We Can Find Common Ground on Gay Rights and Religious Liberty

[Daniel2]

29 minutes ago, Islander said:

And that is where we find ourselves today. Arguing if a right thought of as universal and of critical import for ALL should be done away to accomodate a new "right" for very-very few. 

I don't believe the government is doing away with anyone's "right," especially one previously thought to be "universal and of critical import for ALL," let alone to accommodate any new 'right' very very-very few.

Can you clarify what "right" you think is being "done away with"?

Edited June 28, 2020 by Daniel2

[Islander]

29 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

I don't believe the government is doing away with anyone's "right," especially one previously thought to be "universal and of critical import for ALL," let alone to accommodate any new 'right' very very-very few.

Can you clarify what "right" you think is being "done away with"?

I think we have beaten this one to exhaustion already. Many have replied to the OP in detail articulating how the proposed "accommodation" sought by the LGBT is nothing but capitulation on what, until very recently, were thought of as inviolable religious rights. We just don't agree on the fact that there can not be compromise if that entails being forced to accept and participate in something I find objectionable from a religious standpoint. There is no point in dragging our discussion any further at this junction. 

[Daniel2]

27 minutes ago, Islander said:

I think we have beaten this one to exhaustion already. Many have replied to the OP in detail articulating how the proposed "accommodation" sought by the LGBT is nothing but capitulation on what, until very recently, were thought of as inviolable religious rights. We just don't agree on the fact that there can not be compromise if that entails being forced to accept and participate in something I find objectionable from a religious standpoint. There is no point in dragging our discussion any further at this junction. 

In all seriousness and sincerity, I think what you're suggesting, in the very least, the way you're framing/phrasing it, is new: you're saying that a previously, universally-recognized  and critical "right" is being taken away. 

Are you saying that you feel or consider the ability to refuse to serve or employ people is a function of your "inviolable religious rights," as individual citizens?

Do you believe our government has long treated the ability to serve or employ people to be a function of your "inviolable religious rights"?

Honestly, that's a spin I haven't heard.  And it's a stance I don't think is defensible, because our government has not allowed people to refuse to serve or employ people based on their religious beliefs for decades. 

From the article I just quoted on the previous page of this thread:

Quote

 

the Supreme Court’s decision in Employment Division v. Smith (1990) seemingly answers the question. That case involved Native Americans in Oregon who argued that a state law prohibiting consumption of peyote infringed their free exercise of religion. They said that their religion required use of peyote in religious rituals. 

The Supreme Court, in an opinion by Justice Antonin Scalia, ruled against the Native Americans and concluded that there was no violation of free exercise of religion because the Oregon law was neutral in that it was not motivated by a desire to interfere with religion and because it applied to everyone in the state. The Court held that the free exercise clause cannot be used to challenge such a neutral law of general applicability. Justice Scalia, writing for the majority, rejected the claim that free exercise of religion required an exemption from an otherwise valid law. Scalia said that “[w]e have never held that an individual’s religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.” Scalia thus declared “that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).”

Likewise, Colorado’s law that prohibits business establishments from discriminating is a neutral law of general applicability. Colorado’s antidiscrimination law was not motivated by a desire to interfere with religion, and it applies to all business establishments. Businesses that want to discriminate based on the owners’ religious beliefs thus cannot prevail on their religious freedom claim unless the Supreme Court overrules Employment Division v. Smith or significantly changes the law of the free exercise clause.

If the Court overrules or limits Employment Division v. Smith, the implications will be great. Then any person could claim that his or her religion requires discrimination. The Court long has held that the focus in religious freedom cases is whether a particular person has a sincerely held religious belief, not what the religion teaches. There would be no way to keep a business owner from saying that his or her religion requires not serving women or Jews or Muslims or any group.

Although the Court in Masterpiece Cakeshop did not resolve this issue, it did indicate that claims like that of Jack Phillips and Masterpiece Cakeshop were unlikely to prevail under the free exercise clause and Employment Division v. Smith. Justice Kennedy’s opinion suggested that the free exercise clause will not provide a basis for such refusals of service when there is not the expression of hostility to religion. The Court declared: “while those religious and philosophical objections are protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally applicable public accommodations law.”

