Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Religious Viewpoint, Legal Viewpoint, and Public Viewpoint


Recommended Posts

Public, Religious, and Legal Viewpoints are Similar and Different

I am interested in an amicable dialogue discussing state discrimination statutes that seemingly go head on with a person's right to express his/her religious beliefs. I often thought of the upcoming Court battle between state made discrimination laws against a person's right of religious expression. (Note: In legal opinions, dissents, and in law review journals,  when the word Court is capitalized it generally is referring to the United States Supreme Court and when the word court is not capitalized it means any other court under the Supreme Court.)

It is generally known that the Constitution is the Supreme Law of the Land. This simply means the Constitution is supreme to state made law, there are no exceptions for a state statute to have supremacy over the Constitution.

Here, is the wording of the First Amendment; Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or the press, or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. 

In this thread I would like to discuss (1) the ramifications of the religious and speech clauses of this amendment when juxtaposed between state made discriminatory statutes and (2) can a state government rightfully force a person to think, speak, and act if it allegedly violates a state statute which may be contrary to the First Amendment?  In that context please consider also the following:

  • Sunday Closing Laws:  The Court has ruled that states cannot force an establishment to serve its customers on Sunday. This simply means the state cannot force a store to stay open or closed on Sundays.  IOW, a state statute would be unconstitutional to force a store owner to serve its customers on Sundays going against the owners religious beliefs. (see Estate of Thornton v. Caldor, Inc., 472 U.S. 703 (1985).)
  • Justice Alito recently decided with Justice Kagan saying "Viewpoint discrimination is poison to a free society." Justice Kagan (an Obama appointee) generally liberal minded in her decisions said that the Court must remain firm on this issue, during a time when free speech is under attack." I for one am happy to see how all the current justices cross political and religious opinions to uphold the freedom of speech.
  • Legal Viewpoint: is based on legal doctrine.
  • Public Viewpoint: is based on current public opinion of a certain topic.
  • Religious Viewpoint: is based on religious beliefs.

Regarding legal viewpoint (legal doctrine), which may or may not be contrary to a religious or a public viewpoint. It is nice to see the Court overrule a lower court's decision, when that decision was based from a public viewpoint or one that goes against a religious viewpoint (expression of belief).  In other words, to me, it is nice to see a ruling by a judge be based on a legal viewpoint.

I will start.

  • Abortion: I am against all abortion, believing it is simply the killing of a human or future human being. If you kill me when I was only a clump of cells or kill me when I am 50 years old, it is still killing me. Religiously, I feel I can argue my beliefs for this stand. I know my viewpoint is even more opposed than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (which allows for very few exceptions in very rare situations).
  • Same Sex Marriage: None of my business. I personally believe that marriage is between a man and a woman, but I am not against the marriage of those of the same sex so that they may have all the legal benefits of a hetrosexual marriage.
  • State Discriminatory Statutes: I think these type of statutes generally are unconstitutional on their face because they compel a person how one should think according to the authors views. I know the intentions are to eliminate discrimination which I am all for. However, I am NOT for the forced obedience to a state law that dictates how one should think. Even if at its worse a person is racist bigot, the government should not be able to punish that bigot for the thoughts he has. Yes, education is good to help eliminate racism or prejudice towards homosexuals. Yes, I believe we should also continue in church to love everyone, but we should not be forced in how to think.
  • Forced Speech (forced to do or forced not to do): I am NOT for compelled speech, which could be literal (e.g. write this, perform this, bake this, arrange that, etc.). It also could be symbolic; (cannot burn the flag or you have to burn the flag. You cannot wear that arm band or you have to wear that arm band, you cannot bake a religious or secular cake, you have to bake a religious or secular cake). You have to conform to the way we think (i.e. no gay discrimination) and at the same time we [the state] is allowed to show hostility to you for your religious beliefs.

