Emerging Skirmishes along the "Religious Freedom" vs "LGBT Civil Rights" as related to Mormonism

[Storm Rider]

6 hours ago, kllindley said:

You know, Storm, I am pretty critical of the intolerant pro-tolerance crowd. They do exist, and unfortunately, they are not as few in number as some would like to think. 

At the same time I think that Daniel has a valid point. We do get to decide as a people what we tolerate as a society. For many years we didn't tolerate profanity on prime-time television. We have decided collectively that we don't tolerate child abuse. These are moral decisions that we collectively make on an ongoing basis.  Whether or not a particular behavior is tolerated is a decision we make through law and public opinion. We try to balance the desires of the majority with the rights of minorities.

Societies have always determined what is acceptable behavior - it is what makes us a civil society.  However, the problem with the this pseudo-logic being bandied about is that we are not going to control your behavior, we are going to control your ideas, your thoughts, and your speech.  This defeats the entire idea of free speech and, in the ideas of many, is detrimental to the concept of a free society.  

Do you see any difference between society controlling the behavior of its citizens and a society controlling the ideas and thoughts of its citizens?

[Daniel2]

9 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Societies have always determined what is acceptable behavior - it is what makes us a civil society.  However, the problem with the this pseudo-logic being bandied about is that we are not going to control your behavior, we are going to control your ideas, your thoughts, and your speech.  This defeats the entire idea of free speech and, in the ideas of many, is detrimental to the concept of a free society.  

Do you see any difference between society controlling the behavior of its citizens and a society controlling the ideas and thoughts of its citizens?

I'm not sure what you're referring to when you say that anti-discrimination laws are "not about trying to control [business owners'] behavior."  Governing behavior is exactly what the laws are trying to do--in this case, the behavior of providing the same goods and services to everyone regardless of their gender and/or sexual orientation, the same as they are required to do regardless of religious ideology, race, veteran status, ableness, etc.

The current slate of issues being dealt with is whether or not the law should consider certain types of products/services to be expressions of speech.  If the courts decide they do count as speech protected by the First Amendment, it's likely the business owners will be allowed to decline such goods/services.

That being said, even limiting speech in some cases doesn't control the ideas/thoughts of citizens; it's just limiting when and where speech can reasonably and responsibly be balanced against other concerns or public interests (such as safety, treason, or  in this case, preserving public access for all citizens).  The classic example that freedom of speech has limits is that in a crowded movie theater, anyone is free to scream "FIRE!!!!!!" solely within the confines of their own thoughts and ideas without any repercussions.  The same is not true for anyone wishing to actually scream it out loud at the top of their lungs--there are restrictions and ramifications for such.

In similar fashion, any business owner is free to disapprove of an interracial marriage in their thoughts and own personal ideas; what they cannot do is refuse to bake a cake for an interracial couple, even in the name of freedom of speech, for as long as they intend to sell wedding cakes to the general public (though they obviously always have the choice of choosing another vocation that doesn't require them to bake wedding cakes for anyone).

The same is true of those disapproving of LDS weddings, or Jewish ones, or atheist ones.... while business owners are free in their own thoughts and ideas to disapprove of such weddings, they cannot refuse to bake cakes for LDS weddings, or Jewish weddings, or atheist weddings, even in the name of freedom of speech, for as long as they intend to sell wedding cakes to the general public (though, again, they obviously always have the choice of choosing another vocation that doesn't require them to bake wedding cakes for anyone).

Of course, you may feel that public accommodation laws are attempting mind control for everyone, including the other cases I listed above.... but assuming you agree those instances aren't mind-control attempts by the government, then it likewise isn't mind-control for the government to apply the same regulations and requirements on the basis of gender/sexual orientation that it is for any of the other circumstances I've mentioned.

Edited February 14, 2018 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

16 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

That does not sound logical to me.  It sounds like saying be charitable, but don't be charitable to all.  It sounds like a way to pick and choose.  Tolerance is tolerance until it is not.  There is not a middle ground; I will either be tolerant of intolerant, but I cannot speak as if I am a tolerant person when in reality pick and choose for whom I will be tolerant.  

By the way, you may find it interesting that some of what I've read agrees with your comment above that the paradox of tolerance itself actually isn't "logical," that that paradoxically, it's more logical to be intolerant.  Consider the following:

The Paradox of Tolerance

by Michael Mendis

Tolerance is a self-contradictory principle.

