"Why Are Companies Taking Sides against Religious Liberty"

[Scott Lloyd]

I know that some here see red whenever the topic of religious freedom is brought up, and I know that some here like to pretend there is no current threat to religious freedom and demand to be shown examples whenever the topic is mentioned and then they get irritated when such examples are forthcoming. But such denial is the very reason to remain vigilant and to keep the issue before the public eye, despite the annoyance it causes to some.

In the interest of providing examples, here is a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece about how efforts to pass legislation to safeguard religious liberty in the wake of Obergefell are being hindered, in some instances, by corporations. In the long run, they do so arguably to their own detriment, as such politically correct tyranny is harmful to the economic enviroment.

This topic is relevant to this board as the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ have staked out a position in favor of assertive efforts to safeguard religious liberty. It is thus incumbent upon faithful members individually to lend their support to that effort.

Here's an interesting snippet from the WSJ piece with a local (LDS related) note of interest:

Quote

Religious liberty is good for everyone, not only the faithful. A recent study by researchers at Georgetown University and Brigham Young University found economic competitiveness is stronger in countries with fewer government restrictions on religious liberty. Other personal liberties—freedom of the press, freedom of speech, freedom of travel, and, yes, freedom of commerce—are more secure when conscience is protected.

Here's a more general but noteworthy snippet:

Quote

Too many business leaders are embracing a politically correct social agenda, trying to force every state and every citizen to walk in lockstep. The private economy would be foolish to reject America’s heritage of liberty, which has powered the greatest engine of economic success in history. And if corporations want the benefits of a business-friendly environment, with lower taxes and less regulation, they would do well to recognize who enacts such policies: people with center-right social values, not the hard left.

 

[Freedom]

I am all for religious freedom, but I am not convinced that a business should be allowed to discriminate against someone because of their sexual preferences. I do not see this as infringing on religious freedom. I have on a few occasions accommodated gay couples and I would never consider not providing them service. I understand where there may be a difficulty if it involved servicing a gay wedding but those same people who are affronted by having to service a gay wedding have no problem servicing a heterosexual couple who are not married. 

[Ahab]

I think the reason why some companies/ organizations are taking sides AGAINST religious liberty is because they value some things as more important or valuable than religious liberty.  Or at least the religious liberty of other people.

Surely they wouldn't do something they didn't think they should do, looking at things from their own perspective. 

[Anijen]

I think business owners should be able to say no to whoever they want to.           I am not a racist, hater, or anti-gay.            

I simply feel I should not be forced/compelled to use my artistic skills in the business that I solely own and be punished if I don't comply. I would feel differently if I was the only business of that kind.  If I were gay, why do I choose to go to the one (out of hundreds of cake makers), why do I go to the one that discriminates against me? Anytime the government legislates how we behave, which commandments we keep, what standards we have to follow, is becoming too intrusive and controlling.

In this great country we have freedom of speech, it is legal to burn crosses, use the flag for toilet/hygienic purposes, wear jackets that say "%$#@ the draft," have pornography, and join the KKK. All of those I find hideous and repulsive yet we have the liberty to do those things. In fact it is legal in this country to be a racist, non-patriot, draft protester, flag defiler, yet heaven forbid if my business that I have struggled to build is forced to help pay for federally funded abortion, or  is forced to make a cake that represents something I am against. Then I am the bad guy.  

Will we be seeing Muslims or Jews being compelled/forced to handle pork in butcher shops? Will we be asking Hindus to make my steak extra rare in my favorite curry restaurant? Will we force Hasidic Jews to cut their hair because that is  the dress code of my business? It is already illegal to criticize pedophilia in the military in fear of criticizing Islam, five children were sent home from school on Cinco de Mayo because they wore shirts with the US flag emblems on them, Easter eggs have to be called "spring spheres" in Seattle, a popular southern song cant be on the radio, Disney can't release one of its older movies. It goes on and on. It has gone too far if you ask me.

