. In this modern climate, those who refuse to bake a cake, take wedding pictures, etc. for gay marriages are seen as "jerks" by most people, so there is an economic incentive to do it, anyway. The kicker is that I think people should be able to refuse service, even if this will be economically or socially disadvantageous to them (conventional wisdom or "on paper"). The more liberal camp believes that people should not be free to discriminate, for any reason, no matter what. SEE Markets are not magic.https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PuemA2uwi04 1
Kenngo1969 Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 ... This begs two questions ... No, it doesn't. It may prompt two (or more) questions, but it does not beg them. Question-begging is a logical fallacy, and I don't think you mean to suggest that your logic is faulty, do you? http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html 4
tonie Posted February 16, 2015 Author Posted February 16, 2015 No, it doesn't. It may prompt two (or more) questions, but it does not beg them. Question-begging is a logical fallacy, and I don't think you mean to suggest that your logic is faulty, do you? http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/begging-the-question.html Please address the issue of religious freedom and discrimination, otherwise I kindly ask that you not post in this topic.
JLHPROF Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 Why should a religious persons individual choice in life be entitled to protection from discrimination? Because the Constitution/Bill of Rights (1st Amendment) prevents government from discriminating based on religion. It's a trickle down idea to prevent the populace from doing discriminating on religion too. If people can be justified in discriminating against a religion, eventually the government might be able to claim justification for doing it to. And that would be a very bad situation. Why should a non-religious personal choice not be afforded the same protection as a religious choice? If the non-religious choice is a protected right it should be.But I am no legal expert. 1
Glenn101 Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 I actually do not have a problem with it if there is an actual religious creed in one religion against service to or interaction with those of another particular religion or religious practice. Say, for instance, that polygamy were to become legal once again and a polygamist were to request that a privately owned bakery prepare a wedding cake for an upcoming wedding involving three or more people of a particular religious sect. Now, if the owners of that bakery were to refuse service because of deeply held religious views against polygamy, maybe they should have that right. Glenn 3
Kenngo1969 Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 (edited) Note: I'm not saying this is how things are; I'm saying this is how they should be. To me, isolated, sporadic, nonsystemic, de facto discrimination is a different thing entirely than widespread, systemic, de jure discrimination. I agree that the Equal Protection Clause should bar the latter. However, as much as I hate to use the tired, worn, cake-baking example, it does serve to illustrate the point. In order to prevail legally, the proponents of a discrimination claim should have to show something more than, "He refused to bake my partner and me a cake that says, "Happy Wedding, Bill and Ted!", claiming that to do so would violate his conscience; ergo, the government (via the courts) should salve our egos (and convince him that he should never do that again) by requiring him to pay us a six-figure sum in damages. Rather, Bill and Ted should also be required to show that they could not reasonably obtain comparable cake-baking services elsewhere. While, in some respects, perhaps it would be nice if the law could provide a remedy for every wrong (no matter how slight), that's not the world in which we live. The vast majority of wrongs do not (indeed, they should not) result in litigation. If it were otherwise, an already-overburdened court system would be stressed beyond the breaking point. Rather, the wronged party simply counts it as a lesson learned (and/or perhaps shares his experience with others, so as to spare them the pain he has experienced) and determines to move on: sadder, perhaps, but wiser. Ideally, this is a lesson we learned as children, as our beleaguered parents refused to intervene to mediate every dispute between us and our siblings, encouraging us, instead, to let go of the slight rather than letting it fester. (Come to think of it, it's probably a good thing I'm not a parent. If I were, and if one of my children were to come to me and say, "Daddy, he hit me!" I would be too tempted to say, "Ooooh, so sorry! You delayed your race to the courthouse too long: the statute of limitations on brother/sister-hitting expired just before you arrived!" ) Edited February 16, 2015 by Kenngo1969 1
Kenngo1969 Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 (edited) Please address the issue of religious freedom and discrimination, otherwise I kindly ask that you not post in this topic.Well! Alrighty, then! P.S: And it's really of no consequence to me if you happen to consider my previous post on the topic nonresponsive. I haven't frequented the Board often enough lately to care. I just happen to have some free time today because of the holiday. Edited February 16, 2015 by Kenngo1969
pogi Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 "Happy Wedding, Bill and Ted!" Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure III?