It is self-contradictory because it is reflexive. That is, as a principle it acts upon itself, or it includes itself in its scope. As a principle, tolerance dictates that we must be tolerant of everything. We cannot pick and choose what we will tolerate and what we will not. If this is so, then tolerance requires us to tolerate even intolerance. Thus, if somebody is preaching or practicing intolerance, the tolerant person cannot, in principle, speak out against what the intolerant person is doing, since speaking out against intolerance would itself be an act of intolerance. In other words, the principle of tolerance requires us to grant intolerant people the right to be intolerant. This is clearly self-contradictory, since tolerance cannot condone what it specifically sets out to be against (i.e., intolerance), but it nevertheless requires itself, logically, to do just that.

Tolerance as a principle, then, is clearly illogical, and therefore irrational. It is much more logical and rational to espouse intolerance, for then one does not get entangled in any contradictions—self or otherwise. Intolerance as a principle does not require us to be consistently and universally intolerant: it affords us the option of being tolerant if we so choose, and intolerant whenever it pleases us to be so. This is straightforward and clear-cut, and one has no difficulty following this principle in living one's life. The intolerant person's simple motto is: "I like the things I like and I hate the things I hate, and I will hate the people who like the things I hate, and I will make that hate known to them in no uncertain terms." What could be easier? It's black and white, like … "If you are not with me, you are against me, and so you are my enemy, and I will treat you as such." …

And yet, …

We have the intuitive sense (beyond what the rational mind tells us) that there is something wrong with this reasoning, logical and rational though it is. Intolerance, we have learned from experience, does not work very well in practice. Religious wars, witch hunts (ancient and modern), persecution (political, religious, and social)—these are all the luscious fruits of intolerance, fruits whose flavors we would rather not have tasted. Mahatma Gandhi put it perfectly when he said: "An eye for an eye ends up making the whole world blind." We might say: Intolerance breeds intolerance in a downward spiral. … Oddly enough, tolerance does not always breed tolerance, but it often does, and this is what recommends it to us as the superior of the two principles.

Game theory tells us that antagonism towards one's opponents is not usually a winning strategy. John Nash (the real-life mathematician on whom the movie A Beautiful Mind was based) has shown that being aware of and accepting (we could say "tolerating") the play strategies of one's opponents is essential to winning. A "Nash equilibrium" is a situation in which each player's strategy is an optimal response to the play strategies of the other players. There is no room for "selfishness" or … "go-it-alone" bravado here. While tolerance and intolerance are not exact a "game," the principles of Game Theory can be applied in a broad way to understanding why tolerance is the superior of the two principles. If you tolerate the opinions of those you disagree with, the chances are greater that they will tolerate your opinions. And if everyone held to the principle of tolerance, then we wouldn't even need to worry about chances being greater or less: we would know right off the bat that others will indeed tolerate our opinions. In this climate of tolerance, there would be a lower risk of conflict, and instead of expending our energy fighting each other, we could put it to more productive ends.

What the paradox of tolerance teaches us is that rationality is not always in lock step with practicality. The rational thing to do is not always the best thing to do, the most practical thing to do, the right thing to do. I am not speaking here of the morally right thing to do, but rather, the right thing in terms of common sense. It should be noted that common sense is not always rational. Philosophers often dismiss common sense precisely because of this. But if common sense had prevailed, world history might have run a very different course.

So what shall we say of tolerance? Should we be rational and reject it as a guiding principle because it is self-contradictory and therefore illogical? Or should we yield to the irrational side of our natures and embrace tolerance despite the fact that it is self-contradictory and illogical? I think most people would agree that the latter is the more "sane" of the two options.

[Daniel2]

And our good friend Wikipedia offers some additional food for thought under the entry "The Paradox of Tolerance":

Quote

Philosopher Karl Popper defined the paradox [of tolerance] in 1945 in The Open Society and Its Enemies Vol. 1 (in note 4 to Chapter 7).^[1]

Less well known is the paradox of tolerance: Unlimited tolerance must lead to the disappearance of tolerance. If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them. — In this formulation, I do not imply, for instance, that we should always suppress the utterance of intolerant philosophies; as long as we can counter them by rational argument and keep them in check by public opinion, suppression would certainly be unwise. But we should claim the right to suppress them if necessary even by force; for it may easily turn out that they are not prepared to meet us on the level of rational argument, but begin by denouncing all argument; they may forbid their followers to listen to rational argument, because it is deceptive, and teach them to answer arguments by the use of their fists or pistols. We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant.

