We Can Find Common Ground on Gay Rights and Religious Liberty

[HappyJackWagon]

15 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think there is still plenty of room for discussion and compromise.  LGBTQ people are now protected by Title VII, but religious liberty is also protected by the constitution.  How those two laws will interact in practice is yet to be seen. I think there are still a lot of gray areas, and I think we need to move forward working together through those gray areas as much as possible. 

It's a good comment Pogi, but I think I'm having a hard time envisioning how LGBTQ would be discriminating against Religion. I only see that discrimination going one way, but I'm open to having me shown how I'm wrong.

Would LGBT employers or landlords be claiming some type of exemption so they could refuse to hire or house Mormons, for example? I don't see it.

Edited June 23, 2020 by HappyJackWagon

[california boy]

32 minutes ago, CV75 said:

I think the central "compromise" -- and to me it is more of a placement of organized religion and individual identity on equal ground -- is the recognition that feelings are the basis of both religion and self-identity (i.e. race, color, national origin, sex, religion, or age). Sometimes feelings need to be put aside. As long as the common ground of property, life, limb, safety, etc. is maintained for both, religions do not need to accommodate identity-based material transactions, and one's identity is more sacred than setting the bar at material transactions with religions or the religious. So, I think "Duty to Rescue" laws (I misspoke earlier by calling them "Good Samaritan") can be expanded so that religious organizations are required the duty to rescue (and held liable when they intentionally deny basic human rescue). Seems like a fair exchange for tax-exempt status.

So your response is tough luck.  Religious people are entitled to discriminate as long as there is somewhere else they can get served.  How is that different than not allowing black customers to sit at the lunch counter, where there were restaurants in their own neighborhood or down the street?  

How do you think that makes someone feel who is not religious?  Do you think they see your "compromise" as being fair? 

[california boy]

26 minutes ago, pogi said:

I think there is still plenty of room for discussion and compromise.  LGBTQ people are now protected by Title VII, but religious liberty is also protected by the constitution.  How those two laws will interact in practice is yet to be seen. I think there are still a lot of gray areas, and I think we need to move forward working together through those gray areas as much as possible. 

THIS is what I was hoping this thread would be about.  We all know the line in the sand for both sides.  Where is the middle?  So far, haven't seen any.  Both sides should see that by softening that line, everyone wins.  Otherwise it is just going to be a bloody battle and whoever wins will really not win if the other side further resents their victory.

[bsjkki]

1 hour ago, california boy said:

You have presented your position on religious rights quite well.  What this thread is asking you to do is to present what you think what civil rights the LGBT should also have.  Because of the recent ruling, employment and housing discrimination is no longer allowed.  Is that it?  Not entitled to anything other than that?

As you have suggested, companies are not tolerating anti gay beliefs in the workplace.  Do you think that continuing to allow discrimination in the market place will ease some of that tension or only increase animosity towards religion.  

Religion definitely has a problem in the public square these days.  It needs to think of creative solutions to ease the animosity being directed at how religion discriminates against others and their beliefs, not only in the LGBT community but, as you mentioned, issues like birth control.  I am hoping that this thread will explore what those solutions might look like.  

Housing, employment, marriage rights, benefits equality, adoption. Would I vote for gay President. Yes.

Do I think Jack Phillips can reserve the right not to make custom cakes for events he does not agree with. Yes. Halloween, divorce, gender reveal and gay weddings. He serves everyone the products off his shelves. The Supreme Court case argued all the hypotheticals very well but ruled narrowly so the issue is still undecided. Which means he has kept getting targeted and sued. There are hundreds of bakeries in the area that will make cakes for gay weddings. If your intent is to force Christians out of business and out of the public square because of their faith, you  become the oppressor.

[pogi]

21 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's a good comment Pogi, but I think I'm having a hard time envisioning how LGBTQ would be discriminating against Religion. I only see that discrimination going one way, but I'm open to having me shown how I'm wrong.

Would LGBT employers or landlords be claiming some type of exemption so they could refuse to hire or house Mormons, for example? I don't see it.

