For Those Who Support Religious Liberty

[provoman]

6 hours ago, CV75 said:

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.

I am trying to understand your point. Does the following represent your point or points. They will be presented from the standpoint of a Baker under the banner of religious liberty in a jurisdiction that treats religion and sexual orientation protected classes.

Scenario 1: A Baker's deeply held proven doctrines does not support NECM, is prohibited by law from discrimination against Mormons (protected class). The prohibition means the Baker must make a cake for the NECM celebration or face crippling fines. The prohibition is NOT AN infringement on the Baker's religious liberty.

Scenario 2: A Baker's deeply held proven doctrines does not support same-sex, is prohibited by law from discrimination against same-sex couples (protected class). The prohibition means the Baker must make a cake for the same-sex marriage celebration or face crippling fines. The prohibition IS AN infringement on the Baker's religious liberty.

Do I understand you correctly in the first scenario the non-discrimination law IS NOT an infringement Baker's religious liberty but in the second instance the non-discrimination law IS an infringement.

Edited April 20, 2016 by provoman

[CV75]

7 hours ago, provoman said:

I am trying to understand your point. Does the following represent your point or points. They will be presented from the standpoint of a Baker under the banner of religious liberty in a jurisdiction that treats religion and sexual orientation protected classes.

Scenario 1: A Baker's deeply held proven doctrines does not support NECM, is prohibited by law from discrimination against Mormons (protected class). The prohibition means the Baker must make a cake for the NECM celebration or face crippling fines. The prohibition is NOT AN infringement on the Baker's religious liberty.

Scenario 2: A Baker's deeply held proven doctrines does not support same-sex, is prohibited by law from discrimination against same-sex couples (protected class). The prohibition means the Baker must make a cake for the same-sex marriage celebration or face crippling fines. The prohibition IS AN infringement on the Baker's religious liberty.

Do I understand you correctly in the first scenario the non-discrimination law IS NOT an infringement Baker's religious liberty but in the second instance the non-discrimination law IS an infringement.

In both scenarios, the prohibition is not an immediate infringement on the baker’s exercise of religion according to the immediate application of the law as it stands. But due process leaves the prohibition open to testing, challenging and revising to allow for religious exemption and scrutiny on the basis of the constitutional special protections. Not that the baker should break the law (too extreme) or seek to remove protected class status from religion (too stupid) to make his point, but he can raise his religious voice and participate in the law-changing process. Thus constitutional religious freedom is preserved rather than just ignored by focusing only on the requirements of the narrower anti-discrimination law.

There is also the societal component. Where the religious voice (individual or organized) is discouraged and minimized in the public processes, religious freedom is threatened and infringed upon, and where everyone has their say in making the laws, it is upheld. Where religious freedom is defined by the parameters of anti-discrimination law, it is not being upheld.

Of course there is no anti-discrimination law being broken in the many areas (jurisdictions and what constitutes public accommodation within them) where the transaction does not involve a protected class, but the baker can raise his religious voice and participate in the law-making process to oppose proposed protected class or law, or call for religious exemptions in proposed laws. This is what is happening in the more constructive conversations and decisions.

Because Scenario 1 is so ridiculous, and ignores the original answer to the OP: Posted Thursday at 2:44 PM , I recommend going through these articles for a fuller appreciation of all that is involved, both legally and societally:

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/official-statement/religious-freedom

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/introduction-religious-freedom

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/what-religious-freedom-means

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/why-religious-freedom

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/religious-freedom-matters-mormons

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/religious-values-in-the-public-square

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/what-religious-freedom-requires

[provoman]

1 hour ago, CV75 said:

In both scenarios, the prohibition is not an immediate infringement on the baker’s exercise of religion according to the immediate application of the law as it stands. But due process leaves the prohibition open to testing, challenging and revising to allow for religious exemption and scrutiny on the basis of the constitutional special protections. Not that the baker should break the law (too extreme) or seek to remove protected class status from religion (too stupid) to make his point, but he can raise his religious voice and participate in the law-changing process. Thus constitutional religious freedom is preserved rather than just ignored by focusing only on the requirements of the narrower anti-discrimination law.

 

I do not need to read that post. And I do not need to read that articles on put out by the Church. The 1st Amendment does not protect a customer from discrimination. Anti-discrimination could be 1st Amendment violations against free express i.e. "No Mormons allowed".  The RFRA might be a defense to prosecution and permit a baker to put up a sign "No Mormons allowed", but I doubt it a court would rule that way.

[thesometimesaint]

I agree that such is not a violation of the 1st Amendment, but in all probability it is a violation of the 14th Amendment.

[CV75]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

 

I do not need to read that post. And I do not need to read that articles on put out by the Church. The 1st Amendment does not protect a customer from discrimination. Anti-discrimination could be 1st Amendment violations against free express i.e. "No Mormons allowed".  The RFRA might be a defense to prosecution and permit a baker to put up a sign "No Mormons allowed", but I doubt it a court would rule that way.

Sorry, most of this is incoherent.

[provoman]

4 hours ago, CV75 said:

In both scenarios, the prohibition is not an immediate infringement on the baker’s exercise of religion according to the immediate application of the law as it stands. But due process leaves the prohibition open to testing, challenging and revising to allow for religious exemption and scrutiny on the basis of the constitutional special protections. Not that the baker should break the law (too extreme) or seek to remove protected class status from religion (too stupid) to make his point, but he can raise his religious voice and participate in the law-changing process. Thus constitutional religious freedom is preserved rather than just ignored by focusing only on the requirements of the narrower anti-discrimination law.

 

If I understand you there is no prima facea infringment on the baker in either scenario 1 or 2, because the Baker can appeal to the courts. This appeal to the courts would be the Bakers "due process". Do I understand you?

 

So to expand the scenarios based on due process. The Baker loses every appeal, and the Court of Last resort upholds the ruling against the Baker. Baker is order to pay to Mormon couple from scenario 1 and the same-sex couple in scernario.

In which scenario, is having to pay , is the Bakers religious liberty unfrigned upon?