 

Sure there still is a lot of discrimination, yes some are downright racist, but it is legal. Why force the baker to make your cake, when a hundred others will do it?

Edited April 13, 2016 by Anijen

[Shadrak]

I think your question depends on what you consider religious liberty. In the U.S., it is currently used in the context of maintaining some type of  religious-based discrimination against LGBT individuals. I can see that companies want to avoid anything that is discriminatory, not for a "politically correct tyranny," but it opens them up for lawsuits from either employees or customers. 

Corporations have LGBT employees and do not want them to face discrimination where they work and live. It may place those locations at a competitive disadvantage when companies seek employees.

Perhaps most corporations are more cosmopolitan and believe there's little harm serving a broad range of diverse people, but see harm in restricting it. Promoting discrimination against a long-suffering discriminated class has usually not ended well, especially when that class has recently won me civil rights. Certainly corporations learn from history and don't want to go backwards in social freedoms.

Religious liberty can broadly be defined as freedom to believe, organize, share and live your religion (thanks Elder Hales!). I do not think there's any credible argument against the first three. But living your religion is what's debatable. One can live their religion all they want until it interferes with another's rights or freedoms. In other words, it's not your belief that's regulated but your behavior. 

The reference from the BYU professors was  interesting. But I do not believe it supports your argument and likely counters it. What kind of religious liberty do they refer to? Government restrictions or social hostilities as measured by Pew Research Center's Government Restriction Index. The US is falling on this index, mostly for social hostilities and restrictions against Muslims. But it is no where near the most restrictive countries they refer to as having low economic outcomes.  http://www.pewforum.org/files/2015/02/Restrictions2015_GRI.pdf   http://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2015/03/25/how-the-u-s-compares-with-the-rest-of-the-world-on-religious-restrictions/

[thesometimesaint]

SEE http://www.forwardprogressives.com/sc-restaurant-owner-refuses-serve-blacks-cites-religious-beliefs/

[california boy]

Most Americans are against discrimination.  Not hard to understand.  People are willing to stand up against those that want to turn back the clock when businesses were able to discriminate based on religious beliefs.  They know how ugly and unChristlike that is.  Sure there were more lunch counters available, but discrimination is wrong wherever it rears it's ugly head.

[Anijen]

5 hours ago, california boy said:

Most Americans are against discrimination.  Not hard to understand.  People are willing to stand up against those that want to turn back the clock when businesses were able to discriminate based on religious beliefs.  They know how ugly and unChristlike that is.  Sure there were more lunch counters available, but discrimination is wrong wherever it rears it's ugly head.

I completely agree! I will even emphatically quote you;  "...discrimination is wrong wherever it rears it's ugly head." Yes it is! Being wrong, being repulsive, being discriminatory, being racist is wrong IMO, but it is not illegal.

Being forced not to be racist (if we choose to be a racist), being forced by our own government to not be discriminatory is also wrong.  Being a racist and being discriminatory is still legal today, well as far as speech, expression, symbolic, it is still legal. But it is slowly being carved out, now businesses can't choose their customers, their are no dram laws on morality, oops yes there are, they are starting to legislate our beliefs. Slowly but surely.

If I were the baker, even though I am against SSM, I would have chosen to bake the cake. Of course, the customers would not have chosen me to bake their wedding cake, they didn't really care about the cake. They were looking t for a fight, they were looking to legislate their perspective on morality. In one view they wanted not to be discriminated against, from another view they are trying forcing their standards of morality on everyone whom do not hold their same position.

Discrimination is wrong (I can't say that enough), but I should not have to be forced by my government to change my beliefs, my standards, my view simply because those views are contrary to another persons views.

[Gray]

"Religious freedom" is fast becoming code for "special rights for religious people to discriminate and/or ignore the law." Or sometimes, "religious people claiming their rights are being trampled because other people are exercising their own right to free speech."