I am not talking about LGBTQ people discriminating against religion as much as I am talking about them using this victory to try and force their way into temple ceremonies (as one example).  I think these are some of the concerns of the religious liberty camp.  How is this going to encroach upon religious protections, and how are religious protections going to encroach on LGBTQ protections?  These are things that need to be worked out. 

Edited June 23, 2020 by pogi

[HappyJackWagon]

1 minute ago, california boy said:

THIS is what I was hoping this thread would be about.  We all know the line in the sand for both sides.  Where is the middle?  So far, haven't seen any.  Both sides should see that by softening that line, everyone wins.  Otherwise it is just going to be a bloody battle and whoever wins will really not win if the other side further resents their victory.

How is there a middle ground for discrimination? Separate but Equal attempted that and failed, as it should have. As long as one group claims the right to discriminate against another there can never be equality. Allowing discrimination in perhaps less overt forms and situations will only cause the issue to simmer under the surface until it explodes.

If someone says, I don't like Mormons and therefore will not employ one or allow one to rent from me or apply for a loan from me etc, how does that Mormon find middle ground with the bigot?

[california boy]

15 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

It's a good comment Pogi, but I think I'm having a hard time envisioning how LGBTQ would be discriminating against Religion. I only see that discrimination going one way, but I'm open to having me shown how I'm wrong.

Would LGBT employers or landlords be claiming some type of exemption so they could refuse to hire or house Mormons, for example? I don't see it.

ok, lets start with some basics.  Do you think a church should be forced to ordain a gay clergy even if that clergy is celibate?

My compromise would be to allow all churches to be able to discriminate any way they want within their religion.  I don't care that The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints does not allow gay marriage in their temples or their chapels.  I don't care if the church does not allow gay couples to be baptized.  I do care that they discriminate against workers gay that might work at Deseret Industries.  

How about allowing gay married couples housing at BYU?  How about prohibiting gay couples from adopting.  Does it make a difference if they are receiving federal funds for BYU or the adoption services?  I want you to think about the other side as well.  What should the LGBT community be willing to not fight against?

[HappyJackWagon]

Just now, pogi said:

I am not talking about LGBTQ people discriminating against religion as much as I am talking about them using this victory to try and force their way into temple ceremonies (as one example).  I think these are some of the concerns of the religious liberty camp.  How is this going to encroach upon religious protections, and how are religious protections going to encroach on LGBTQ protections.  These are things that need to be worked out. 

OK- I'm thinking more broadly than that. Is there a civil right to a temple ceremony? Did blacks sue to get access to the temple? No. The church continued it's discrimination in religious practice, which is sad, but seems different than essential services like employment and housing. Did BYU discriminate against blacks for employment? I don't know for sure but I would guess the answer is yes. That would be a civil rights issue. I don't see anyone claiming that a church doesn't have the right to teach discrimination. I think we're talking about allowing a church to practice discrimination in essential ways.

[california boy]

5 minutes ago, bsjkki said:

Housing, employment, marriage rights, benefits equality, adoption. Would I vote for gay President. Yes.

Do I think Jack Phillips can reserve the right not to make custom cakes for events he does not agree with. Yes. Halloween, divorce, gender reveal and gay weddings. He serves everyone the products off his shelves. The Supreme Court case argued all the hypotheticals very well but ruled narrowly so the issue is still undecided. Which means he has kept getting targeted and sued. There are hundreds of bakeries in the area that will make cakes for gay weddings. If your intent is to force Christians out of business and out of the public square because of their faith, you  become the oppressor.

Housing, employment and marriage rights are already codified by law.  So, not really a compromise.  Adoption is interesting.  What if the adoption is being done by a religious organization such as Catholic Charities?  Should they be compelled to accept gay couples?  Does it make a difference if they are receiving federal funds?

I agree that Jack Phillips does not have to offer Halloween cakes.  I agree that  he can refuse to write anything related to divorce or gender reveal on their cakes.  But what if it is just a cake and the customer is using it to celebrate their divorce.  Does a baker have a right to control the use of a generic cake after it leaves their store?  