Just an FYI; I own a franchise (a national carpet cleaning company) that covers five states. I have in the past and currently do and will continue to give service to all of my customers. I have many times given service to known gay customers, married and unmarried. I do not serve my good customers because I am compelled by law, but I serve them because I am a smart businessman and want to continue to have their support. However, I do not think carpet cleaning or all other ancillary services I offer do not go against my religious beliefs. I don't even think carpet cleaning is an artform, although I take great pride in the knowledge, skill, and ability to clean them (message me if you want before and after pics).  I would be against my church or my government compelling me to serve gays or I not to give service to gays. I would be against my church and government (be it local, state, or federal) compelling me to think a certain way, even if that way of thinking is good.

I like my free-agency to think for myself!

I would like to discuss from these viewpoints laws on abortion, same sex marriage, forced cake baking, flower arrangement, and photography for gay couples. Keep in mind, that these discussions must maintain a religious theme and not a political one. Please do NOT get political outside the topic of this thread. I would like it to remain open. It sometimes, it least to me, will appear that one will intentionally go political just to have a thread they disagree with or an argument that is not going their way intentionally shutdown. If that is you just bow out and simply choose not to participate.

 

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Anijen said:

........................

  • Abortion: I am against all abortion, believing it is simply the killing of a human or future human being. If you kill me when I was only a clump of cells or kill me when I am 50 years old, it is still killing me. Religiously, I feel I can argue my beliefs for this stand. I know my viewpoint is even more opposed than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (which allows for very few exceptions in very rare situations).............................

The LDS Church neither permits nor prohibits abortion, but does advise against it in general -- with the statement that exceptions may be made in cases of incest, rape, or threat to the health of the mother.  In other words, it is not a matter of LDS doctrine.

The Roman Catholic Church, on the other hand, makes it a central tenet that life begins at conception, and that no abortion for any reason is ever permissible.  Violation of that rule, or even opposition to it, can result in denial of communion (Eucharist).  The RC Church also prohibits contraceptive use.

Link to comment
1 hour ago, Anijen said:

Abortion: I am against all abortion, believing it is simply the killing of a human or future human being. If you kill me when I was only a clump of cells or kill me when I am 50 years old, it is still killing me. Religiously, I feel I can argue my beliefs for this stand. I know my viewpoint is even more opposed than the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (which allows for very few exceptions in very rare situations).

Would you submit to being killed at 50 if remaining alive would directly cause the death of another, to save the life of that other person, after you and the other affected parties prayerfully consulted with priesthood leaders?

Link to comment
2 hours ago, CV75 said:

Would you submit to being killed at 50 if remaining alive would directly cause the death of another, to save the life of that other person, after you and the other affected parties prayerfully consulted with priesthood leaders?

Do I like this person?

Link to comment

Am I understanding your views on discrimination?  You support the George Wallace view that business and institutions have a constitutional right to discriminate?

Link to comment
7 hours ago, california boy said:

Am I understanding your views on discrimination?  You support the George Wallace view that business and institutions have a constitutional right to discriminate?

I think the religious viewpoint would support the free exercise and expression of religion in a business and institutional setting; the legal viewpoint also, but within the parameters of laws for non-discrimination and allowed exceptions; the public viewpoint would depend on the community (it could go either way). Which of these do you think reflects George Wallace's view?

Link to comment

Abortion

Religious: when done voluntarily almost always a sin.

Legal: Roe v. Wade was a weird case decided on constitutionally shoddy grounds. This is not a partisan or ideological observation. Even pro-choice people with an understanding of the legalities say that a rehearing on more solid grounds would be helpful. The court case came too early while the public were still coming to grips with the issue. Right is being scaled back throughout the country by disingenuous state laws. I do not like this trend. Passing laws designed to limit abortion or shut down clinics with legislation that has the pretense of being about clinical health standards is a sad development because continuing to normalize the technique will mean it is used more elsewhere.

Public: Roe v. Wade shut down the discussion too early and polarized the issue. I would like to see a reverence for life inculcated into society such that there is no need to change things legally but our treatment of the elderly, the mentally disabled, our criminals, and the economically disadvantaged shows that in general we do not care about life in general.