He concluded that we are warranted in refusing to tolerate intolerance: "We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."

In 1971, philosopher John Rawls concludes in A Theory of Justice that a just society must tolerate the intolerant, for otherwise, the society would then itself be intolerant, and thus unjust. However, Rawls also insists, like Popper, that society has a reasonable right of self-preservation that supersedes the principle of tolerance: "While an intolerant sect does not itself have title to complain of intolerance, its freedom should be restricted only when the tolerant sincerely and with reason believe that their own security and that of the institutions of liberty are in danger."^[2][3]

In a 1997 work, Michael Walzer asked "Should we tolerate the intolerant?" He notes that most minority religious groups who are the beneficiaries of tolerance are themselves intolerant, at least in some respects. In a tolerant regime, such people may learn to tolerate, or at least to behave "as if they possessed this virtue".^[4]

Thomas Jefferson had already addressed the notion of a tolerant society in his first inaugural speech, concerning those who might destabilise the country and its unity, saying, "...let them stand undisturbed as monuments of the safety with which error of opinion may be tolerated where reason is left free to combat it."^[5]

Tolerance and freedom of speech[edit]

The paradox of tolerance is important in the discussion of what, if any, boundaries are to be set on freedom of speech. Popper asserted that to allow freedom of speech to those who would use it to eliminate the very principle upon which they rely is paradoxical.^[6] Rosenfeld states "it seems contradictory to extend freedom of speech to extremists who... if successful, ruthlessly suppress the speech of those with whom they disagree," and points out that the Western European Democracies and the United States have opposite approaches to the question of tolerance of hate speech.^[7]

Others argue that intolerant speech, which is merely a signalling of exclusionary attitude, ought to be subject to a different standard of justification than violent or repressive (direct) action based on exclusionary attitude. “Violent action on the basis of ‘my’ dogma justifies violence everywhere, on the basis of everyone’s dogma.”^[8]

Criticism of violent intolerance against instances of intolerant speech is also characteristic of Discourse Ethics developed by Jürgen Habermas^[9] and Karl-Otto Apel^[10] . "The means of reaching agreement are repeatedly thrust aside by the instruments of force." (Ibid. Habermas)

Homophily and intolerance[edit]

The relation between homophily (a preference for interacting with those with similar traits) and intolerance is manifested when a tolerant person is faced with the dilemma of choosing between establishing a positive relationship with a tolerant individual of a dissimilar group, or establishing a positive relationship with an intolerant group member. In the first case, the intolerant in-group member disapproves the established link with an other-group individual, leading necessarily to a negative relationship with his tolerant equal; while in the second case, the negative relationship toward the other-group individual is endorsed by the intolerant in-group member and promotes a positive relationship between them.

Edited February 14, 2018 by Daniel2

[Kenngo1969]

On 2/11/2018 at 4:12 PM, california boy said:

We do see things differently.  People don't automatically have contempt for others.  There is always something that triggers it.  And it is usually bad behavior. ...

 

Disapproval of bad behavior =/= Contempt

[kiwi57]

4 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

And our good friend Wikipedia offers some additional food for thought under the entry "The Paradox of Tolerance":

From the Popper quotation:

Quote

"We should therefore claim, in the name of tolerance, the right not to tolerate the intolerant."

The huge problem with this, of course, is that it can be so easily reduced to a handy slogan. Anyone who disagrees with whatever it is that you happen to want can be branded "intolerant" and therefore decreed to be outside the pale of tolerance.

[Daniel2]

2 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

From the Popper quotation:

The huge problem with this, of course, is that it can be so easily reduced to a handy slogan. Anyone who disagrees with whatever it is that you happen to want can be branded "intolerant" and therefore decreed to be outside the pale of tolerance.

I'm not sure why that's a "huge problem," unless one's life is ruled solely by slogan-based methodology.  After all, lots of ideas can be boiled down to slogans.

Thankfully, the law doesn't rely on slogans, nor does it rely on ANY given individual's assertion of what/whom should be tolerated or what/whom shouldn't be--not even by the one occupying the most powerful leadership position in our nation.