 

In sum, Islander, I'm not trying to be coy or clever: for over 20 years (since at least 1990), the Supreme Court and our laws have rejected the idea that "a right to discriminate/withhold services or hiring" based on religion or the exercise clause.  That hasn't been a right for a long time.  You cannot refuse to serve an interracial couple, even if you religiously object to interracial relationships.  You cannot refuse to serve members of other faiths or their religious celebrations, even if you religiously object to other Faith's that contradict your own. 

This "right" you claim has been "universal and of critical import" simply isn't accurate and hasn't been for at least 20 years.  What is true is that it's gone uncontested for the last twenty years, but the court has acted consistently in it's most recent rulings.  None of us can use religion as an excuse to discriminate; that's NOT a civil right or included in the exercise clause.

Edited June 28, 2020 by Daniel2

[Islander]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

I don't believe the government is doing away with anyone's "right," especially one previously thought to be "universal and of critical import for ALL," let alone to accommodate any new 'right' very very-very few.

Can you clarify what "right" you think is being "done away with"?

We just don't agree about what constitute a "right". We don't agree that being forced to produce a very specific item, with unique characteristics just for you that would be offensive to me constitute a violation of that rights. You don't believe that I have the right to form a business with a unique foundational statement of faith, a task and purpose parallel to that statement and to hire, exclusively, people that will be faithful to my purpose, statement. beliefs and live lives congruent with those values. We established that you do not agree with those premises. Well,, so be it. There is really no point to continue to argue. Neither of us is ready to concede any of those point. So, let's move on to other items of interest. ,

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, Islander said:

Well, the history of the SCOTUS legislating outside the original intent of the Constitution is long and painful. Just like any important document, the Constitution has been amended and enhanced in order to address and clarify  issues that the founders thought were of paramount importance. What is clear is that it has been stretched to encompass "rights" that did not exist even as a concept at that time. And that is where we find ourselves today. Arguing if a right thought of as universal and of critical import for ALL should be done away to accomodate a new "right" for very-very few. 

Your characterization of the situation is flawed.

[Islander]

8 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Your characterization of the situation is flawed.

Not really. That is what the lawsuits against Christian owned businesses has been about. A person that is forced to create a product or perform a service against their religious beliefs. By "accomodation" they mean the government forcing people to do it. That sums it all up.

[california boy]

2 hours ago, Islander said:

Not really. That is what the lawsuits against Christian owned businesses has been about. A person that is forced to create a product or perform a service against their religious beliefs. By "accomodation" they mean the government forcing people to do it. That sums it all up.

So you believe you have a right to discriminate against anyone you want in your business if it goes against your own personal religious belief?  And you think the laws of this country support such a position?

[The Nehor]

2 hours ago, Islander said:

Not really. That is what the lawsuits against Christian owned businesses has been about. A person that is forced to create a product or perform a service against their religious beliefs. By "accomodation" they mean the government forcing people to do it. That sums it all up.

Then just admit your problem is with the Civil Rights movement in general. That people should have the right to put up "No Jews" or "No Blacks" or "No Catholics" or "No Mormons" or "No Blonds" or "No Gays" or "No Spiders or Visigoths" signs up in any private business. That is what accommodation laws are designed to prevent. There is no safe line protecting libertarianism from being segregationist.

Bonus points for anyone who gets that last reference.

[Ahab]

On 6/27/2020 at 6:53 AM, Daniel2 said:

Speaking as an LGBT advocate: I entirely support your freedom to believe whatever you want about same-sex relationships and whatever you believe about how God approaches such.  It's none of my business to be judging you or your heart or intentions, and adherents of divergent religions are likely to differ on what God thinks on any given topics.  Religious freedom means we're all free to believe what we want to believe.  The ONLY problem I have is when anyone seeks to enshrine their personal religious beliefs into any law which would clash with others' Constitutionally and legally-protected freedoms and/or equal civil rights, protections, and responsibilities as mandated by our government.   I wish you and your chosen family all the best!

...which in essence would be a clash between what is believed to be the government of God vs a government established by men, with the proponents of that clash advocating it is better to obey God rather than men in world government.