Same Sex Marriage

Religious: Sinful but probably no more sinful then unmarried homosexual relationships. I personally do not place it higher on the sin scale then heterosexual fornication unless it is predatory. I am big on predatory sin always being worse because of the lack of empathy.

Legal: Battle is lost. I do not agree with the Supreme Court ruling but I do not find it badly argued either.

Public: I see some people I believe it has helped so I have a hard time disliking it even with my religious views. Public steam is currently pro and growing but I see this situation as socially unstable. It could very easily reverse if we face a dangerous threat and people get scared. McCarthy was not a one-off and I suspect something will tighten us up soon. We have been in a loosening phase for quite some time.

State Discriminatory Statutes

Religious: No thoughts.

Legal: Vital. A stable society has to avoid creating an underclass of undesirables that have little hope of participation due to economic discrimination. Doing so creates unrest and strife. We have not come nearly far enough in racial equality to remove protections and we are already creating underclasses (released felons, Detroit) that have little hope. On a self-interested note if public perception turns strongly against the Church we will appreciate these protections some want to remove. On a more egalitarian note the rise of white supremacist movements shows that we we have some who will gladly overtly discriminate if allowed and a host more who would do it covertly if able.

Public: Libertarian naïveté on this issue has been toxic. Claims that no one would ever economically discriminate because of the risk of lost revenue proliferate despite historical evidence to the contrary. I do not believe we are ready to dispense with these protections and doubt we ever will be before the Millenium.

Forced Speech

Religious: At the current time I see no real threat to my ability to practice my faith or proselyte about it from a legal standpoint.

Legal: I do not find the baker and calligrapher cases to be a threat to the free exercise of speech or religion no matter how they fall out. I do not believe this is where the threat we have been warned about from the pulpit lies.

Public: Here is where the threat lies. The problem is a social one and not a legal one. If society as a whole despises faith in general or a faith in particular they will still have legal protection but will find themselves stymied in more practical ways in espousing their message and interacting with the community. I do not believe legally forced speech will be the problem. It will be growing social pressure against saying certain things and for saying certain things but this has always been a downside to the American system of government. Once the people decide en masse the thinking has been done and there is little refuge. Tocqueville pointed out this danger when he said of America that there was “less independence of mind, and true freedom of discussion, than in America” because once society lays down borders woe to anyone crossing them. The internet has resisted this a little but far too much of internet discussion is pablum or morally abhorrent or pure ignorance or all three. We are also ignoring the insights of Tocqueville and frittering away the strengths he found but that is stuff for another thread.

Link to comment
35 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

State Discriminatory Statutes

Religious: No thoughts.

You believe in the Golden Rule don't you?

37 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

Forced Speech

Religious: At the current time I see no real threat to my ability to practice my faith or proselyte about it from a legal standpoint.

Unless some weird college professor makes a snap assessment of your public display of piety and determine it to be a manifestation of white supremacist bigotry and become so outraged that he will swing hard a bike lock chain against your poor noggin.  :blink:

Link to comment
19 hours ago, Anijen said:
  • State Discriminatory Statutes: I think these type of statutes generally are unconstitutional on their face because they compel a person how one should think according to the authors views. I know the intentions are to eliminate discrimination which I am all for. However, I am NOT for the forced obedience to a state law that dictates how one should think. Even if at its worse a person is racist bigot, the government should not be able to punish that bigot for the thoughts he has. Yes, education is good to help eliminate racism or prejudice towards homosexuals. Yes, I believe we should also continue in church to love everyone, but we should not be forced in how to think.

A well thought out OP.  Nice.

However, I'm confused on the bullet quoted above.  What state discriminatory statutes compel a person to think according to the another's views?  Not sure I understand.  Could you provide an example?

Abortion:  I'm opposed to it but I truly see this as a thorny issue.  Even those I know who are staunchly "pro-life" still accept times/situations when abortion is acceptable (rape, incest, survival of mother) which means that you're putting qualifiers on when "killing" a fetus is okay.  This is a tough one and I've waffled on it throughout my life.