Instead, laws are measured against the Constitution, and if challenged, go through a complex process--passing through multiple courtrooms before multiple judges at multiple levels establishing reams of legal precedent--precedent that relies on methodical examination, measurement, judgement, and decision based on the merits of the evidence--not by the trite reduction of any slogan-based idea or self-imposed ideology of any given individual.

Edited February 15, 2018 by Daniel2

[kllindley]

13 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Thankfully, the law doesn't rely on slogans, nor does it rely on ANY given individual's assertion of what/whom should be tolerated or what/whom shouldn't be.

Instead, laws are measured against the Constitution, and if challenged, go through a complex process--passing through multiple courtrooms before multiple judges at multiple levels establishing reams of legal precedent--precedent that relies on methodical examination, measurement, judgement, and decision based on the merits of the evidence--not by the trite reduction of any slogan-based idea or self-imposed ideology of any given individual.

While true that the law doesn't rey on slogans, those that make and interpret laws are certainly influenced by their culture. I think we have plenty of evidence in both sides of the political aisle that far too often decisions are made for reasons other than the merits of the evidence. 

 

[Daniel2]

4 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Disapproval of bad behavior =/= Contempt

I entirely agree.

And that truth cuts both ways, regardless of where any of us may be on the spectrum.

That perfectly illustrates how I don't feel contempt for Jack Phillips, despite his bad behavior, nor are my feelings on anti-discrimination law based on contempt for him or even the religion he espouses.

Edited February 15, 2018 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

15 minutes ago, kllindley said:

While true that the law doesn't rey on slogans, those that make and interpret laws are certainly influenced by their culture. I think we have plenty of evidence in both sides of the political aisle that far too often decisions are made for reasons other than the merits of the evidence. 

 

It's definitely true that politicians and judges--human as we all are--don't always get it 'right' the first time.  But as I've said before, I agree with Dr. King's oft-expressed sentiment that "the moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice." 

And like Dr. King, I consider public accommodation laws to be examples of law bending toward that very justice to which he was referring.

Edited February 15, 2018 by Daniel2

[Daniel2]

17 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

Daniel, I don't view you as an elitist and I hope that you did not take anything I stated as an affront to you.  I just happen to not buy into the pseudo-logic of the supposed paradox of tolerance.  It is not logical and does not make sense.  Its basic premise if faulty.  

Ideas are not like germs that contaminate another.  Ideas are to be debated, ponder upon, and the stronger ideas eventually win the greatest support.  Humanity has proved itself quite capable to buy into poor ideas, but those ideas eventually are defeated.  What I find abhorrent is this concept that we must censor the speech and ideas of those with whom we disagree.  I reject that position entirely and without reservation.  If we are so fearful that an idea will not stand up to scrutiny in the public square then there is obviously something wrong with our understanding of that idea.  Additionally, we don't believe that our fellow humans are smart enough to buy into "our" personal belief system and therefore they need to be protected from anything that is perceived to contaminate the preferred position.

Somehow I missed this post earlier and just saw it now.

I appreciate the acknowledgements at the beginning, and am happy to not take anything you wrote previously as a personal affront.

Additionally, I hope it's clear that when it comes to speech, I highly value reasoned and respectful debate from all sides of the issue, because I think we all benefit when opposing views aren't silenced or censured.

The only speech that becomes questionable is that which is intended to provoke to unnecessary violence.  When 'the intolerant' began to call for violence upon those professing tolerance, for example, said speech crosses into uncomfortable territory.  That's how I read the comments I quoted from, and about which I'm still learning and pondering, myself.

[kiwi57]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

Somehow I missed this post earlier and just saw it now.

I appreciate the acknowledgements at the beginning, and am happy to not take anything you wrote previously as a personal affront.

Additionally, I hope it's clear that when it comes to speech, I highly value reasoned and respectful debate from all sides of the issue, because I think we all benefit when opposing views aren't silenced or censured.

The only speech that becomes questionable is that which is intended to provoke to unnecessary violence.  When 'the intolerant' began to call for violence upon those professing tolerance, for example, said speech crosses into uncomfortable territory.  That's how I read the comments I quoted from, and about which I'm still learning and pondering, myself.