It's unfortunate because if we do start to see real threats to religious freedom, they may not be taken seriously because activists have cried wolf too many times. 

 

[Gray]

8 hours ago, Shadrak said:

Perhaps most corporations are more cosmopolitan and believe there's little harm serving a broad range of diverse people, but see harm in restricting it. Promoting discrimination against a long-suffering discriminated class has usually not ended well, especially when that class has recently won me civil rights. Certainly corporations learn from history and don't want to go backwards in social freedoms.

Nail on the head there. 

[rockpond]

16 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I know that some here see red whenever the topic of religious freedom is brought up, and I know that some here like to pretend there is no current threat to religious freedom and demand to be shown examples whenever the topic is mentioned and then they get irritated when such examples are forthcoming. But such denial is the very reason to remain vigilant and to keep the issue before the public eye, despite the annoyance it causes to some.

In the interest of providing examples, here is a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece about how efforts to pass legislation to safeguard religious liberty in the wake of Obergefell are being hindered, in some instances, by corporations. In the long run, they do so arguably to their own detriment, as such politically correct tyranny is harmful to the economic enviroment.

This topic is relevant to this board as the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ have staked out a position in favor of assertive efforts to safeguard religious liberty. It is thus incumbent upon faithful members individually to lend their support to that effort.

Here's an interesting snippet from the WSJ piece with a local (LDS related) note of interest:

Here's a more general but noteworthy snippet:

 

Your premise (and that of the op-ed author) seems to be that taking sides on a particular piece of legislation is the same as taking sides on religious liberty.  As you might say:  the equivalence of those two things is not self-evident.

The article you highlight in your OP does provide examples of businesses and organizations taking a stand against legislation but it does not provide examples of religious freedom being threatened in any meaningful way.

I struggle to even see the point of the article.  It seems one must have a rather myopic view of freedom in order to sympathize with the point being made by the author.

[stemelbow]

Everyone knows fighting windmills is pointless. 

[rockpond]

2 hours ago, Gray said:

"Religious freedom" is fast becoming code for "special rights for religious people to discriminate and/or ignore the law." Or sometimes, "religious people claiming their rights are being trampled because other people are exercising their own right to free speech."

It's unfortunate because if we do start to see real threats to religious freedom, they may not be taken seriously because activists have cried wolf too many times. 

 

That's evident in this article where the author seems to be in favor of a business refusing service to a gay couple but is opposed to a business choosing not to operate in a state that doesn't support its values.

Edited April 13, 2016 by rockpond

[CV75]

17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I know that some here see red whenever the topic of religious freedom is brought up, and I know that some here like to pretend there is no current threat to religious freedom and demand to be shown examples whenever the topic is mentioned and then they get irritated when such examples are forthcoming.

The Military Religious Freedom Foundation is pressuring Missing Man events to remove the Bible from MIA/POW displays in public (VA) settings.

Regarding good business, NPR reported a business owner saying that their LGBT clientele represent a high-enough proportion of their business that opposition to religious freedom bills makes sense to them, and they will not do business in a state with them. But they also reported that other businesses support such legislation. In the days since I heard that report, I'm seeing more businesses decry about religious freedom bills but still opting to do business where they are in force.

[mtomm]

Discriminating against individuals is okay if it offends my religious belief.

Discriminating against someone because of religious beliefs is wrong!

Does that pretty much sum it up?

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Anijen said:

I completely agree! I will even emphatically quote you;  "...discrimination is wrong wherever it rears it's ugly head." Yes it is! Being wrong, being repulsive, being discriminatory, being racist is wrong IMO, but it is not illegal.

Being forced not to be racist (if we choose to be a racist), being forced by our own government to not be discriminatory is also wrong.  Being a racist and being discriminatory is still legal today, well as far as speech, expression, symbolic, it is still legal. But it is slowly being carved out, now businesses can't choose their customers, their are no dram laws on morality, oops yes there are, they are starting to legislate our beliefs. Slowly but surely.