[bsjkki]

13 minutes ago, california boy said:

Housing, employment and marriage rights are already codified by law.  So, not really a compromise.  Adoption is interesting.  What if the adoption is being done by a religious organization such as Catholic Charities?  Should they be compelled to accept gay couples?  Does it make a difference if they are receiving federal funds?

I agree that Jack Phillips does not have to offer Halloween cakes.  I agree that  he can refuse to write anything related to divorce or gender reveal on their cakes.  But what if it is just a cake and the customer is using it to celebrate their divorce.  Does a baker have a right to control the use of a generic cake after it leaves their store?  

He offered to sell a generic cake and give them a bag of icing for writing. That was not good enough. So what people do with a cake after it leaves their store is up to them. The hypotheticals in the arguments covered the whole gamut. The Supreme Court punted. But, I think as a society, we need some issues we agree to disagree and shop elsewhere. Do you think we should have anti discrimination laws for political thought? Was it okay to fire an actress because she posted homosexuality is a sin?

 

Edited June 23, 2020 by bsjkki

[pogi]

26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 Is there a civil right to a temple ceremony? 

Is a protected classes under Title VII protected against discrimination in religious rights/rites?  I don't know the answer to that, but religious people sure seem to be concerned about the slippery slope going that direction.  Maybe there is nothing to fear at all.  I don't know. 

Have women ever tried to sue a church for not hiring women clergy?  Sex is a protected class, and women clearly have been discriminated against in religious hiring. 

26 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

 The church continued it's discrimination in religious practice, which is sad, but seems different than essential services...

Interestingly enough,  I just had this debate not long ago in regard to Covid and religious practices being considered "essential services".  If you ask many religious people, they would vehemently demand that religious practices be considered "essential services".  I wonder if those who argue that way are really ready to swallow that pill and all that comes with it. 

Edited June 23, 2020 by pogi

[bsjkki]

Here is an article about the balance with foster care and adoption agencies. Should gay people be able to adopt. Yes. Should they be able to adopt through faith based charities. Not necessarily. Should faith based charities still receive federal funding? Should BYU? Should a college student be able to get pell grants and attend a discriminatory faith based college? Will religions be labeled ‘hate groups.’

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.deseret.com/platform/amp/2019/6/3/20674661/explainer-what-s-going-on-with-faith-based-adoption-agencies-and-what-will-happen-next?espv=1

Edited June 23, 2020 by bsjkki

[CV75]

30 minutes ago, california boy said:

So your response is tough luck.  Religious people are entitled to discriminate as long as there is somewhere else they can get served.  How is that different than not allowing black customers to sit at the lunch counter, where there were restaurants in their own neighborhood or down the street?  

How do you think that makes someone feel who is not religious?  Do you think they see your "compromise" as being fair? 

No, my response is not "tough luck." I would be happy to answer any clarifying questions you might have about my post.

What civil rights are denied in my suggestions? What more than civil rights are you seeking? What are you willing to compromise to place these laws and rights on a par with civil rights and their protection?

RE: how people feel, I was pointing out that sometimes we have to put our feelings about our (and others') religion and identity aside when formulating and following federal/state/local) law and codifying those human values that we all most closely share in common (e.g. duty to rescue).

[california boy]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

He offered to sell a generic cake and give them a bag of icing for writing. That was not good enough. So what people do with a cake after it leaves their store is up to them. The hypotheticals in the arguments covered the whole gamut. The Supreme Court punted. But, I think as a society, we need some issues we agree to disagree and shop elsewhere. Do you think we should have anti discrimination laws for political thought? Was it okay to fire an actress because she posted homosexuality is a sin?

 

See this is what I would like to discuss.  I think that solution is a compromise that could work.  Just because it wasn't good for one activist doesn't mean that those that support LGBT issues would not accept that compromise.  I certainly would.  I think it is a far better solution to the problem rather than outright refusing to bake any wedding cake for a gay couple.  Give them the frosting to write whatever they want on it.  