There are many kinds of violence. Depriving someone of the means of earning (or baking) their daily bread is at least as destructive as many cruder forms of violence; while some of those who are actually intolerant may cover their intolerance by wordy professions to the contrary.

Once the slogans are stripped away, it is manifestly clear that those who refuse to allow a family-owned business to choose which events they wish to actively participate in are the truly intolerant ones. And calling for their ideological targets to be stripped of their means of livelihood is unquestionably calling for violence against them.

 

[Daniel2]

2 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

There are many kinds of violence. Depriving someone of the means of earning (or baking) their daily bread is at least as destructive as many cruder forms of violence; while some of those who are actually intolerant may cover their intolerance by wordy professions to the contrary.

Once the slogans are stripped away, it is manifestly clear that those who refuse to allow a family-owned business to choose which events they wish to actively participate in are the truly intolerant ones. And calling for their ideological targets to be stripped of their means of livelihood is unquestionably calling for violence against them.

 

Let's not dance around the issues and both be clear and candid about what we're both proposing about intolerance:

I am absolutely transparent that I am intolerant of discrimination in the public sphere based on race, color, religion, national origin, and disability---even if it means 'family-owned' businesses face financial sanctions, whether or not they lead up to the closure of said businesses. 

Are you? Or do you support doing away with public accommodation laws prohibiting discrimination?

Instead of hiding behind Bible-based, religiously-wordy hypotheticals like "depriving" family-owned businesses from "earning their daily bread." let's look at an actual historical case:  Newman vs. Piggy Park Enterprises is a good example of the principles we're discussing, including the financial punishments imposed.  I believe that the final rulings imposing financial sanctions against the religiously-devout Baptist "family man" and his "family-owned" restaurants were decided correctly and resulted in the preferred outcome. 

Once again, do you? Or d you believe Mr. Bessinger should have been allowed to continue refusing service based on his deeply-held religious beliefs (and/or his status as 'family-owned,' which seems to be significant to you, though I'm not sure the law views it that way)?

Edited February 15, 2018 by Daniel2

[Storm Rider]

15 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Somehow I missed this post earlier and just saw it now.

I appreciate the acknowledgements at the beginning, and am happy to not take anything you wrote previously as a personal affront.

Additionally, I hope it's clear that when it comes to speech, I highly value reasoned and respectful debate from all sides of the issue, because I think we all benefit when opposing views aren't silenced or censured.

The only speech that becomes questionable is that which is intended to provoke to unnecessary violence.  When 'the intolerant' began to call for violence upon those professing tolerance, for example, said speech crosses into uncomfortable territory.  That's how I read the comments I quoted from, and about which I'm still learning and pondering, myself.

I suspect we may agree on what is hate speech and what is not.  If a group states publically that they and others should be violent towards another group, any group, because of what they think, what they believe, how they act socially, or who they choose as a partner, etc - this is hate speech.  However, those who simply talk about what they believe - those that strongly talk about a specific race, a religion's doctrines, etc. - this is not and never has been hate speech.  Religious doctrines obviously may include sexual mores, racial issues, etc. - as long as they are not teaching violence then let them speak.  Ideas are succeed or are defeated by shedding light on them and allowing an open discussion.  

As an aside, it would be helpful to understand what th far right actually teaches or believes; however, I have never read anything that they specifically that have said.  I have read a lot of what other people - those that are committed to violent opposition and making them "shut-up" - have said they believe.  Few things bother me as much as these type of people and they often use the term hate speech for anything that conflicts with their beliefs.  Hate speech is a very specific type of speech that we do not hear often in our society; however, we hear the accusation almost daily in the news.  

[Anijen]

16 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

That perfectly illustrates how I don't feel contempt for Jack Phillips, despite his bad behavior, 

Following ones religious beliefs (and 1st Amendment Rights) is considered bad behavior?

[Gray]

8 minutes ago, Anijen said:

Following ones religious beliefs (and 1st Amendment Rights) is considered bad behavior?

Depends entirely on what those beliefs and words are. Some religious beliefs can very easily motivate bad behavior. Examples are not hard to find.

[kiwi57]

13 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Let's not dance around the issues and both be clear and candid about what we're both proposing about intolerance:

Indeed.

To start with, let's not use scare quotes in order to mock, belittle, or implicitly deny the facts.

