For Those Who Support Religious Liberty

[The Nehor]

4 hours ago, Ahab said:

To discriminate against something is to show displeasure or disagreement with whatever is being discriminated against. It's a way of someone saying they don't like it, or don't agree with it, or don't think those things should be allowed or highly favored.  That those things are bad things.  That those things should be rejected or considered unacceptable in society.  

Yet we made that illegal for businesses a long time ago because it was used to discriminate against blacks, Jews, other religious minorities, and even people with unpopular political views. If you live in a small town and do not have access to more then one place to buy food or rent an apartment or whatever and the owner decides they do not like you you are royally screwed. We wanted this to stop so we made laws against it. Consumers are of course free to boycott and the like to their heart's content. If you want to refuse to patronize establishments that are owned by people who are in or support same sex marriage that is your right. I think it is pointless right but if you can get enough people to do it you might be able to encourage change.

WE DO NOT WANT TO GO BACK!!!!! Well, okay, some people seem to but they are certifiably crazy. LDS are a minority. While persecution is light that is going to change. Do you want to have to worry about "No Mormons" signs popping up because it is legal. Do we really want to take 1930s Germany as our model for how businesses can operate?

4 hours ago, Ahab said:

And who told you the fight against SSM is over?

The political fight is over as per the US Supreme Court. If you live elsewhere it may not be over of course.

4 hours ago, Ahab said:

You've got some very bad ideas that I will continue to be discriminating against, and I don't think any of your bad ideas are trivial.

So if you owned an ice cream store and it was legal you would refuse me service?

4 hours ago, carbon dioxide said:

The flip side is if you force someone to give a good or service to someone they would prefer not to give, they might not provide the best service or goods as they would otherwise get from someone else that is not being forced.

True, but so what? If all the business owners in town decide Bob the Pansexual Pervert, Thief, Communist, and Jerk is a disgusting human being who should have no services we can all be rude. Do you think Bob would want us to make it legal for us to all refuse to serve him so he can't get food anywhere and starves in the street or would he rather deal with us being obnoxious, slow, and annoying when he checks out. Of course if we are doing that we are probably all going to hell for being uncharitable.

One of the prices of living in a free society as interdependent is ours is legal protections so we cannot shut someone we do not like completely out of society so they cannot function in it. This is a good thing.

[Ahab]

Okay so some people think of discrimination (against anything) as a bad thing just because some people in the past discriminated against some things that were really not bad.  Against people with black skin, for example, when there was really nothing bad about having black skin. 

That doesn't mean discrimination, as a principle,  should be discriminated against now though.  Discrimination is good when people discriminate against things that aren't good.  Like same sex sexual relations,  for example. Everybody should discriminate against that because that is a bad thing, and not good.

What we need are more intelligent discussions to hash everything out.  Stupidity anywhere is something else everybody should discriminate against, with everybody discriminating against it to try to get rid of it.

Edited April 16, 2016 by Ahab
Clarity

[provoman]

 

CV75, it should be very clear that I know that religion is a protected class. However that is not relevant to the hypothetical about a LDS couple. Several have posted many words attempting to address the original question, none have addressed the question.

"Why should society treat ones persons choice to follow a religion with more favor than anothers choice not to follow the same religion?"

Is the religious liberty of a proprietor infringe because the proprietor cannot discriminate based on religious grounds against peoples of different religions?

 

[USU78]

21 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Which sounds doable. Until you are a black guy trying to get a room at a hotel in the 30s or 40s and everyone is exercising their right to discriminate and no one lets them stay there. This "find another place to go" only works if there are other options. In some cases there are but in others there are not.

Demonstrate, please, that every one or even most, or even  many homosexual cannot find another baker. Then we'll consider whether Jim Crow analogies are apt 

[USU78]

7 hours ago, provoman said:

 

CV75, it should be very clear that I know that religion is a protected class. However that is not relevant to the hypothetical about a LDS couple. Several have posted many words attempting to address the original question, none have addressed the question.