Same Sex Marriage:  I see no reason to discriminate against gay couples and legal recognition for a gay couple's marriage doesn't impact the legal recognition of free exercise of religion of others.

Forced Speech:  Personally I don't see making a cake or taking wedding pictures as religious expression.  Again, my personal opinion, but I don't buy the reasoning that making a cake for a gay wedding violates religious beliefs.  However, as a libertarian, I don't think any business owner should be forced to serve or provide goods to anyone else (with some exceptions like medical, emergency, and protective services).  Especially in today's environment... if a business owner wants to discriminate against a certain type of person, let them.  Let the market take care of things.

Link to comment
15 hours ago, california boy said:

Am I understanding your views on discrimination?  You support the George Wallace view that business and institutions have a constitutional right to discriminate?

You word your statements carefully, setting up a strawman, then implying my support of it. Shameful, stop the ad-hominem attack (please) and address the issue of religious, public, or legal viewpoints. 

No, you are definitely NOT understanding. My view on discrimination is it is ugly, sinful a putrid stench. As a business owner, (of four franchises), I have never turned down a customer and I know (I have some customers who are gay). What I am trying to point out is; we should have the liberty to think for ourselves and not have the government telling us how to think. If someone else has bigoted thoughts (not me) we should give every opportunity to educate him, but not do his thinking for him. Yes, discrimination is bad, but so is legislating it, which is simply compelling us how to think. Furthermore, if we do NOT think in the manner the government wants us to, they then throw us in prison.

 I do not and never have supported any of George Wallace's segregationist, Jim Crow, views.

Link to comment
7 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Abortion

Religious: when done voluntarily almost always a sin.

Legal: Roe v. Wade was a weird case decided on constitutionally shoddy grounds. This is not a partisan or ideological observation. Even pro-choice people with an understanding of the legalities say that a rehearing on more solid grounds would be helpful. The court case came too early while the public were still coming to grips with the issue. Right is being scaled back throughout the country by disingenuous state laws. I do not like this trend. Passing laws designed to limit abortion or shut down clinics with legislation that has the pretense of being about clinical health standards is a sad development because continuing to normalize the technique will mean it is used more elsewhere.Public: Roe v. Wade shut down the discussion too early and polarized the issue. I would like to see a reverence for life inculcated into society such that there is no need to change things legally but our treatment of the elderly, the mentally disabled, our criminals, and the economically disadvantaged shows that in general we do not care about life in general.

I 100% completely agree. I like your points on respecting life. We definitely need to honor, respect, value, and reverence life and I realize there is a lot of work needed, specifically in those areas you mentioned. What do you mean; "when done voluntarily..."? I certainly hope someone or govt entity is forcing abortions upon women.

 

Quote

 

Same Sex Marriage

Religious: Sinful but probably no more sinful then unmarried homosexual relationships. I personally do not place it higher on the sin scale then heterosexual fornication unless it is predatory. I am big on predatory sin always being worse because of the lack of empathy.

Legal: Battle is lost. I do not agree with the Supreme Court ruling but I do not find it badly argued either.

Public: I see some people I believe it has helped so I have a hard time disliking it even with my religious views. Public steam is currently pro and growing but I see this situation as socially unstable. It could very easily reverse if we face a dangerous threat and people get scared. McCarthy was not a one-off and I suspect something will tighten us up soon. We have been in a loosening phase for quite some time.

 

Again I 100% agree.

 

Quote

 

State Discriminatory Statutes

Religious: No thoughts.

Legal: Vital. A stable society has to avoid creating an underclass of undesirables that have little hope of participation due to economic discrimination. Doing so creates unrest and strife. We have not come nearly far enough in racial equality to remove protections and we are already creating underclasses (released felons, Detroit) that have little hope. On a self-interested note if public perception turns strongly against the Church we will appreciate these protections some want to remove. On a more egalitarian note the rise of white supremacist movements shows that we we have some who will gladly overtly discriminate if allowed and a host more who would do it covertly if able.

