And *Another* Solid Win for Religious Liberty (Michigan Case)

[Scott Lloyd]

On 10/1/2019 at 12:14 PM, smac97 said:

In August, I started a thread discussing a positive development in the 8th Circuit Court of Appeals pertaining to free speech and religious liberty: A Solid Win for Free Speech and Religious Liberty (8th Circuit Case)

In September, I started another thread on the same topic: *Another* Solid Win for Free Speech and Religious Liberty (Arizona State Case)

And now, on the first day of October, we have this thread.

Oh, this is cool:

"Becket" here is a reference to the Becket Fund for Religious Liberty, "a non-profit, public interest law firm defending the freedom of religion of people of all faiths."  They do good work.

This seems like a pretty good example of "projection" ("a defence mechanism in which the human ego defends itself against unconscious impulses or qualities (both positive and negative) by denying their existence in themselves while attributing them to others").

So the AG was not only hostile to religious liberty, she apparently unilaterally re-worked a legislatively-enacted statute.  Quite a peach!

But there was plenty of evidence that the AG was a anti-religious jerk who abused her authority to impose her personal views on the residents of her state.

Also, it looks like the AG could resist the impulse to virtue signal here.  I'm glad the Becket folks were there to stop her.

I think that's the intention of folks like the AG.  

Yep.  As I noted in the previous thread on this topic: "I would submit that the 'initial effort to divide' and the 'great cause for division' here arises not from people like Phillips, but from people who are weaponizing public accommodations/antidiscrimination statutes to punish religious people, particularly Christians.  To drive them to financial ruin (and, perhaps, even prison) should they fail to capitulate.  To push them out of the public sphere for WrongThink."

I think that is the objective of folks like the AG in this story.

Religious liberty is a wonderful thing for some, but for others it is a bitter pill to swallow.  I am glad that our courts can and do function (not always, but perhaps more often than we thinkg) to protect the former group from the excesses of the latter.

Huzzah for religious liberty!

Thanks,

-Smac

 

I just read through this post again. 
 

I wonder how long it will be before anti-religious liberty government officials wise up and learn that if they brazenly wear their bigotry on their sleeve that it’s going to harm their subsequent chances in court. In a way, I kind of hope they don’t, if it makes it easier to prevail against them. 

Edited October 4, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[Scott Lloyd]

22 hours ago, MiserereNobis said:

I might have been responding to something you weren't actually saying. If so, I apologize.

My response was to those who defend Trump and his actions by pointing to his judicial appointments. That is the "ends justify the means" point I was making. The ends are the judicial appointments, the means is Trump. The fact that he appoints appropriate judges in no way excuses his behavior or the fact that he is a terrible president.

My reference to the LDS view of Satan might also be mistaken. My understanding is that in the life before this one Satan offered a plan that would get all to heaven but without freedom. The ends, getting to heaven, are good, but they do not justify the means, lack of freedom. That was the comparison I was drawing.

Again, if I misunderstood you or LDS theology, my apologies.

 

I realized later that I misunderstood your point about the ends justify the means. For that, I beg your pardon. 
 

With that said, however, I do think it extreme to depict Trump as an evil monster such that those who favor some of his administration’s policies (the appointment of more conservative judges, for one) should be accused of an ends-justify-the-means mentality. From Bill Clinton to LBJ to JFK to FDR,  I could name a number of U.S. presidents who were guilty of moral lapses, but that doesn’t nullify the good they accomplished during their presidencies. 
 

We could extend this discussion to other public figures of note.
 

Martin Luther King was a generally good man who brought about much good in society through his advocacy of civil rights, so much so that we honor him with a national holiday named for him. George Washington and Abraham Lincoln are the only other people in history who have been so honored, and even they have had their holidays consolidated into a single day of observance called Presidents Day. 

I remember reading that Martin Luther King was guilty of infidelity during his lifetime. Under your logic, are we engaging in an ends-justify-the-means mentality when we appreciate King for the good he accomplished notwithstanding his character flaws? 
 