"Why should society treat ones persons choice to follow a religion with more favor than anothers choice not to follow the same religion?"

Is the religious liberty of a proprietor infringe because the proprietor cannot discriminate based on religious grounds against peoples of different religions?

 

Religion is not a class. Being black may be a class. Being mormon may be a class. Being Jewish is a class

[Ahab]

7 hours ago, provoman said:

"Why should society treat ones persons choice to follow a religion with more favor than anothers choice not to follow the same religion?"

Society should only when the religion is the best religion they know of to help everyone in society become as perfect as our Father in heaven, considering any other religion as an inferior religion to the best one to accomplish that purpose, and also considering anyone's choice to not accept that religion as a bad choice.

[Ahab]

7 hours ago, provoman said:

Is the religious liberty of a proprietor infringe because the proprietor cannot discriminate based on religious grounds against peoples of different religions?

No, not really.  We all have the liberty to discriminate to show our favor of something or on the other hand to to show that we are against it, even when some people don't like how we discriminate. 

[Ahab]

52 minutes ago, USU78 said:

Religion is not a class. Being black may be a class. Being mormon may be a class. Being Jewish is a class

Ease up there,  bro.  You may be technically correct, I am really not sure, and perhaps he should have used the word category or something like that, but he was on the right train of thought by thinking of the fact that our American government has sanctioned a law to protect in some fashion everyone in American society regardless of their race or religion or color or sex or whatever else they protect. 

Not that it is much of a protection, but they still call it protection.

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, USU78 said:

Demonstrate, please, that every one or even most, or even  many homosexual cannot find another baker. Then we'll consider whether Jim Crow analogies are apt 

I can't because it is illegal and you would be hard pressed to find businesses willing to say openly that they would do illegal things. The question is whether if it were legal to discriminate would it happen? It is difficult to test this hypothetical without changing the law. I see no reason to test it. It would be wiser to just shut the door on the possibility.

[ALarson]

3 hours ago, USU78 said:

Demonstrate, please, that every one or even most, or even  many homosexual cannot find another baker. 

They shouldn't have to.  

[provoman]

3 hours ago, USU78 said:

Demonstrate, please, that every one or even most, or even  many homosexual cannot find another baker. Then we'll consider whether Jim Crow analogies are apt 

 

Please disengage yourself from this discussion if you want to discuss wedding cakes for same sex couples.

This discussion is about addressing the one sided nature of "religious freedom", please discuss that topic or politely excuse yourself.

 

 

[CV75]

11 hours ago, provoman said:

 

CV75, it should be very clear that I know that religion is a protected class. However that is not relevant to the hypothetical about a LDS couple. Several have posted many words attempting to address the original question, none have addressed the question.

"Why should society treat ones persons choice to follow a religion with more favor than anothers choice not to follow the same religion?"

Is the religious liberty of a proprietor infringe because the proprietor cannot discriminate based on religious grounds against peoples of different religions?

 

OK… but your question is already answered by the special protection in the constitution: no system or interest is to be exercised over religion. Our constitutional society treats all religions equally.

Your hypothetical on the other hand, does not speak to the free exercise of religion, but equal protection under the law, which only protected classes receive. I explained how that works. The LDS couple has protected class (as does the baker, but that's not relevant here as he isn't denied a public accommodation), so the baker cannot legally discriminate against their purchase of a wedding cake on religious grounds (either his or theirs). And his illegal discrimination is only about selling a cake, not about their right to exercise their religion through their marriage sacrament.

Sexual orientation is not a protected class in all jurisdictions and circumstances; this I think is the core of the debate. Does it meet the same criteria for protected class as religion and race do (it certainly doesn't meet the same criteria for the special protections in the First Amendment)? And if so, under what circumstances might special protections for religion still apply (where the marriage is not an exercise of religion but of legality)?

This is also how people get exercised about the so-called ills of religious freedom (through confusion), and why their excitement can only be assuaged by undermining religious freedom.