I think a compromise to not firing someone for being against homosexuality would be ok if say a religious school can not fire a teacher because they are gay.  We need to work these things out if we want to stop this burn the fields mentality.

Would you agree to a compromise like these?

[pogi]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

Was it okay to fire an actress because she posted homosexuality is a sin?

To discriminate because of religious belief seems like a clear cut case of religious discrimination.  Did that really happen?  

But I guess it depends on where she was posting it.  Was it from a private account or a work account, etc. 

[CV75]

16 minutes ago, california boy said:

I think a compromise to not firing someone for being against homosexuality would be ok if say a religious school can not fire a teacher because they are gay. 

This is not a compromise because the equivalency would be not firing someone for being "for" homosexuality, not for being gay.

I did not mean to detract from your answering my previous post/questions; just an interjection to reflect the precision required when framing legal compromises.

[bsjkki]

25 minutes ago, pogi said:

To discriminate because of religious belief seems like a clear cut case of religious discrimination.  Did that really happen?  

But I guess it depends on where she was posting it.  Was it from a private account or a work account, etc. 

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/actress-christian-facebook-twitter-fired

"A leading actress in the U.K. was told to choose between her career or her faith after a social media post from 2014 in which she questioned homosexuality surfaced earlier this year. She was fired from her role in a theater production, was reportedly harassed – including being called the N-word – and has not been able to find work since. Now she's suing for breach of contract and for anti-Christian discrimination.

The day after Seyi Omooba, a 25-year-old British-born actress, landed the lead role of Celie in a London production of "The Color Purple," a colleague whom she didn't know tweeted a screenshot of an old Facebook post, in which she commented on the government introducing same-sex marriage legislation.

..."They knew that I was Christian," Omooba told Fox News. "And they knew my stance on marriage...On many different things that are in the Bible...The theater and the agency gave me the choice of either losing my career or renouncing my faith. I could not do this, not even to save the career that means to much to me."

 

[pogi]

1 minute ago, bsjkki said:

https://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/actress-christian-facebook-twitter-fired

"A leading actress in the U.K. was told to choose between her career or her faith after a social media post from 2014 in which she questioned homosexuality surfaced earlier this year. She was fired from her role in a theater production, was reportedly harassed – including being called the N-word – and has not been able to find work since. Now she's suing for breach of contract and for anti-Christian discrimination.

The day after Seyi Omooba, a 25-year-old British-born actress, landed the lead role of Celie in a London production of "The Color Purple," a colleague whom she didn't know tweeted a screenshot of an old Facebook post, in which she commented on the government introducing same-sex marriage legislation.

..."They knew that I was Christian," Omooba told Fox News. "And they knew my stance on marriage...On many different things that are in the Bible...The theater and the agency gave me the choice of either losing my career or renouncing my faith. I could not do this, not even to save the career that means to much to me."

 

I don't know about the UK law, but that wouldn't fly here in the US courts. 

[california boy]

1 hour ago, bsjkki said:

Here is an article about the balance with foster care and adoption agencies. Should gay people be able to adopt. Yes. Should they be able to adopt through faith based charities. Not necessarily. Should faith based charities still receive federal funding? Should BYU? Should a college student be able to get pell grants and attend a discriminatory faith based college? Will religions be labeled ‘hate groups.’

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.deseret.com/platform/amp/2019/6/3/20674661/explainer-what-s-going-on-with-faith-based-adoption-agencies-and-what-will-happen-next?espv=1

Thanks for posting the article.  I think it does a good job of bringing up both sides of the issue.  Here are a few relevant points from the article.

Quote

"Religious liberty is the right to believe or not and to worship or not according to the dictates of your faith and conscience. It's not a right to discriminate against other people in the delivery of a government service," said Richard B. Katskee, Americans United's legal director.

Quote

His (Trump)administration had previously granted a waiver to a faith-based foster care agency in South Carolina, allowing it to receive federal funds despite refusing to work with same-sex couples, non-Christians and Catholics. Lawmakers in Texas have also asked for a waiver.