Sometimes it seems that some people don't really understand all that is encompassed within the term "religious belief",  I do believe there are actually some freedoms and civil rights, protections, and responsibilities mandated by men and women who are involved in establishing the governments of this world, but I also believe there are some freedoms and civil rights, protections, and responsibilities mandated by God, such as the responsibilities all of us have to share all that God has given to us and may yet give us to build up the kingdom of God on this Earth.  It is essentially a war between good and evil, with many people apparently advocating that people should be legally allowed to to do things which are evil, which I would expect good people to object to, at which point we then have another clash to resolve.

[Ahab]

1 hour ago, The Nehor said:

Then just admit your problem is with the Civil Rights movement in general. That people should have the right to put up "No Jews" or "No Blacks" or "No Catholics" or "No Mormons" or "No Blonds" or "No Gays" or "No Spiders or Visigoths" signs up in any private business. That is what accommodation laws are designed to prevent. There is no safe line protecting libertarianism from being segregationist.

Bonus points for anyone who gets that last reference.

Easier to just put up 1 sign to encompass everything a person must agree to submit to when entering any establishment. 

Such as "Now entering Rome", at which point they would then expect the rules of Roman law to prevail.  Or, "Now entering America", where one would expect the rules of American law to prevail.

I've been looking and have yet to see a sign that says something like "Now entering Heaven" somewhere on this planet, and yet many people, including myself, somehow expect the laws of Heaven to apply here.

 

[Bob Crockett]

4 hours ago, Islander said:

Not really. That is what the lawsuits against Christian owned businesses has been about. A person that is forced to create a product or perform a service against their religious beliefs. By "accomodation" they mean the government forcing people to do it. That sums it all up.

The theory is that a business takes advantage of a huge array of government services and protections. 

[Islander]

4 hours ago, california boy said:

So you believe you have a right to discriminate against anyone you want in your business if it goes against your own personal religious belief?  And you think the laws of this country support such a position?

You are not reading my post. I made a reference to a religious organization

[Islander]

3 hours ago, The Nehor said:

Then just admit your problem is with the Civil Rights movement in general. That people should have the right to put up "No Jews" or "No Blacks" or "No Catholics" or "No Mormons" or "No Blonds" or "No Gays" or "No Spiders or Visigoths" signs up in any private business. That is what accommodation laws are designed to prevent. There is no safe line protecting libertarianism from being segregationist.

Bonus points for anyone who gets that last reference.

You are not reading my post. I made a reference to a religious organization. Let's just wrap this up. It is going nowhere.

[Islander]

2 hours ago, Bob Crockett said:

The theory is that a business takes advantage of a huge array of government services and protections. 

I was referring to a religious organization. I have been going back and forth with a couple of posters. You'll have to read all the replies to catch up. 

[HappyJackWagon]

On ‎6‎/‎26‎/‎2020 at 4:10 PM, Islander said:

The issue here is of attribution. ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that goes against LGBT orthodoxy is labeled "bigoted and homophobic". It is a common tactic perfected by the communists (I ought to know -- I was raised behind the "Iron Curtain") in order to discredit the opposition. Not satisfied with that, the next phase in the attack is to damage the reputation, social standing and even economically by seeking their professional dismissal. And those are well documented facts. 

I don't agree that Anything and Everything is considered bigoted. What I am suggesting is when religion or religionists use their beliefs about another group of people to justify discrimination against them in ways that would be illegal for others, they are behaving in a bigoted way. In other words, if a religion claims their beliefs allow them to deny a gay person housing or employment, when others are held to uphold the LGBT right to employment and housing, then they are in fact bigots. Same would be true for treatment of other races, genders, nationalities etc.

This whole discussion is about whether or not religion is exempt from upholding civil rights of LGBT individuals that all others are required to uphold. It is being suggested that religion is so special that the rules others follow don't apply. I am suggesting that such an approach will only further alienate the very people that religion is hoping to reach, while treating a population poorly because they believe they can and should.