Edited October 4, 2019 by Scott Lloyd

[stemelbow]

Quote

The facts are relatively complicated, but here’s the short version: St. Vincent upholds Catholic teaching by referring same-sex and unmarried families who seek foster and adoption recommendations and endorsements to agencies that have no objection to providing those services. There is no evidence that St. Vincent has prevented any legally qualified family from adopting or fostering a child. In fact, same-sex couples “certified through different agencies” have been able to adopt children in St. Vincent’s care.

That's odd that St Vincent's refuses services to same-sex couples claiming their religious bias, but apparently they'll work with other adoptive agencies who place the St. Vincent's children in same-sex homes.  It really only amounts to St Vincent's causing same-sex families to do extra work for no other reason than that they are same sex.  I'm guessing St Vincent's allows same sex couples their children because it actually gets them moneys from these other agencies.  I'd be curious to know if the money they get from other agencies who place the St Vincent children in same sex homes amounts to more than if they just offered the same sex couples the service to begin with.  You would think if they really were all about denying these children homes with same-sex couples, they wouldn't work with other agencies to get more money and place their kids in same-sex homes.  

In the end these battles are silly to me.  If an agency is all about the children it very well could be that any particular child is better off in a same-sex home than not.  I suppose we'd never know.  

This feels less about religious freedom to me and more about battling from perspective identity politics for the sake of battling.  

[Calm]

4 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

however, I do think it extreme to depict Trump as an evil monster such that those who favor some of his administration’s policies (the appointment of more conservative judges, for one) should be accused of an ends-justify-the-means mentality.

That’s not what MN was criticizing though.****. He was criticizing those who defend/make excuses for Trump’s immoral behaviour because they approve of his choice of judges. Those who approve of his judge choice, but are still willing to call him out over behaviour they would condemn if in others are not being accused of ends justify the means if I understand MN correctly. 

For the MLK example to be analogous, MN would have to be saying MLK’s infidelity was acceptable because of the good he did.  Or more likely just act like it didn’t exist, present him instead as a faithful husband  

****”those who defend Trump and his actions by pointing to his judicial appointments. That is the "ends justify the means" point I was making. The ends are the judicial appointments, the means is Trump”

Edited October 4, 2019 by Calm

[MiserereNobis]

5 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I realized later that I misunderstood your point about the ends justify the means. For that, I beg your pardon. 
 

With that said, however, I do think it extreme to depict Trump as an evil monster such that those who favor some of his administration’s policies (the appointment of more conservative judges, for one) should be accused of an ends-justify-the-means mentality. From Bill Clinton to LBJ to JFK to FDR,  I could name a number of U.S. presidents who were guilty of moral lapses, but that doesn’t nullify the good they accomplished during their presidencies. 
 

We could extend this discussion to other public figures of note.
 

Martin Luther King was a generally good man who brought about much good in society through his advocacy of civil rights, so much so that we honor him with a national holiday named for him. George Washington and Abraham Lincoln are the only other people in history who have been so honored, and even they have had their holidays consolidated into a single day of observance called Presidents Day. 

I remember reading that Martin Luther King was guilty of infidelity during his lifetime. Under your logic, are we engaging in an ends-justify-the-means mentality when we appreciate King for the good he accomplished notwithstanding his character flaws? 
 

Thanks for the response, Scott. You make excellent points. I guess for me there is a point with anyone or anything where the good things no longer outweigh the bad things. For me, Trump has crossed that line. For others, perhaps not.

[MiserereNobis]

30 minutes ago, Calm said:

That’s not what MN was criticizing though.****. He was criticizing those who defend/make excuses for Trump’s immoral behaviour because they approve of his choice of judges. Those who approve of his judge choice, but are still willing to call him out over behaviour they would condemn if in others are not being accused of ends justify the means if I understand MN correctly. 