 

Quote

 

Even if the Trump administration adjusts the rules governing funding for adoption or foster care agencies, legal and legislative battles will be far from over.

States will likely maintain the ability to pass and enforce their own LGBTQ nondiscrimination protections. The Supreme Court will still be asked to weigh in.

 

 

What would be your recommendation for a middle ground between the two sides of this?

[california boy]

29 minutes ago, CV75 said:

This is not a compromise because the equivalency would be not firing someone for being "for" homosexuality, not for being gay.

I did not mean to detract from your answering my previous post/questions; just an interjection to reflect the precision required when framing legal compromises.

So how would you frame the legal compromise?

[bsjkki]

14 minutes ago, pogi said:

I don't know about the UK law, but that wouldn't fly here in the US courts. 

Yeah, there is not free speech in the UK but she is suing.

[california boy]

3 hours ago, bsjkki said:

Here is an article about the balance with foster care and adoption agencies. Should gay people be able to adopt. Yes. Should they be able to adopt through faith based charities. Not necessarily. Should faith based charities still receive federal funding? Should BYU? Should a college student be able to get pell grants and attend a discriminatory faith based college? Will religions be labeled ‘hate groups.’

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.deseret.com/platform/amp/2019/6/3/20674661/explainer-what-s-going-on-with-faith-based-adoption-agencies-and-what-will-happen-next?espv=1

I just reread the article you posted.  I know this is the Deseret News, but I decided to read the comments anyway to see what people had to say.  I was actually amazed at how almost all of the commenters felt that gay parents should not be discriminated against, especially if the adoption agency was getting federal money.  You can say a lot of things about the Deseret News, but you could hardly call that paper a elitist left leaning newspaper.

A few of the comments that I felt were relevant to this discussion.

Quote

Does religious freedom similarly extend to racial discrimination? Mixed race marriages were widely considered contrary to God’s plan by mainstream churches and society not that long ago, a religious ban enshrined in law and custom just as the same sex marriage ban was. For instance, in the Loving case that eventually reached the Supreme Court and overturned state antimiscegenation laws in 1967, trial judge Leon M. Bazile wrote in 1959, “Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.” To their credit, most mainstream churches reject that kind of thinking now and it seems awkwardly dated today, but is it that farfetched to consider that some still adhere to the belief (it’s God’s inerrant word, after all, not subject to human whims)? And if such a church were to run a faith-based adoption agency that refused service to mixed race parents on the basis of their sincerely held religious beliefs, would they be legally defensible?

Quote

It would have been useful for the article to examine what other sectarian screens the faith-based agencies use to determine parental fitness for adoption. Do they investigate for adultery, divorce, adherence to kosher/halal dietary rules, their stance on a triune god, past abortions, drug use, and other behaviors proscribed by faith that the agencies consider to be detrimental to the corporal/spiritual well-being of the child? Are they consistent in their application of the standards, or do they pick and choose? One gets the impression that LGBT adoption is only an issue because same-sex couples are self-evident and immediately identifiable when they walk through the door of the agency, whereas adulterers and porn addicts are not.

Quote

Moreover, it seems like we are permitting a separate class or caste system in order for some to receive goods or services. We've been down this "provide another" road before: Provide another seat on the bus, provide another lunch counter and provide another drinking fountain or higher educational institution. Meanwhile, SCOTUS determined that the United States Constitution neither knows nor tolerates classes among its citizens, not even a tinsie weensie little bit.

 

 

[Anonymous Mormon]

10 hours ago, california boy said:

Here are a few that come to mind.

Should a business be able to refuse to service someone based on "personally held religious beliefs". What if they are a baker, florist or photographer that might be asked to provide their services for a gay wedding?  What if it is an interracial couple? What if they are a grocery store owner and their business has no services related to gay weddings?

Should a wedding venue be forced to rent to anyone or can they discriminate?  What if their religious belief believes they should not rent to Jews or Blacks?  Do the owners have to practice a recognized religion or can they just have personal religious beliefs?

I don't belive that anyone should be forced to provide a service that they are morally opposed to. For example:

-Should a black-owned bakery be forced to make a white cake that says, "White Lives Matter?"