[CA Steve]

On 6/26/2020 at 2:10 PM, Islander said:

The issue here is of attribution. ANYTHING and EVERYTHING that goes against LGBT orthodoxy is labeled "bigoted and homophobic". It is a common tactic perfected by the communists (I ought to know -- I was raised behind the "Iron Curtain") in order to discredit the opposition. Not satisfied with that, the next phase in the attack is to damage the reputation, social standing and even economically by seeking their professional dismissal. And those are well documented facts. 

At this point your generalizations expose your own prejudices.

[Bob Crockett]

3 hours ago, Islander said:

I was referring to a religious organization. I have been going back and forth with a couple of posters. You'll have to read all the replies to catch up. 

No you are not.  This is your quote:  "That is what the lawsuits against Christian owned businesses has been about."  

Do you really believe that, for instance, the family which owns the Cincinnati Reds, should get away with discriminating against homosexuals and Jews?

Edited June 29, 2020 by Bob Crockett

[The Nehor]

9 hours ago, Islander said:

You are not reading my post. I made a reference to a religious organization. Let's just wrap this up. It is going nowhere.

No. You were talking about businesses as well.

[california boy]

18 hours ago, Islander said:

You are not reading my post. I made a reference to a religious organization

Ok.  I am still interested in knowing whether you believe you have a right to discriminate against anyone you want in your business if it goes against your own personal religious belief?  And you think the laws of this country support such a position?

 

[smac97]

On 6/28/2020 at 11:30 AM, Daniel2 said:

Smac, I'm quoting the above portion of your previous post, but my words aren't necessarily directed at you, personally, but to everyone reading the thread, generally, so anyone/everyone is welcome to respond:

I've been pondering this idea that's been rolled around by a few different people posting that Christians are being targeted unfairly by LGBT individuals and that they are the true victims and the LGBT individuals are the real bullies in these anti-discrimination lawsuits.

Additionally, some have pointed out that since Jack Phillips prevailed in the Masterpiece ruling, that his view that he is free to refuse to bake and decorate a cake for gay couples as a function of the alleged free exercise of religion, and people should "leave him alone."

Since Jack Phillips has, subsequent to prevailing in the U.S. Supreme Court, been sued again, I think we can't really say that "he is free to refuse to bake and decorate a cake for gay couples."

Also, you are mischaracterizing what Jack Phillips refused to do.  

Quote

Based on several comments, it seems that some consider LGBT individuals who pursue legal actions against business owners who violate public accommodation laws as bullies.

Not just that.  This thread was started to discuss possibilities for compromise.  "Lawfare" against religious people is a serious impediment to compromise.

Similarly, the near-constant accusations of "bigot" and "homophobe" are serious impediments to compromise.  And yet people like HappyJackWagon can't even bring themselves to stop doing this in a thread about exploring possibilities for compromise.

Quote

While not alone in these implications, Smac, your comment above is one of the most pointed; accusing said LGBT individuals as "egregious lawfare," demanding that "these things need to stop," and conclude by saying "the legislative process should be used more."

A couple comments:

1.  All individuals are free to purse due process of law when they feel their rights are being violated.

 

2.  In those lawsuits that I've seen wind their way through full court proceedings thus far (the three most notable which we've discussed on this board include Masterpiece, Arlene's Flowers, and Bostock) have all been legitimate cases involving actual legal issues that have needed to be resolved.

 

3.  I believe it's just as wrong to suggest/demand that LGBT individuals "need to stop" pursuing due process of their rights when dealing with businesses who choose to violate public accommodation and non-discrimination laws by refusing to serve/hire/marry/rent to them as it would be and have been to suggest/demand that black Americans "need to stop" pursing due process of their rights when dealing with the same types of discrimination.

 

4. The comment that "the legislative process should be used more" seemingly ignores the reality that Mr. Phillips (of Masterpiece) and Ms. Stuzman (of Arlene) both refused service

even though the legislature had already enacted non-discriminatory public accommodation protections for LGBT individuals

.... so the implication that LGBT individuals were unjustly bullying businesses that had some sort of Constitutional or legal right to refuse services or that the LGBT individuals were only using the courts 'to pass legislation' is patently false.  The legislation was already in place; religious business owners are the ones who were claiming a right to not to have to follow the law.  See my signature for what Alito had to say about that 20 years ago.