For the MLK example to be analogous, MN would have to be saying MLK’s infidelity was acceptable because of the good he did.  Or more likely just act like it didn’t exist, present him instead as a faithful husband  

****”those who defend Trump and his actions by pointing to his judicial appointments. That is the "ends justify the means" point I was making. The ends are the judicial appointments, the means is Trump”

Yes, this is what I was getting at. Thanks!

[Scott Lloyd]

2 hours ago, Calm said:

That’s not what MN was criticizing though.****. He was criticizing those who defend/make excuses for Trump’s immoral behaviour because they approve of his choice of judges. Those who approve of his judge choice, but are still willing to call him out over behaviour they would condemn if in others are not being accused of ends justify the means if I understand MN correctly. 

For the MLK example to be analogous, MN would have to be saying MLK’s infidelity was acceptable because of the good he did.  Or more likely just act like it didn’t exist, present him instead as a faithful husband  

****”those who defend Trump and his actions by pointing to his judicial appointments. That is the "ends justify the means" point I was making. The ends are the judicial appointments, the means is Trump”

I don’t believe I’ve ever defended any errant actions of Trump by pointing to the good he has done. I’ve been able to separate them out, just as I have done for some who have come before him (Kennedy, for example). 
 

That said, there are many who have gone way overboard in their criticism of Trump — what has been characterized as Trump Derangement Syndrome. Comparing him to Hitler, for example, or calling him a Nazi or a racist or a white supremacist is utterly irresponsible and ugly. 

[The Nehor]

8 hours ago, Scott Lloyd said:

I remember reading that Martin Luther King was guilty of infidelity during his lifetime. Under your logic, are we engaging in an ends-justify-the-means mentality when we appreciate King for the good he accomplished notwithstanding his character flaws? 
 

I can compartmentalize MLK more easily. His adultery was not tied to his civil rights movement though I do not doubt like all sin it weakened him.

With Trump his moral failings are tied to what he is being lauded for. His political campaigns and speeches have virtually no correlative value with fact. He is mean and petty and is willing to break laws for his own convenience and sees nothing wrong with it. He has admitted it. Ironically his simpering defenders whine about how mean his detractors are as if Trump is living some standard of decorum and civility his opponents are not rising up to meet and you cannot even claim he sank to that level because of persecution. He came out of the starting gate that way and his followers cheered and ate it up.

[Amulek]

10 hours ago, stemelbow said:

That's odd that St Vincent's refuses services to same-sex couples claiming their religious bias, but apparently they'll work with other adoptive agencies who place the St. Vincent's children in same-sex homes.  It really only amounts to St Vincent's causing same-sex families to do extra work for no other reason than that they are same sex.

I haven't seen the actual case, but my reading of the article is that the only thing St. Vincent's refuses to do is to provide recommendations / endorsements for gay couples seeking seeking to foster and/or adopt children.

Instead of providing these recommendations / endorsements themselves (contrary to their religious beliefs) they simply refer them to other agencies who have no such objections to providing those specific services. 

However, once a couple has been endorsed, St. Vincent's complies with the determination of the state and willingly places children into those homes - including those with gay parents.

I can understand where they are coming from. They want to provide a service and help kids who are genuinely in need, but due to their Catholic faith they just can't bring themselves to endorse these parents themselves. 

I could imagine a similar kind of situation playing out if, say, polygamy were legally recognized. A Christian adoption agency might say, 'Well, if the state is willing to certify them as being fit then we will agree to placing children in their care, but we just can't bring ourselves to be the ones who declare that they are fit in the first place.'

When it comes to religious exercise, people have to decide for themselves where they will draw lines. Personally, I think the Catholic agency here is doing their part to try and operate on an acceptable middle-ground. But if push comes to shove, we know will happen - they will stick to their beliefs and close up shop just like they have had to do elsewhere (e.g., Boston Catholic Charities). And the system will be worse off for it.