rockpond Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 We're ten pages in and I don't feel like we really addressed the OP. Is there any evidence that companies ARE taking sides AGAINST religious liberty? 2
Freedom Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 (edited) 15 hours ago, mikegriffith1 said: But is it "discrimination" to politely decline to photograph a gay wedding because you find it spiritually and morally offensive? I don't get how that is discrimination. Being allowed to force a religious photographer or other vendor to attend and service your gay wedding does not seem like a "right," especially not a right that should trump a person's First Amendment right to religious freedom. Why can't the gay couple just go get a different photographer? Go use a different baker? Find a different caterer? So gays have a right to force a religious vendor to service their wedding but the religious vendor has no right to politely decline? If a photographer who happens to be religious can be forced to attend and photograph a gay wedding, then it's only a matter of time before bishops/pastors/priests can be forced to perform a gay wedding in a church. If a gay couple should not have to find a different baker or photographer, why should they have to find a different pastor and church? it is discrimination plan and simple. Such laws have existed in Canada for decades and there has never been a threat to religious freedom. There is not always a different baker or photographer. If I offer a service to the public, there is no reason why I need to discriminate on who I service unless it is for illegal activities. Just imagine if nobody in the town is willing to service a Mormon because it offends their religious sensibility. They do not want to support a wedding ceremony that is, in their mind, satanic. This couple goes from service provider to service provider and is rejected over and over. This is criminal. I should have equal access to the same services as anybody else regardless of my religion or sexual orientation. It is silly so suppose that, because you are selling your services to someone, that you are somehow endorsing their lifestyle. Edited April 18, 2016 by Freedom 2
Russell C McGregor Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 12 hours ago, ALarson said: Has there been a case where a gay couple has tried to do this? (I would really like to read about it, if so.) If this has occurred, did it end up in the courts (as with the cake)? (If not, then who is trying to "force" anyone to attend a ceremony?) . How do you propose that a photographer photograph a same sex wedding without attending? Send over a camera drone, perhaps? 3
ALarson Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 (edited) 10 hours ago, Russell C McGregor said: How do you propose that a photographer photograph a same sex wedding without attending? Send over a camera drone, perhaps? You didn't answer my question. There's a big difference between hiring a photographer and them willingly showing up to photograph the wedding, and someone legally forcing (lawsuit) someone to attend a wedding for a gay couple. Maybe you missed the word "force" as being part of my question? Here's what I asked: Has someone "forced" anyone to attend a wedding ceremony for a gay couple? Has a photographer been "forced" to photograph a wedding for a gay couple? Has an attempt been made (legally) to do this? . Edited April 18, 2016 by ALarson 1
Ahab Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 12 hours ago, rockpond said: We're ten pages in and I don't feel like we really addressed the OP. Is there any evidence that companies ARE taking sides AGAINST religious liberty? Do YOU think it counts as evidence when companies choose to do something contrary/ against another person's/ company's preference when the choice is based on religious preference. And yes this issue is being addressed in this thread even if you don't feel that it has been.
thesometimesaint Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 4 minutes ago, Ahab said: Do YOU think it counts as evidence when companies choose to do something contrary/ against another person's/ company's preference when the choice is based on religious preference. And yes this issue is being addressed in this thread even if you don't feel that it has been. I don't understand your question. Please clarify.
stemelbow Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 12 hours ago, rockpond said: We're ten pages in and I don't feel like we really addressed the OP. Is there any evidence that companies ARE taking sides AGAINST religious liberty? This. It feels like people fighting against windmills to me.
rockpond Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 1 hour ago, Ahab said: Do YOU think it counts as evidence when companies choose to do something contrary/ against another person's/ company's preference when the choice is based on religious preference. I'm with TSS. Your question doesn't make sense to me, could you clarify. However, since you are also answering my question with a question, I'll try to keep the dialogue advancing: In the examples the op-ed gives, companies chose not to do business in states who had passed legislation the allowed discrimination. For me, to the extent that all of this is based on religious beliefs, it shows that individuals, governments, and business entities are all actively taking advantage of their religious freedom. So, I don't see any evidence to support the authors claim.
Ahab Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 1 hour ago, rockpond said: I'm with TSS. Your question doesn't make sense to me, could you clarify. However, since you are also answering my question with a question, I'll try to keep the dialogue advancing: In the examples the op-ed gives, companies chose not to do business in states who had passed legislation the allowed discrimination. For me, to the extent that all of this is based on religious beliefs, it shows that individuals, governments, and business entities are all actively taking advantage of their religious freedom. So, I don't see any evidence to support the authors claim. I'll try to clarify/ follow-up on my question in this way: Do you think a person or company of people exercising his/her/their religious liberty against/in opposition to someone else's religious liberty amounts to taking sides against religious liberty? In my perspective, taking sides against religious liberty doesn't necessarily mean taking no stand at all on issues that can be considered religious issues.