Public: Libertarian naïveté on this issue has been toxic. Claims that no one would ever economically discriminate because of the risk of lost revenue proliferate despite historical evidence to the contrary. I do not believe we are ready to dispense with these protections and doubt we ever will be before the Millenium.

 

I agree. We need to improve racial relations. I think the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were a good start on implementing some protections. I am thankful for the civil-rights movements. From slavery to now, I like to think we are getting better, albeit slowly. It takes time to change a mind-set to rid prejudicial mores, but over time I like to think we are improving. 

 

Quote

 

Forced Speech Religious: At the current time I see no real threat to my ability to practice my faith or proselyte about it from a legal standpoint.

 

I do see some threats.

Quote

Legal: I do not find the baker and calligrapher cases to be a threat to the free exercise of speech or religion no matter how they fall out. I do not believe this is where the threat we have been warned about from the pulpit lies.

I see the threats through the state punishments upon the bakers. e.g. random searches through his business receipts to check if he was complying (violation of the 4th Amendment). Court ordered therapy for him and his employees (compelling to think the way the state govt finds appropriate). $135,000 in fines evenmore in legal costs this in many cases caused bankrupted small businesses. 

 

Quote

Public: Here is where the threat lies. The problem is a social one and not a legal one. If society as a whole despises faith in general or a faith in particular they will still have legal protection but will find themselves stymied in more practical ways in espousing their message and interacting with the community. I do not believe legally forced speech will be the problem. It will be growing social pressure against saying certain things and for saying certain things but this has always been a downside to the American system of government. Once the people decide en masse the thinking has been done and there is little refuge. Tocqueville pointed out this danger when he said of America that there was “less independence of mind, and true freedom of discussion, than in America” because once society lays down borders woe to anyone crossing them. The internet has resisted this a little but far too much of internet discussion is pablum or morally abhorrent or pure ignorance or all three. We are also ignoring the insights of Tocqueville and frittering away the strengths he found but that is stuff for another thread.

I'm not worthy! I'm in complete agreement here.

Thank you very much

Link to comment
6 hours ago, longview said:

Unless some weird college professor makes a snap assessment of your public display of piety and determine it to be a manifestation of white supremacist bigotry and become so outraged that he will swing hard a bike lock chain against your poor noggin.  :blink:

I had a law professor say I was a racist if I did not agree with his viewpoint (IDK, if that qualifies as a legal viewpoint).

Link to comment
6 hours ago, longview said:

You believe in the Golden Rule don't you?

Unless some weird college professor makes a snap assessment of your public display of piety and determine it to be a manifestation of white supremacist bigotry and become so outraged that he will swing hard a bike lock chain against your poor noggin.  :blink:

Yes on the golden rule as a guide to life but we are discussing law. That something is moral or virtuous does not mean it should be required by law and that something is immoral or harmful does not necessarily mean it should be banned by law. I would obviously prefer a world without discrimination against all the classes now protected (and everyone else) but I cannot perfectly practice it myself and do not expect society as a whole to start succeeding either. I have met people who are convinced they are perfectly egalitarian. They are usually deeply racist and tribal in their thinking. It takes an idiot, a self-deceiver, someone utterly lacking in self-awareness, or a truly virtuous person to believe oneself holy and the former three drastically outnumber the last one (and the last one would be too busy working on improvement anyways to bask in their enlightenment).

Okay, so we are going back to your old much touted propaganda piece bout the bike lock guy again as an example of how professors with views you disagree with all secretly long to bash in your skull. Okay, we can run through this. The attacker was a self declared anarchist who was only technically a professor, he taught classes but was a grad student focusing on prison reform from an anarchist anti-authoritarian viewpoint (admittedly I have no idea how that would work but I am guessing stupidly) and this guy had not taught for the two years prior to the attack and never got a PhD. Yet somehow he got labeled a “professor” probably because professors are the enemy to some groups in society and it serves well to imagine that established academia is filled with violent criminals. Also, since the standard for being called a professor is that loose I would ask that you refer to me as a professor from here on out. I am pretty sure I have done more teaching then he has. 