If I were the baker, even though I am against SSM, I would have chosen to bake the cake. Of course, the customers would not have chosen me to bake their wedding cake, they didn't really care about the cake. They were looking t for a fight, they were looking to legislate their perspective on morality. In one view they wanted not to be discriminated against, from another view they are trying forcing their standards of morality on everyone whom do not hold their same position.

Discrimination is wrong (I can't say that enough), but I should not have to be forced by my government to change my beliefs, my standards, my view simply because those views are contrary to another persons views.

Now we are talking about what we should make laws about.  A valid question.  I guess if you feel that we should appeal the civil rights laws that have been in place for over 50 years, then knock yourself out.  I personally believe those laws have made America a better place to live.  

Bigotry, racism, homophobia antisemitism are all learned attitudes.  Children don't start out with having these attitudes towards others.  They are learned.  Civil rights laws break that cycle.

[provoman]

17 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I know that some here see red whenever the topic of religious freedom is brought up, and I know that some here like to pretend there is no current threat to religious freedom and demand to be shown examples whenever the topic is mentioned and then they get irritated when such examples are forthcoming. But such denial is the very reason to remain vigilant and to keep the issue before the public eye, despite the annoyance it causes to some.

In the interest of providing examples, here is a Wall Street Journal op-ed piece about how efforts to pass legislation to safeguard religious liberty in the wake of Obergefell are being hindered, in some instances, by corporations. In the long run, they do so arguably to their own detriment, as such politically correct tyranny is harmful to the economic enviroment.

This topic is relevant to this board as the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ have staked out a position in favor of assertive efforts to safeguard religious liberty. It is thus incumbent upon faithful members individually to lend their support to that effort.

Here's an interesting snippet from the WSJ piece with a local (LDS related) note of interest:

Here's a more general but noteworthy snippet:

 

An op-ed by a State Senator isn't really an endorsement. Access to the full study would be helpful in this debate.  Religious Economic Theory, is geared to religions and attracting followers/adherents than any real application to State/Federal/Global secular economics - as described here "According to the theory of religious economy, religious pluralism results in a situation in which religions and religious organizations must compete for adherents in much the same was as businesses compete for consumers within a commercial economy."

What religious liberty is threatened by non-discrimination laws? 

 

[ALarson]

18 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

This topic is relevant to this board as the leaders of the Church of Jesus Christ have staked out a position in favor of assertive efforts to safeguard religious liberty. It is thus incumbent upon faithful members individually to lend their support to that effort.

Incumbent:   necessary for (someone) as a duty or responsibility, required

I do agree that we should support safeguarding religious liberty, but I do not feel it's because the leaders have "staked out a position" so therefore it is my "duty or responsibility" or that I am "required" to have this opinion.  I listen to my leaders, but think for myself.  

I agree with Freedom:

15 hours ago, Freedom said:

I am all for religious freedom, but I am not convinced that a business should be allowed to discriminate against someone because of their sexual preferences. I do not see this as infringing on religious freedom. I have on a few occasions accommodated gay couples and I would never consider not providing them service.

 

Edited April 13, 2016 by ALarson

[thesometimesaint]

The response to " When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done". 

SEE http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/when-the-prophet-speaks-is-the-thinking-done

[provoman]

 

Perhaps to set the example and to demonstrate how important Religious Liberty of business owner to deny services to Mormons, then the State of Utah should NO LONGER provide that Religion is a protected class under anti-discrimination laws.

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, mtomm said:

Discriminating against individuals is okay if it offends my religious belief.

Discriminating against someone because of religious beliefs is wrong!

Does that pretty much sum it up?

Discrimination is about being selective. 

In this case a business owner, or one of her representatives,  saying something like:

I will serve you, and you, and you, but not YOU!

I'd just like to see my name on a list, or a description of the type of people she would choose to not serve, before I go into her place of business and ask her to serve me.