Nobody is suggesting that your side the debate should be prevented access to the Courts.  Don't be silly.  I'm not saying they can't engage in lawfare against religious people.  I am suggesting that, in the spirit of seeking compromise, they shouldn't.

But the "spirit of compromise" does not seem to be much in evidence in this thread.  California Boy's call for it apparently involves at least people on your side of the argument being left at liberty to A) endlessly insult and disparge and accuse the other side of "bigotry" and "homophobia" for disagreeing with your side, and B) engage in lawfare against religious people.

I entered into this thread with some skepticism.  The OP did not really impress, as it was loaded down with barbed comments against religious people, while in the same breath calling on them to "compromise."  Nevertheless, I posted some thoughts about how we could progress toward this laudable goal.  To sum up:

Quote

1. Let Each Side Speak for Itself

First, I think each side should stop presuming to speak for the other side.  This includes explanations of the other side's motives (which usually include the worst possible assumptions and imputations).  This is a *huge* problem.  Every accusation of "hater," "bigot," "homophobe" and so on is an implicit imputation of motives.  That needs to stop.

This one is utterly failing.  Again, HJW can't even refrain from such accusations in this very thread.

Quote

2. Let Each Side Present their Side

Second, let's allow each side to rationalize and explain their own position.

Same as above.  HJW is labeling people who disagree with him as bigots.  That's de rigueur for your side of the debate.  

Quote

3. Let's Be Patient

Third, I think we need to be patient with each other (and yes, I need to work on this).

But patience will not, it seems, involve A) your side abstaining from accusations of "bigot" and "homophobe" against anyone who disagrees with them, and B) continued lawsuits against religious people to coerce them into speaking things that violate their religious convictions.

Quote

4. Ultimate Differences of Opinion

Fourth, we need to allow for continued deeply-held differences of opinion as to the morality of homosexual behavior.  Again, the coercive element is extremely strong here.  Religionists are called upon to either abandon their beliefs, or else be publicly denounced as bigots, homophobes, etc.  This shaming strategy has worked quite well in shaming some into submission, and others into silence.  But I think it's fundamentally immoral.

Again, this won't work.  There is no "live and let live."  There is no "reasonable minds can disagree."  We either capitulate to your worldview or else be publicly branded a "bigots" and "homophobes."  We either surrender our religious principles or else we will be sued into oblivion.

Bullying.  That's what your side has to offer by way of "compromise."

George has become Biff.

-Smac

Edited June 30, 2020 by smac97

[Bob Crockett]

 

22 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Since Jack Phillips has, subsequent to prevailing in the U.S. Supreme Court, been sued again, I think we can't really say that "he is free to refuse to bake and decorate a cake for gay couples."

Also, you are mischaracterizing what Jack Phillips refused to do.  

Not just that.  This thread was started to discuss possibilities for compromise.  "Lawfare" against religious people is a serious impediment to compromise.

Similarly, the near-constant accusations of "bigot" and "homophobe" are serious impediments to compromise.  And yet people like HappyJackWagon can't even bring themselves to stop doing this in a thread about exploring possibilities for compromise.

Nobody is suggesting that your side the debate should be prevented access to the Courts.  Don't be silly.  I'm not saying they can't engage in lawfare against religious people.  I am suggesting that, in the spirit of seeking compromise, they shouldn't.

But the "spirit of compromise" does not seem to be much in evidence in this thread.  California Boy's call for it apparently involves at least people on your side of the argument being left at liberty to A) endlessly insult and disparge and accuse the other side of "bigotry" and "homophobia" for disagreeing with your side, and B) engage in lawfare against religious people.

I entered into this thread with some skepticism.  The OP did not really impress, as it was loaded down with barbed comments against religious people, while in the same breath calling on them to "compromise."  Nevertheless, I posted some thoughts about how we could progress toward this laudable goal.  To sum up:

This one is utterly failing.  Again, HJW can't even refrain from such accusations in this very thread.

Same as above.  HJW is labeling people who disagree with him as bigots.  That's de rigueur for your side of the debate.  