The myth of the hordes of violent academics persists despite being focused on this one rather weak and strained example. If it is really an issue why is this “barely a professor and not one for several years” so labeled and why is this label so tenaciously held onto? The answer is that it makes for much better propaganda and stokes hatred.

As to being attacked or losing my religious freedom as if this is a symptom of things to come I am not worried. I do not go to rallies with a lot of neo Nazis in them to make displays of piety like you suggest above (is that what you are worried about?) and I do not see isolated incidents over extremist political views to somehow be a general threat to my freedom to practice religion or free speech.

As this bit was meant as an inane political dig I will retaliate in kind and say I am more worried about the supposed leader of the free world doubling down on his willingness to flout federal law (mostly crafted to literally prevent Nazis and Soviets from meddling in America’s internal politics) and commit treason if the opportunity were to present itself because it might help him. If this kind of approach normalizes and continues to be tolerated in our political process we will be all but defenseless if a tyrant (with extremist political views of any kind) with intelligence, drive, and wit were to get into power. If you can only see through partisan blinders imagine that boomers continue to die off and the “Left” takes power and is willing to use these tactics against their opponents. It is not far from this basic contempt of inconvenient law to something like Putin’s vicious method of governance. I would be wary of anyone in power at that point.

Link to comment
27 minutes ago, Anijen said:

I 100% completely agree. I like your points on respecting life. We definitely need to honor, respect, value, and reverence life and I realize there is a lot of work needed, specifically in those areas you mentioned. What do you mean; "when done voluntarily..."? I certainly hope someone or govt entity is forcing abortions upon women.

 

Again I 100% agree.

 

I agree. We need to improve racial relations. I think the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments were a good start on implementing some protections. I am thankful for the civil-rights movements. From slavery to now, I like to think we are getting better, albeit slowly. It takes time to change a mind-set to rid prejudicial mores, but over time I like to think we are improving. 

 

I do see some threats.

I see the threats through the state punishments upon the bakers. e.g. random searches through his business receipts to check if he was complying (violation of the 4th Amendment). Court ordered therapy for him and his employees (compelling to think the way the state govt finds appropriate). $135,000 in fines evenmore in legal costs this in many cases caused bankrupted small businesses. 

 

I'm not worthy! I'm in complete agreement here.

Thank you very much

By voluntary I meant in a situation where the woman has a choice. I do have some weird question about abortion. Most people do not realize that abortion was legal and openly advertised throughout most of the 19th century in the United States. Even the Catholic Church did not condemn it prior to “quickening” until 1869. The Church was pretty consistent in condemning abortion back to at least John Taylor. Then abortion was criminalized at the behest of the medical establishment who wanted to protect women from quacks such as midwives and homeopaths offering dangerous services (charitable view) or wanted more of a monopoly over medicine and to remove competitors (pragmatic view). There were also political forces warning that abortion was primarily used by the middle to upper classes of the Caucasian elite and losing the numbers game against the larger families of immigrants (sound familiar?) It is ironic that the medical establishment now largely favors access to abortion. I still dislike it.

I like to think we are improving on racial equality but I wonder now if we still are. Public shame served to keep overt racism down and temper the more covert forms to some extent. With the advent of the internet it is now easier for the minority who would be willing to be openly racist to find and reinforce each other. I am hoping this is just a blip but I doubt it. :( 

As to the wedding cake baker case I am just not that concerned about it. The fines and legal fees might have been crippling were they not flush with donated cash. It is so lucrative to get involved in this industry now that the wedding calligraphy case was deliberately incited. Yuck.

Link to comment
6 hours ago, rockpond said:

However, I'm confused on the bullet quoted above.  What state discriminatory statutes compel a person to think according to the another's views?  Not sure I understand.  Could you provide an example?