Just so I don't waste my time standing in line.

[Buckeye]

Scott, 

As others have pointed out, the devil is in the details. What constitutes a religious belief? How to balance claims of religious belief against other societal values? And many other similar questions color the discussion.

The answer can't be to simply let anyone discriminate based on their sincerely-held religious belief. If so, then how do you account for the LDS church's support of legislation that would penalize certain types of entities that discriminate against LGBT, even if such discrimination is religiously-motivated. Under Utah's 2015 anti-discrimination law, a company with a large enough number of rental units cannot legally refuse to rent to an LGBT couple, even if the religious beliefs of the business owners would lead the owners to refuse to rent. Why does the LDS church oppose religious freedom for apartment owners?

 

Edited April 13, 2016 by Buckeye

[Scott Lloyd]

59 minutes ago, ALarson said:

Incumbent:   necessary for (someone) as a duty or responsibility, required

I do agree that we should support safeguarding religious liberty, but I do not feel it's because the leaders have "staked out a position" so therefore it is my "duty or responsibility" or that I am "required" to have this opinion.  I listen to my leaders, but think for myself. 

 

I used "incumbent" in the sense of the following scriptural passages:

Quote

 

3 And this is the ensample unto them, that they shall speak as they are moved upon by the Holy Ghost.

 4 And whatsoever they shall speak when moved upon by the Holy Ghost shall be scripture, shall be the will of the Lord, shall be the mind of the Lord, shall be the word of the Lord, shall be the voice of the Lord, and the power of God unto salvation.

 

Doctrine and Covenants 68:3-4

Quote

 

43 And I now give unto you a commandment to beware concerning yourselves, to give diligent heed to the words of eternal life.

 44 For you shall live by every word that proceedeth forth from the mouth of God.

 45 For the word of the Lord is truth, and whatsoever is truth is light, and whatsoever is light is Spirit, even the Spirit of Jesus Christ.

 

Doctrine and Covenants 84:43-45

Whether one chooses to heed these -- or any other -- scriptural admonitions is, of course, a matter of the exercise of one's own moral agency.

 

[ALarson]

55 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

The response to " When our leaders speak, the thinking has been done". 

SEE http://www.fairmormon.org/perspectives/publications/when-the-prophet-speaks-is-the-thinking-done

Thanks for posting this link.  It's interesting to read through.

This is a great quote by Pres. George Albert Smith:

Quote

 

The leaflet to which you refer, and from which you quote in your letter, was not “prepared” by “one of our leaders.” However, one or more of them inadvertently permitted the paragraph to pass uncensored. By their so doing, not a few members of the Church have been upset in their feelings, and General Authorities have been embarrassed.

I am pleased to assure you that you are right in your attitude that the passage quoted does not express the true position of the Church. Even to imply that members of the Church are not to do their own thinking is grossly to misrepresent the true ideal of the Church, which is that every individual must obtain for himself a testimony of the truth of the Gospel, must, through the redemption of Jesus Christ, work out his own salvation, and is personally responsible to His Maker for his individual acts.

 

 

[rockpond]

27 minutes ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I used "incumbent" in the sense of the following scriptural passages:

Doctrine and Covenants 68:3-4

Doctrine and Covenants 84:43-45

Whether one chooses to heed these -- or any other -- scriptural admonitions is, of course, a matter of the exercise of one's own moral agency.

 

Of course then we are left with the subjective determination of whether or not particular leaders were moved upon by the Holy Ghost when speaking on religious freedom.

For me, however, I don't need a witness of the importance of supporting religious freedom.  So it isn't really an issue.  I don't see it as an issue for anyone else on this thread.  What does seem to be debatable is how to best achieve that freedom.  However, since the Brethren seem to be in favor of allowing discrimination based on ones beliefs, it seems that they should be okay with Disney, Marvel, AMC, NCAA, etc choosing not to involve themselves with municipalities that don't support their beliefs and values.