rockpond Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 (edited) In a discussion with the Salt Lake Tribune, Elder Oaks did not want to discuss the hypothetical of allowing religious freedom to extend to discrimination against other religious people. The specific hypothetical was a Evangelical resturant owner refusing service to LDS Missionaries.Additionally, a bill (HB322) recently proposed in the Utah, makes it unlawful to discriminate against a person due to that persons religious beliefs.For our consideration:Religion is a choice.Religion is a choice that people often change.Religion is a choice that many religions actively seek to change in other people.Religion is a choice to believe in things which is are not see and are virtually unprovable.This begs two questions:Why should a religious persons individual choice in life be entitled to protection from discrimination?Why should a non-religious personnal choice not be afforded the same protection as a religious choice?I think Elder Holland's counsel in the press conference was very good: we should guard those rights we want guarded for ourselves. So if I want the right to refuse service to a gay couple, I need to allow others the right to refuse service to a Mormon couple. But, in the end, I would think we should first be exemplars of unconditional kindness. Edited February 16, 2015 by rockpond 3
carbon dioxide Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 Yes religious people should be protected against discrimination just as non-religious people should be protected. No person should be forced to do something that is against their conscience. It already exists. Doctors are protected by law against performing abortions if they are personally against it is an example. I would render service to gays, transsexuals, pedophiles, and anyone else whose engage in practices that I am personally against as long as I am not forced into being involved in actions that goes against my beliefs. So if I was a photographer, I would be just as opposed to being asked to take naked pictures of a stripper at a strip club as I would taking pictures of a gay couple at their wedding. They can do whatever they want but I am not obligated to witness and be a part of something I am against. 2
tonie Posted February 16, 2015 Author Posted February 16, 2015 Because the Constitution/Bill of Rights (1st Amendment) prevents government from discriminating based on religion. It's a trickle down idea to prevent the populace from doing discriminating on religion too. If people can be justified in discriminating against a religion, eventually the government might be able to claim justification for doing it to. And that would be a very bad situation. Interesting, but I do not see it as a concern, i.e. the people are allowed to discriminate so why not allow the government. In the United States we exist under the conditions that individuals can discriminate, or rather, that Constitutional protections apply to government action and not individual actions. For instance, land owners do not have to allow free speech, the government on the other hand does. 2
Raingirl Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 Interesting, but I do not see it as a concern, i.e. the people are allowed to discriminate so why not allow the government. In the United States we exist under the conditions that individuals can discriminate, or rather, that Constitutional protections apply to government action and not individual actions. For instance, land owners do not have to allow free speech, the government on the other hand does.Sure, why not allow the government to discriminate? No harm there.Unless you're the one in the cattle car on the way to the death camp. 3
california boy Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 There is a heck of a lot of energy devoted to this subject when you consider less than a dozen cases have ever been brought to justice. The courts heard the cases. It was determined that the laws were broken, The offending business owners were dealt with as the law provided. If laws are changed on a state basis allowing religion to discriminate, a lawsuit will be filed and the Supreme Court will in all probability throw the laws out based on the equal protection clause of the United States. In this country it is illegal for a business to discriminate. I don't see that changing in the long run.
Kenngo1969 Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure III?LOL! Perhaps, but ... I derail!
ERayR Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 I think Elder Holland's counsel in the press conference was very good: we should guard those rights we want guarded for ourselves.So if I want the right to refuse service to a gay couple, I need to allow others the right to refuse service to a Mormon couple.But, in the end, I would think we should first be exemplars of unconditional kindness. I hope it is no surprise to you that on this we agree.