For example, when people sacrifice commercial opportunities because of their commitment to authentic conjugal marriage.

13 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

I am absolutely transparent that I am intolerant of discrimination in the public sphere based on race, color, religion, national origin, and disability---even if it means 'family-owned' businesses face financial sanctions, whether or not they lead up to the closure of said businesses.

Exactly.

Your sense of entitlement is so pervasive that you can view with complacency your ideological targets being impoverished and dispossessed, for no other offense than that of refusing to bake a cake for an event they regard as immoral.

13 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Are you? Or do you support doing away with public accommodation laws prohibiting discrimination?

Instead of hiding behind Bible-based, religiously-wordy hypotheticals like "depriving" family-owned businesses from "earning their daily bread." let's look at an actual historical case:  Newman vs. Piggy Park Enterprises is a good example of the principles we're discussing, including the financial punishments imposed.  I believe that the final rulings imposing financial sanctions against the religiously-devout Baptist "family man" and his "family-owned" restaurants were decided correctly and resulted in the preferred outcome. 

Once again, do you? Or d you believe Mr. Bessinger should have been allowed to continue refusing service based on his deeply-held religious beliefs (and/or his status as 'family-owned,' which seems to be significant to you, though I'm not sure the law views it that way)?

The analogy is, of course, flawed. As of course you know (but refuse to acknowledge) none of the present targets of gay lawfare have refused to serve gay people; they have, however, offended your collective sense of entitlement by refusing to participate in same sex weddings.

The two things are not the same.

But to answer your question: no, I don't believe privately owned businesses are "public accommodations." I believe that in any plausibly free society, sellers would have exactly the same freedom to choose with whom they do business as buyers do.

I prefer level playing fields, you see.

 

[california boy]

22 hours ago, Kenngo1969 said:

Disapproval of bad behavior =/= Contempt

You are right.  Contempt is a bit strong.

[Daniel2]

3 hours ago, Storm Rider said:

I suspect we may agree on what is hate speech and what is not.  If a group states publically that they and others should be violent towards another group, any group, because of what they think, what they believe, how they act socially, or who they choose as a partner, etc - this is hate speech.  However, those who simply talk about what they believe - those that strongly talk about a specific race, a religion's doctrines, etc. - this is not and never has been hate speech.  Religious doctrines obviously may include sexual mores, racial issues, etc. - as long as they are not teaching violence then let them speak.  Ideas are succeed or are defeated by shedding light on them and allowing an open discussion.    

Yes, I think we are agreed.  You may have noticed that in my former comments I even avoided using the politically-charged term of "hate speech."  I did so because I didn't want to use that term, which, as you noted, can so easily be misconstrued, misunderstood, or misapplied in conversations like these.

[Daniel2]

2 hours ago, Anijen said:

Following ones religious beliefs (and 1st Amendment Rights) is considered bad behavior?

I might just as easily ask, "Committing to the love of my life and uniting ourselves as a family, as husbands, fathers, grandfathers, lovemates, lifemates, and caregivers, to have and to hold, for richer or poorer, in sickness or in health, through a sacred covenant of marriage is considered 'bad behavior'...?"

As beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, as one man's trash is another man's treasure, as one father's 'birthright' is another father's 'mess of pottage,' what some call "bad behavior" is another's "following one's religious beliefs." 

My Unitarian Universalist Faith holds marriage between a man and a woman, or between two women, or between to women as sacred celebrations in which the entire congregation rejoices, celebrates, supports, and blesses.

In the LDS Faith, marriage between two women or two men is apostasy and likely results in excommunication.

Refusing to bake a cake for someone who doesn't share one's religious beliefs may be a respected act of 'following one's religious beliefs' in your neck of the woods.  In mine, it's bad behavior in the vein of that corrosive sin of Sodom, inhospitality.

Perspective makes all the difference.

Regardless of what we each may feel, soon we'll all see if our nation's government considers a business baking a custom wedding cake as First-Amendment-protected freedom of speech.

Edited February 15, 2018 by Daniel2

[kiwi57]

2 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I might just as easily ask, "Committing to the love of my life and uniting ourselves as a family, as husbands, fathers, grandfathers, lovemates, lifemates, and caregivers, to have and to hold, for richer or poorer, in sickness or in health, through a sacred covenant of marriage is considered 'bad behavior'...?"

As beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, as one man's trash is another man's treasure, as one father's 'birthright' is another father's 'mess of pottage,' what some call "bad behavior" is another's "following one's religious beliefs."  Perspective makes all the difference.

Yes, but of the various instances of subjectively-determined "bad behaviour" in view, only one kind is being lined up for punishment by financial obliteration; and it's not yours.

[Daniel2]

2 hours ago, kiwi57 said:

Indeed.

To start with, let's not use scare quotes in order to mock, belittle, or implicitly deny the facts.

For example, when people sacrifice commercial opportunities because of their commitment to authentic conjugal marriage.

Exactly.

Your sense of entitlement is so pervasive that you can view with complacency your ideological targets being impoverished and dispossessed, for no other offense than that of refusing to bake a cake for an event they regard as immoral.

The analogy is, of course, flawed. As of course you know (but refuse to acknowledge) none of the present targets of gay lawfare have refused to serve gay people; they have, however, offended your collective sense of entitlement by refusing to participate in same sex weddings.

The two things are not the same.

But to answer your question: no, I don't believe privately owned businesses are "public accommodations." I believe that in any plausibly free society, sellers would have exactly the same freedom to choose with whom they do business as buyers do.

I prefer level playing fields, you see.

The analogy isn't flawed, because both examples rely upon the very same legal principles, precedent, and application, even as the details always very from any case to another.

Piggy Park Enterprises never said he hated black people or didn't want to serve them; he cited his religious belief objecting to the ACT of integrating whites and blacks together in the same space.

Further, you know as well as I that public accommodation aspects of anti-discrimination law prohibit and prevent business owners to refuse to provide goods or services to the following ACTIONS/EVENTS:

• Interracial marriages (were it not so, business owners could claim that they aren't denying service based on RACE, just on the EVENT of a mixed-race MARRIAGE, which is an action/event, not the people's race, even if he were HAPPY to bake interracial couples cakes for ANY other occasion).
• Religious marriages of ANY creed--or for those with no Faith at all (were it not so, business owners could claim that they aren't denying service based on RELIGION, just on the EVENT of a Mormon/Jewish/Catholic/Atheist MARRIAGE, which is an action/event, not the people's religion, even if he were HAPPY to bake Mormon/Jewish/Catholic/Athiest couples cakes for ANY other occasion).
• Intergenerational marriages (were it not so, business owners could claim that they aren't denying service based on AGE, just on the EVENT of an intergenerational MARRIAGE, which is an action/event, not the people's ages, even if he were HAPPY to bake intergenerational couples cakes for ANY other occasion).
• Mixed-ability marriages (were it not so, business owners could claim that they aren't denying service based on disability status, just on the EVENT of a mixed-ability MARRIAGE, which is an action/event, not the people's ableness, even if he were HAPPY to bake mixed-ability couples cakes for ANY other occasion).
• Military weddings for those in active duty or retired veterans (were it not so, business owners could claim that they aren't denying service based on the couples' military service, just on the EVENT of a military-related MARRIAGE, which is an action/event, not the people's status as active/retired military, even if he were HAPPY to bake veteran couples cakes for ANY other occasion).

Kiwi, it seems like you want to make this current round of application all about gays wanting to destroy the family-businesses of anyone who disagrees with them.

Yet you seemingly ignore the reality that the ACTIONS/WEDDINGS of those of other classes are protected from discrimination in the very same way you're loudly decrying the alledged "entitlement" that I am supposedly feeling.

Wanting to be treated the SAME way as everyone else is NOT "entitlement"--it's EQUALITY.

When the law protects EVERYONE else's CHOICE religion (or the chosen EVENT of their religious-based wedding), or when the law protects EVERYONE else's race (or the chosen EVENT to marry someone of another race), or when the law protects EVERYONE"s military service (or the CHOSEN event to have a military wedding), or when the law protects EVERYONE else's gender---then the Constitution--------NOT my sense of entitlement----states that ALL of us are created and are to be treated equally.  In my case and under current public accommodations law, that means that for I and those like me, the law must treat our choice to marry someone of the same gender the same as it does everyone else.  If I am entitled, it is because I expect my government to honor the contract it proclaims to make with each of us as citizens.  No, I am not entitled--I am GRATEFUL to be a citizen where I can share in the dream of equality for all, while rolling up my sleeves and joining the hard work to make us "a more perfect union."