rockpond Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 6 minutes ago, Ahab said: I'll try to clarify/ follow-up on my question in this way: Do you think a person or company of people exercising his/her/their religious liberty against/in opposition to someone else's religious liberty amounts to taking sides against religious liberty? In my perspective, taking sides against religious liberty doesn't necessarily mean taking no stand at all on issues that can be considered religious issues. Simple answer: No Exercising one's religious liberty is not taking sides against religious liberty. If you feel that exercising one's religious liberty DOES hinder the religious liberty of others than we have a problem. Right? So, now would you care to answer my question: Do you have evidence of companies actually taking sides against religious freedom? 1
thesometimesaint Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 4 minutes ago, Ahab said: I'll try to clarify/ follow-up on my question in this way: Do you think a person or company of people exercising his/her/their religious liberty against/in opposition to someone else's religious liberty amounts to taking sides against religious liberty? In my perspective, taking sides against religious liberty doesn't necessarily mean taking no stand at all on issues that can be considered religious issues. I think I understand. In the private sphere we are all entitled to any sectarian belief we want. When we operate in the public sphere we agree to abide by the secular laws of the state/nation. IE; If I have have a grocery store and personally don't like green beans. There is nothing in law that requires me to stock and/or sell green beans. However if I do stock and offer for sale green beans, I can not legally refuse to sell them to you.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 18, 2016 Author Posted April 18, 2016 (edited) On 4/16/2016 at 8:13 PM, Scott Lloyd said: Surely you recognize that expensive litigation is not the only way to affect public policy in a free society. Other ways are electing representatives and lobbying them. Or exercising one's First Amendment rights of freedom of speech and of the press in the court of public opinion. Or helping businesses to understand that taking sides in a political debate has its costs either way. This must have you worried, or you wouldn't be trying to shout me down with insults. On 4/16/2016 at 9:26 AM, california boy said: The courts are a third branch of our government. They were put in place to guard our constitunal rights. It is foolish to not seek redress before the courts unless of course you think religious belief doesn't trump the law and no matter what your religious belief, it doesn't mean that your business can't discriminate You're not comprehending me. I have never ruled out litigation as one means to safeguard religious liberty. I see it as one weapon in a defensive arsenal. I have mentioned others, one being making one's case in the court of public opinion by exercising one's freedom of speech and of the press. This can have long-range effectiveness in mobilizing an electorate to vote for representatives who are friendly toward religious liberty. Also, by encouraging such representatives to enact legislation that protects religious liberty and to appoint or to ratify the appointment to the bench of jurists who are inclined to protect religious liberty. Exercise of free speech is a time-honored practice -- except, it would seem, if one uses it to champion religious liberty. That I would do so does, I repeat, seem to have you running scared, as indicated by your efforts to shout me down with disparaging terms such as "whining." Quote Church members spent 40 million dollars on prop 8. The constitutionality of Prop 8 was still challenged, and went down in flames. You can't pass laws that are against the constitution no matter who you elect. Last election over a billion dollars were spent on the presidential election. Litigation is relatively cheap See above. I do see litigation as one weapon in the defensive arsenal. And no, litigation is not cheap. That said, there are affordable ways to go about it, one being to join with other individuals and groups, such as the Beckett Fund for Religious Liberty. As for Prop 8, proponents were hindered by the refusal of the California state government to defend it in court, as it was statutorily obligated to do. As Elder Oaks has pointed out, a state government cannot properly refuse to do such a thing any more than a county clerk can properly refuse to issue marriage licenses to a homosexual couple. Quote The point is, quit your whining and do something if you really think that freedom of religion gives you the license to discriminate. I thinh we both know you will loose. On the contrary, I don't "know" that endeavoring through the justice system to safeguard religious liberty is a losing proposition. You probably want people to think that; in a war, one of the purposes of propaganda is to make the enemy think he has already lost. But as can be seen from its website, the Beckett fund has prevailed in a number of court cases over the years. In fact, I now realize most anyone can make a monetary donation, however modest, to a worthy cause. I just might put the Beckett Fund on my list. So, intentionally or not, you may have mobilized me to action. Well done. Finally, check a dictionary definition of lose and loose. You will find they are different words with entirely different meanings. I'd be inclined to let this go, except that you seem to make the error repeatedly. Edited April 18, 2016 by Scott Lloyd 2
thesometimesaint Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 Prosecutorial Discretion. SEE http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/prosecutorial-discretion/
Scott Lloyd Posted April 18, 2016 Author Posted April 18, 2016 16 hours ago, rockpond said: We're ten pages in and I don't feel like we really addressed the OP. Is there any evidence that companies ARE taking sides AGAINST religious liberty? When I saw your post, I went back and reviewed the OP. That's when I noticed I had forgotten to provide a link to the Wall Street Journal op-ed piece. I have now remedied that neglect. For reference, here again is the link. And the Wall Street Journal piece does provide examples. I don't know what it is you are expecting, but I believe, on the contrary, that the OP has been addressed. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted April 18, 2016 Author Posted April 18, 2016 10 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: Prosecutorial Discretion. SEE http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/prosecutorial-discretion/ What's the point of this post?