[provoman]

CV75

The 1st Amend means no laws respecting the establishment of religion or free exercise thereof. 

Protected classes are not inherent in the Constitution. Protected classes are arbitrary pronouncements. 

Religion as a protected class under the Civil Rights Act does not address the infringment of the religious or non-religious to discriminate based on deeply held beliefs.

 

Edited April 16, 2016 by provoman

[CV75]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

CV75

The 1st Amend means no laws respecting the establishment of religion or free exercise thereof. 

Protected classes are not inherent in the Constitution. Protected classes are arbitrary pronouncements. 

Religion as a protected class under the Civil Rights Act does not address the infringment of the religious or non-religious to discriminate based on deeply held beliefs.

That's nice... but incomplete and even wrong in some particulars (as evidenced in your misguided hypothetical).

Please address the actual points i made, as I'm not interested in using your thread to provide rote education. And if you' re serious, use the quote function so I'm notified.

 

[mfbukowski]

16 hours ago, provoman said:

 

CV75, it should be very clear that I know that religion is a protected class. However that is not relevant to the hypothetical about a LDS couple. Several have posted many words attempting to address the original question, none have addressed the question.

"Why should society treat ones persons choice to follow a religion with more favor than anothers choice not to follow the same religion?"

Is the religious liberty of a proprietor infringe because the proprietor cannot discriminate based on religious grounds against peoples of different religions?

 

They have not addressed it because it is unintelligible

Again, being gay is not a religion.  Perhaps you have reading problems?

Your third sentence above is not iven a sentence.  "Is the religious liberty of a proprietor infringe"....?  What does that mean?

I hope you are not a BYU student.  Perhaps an English class would help.

 

[mfbukowski]

8 hours ago, Ahab said:

Ease up there,  bro.  You may be technically correct, I am really not sure, and perhaps he should have used the word category or something like that, but he was on the right train of thought by thinking of the fact that our American government has sanctioned a law to protect in some fashion everyone in American society regardless of their race or religion or color or sex or whatever else they protect. 

Not that it is much of a protection, but they still call it protection.

Arguing the law with a lawyer?

Good luck on that.

[provoman]

5 hours ago, CV75 said:

That's nice... but incomplete and even wrong in some particulars (as evidenced in your misguided hypothetical).

Please address the actual points i made, as I'm not interested in using your thread to provide rote education. And if you' re serious, use the quote function so I'm notified.

 

A protected class is simply a class that is protected by law. This is evident with the Civil Rights Act, which in particular, provided "protection" to people of color - who suffered centuries of inequities at the hand of governments and peoples in the United States. Congress decided the United State would provide special "protection" to people of color - via the Civil Rights Act - and included several other classes - as pertinent to the present discussion, Religion.

I will not address your gay wedding cakes, because this discussion is not about gay wedding cakes. If you wish to discuss gay wedding cakes, you and MFB can discuss that elsewhere. You haven't addressed the hypothetical, you dismiss it.  You claim there is no infringement of a deeply held religious against the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage because religion is a protected class - that is not adequate response. It is not adequate because Congress, could within its enumerated powers, remove "religion" as a protect class. Congress could also repeal the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

Edited April 17, 2016 by provoman

[thesometimesaint]

SEE https://theobamacrat.com/2015/03/25/sc-restaurant-owner-refuses-to-serve-blacks-cites-religious-beliefs/

[CV75]

10 hours ago, provoman said:

I will not address your gay wedding cakes, because this discussion is not about gay wedding cakes. If you wish to discuss gay wedding cakes, you and MFB can discuss that elsewhere. You haven't addressed the hypothetical, you dismiss it.  You claim there is no infringement of a deeply held religious against the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage because religion is a protected class - that is not adequate response. It is not adequate because Congress, could within its enumerated powers, remove "religion" as a protect class. Congress could also repeal the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.