Scott Lloyd Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 I think the thread topic is a strawman. The immediate menace is not religious people being discriminated against. It is religious people being forbidden to exercise their First Amendment rights (freedom of speech, freedom of the press, free exercise of religion, freedom of peacable assembly) and other constitutional rights, by government or private oppression merely for expressing their religious faith, endeavoring to participate in the political process, etc. 4
tonie Posted February 17, 2015 Author Posted February 17, 2015 (edited) Note: I'm not saying this is how things are; I'm saying this is how they should be. To me, isolated, sporadic, nonsystemic, de facto discrimination is a different thing entirely than widespread, systemic, de jure discrimination. I agree that the Equal Protection Clause should bar the latter. By de jure discrimination what do you mean? For example, hypothetically, there are no anti-discrimination laws in the United States thus individual business owners do not violate the law by posting "No Mormons allowed" signs. Edited February 17, 2015 by tonie
tonie Posted February 17, 2015 Author Posted February 17, 2015 Sure, why not allow the government to discriminate? No harm there.Unless you're the one in the cattle car on the way to the death camp. Not sure why you came up that godwin example. But perhaps you missed that I pointed out that United States constitution protect individuals from Government action and not individuals from individual action. The example of the private land owner should have made it clear. A private landowner does not have to permitt free-speech/free-expression; thus a individual can no claim to "free speech" on private property. For example Church security removing requesting individuals leave Temple square for kissing. However, on public property (notwithstanding the various types of property and various free speech ruling pertaining thereto), an individual does have a claim to free speech.
thesometimesaint Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 Interesting, but I do not see it as a concern, i.e. the people are allowed to discriminate so why not allow the government. In the United States we exist under the conditions that individuals can discriminate, or rather, that Constitutional protections apply to government action and not individual actions. For instance, land owners do not have to allow free speech, the government on the other hand does. Actually the US Constitution protections do apply to individuals. Everything from accounting to zoning is to a greater or lesser extent is controlled through governments. IE; A newspaper owner that used his newspaper to libel a private individual could find himself/herself expalining to a judge why they shouldn't be sued.
rockpond Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 I hope it is no surprise to you that on this we agree. Not a surprise... I'm always glad when we find common ground.
tonie Posted February 17, 2015 Author Posted February 17, 2015 Actually the US Constitution protections do apply to individuals. Everything from accounting to zoning is to a greater or lesser extent is controlled through governments. IE; A newspaper owner that used his newspaper to libel a private individual could find himself/herself expalining to a judge why they shouldn't be sued. So where is the comparison. And how has the alleged defamed individual Constitutional rights been violated? The newspaper owner will get the opurtunity to explain how the content was not defamation, and thus protected speech.
thesometimesaint Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 So where is the comparison. And how has the alleged defamed individual Constitutional rights been violated? The newspaper owner will get the opurtunity to explain how the content was not defamation, and thus protected speech. We have laws against libel, and libel isn't protected speech.SEE http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burnett_v._National_Enquirer,_Inc.
The Nehor Posted February 17, 2015 Posted February 17, 2015 Note: I'm not saying this is how things are; I'm saying this is how they should be. To me, isolated, sporadic, nonsystemic, de facto discrimination is a different thing entirely than widespread, systemic, de jure discrimination. I agree that the Equal Protection Clause should bar the latter. However, as much as I hate to use the tired, worn, cake-baking example, it does serve to illustrate the point. In order to prevail legally, the proponents of a discrimination claim should have to show something more than, "He refused to bake my partner and me a cake that says, "Happy Wedding, Bill and Ted!", claiming that to do so would violate his conscience; ergo, the government (via the courts) should salve our egos (and convince him that he should never do that again) by requiring him to pay us a six-figure sum in damages. Rather, Bill and Ted should also be required to show that they could not reasonably obtain comparable cake-baking services elsewhere. While, in some respects, perhaps it would be nice if the law could provide a remedy for every wrong (no matter how slight), that's not the world in which we live. The vast majority of wrongs do not (indeed, they should not) result in litigation. If it were otherwise, an already-overburdened court system would be stressed beyond the breaking point. Rather, the wronged party simply counts it as a lesson learned (and/or perhaps shares his experience with others, so as to spare them the pain he has experienced) and determines to move on: sadder, perhaps, but wiser. Ideally, this is a lesson we learned as children, as our beleaguered parents refused to intervene to mediate every dispute between us and our siblings, encouraging us, instead, to let go of the slight rather than letting it fester. (Come to think of it, it's probably a good thing I'm not a parent. If I were, and if one of my children were to come to me and say, "Daddy, he hit me!" I would be too tempted to say, "Ooooh, so sorry! You delayed your race to the courthouse too long: the statute of limitations on brother/sister-hitting expired just before you arrived!" )So basically you want to bring back "separate but equal"?
Recommended Posts