In the beginning (couldn't resist), discrimination statutes (I'll use DA short for discrimination acts) were designed to protect government (local, state, and federal) employees from their employers [the govt]. Then DA's evolved into protecting applicants applying to govt jobs. (e.g. Americans  with Disabilities Act). Then allowed state schools to discriminate in who they accept and decline for diversity purposes. Then allows govt agencies (e.g. fire and police) to discriminate against white applicants to reverse past bad hiring practices.

Later, DA's went from government to private business, here, making it illegal for private business with over 15 employees from any type of discrimination. Although I agree with all of the above, once it started telling private companies how they hire started the slow creep from protection from the government to interference with private citizens livelihood. Here, I am still ok, but starting to get worried about where the government camel is putting his head into the tent, then head and foot, etc.. Now no business no matter how small is exempt from DAs. Now don't get me wrong, I do not like discrimination either, of any kind.

Then, gay rights started (I have no problem with this either). Is being gay a born condition or a choice, or both? Now, if it is a choice, then for those doing the choosing it is a mental manifestation to live a certain lifestyle. I am still ok with all this. Who one chooses to be attracted to is nunofmybiz. Then, at some time, the gay movement has effectively been weaponized as a way to fire CEO's etc and shame those who do not accept such lifestyles. Every CEO, baker, florist, etc., has done so for their religious beliefs, namely they do not accept homosexuality and/or believe marriage is between a man and a woman. So when the baker gets fined, bankrupted, ordered to group therapy for declining a single service that made him feel like he was condoning even advocating a lifestyle that went against his religious beliefs, is that not a violation of his First Amendment right (1) religious beliefs and (2) compelled speech (here, in the symbolic speech of forced to make a wedding cake for a SSM couple). I believe this mission-creep will grow to private citizens not just private businesses and then finally to govt compelling SSM into religious church services.

Moreover, when the Colorado court ordered the baker and his employees to attend mandatory group therapy is that not compelling one how to think? A really long answer, sorry, I do not possess many of the posters talent for succinctness. Oh and just an FYI, I would have baked the cake, but I am an obvious bigoted and disgusting capitalist.

 

Quote

Abortion:  I'm opposed to it but I truly see this as a thorny issue.  Even those I know who are staunchly "pro-life" still accept times/situations when abortion is acceptable (rape, incest, survival of mother) which means that you're putting qualifiers on when "killing" a fetus is okay.  This is a tough one and I've waffled on it throughout my life.

I am opposed to ALL abortion. Thus, I avoid those "qualifiers" you speak of.

 

Quote

Same Sex Marriage:  I see no reason to discriminate against gay couples and legal recognition for a gay couple's marriage doesn't impact the legal recognition of free exercise of religion of others.

I agree. Although I still believe marriage is for a man and a woman, I believe without legal recognition, SSM couples were limited to other benefits that hetero-couples received. Therefore, I agree with the legalization of SSM because it is right and fair for those couples to receive all benefits offered to them. (e.g., in the past a gay couples were declined health-care, probate of wills, insurance claims, etc., that married hetero-couples received).

 

Quote

Forced Speech:  Personally I don't see making a cake or taking wedding pictures as religious expression.  Again, my personal opinion, but I don't buy the reasoning that making a cake for a gay wedding violates religious beliefs. 

Two-points; (1) the issue is not how you personally define religious expression or how you practice your religious beliefs but how the Baker viewed his religious practices and beliefs. I do not believe in sacrificing chickens, or doing Voodoo or Santeria, but the Supreme Court does not take my personal beliefs, but will consider the chicken sacrificers beliefs in determining whether his/her religious beliefs were violated. Nehore, sorry for outing your chicken sacrificing practices... JK. (2) the SSM couple was reverse forum shopping, instead of looking for a friendly court to file their lawsuit (they already had that), they looked for a friendly baker who would decline their cake. I find their motives a tiny-bit suspect under those conditions, IOW their motives were for litigation, but the Bakers were because of his religious beliefs. Remember, he was not discriminating against the SSM couple, he offered them other bakery items he would sell them, just not the wedding cake (because his religious beliefs did not condone SSM)

 

Quote

However, as a libertarian, I don't think any business owner should be forced to serve or provide goods to anyone else (with some exceptions like medical, emergency, and protective services).  Especially in today's environment... if a business owner wants to discriminate against a certain type of person, let them.  Let the market take care of things.