I've bolded where your confusion still lies: "is" vs. "could." That just ain't the way it is. Are you advocating the removal of religion as a protected class, and the repeal of the RFRA? That might be construed as an example of undermining religious freedom on a personal level, seeking it on a political level, and abuse the exercise of religion by those you are able to discourage.

You are also confused about my explanation. The principle of protected class is only where I began to set up the point that "Religions do not condemn another faith’s marriage sacrament because of the denomination (which is protected), but because of their own proven doctrines about the sacrament." This is why religious adherents can use religious exemption to refuse to accommodate goods and services to classes not designated as protected on the basis of what they consider a compromise of what they consider to be sacred or sacramental.

[provoman]

3 hours ago, CV75 said:

I've bolded where your confusion still lies: "is" vs. "could." That just ain't the way it is. Are you advocating the removal of religion as a protected class, and the repeal of the RFRA? That might be construed as an example of undermining religious freedom on a personal level, seeking it on a political level, and abuse the exercise of religion by those you are able to discourage.

 

You are also confused about my explanation. The principle of protected class is only where I began to set up the point that "Religions do not condemn another faith’s marriage sacrament because of the denomination (which is protected), but because of their own proven doctrines about the sacrament." This is why religious adherents can use religious exemption to refuse to accommodate goods and services to classes not designated as protected on the basis of what they consider a compromise of what they consider to be sacred or sacramental.

 

 

Removal of religion as a protected class under the Civil Rights would not infringe on religious freedom. The Civil Rights Act is about an conduct of a proprietor. Allowing a proprietor to discriminate based on her deeply held religious beliefs is what proprietors with deeply held religious beliefs are asking for.  For example Proprietor wants to exercise her deeply held religious beliefs and not provide services/goods to Mormons.

 

The sacrments of doctrine paragraph.

Religious proprietor (baker) has deeply held "own proven doctrines" against the LDS sacrement of the New and Everlasting Covenant of Marriage (NECM).

Lds couple requests a cake to celebrate their NECM, baker refuses citing deeply held "own proven doctrines" against NECM. Baker states would make LDS couple couple for civil wedding but not NECM celebration. Baker is sued and must pay $100k to the couple under anti-discrimination laws.

Is the bakers religious liberty and "own proven doctrines" to not support NECM infringed?

If I am understanding your position, because religion is protected, the baker can be "forced" to violate deeply held "own proven doctrines" against NECM. 

 

Edited April 17, 2016 by provoman

[CV75]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

 

Removal of religion as a protected class under the Civil Rights would not infringe on religious freedom. The Civil Rights Act is about an conduct of a proprietor. Allowing a proprietor to discriminate based on her deeply held religious beliefs is what proprietors with deeply held religious beliefs are asking for.  For example Proprietor wants to exercise her deeply held religious beliefs and not provide services/goods to Mormons.

(will address the "sacrement" paragraph in a bit)

LOL. But I said, "The LDS couple has protected class (as does the baker, but that's not relevant here as he isn't denied a public accommodation), so the baker cannot legally discriminate against their purchase of a wedding cake on religious grounds (either his or theirs)."

I'm sorry but you seem too confused or inattentive to converse. I'll refer you back to: Posted Thursday at 2:44 PM

And since you mention it, while the special protections were in place long before protected classes, the removal of religion as a protected class certainty would infringe on the "first freedom" with a state-supported climate that is hostile to the open practice of religion.

[provoman]

2 hours ago, CV75 said:

LOL. But I said, "The LDS couple has protected class (as does the baker, but that's not relevant here as he isn't denied a public accommodation), so the baker cannot legally discriminate against their purchase of a wedding cake on religious grounds (either his or theirs)."

I'm sorry but you seem too confused or inattentive to converse. I'll refer you back to: Posted Thursday at 2:44 PM

And since you mention it, while the special protections were in place long before protected classes, the removal of religion as a protected class certainty would infringe on the "first freedom" with a state-supported climate that is hostile to the open practice of religion.