Now... when it comes right down to it, I acknowledge and understand that you think the whole public accommodation law system should be done away with.  As such, I really don't see that attempting to convince you that gays should be free from discrimination on the same terms as everyone else is going to be fruitful, since you don't buy into the entire notion of anti-discrimination law.  You want businesses to be free to be as intolerant as they wish.

Since you reject the principles upon which the entire system depends, it's pointless to try to convince you that gays should have it, so I intend to stop trying to convince you otherwise.  While I think you're tilting at windmills to try to throw out public accommodation law, go for it--it's a free country.  

What I will continue to defend against, however, is any ongoing insinuations or efforts by you or anyone else demean, belittle, or mischaracterize gay and lesbian Americans as overly-entitled, snowflake individuals who expect any type of special rights that are irrational, unjust, outlandish, and/or horrific that don't already equally apply to all the rest of American citizens, up to and including the ability to destroy 'family owned' businesses who attempt to discriminate against their fellow American citizens based on events related to any status of protected classifications, even when attempting to invoke their 'deeply-held religious beliefs.'

Best to you,

D

[Daniel2]

1 hour ago, kiwi57 said:

Yes, but of the various instances of subjectively-determined "bad behaviour" in view, only one kind is being lined up for punishment by financial obliteration; and it's not yours.

Once again, that simply is NOT true.

The type of discrimination prohibited by the Civil Rights Act and public accommodation laws prevents instances of "bad behavior" (as I've used it and in the context of your accusation, 'discriminating against someone based on the wedding event encompassing their choice of spouse or choice of wedding venue or choice of religious/non-religious ceremony, etc.') of ANY kind and has been subject to punishment up to and potentially including financial obliteration based on ANY protected class, including:

• Race.
• Color.
• Religion or creed.
• National origin or ancestry.
• Sex.
• Age.
• Physical or mental disability.
• Veteran status.

It's just that all 'bad behavior' (of discriminating against one's customers based on the above list) are already matters of settled law... yet you keep omitting these protected classes and only direct your outrage at gay and lesbian Americans asking for the same (equal) treatments and protections. 

Edited February 15, 2018 by Daniel2

[kllindley]

20 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

It's definitely true that politicians and judges--human as we all are--don't always get it 'right' the first time.  But as I've said before, I agree with Dr. King's oft-expressed sentiment that "the moral arc of the universe is long, but it bends toward justice." 

And like Dr. King, I consider public accommodation laws to be examples of law bending toward that very justice to which he was referring.

In an interesting, but not completely unexpended, twist to the story: it seems that even the law makers, let alone society at large, are not completely sure where they fall on the application of non-discrimination laws. 

Joint Budget Committee votes to defund state civil rights commission

I'm sad that none of the many pro-LGBT advocates even acknowledged the historical problems that legislators have tried to address regarding the composition and functioning of the committee. It's a very polarized and partisan "scorched earth" conversation. 

[kllindley]

51 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

Once again, that simply is NOT true.

The type of discrimination prohibited by the Civil Rights Act and public accommodation laws prevents instances of "bad behavior" (as I've used it and in the context of your accusation, 'discriminating against someone based on the wedding event encompassing their choice of spouse or choice of wedding venue or choice of religious/non-religious ceremony, etc.') of ANY kind and has been subject to punishment up to and potentially including financial obliteration based on ANY protected class, including:

• Race.
• Color.
• Religion or creed.
• National origin or ancestry.
• Sex.
• Age.
• Physical or mental disability.
• Veteran status.

It's just that all 'bad behavior' (of discriminating against one's customers based on the above list) are already matters of settled law... yet you keep omitting these protected classes and only direct your outrage at gay and lesbian Americans asking for the same (equal) treatments and protections. 

I took kiwi to be comparing the two bad behaviors you identified: "discrimination" and "committing to the love of my life and uniting ourselves as a family, as husbands, fathers, grandfathers, lovemates, lifemates, and caregivers, to have and to hold, for richer or poorer, in sickness or in health, through a sacred covenant of marriage."

Of those two, only one is being penalized. 

You also compared the behaviors of discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation with discriminating on the basis of other protected classes. 

In this comparison, you are absolutely right that there is no legal difference.