USU78 Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 21 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said: Prosecutorial Discretion. SEE http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/prosecutorial-discretion/ Nullification. [/Back to Lurk]
Ahab Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 (edited) 1 hour ago, rockpond said: Exercising one's religious liberty is not taking sides against religious liberty. I can see how it could be considered that if and when one party is against another's party exercise of their religious liberty, though. As long as one party exercises it's religious liberty as another party thinks it should there usually isn't much of a problem because neither party is acting against the other. But when one party exercises it's religious liberty contrary to or against how another party thinks it should there is usually some sort of a problem because both parties are using their religious liberty against the other. Edited April 18, 2016 by Ahab
Ahab Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said: I think I understand. In the private sphere we are all entitled to any sectarian belief we want. When we operate in the public sphere we agree to abide by the secular laws of the state/nation. IE; If I have have a grocery store and personally don't like green beans. There is nothing in law that requires me to stock and/or sell green beans. However if I do stock and offer for sale green beans, I can not legally refuse to sell them to you. I think what we need is some kind of law that allows a person to bake and sell wedding cakes only to the people they want to sell them to. If that means the baker is not legally allowed to say his services are available to the public at large because he wishes to be selective in who he sells to, so be it. He would just have to put up some sort of a sign to say that his services are not available to the public at large and that he will agree to bake and sell wedding cakes only to the people he chooses to take on as clients. I am capable of baking a wedding cake and I certainly would never agree to bake and sell a wedding cake to just anyone who asked me to sell them one. I believe I have the right to say Yes or No at my pleasure, and that I don't even need a business license to bake and sell wedding cakes as long as I keep my sales under a certain limit for any one person during a fiscal year.
Scott Lloyd Posted April 18, 2016 Author Posted April 18, 2016 1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said: Prosecutorial Discretion. SEE http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/prosecutorial-discretion/ See the thread started by USU78 about constitutional nullification. "Prosecutorial discretion" is irrelevant as you are applying it here, because the state of California was not in the role of prosecutor when called upon to defend the will of the voters when Prop 8 was challenged in federal court. 1
Scott Lloyd Posted April 18, 2016 Author Posted April 18, 2016 1 hour ago, thesometimesaint said: Prosecutorial Discretion. SEE http://definitions.uslegal.com/p/prosecutorial-discretion/ See the thread started by USU78 about constitutional nullification. "Prosecutorial discretion" is irrelevant as you are applying it here, because the state of California was not in the role of prosecutor when called upon to defend the will of the voters when Prop 8 was challenged in federal court. 1
rockpond Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 2 hours ago, Ahab said: I can see how it could be considered that if and when one party is against another's party exercise of their religious liberty, though. As long as one party exercises it's religious liberty as another party thinks it should there usually isn't much of a problem because neither party is acting against the other. But when one party exercises it's religious liberty contrary to or against how another party thinks it should there is usually some sort of a problem because both parties are using their religious liberty against the other. You've talked around it but still haven't provided any examples of companies taking sides against religious liberty.
rockpond Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 3 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said: When I saw your post, I went back and reviewed the OP. That's when I noticed I had forgotten to provide a link to the Wall Street Journal op-ed piece. I have now remedied that neglect. For reference, here again is the link. And the Wall Street Journal piece does provide examples. I don't know what it is you are expecting, but I believe, on the contrary, that the OP has been addressed. I looked up the article back when you originally posted it. He talks about companies choosing to take their business elsewhere but that isn't them taking sides against religious liberty. Is there another example of companies taking sides against religious liberty that I missed?
USU78 Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 33 minutes ago, rockpond said: I looked up the article back when you originally posted it. He talks about companies choosing to take their business elsewhere but that isn't them taking sides against religious liberty. Is there another example of companies taking sides against religious liberty that I missed? So ... Paypal can refuse to do business with persons who demand religious accommodations be protected by statute ... but the baker ain't entitled not to do business with persons whose demands violate his religious sensibilities: got it. Don't expect fairness. [/Lurk] 4
Saint Sinner Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 I'm curious. Can the LGBT community and religious persons equally be protected classes? In other words, can PayPal refuse service due to disagreement on the basis of religious principles in the same way that a baker can refuse services based on similar principles?
rockpond Posted April 18, 2016 Posted April 18, 2016 27 minutes ago, USU78 said: So ... Paypal can refuse to do business with persons who demand religious accommodations be protected by statute ... but the baker ain't entitled not to do business with persons whose demands violate his religious sensibilities: got it. Don't expect fairness. [/Lurk] No... I believe the baker should be able to refuse to make the wedding cake. And I believe PayPal should be able to choose who it does business with. Still not seeing any examples of companies taking sides against religious liberty.
Recommended Posts