Religious liberty, even under the 1st Amendment, is not about being protected from discrimination by private individuals. The 1st Amendment is about protecting religion from Government. 

Removing religion as a protected class from Civil Rights Act is not an infringement. What infringement is their if religion is no longer considered a protected class, AND public accommodation then have the right to refuse services based on religion of the individual seeking services or goods?

Edited April 17, 2016 by provoman

[thesometimesaint]

21 hours ago, provoman said:

Religious liberty, even under the 1st Amendment, is not about being protected from discrimination by private individuals. The 1st Amendment is about protecting religion from Government. 

Removing religion as a protected class from Civil Rights Act is not an infringement. What infringement is their if religion is no longer considered a protected class, AND public accommodation then have the right to refuse services based on religion of the individual seeking services or goods?

We are entitled to believe anything we want. However when we enter the public domain our conduct must conform to the laws of the state/nation.

[provoman]

On Monday, April 18, 2016 at 3:26 PM, thesometimesaint said:

We are entitled to believe anything we want. However when we enter the public domain our conduct must conform to the laws of the state/nation.

 

I agree. And the main issue, that seems to be avoided in this discussion, is how or why, a religious person should be permitted not to conform to the laws. It seems that circular reasoning is occurring to defend religious liberty of proprietors. (I do think exemptions should be granted. By way of reference, I met someone who says "I like going to the VA for mental health because they can relate." The situation was that at a private mental health facility the Dr said "I need to end this session. I do not believe I can help you."  Or more on point, does "Men are from Mars, Women are from Venus" apply directly to same sex couples?)

As I understand civil rights history in the US, until the 1964 Civil Rights Acts proprietors were free to discriminate based on their own religious beliefs and/or on the perceived religious beliefs of a potential customer.  So in 1964 Congress created a law to restrict the proprietors from using their religion to discriminate.  As you pointed out, after the passage of the Civil Rights Act, a restauranteur attempted to use his religious beliefs to discriminate against blacks - the court rejected that defense to prosecution and even cited Reynolds (Mormon Polygamy United States Supreme Court ruling) to reject the notion of religious beliefs to disregard laws.

CV75 has repeated to the effect that religion is a protected class therefore a proprietor can not discriminate. Yet, in states where gender identity is a protected class and/or sexual orientation, the claims of the proprietor are of religions liberty infringement for not be allowed to discriminate.

It does not make sense that prohibiting discrimination against Mormons (protected class) is NOT AN infringement on a proprietors religious liberty; but prohibiting discrimination against heterosexuals/homosexuals (protected classes where protected) IS AN infringement on a proprietors religious liberty. 

Edited April 19, 2016 by provoman

[CV75]

On 4/17/2016 at 2:24 PM, provoman said:

Religious liberty, even under the 1st Amendment, is not about being protected from discrimination by private individuals. The 1st Amendment is about protecting religion from Government. 

Removing religion as a protected class from Civil Rights Act is not an infringement. What infringement is their if religion is no longer considered a protected class, AND public accommodation then have the right to refuse services based on religion of the individual seeking services or goods?

Sexual orientation is not a protected class in all jurisdictions, and in those jurisdictions, there is no such law to break. Where anti-discrimination laws are being drafted, I advocate the inclusion of religious exemption and scrutiny provisions to protect religious freedom; the same goes for testing and challenging existing laws. A religious voice in this process is a form of religious expression and should be protected.

Your question is so poorly constructed and worded I can’t make much sense of it. But removing religion as a protected class would be an act consistent with the mores of a society that suppresses religious freedom, and this runs contrary to the USA constitution. On the other hand, pushing for a new protected class should always take the constitution’s special protections for religious freedom into account.

I'm sorry but unless you can keep up with what I'm saying, I can only refer you back to: Posted Thursday at 2:44 PM  and leave it at that. Any proposal to establish protection of religious freedom by removing religion as a protected class is ridiculous on many, many levels.