-Should a liberal who believes Trump is the worst US president in the history of the world be forced to make a "Make America Great Again" hat cake?

-Should a black-owned venue be required to rent out its space or equipment to Richard Spencer for a seminar?

-Should a liberal-owned venue be required to rent out its space to Donald Trump Jr for a Trump university meeting?

If I am providing a specific service that is not off the shelf, I think I should be allowed to say, "no" to those whose morals and standard I don't agree with - on both sides of the isle.

(note: my personal belief is that in all of the above situations if the answer was 'No' it would be celebrated and praised by the media and those who feel a bakery should bake a cake for a wedding they disagree with).

[Anonymous Mormon]

4 hours ago, HappyJackWagon said:

How is there a middle ground for discrimination? Separate but Equal attempted that and failed, as it should have. As long as one group claims the right to discriminate against another there can never be equality. Allowing discrimination in perhaps less overt forms and situations will only cause the issue to simmer under the surface until it explodes.

If someone says, I don't like Mormons and therefore will not employ one or allow one to rent from me or apply for a loan from me etc, how does that Mormon find middle ground with the bigot?

I am not sure. I feel like if the purpose of the organization is towards a specific mission, then the organization should be allowed to not hire anyone who does not meet their mission.

For example, the church owns BYU, DI, Deseret News, etc. and should be allowed to only hire employees who meet their mission if they want, such as those with a current temple recommend.

Likewise, if the NAACP started a university and a thrift store, they should be allowed to not allow me to attend or hire me because I am white, even if I am the most qualified for the job.

If a liberal media organization refuses to hire the most qualified journalist who applies because they are conservative, they should be allowed to because their mission goal is to push liberalism.

If a clothing business whose entire mission is empowering women only hires women on its staff and they refuse to hire me because I am a man, they should be allowed to.

I just think that we should have the freedom to create a business, religion, or organization with a clear mission statement and be allowed to discriminate in our pursuit of this mission statement. 

[california boy]

54 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

I don't belive that anyone should be forced to provide a service that they are morally opposed to. For example:

-Should a black-owned bakery be forced to make a white cake that says, "White Lives Matter?"

-Should a liberal who believes Trump is the worst US president in the history of the world be forced to make a "Make America Great Again" hat cake?

-Should a black-owned venue be required to rent out its space or equipment to Richard Spencer for a seminar?

-Should a liberal-owned venue be required to rent out its space to Donald Trump Jr for a Trump university meeting?

If I am providing a specific service that is not off the shelf, I think I should be allowed to say, "no" to those whose morals and standard I don't agree with - on both sides of the isle.

(note: my personal belief is that in all of the above situations if the answer was 'No' it would be celebrated and praised by the media and those who feel a bakery should bake a cake for a wedding they disagree with).

 

55 minutes ago, Anonymous Mormon said:

I don't belive that anyone should be forced to provide a service that they are morally opposed to. For example:

-Should a black-owned bakery be forced to make a white cake that says, "White Lives Matter?"

-Should a liberal who believes Trump is the worst US president in the history of the world be forced to make a "Make America Great Again" hat cake?

-Should a black-owned venue be required to rent out its space or equipment to Richard Spencer for a seminar?

-Should a liberal-owned venue be required to rent out its space to Donald Trump Jr for a Trump university meeting?

If I am providing a specific service that is not off the shelf, I think I should be allowed to say, "no" to those whose morals and standard I don't agree with - on both sides of the isle.

(note: my personal belief is that in all of the above situations if the answer was 'No' it would be celebrated and praised by the media and those who feel a bakery should bake a cake for a wedding they disagree with).

You know there are solid arguments on both sides of this issue, and I am sure you have heard them both.  Since this thread is about trying to find a middle ground, would you accept that the baker would be required to bake the cake, even if it was a special kind of cake that they bake only on demand.  Ask what color the outside frosting should be and then give them the frosting to decorate it themselves.  Neither side gets everything they want, but each side gets part of what they want.