I too, am a Libertarian. Legal-viewpoint: in tort law, contrary to what I heard in Utah as a teen, it is not illegal to keep going when we see an accident. We are not legally inclined to help, at all, even if we were first to see it. (The exception is if we caused the accident or had a legal duty,  i.e. a parent/child). Michael Phelps could watch a stranger swimming in a pool, get cramps and drown and he would not be liable if he sat and watched. A doctor does not have a legal duty to help a stranger who is choking (he has a professional ethical duty, but he could not be liable in a civil suit). But, these discrimination statutes will force a religious baker to break his religious beliefs and serve and make a wedding cake symbolizing the union of two men.

Now, there have been court cases where discrimination is allowed such as an African American turning down the business of a klansman. Asians having to score higher on entrance exams, etc. My point, govt allows discrimination in what they feel is appropriate (right or wrong), but if the Baker felt it inappropriate it didn't matter, thus, what they want us to think, and when we do not comply we get fined, ordered therapy, allowed no warrant searches into our business records, etc.

Link to comment
20 minutes ago, Anijen said:

I am opposed to ALL abortion.

So in the very rare case where a mother will die, you would still reject abortion?

What about medical treatments that would kill the child?  Such as radiation for cancer?  Must they be delayed until the child is born?

A more common event in the case the mother's health is already compromised, continuing a pregnancy while battling a major disease may weaken the mother's ability to survive or compromise his full recovery.  In that case do you still view abortion as immoral and if possible make it illegal?

Edited by Calm
Link to comment
On 6/24/2019 at 7:32 PM, CV75 said:

Would you submit to being killed at 50 if remaining alive would directly cause the death of another, to save the life of that other person, after you and the other affected parties prayerfully consulted with priesthood leaders?

It does not matter what others think what I should submit to. I refuse to have others think they know what is best for me. I refuse to think we, the already born and living, can think for the unborn and decide what the unborn baby would submit to being killed for.

The better question; Do we think that what we do or do not do is for the unborns best interest? Are we so callused that we now are able to think for the unborn baby. 

Link to comment

What about a woman's right to refuse medical treatment to help the fetus?  Do you believe a woman should be forced to accept treatment if the fetus is likely to die without it?

Link to comment
Just now, Calm said:

What about a woman's right to refuse medical treatment to help the fetus?  Do you believe a woman should be forced to accept treatment if the fetus is likely to die without it?

Yes, in the same way I think parents should not be able to refuse to get their kids vaccinated.

Link to comment
3 minutes ago, Calm said:

So in the very rare case where a mother will die, you would still reject abortion?

Yes. Choices of life or death is not a decision I want to make. Just to be clear, these cases are so very rare these days and in many of those cases, the mother and child lived healthy lives despite what their doctors told them.

 

Quote

What about medical treatments that would kill the child?  Such as radiation for cancer or chrmothrrapy?  Must they be delayed until the child is born?

There have been many, many, many, many medical advances that can avert the harm to the baby. Chemotherapy has not been proven to kill a fetus, and in many cases there are more instances in these cases the baby (and mother) lived healthy lifes after the chemo.

see here.

Quote

Chemotherapy involves administering toxic drugs to kill the cancer but which also kill healthy cells in the mother's body. Its effects on the fetus have been unclear but a study of 68 women who each had three to four cycles of chemotherapy during pregnancy showed their children were unaffected.

Almost every abortion in the US these days are done for convenience. I know there are very rare and very few occurrences of what you are talking about.

Link to comment
2 minutes ago, Calm said:

What about a woman's right to refuse medical treatment to help the fetus?  Do you believe a woman should be forced to accept treatment if the fetus is likely to die without it?

I believe once pregnant the mother has a duty to take care of herself and take care of the baby inside her. Refusing treatment is simply killing the baby, an abortion without the doctor. It is a right that I do not agree with.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...