But patience will not, it seems, involve A) your side abstaining from accusations of "bigot" and "homophobe" against anyone who disagrees with them, and B) continued lawsuits against religious people to coerce them into speaking things that violate their religious convictions.

Again, this won't work.  There is no "live and let live."  There is no "reasonable minds can disagree."  We either capitulate to your worldview or else be publicly branded a "bigots" and "homophobes."  We either surrender our religious principles or else we will be sued into oblivion.

This is "compromise?"

-Smac

I don't know about baking cakes, but I do know about ordinary commercial accommodations.   Providing medical services, providing rental housing, leasing a car, selling tickets to a game, providing adoption services.    I am not calling anybody a bigot.  

Seems that as the provider of ordinary commercial transactions derives so much from the protection of the government, that provider ought not to discriminate on the basis of homosexuality or ethnic origin.  If you don't want to provide adoption services to a homosexual couple, then get out of the game entirely.  

Quote

HJW is labeling people who disagree with him as bigots.  That's de rigueur for your side of the debate. 

I don't think so.  On the other hand, it seems that right wingers want to paint those with whom they disagree with a very broad brush:  bigots.  I think some day you'll look your Maker in the face and be told that right wing ideology is intolerant and unChristian.  I used to think I was a right-winger.  I still abhor homosexuality as a grievous sin, but as a libertarian I do not use the government nor any public platform to condemn them. 

Of course, I may deviate from some thinking.  If I operate a religion, and I hire a bookkeeper or a janitor, it seems I should have the right to require that employee to be an adherent.  If I am a priest offering marriage or counseling services, I ought to have a right to request that those getting married or seeking counseling adhere to my religious practices.  So far, Nally v. Grace Community Church seems to compel that result in California.

 

Edited June 30, 2020 by Bob Crockett

[smac97]

26 minutes ago, Bob Crockett said:

I don't know about baking cakes, but I do know about ordinary commercial accommodations.   Providing medical services, providing rental housing, leasing a car, selling tickets to a game, providing adoption services.   

All of these are included, I think, in the Utah Compromise.  I am on record as supporting it:

Quote

The Utah Compromise represents concessions that allow for religious protections.
...
Personally, I am generally in favor of the Utah Compromise.  It's a good faith effort.  It improves protections for LGBT folks, while still protecting religious liberties.  And perhaps most important, it was passed by the state legislature.  It was not an executive or judicial fiat.  It was not a nationwide, one-size-fits-all, put-the-federal-government-in-charge-of-everything solution.

The issue with Jack Phillips involves First Amendment rights (protecting him from compelled speech and from infringements on his religious exercise).

Quote

I am not calling anybody a bigot.  

Alas, HJW is.  Over and over.  Readily.  Axiomatically.  It's as easy as breathing.  To disagree with him and those who share his view is to be a bigot.  Per se.  That's it.  End of discussion.

And while I appreciate your restraint, HJW is far from the only one who does this.  

Daniel apparently can't quite bring himself to disagree with people like HJW on this point.  Rather, he says that calling people like me "bigots" is "pointless" and something "that should be avoided."  That's appreciated.

Quote

Seems that as the provider of ordinary commercial transactions derives so much from the protection of the government, that provider ought not to discriminate on the basis of homosexuality or ethnic origin. 

So the government gets to disregard the First Amendment over here because it provides some services to the general public over there?  Surely not.

"Hey, the government handles national defense, ergo it can take away your right to Free Speech."

"Hey, the government facilitates interstate commerce, ergo it can take away your right to Free Exercise."

"Hey, the government pays for the post office, ergo it can take away your right against self-incrimination."

And so on.  Ad infinitum.  I think this line of reasoning would give "the government" carte blanche to run roughshod over our constitutional rights.

Thanks,

-Smac

Edited June 30, 2020 by smac97

[HappyJackWagon]

28 minutes ago, smac97 said:

All of these are included, I think, in the Utah Compromise.  I am on record as supporting it:

The issue with Jack Phillips involves First Amendment rights (protecting him from compelled speech and from infringements on his religious exercise).

Alas, HJW is.  Over and over.  Readily.  Axiomatically.  It's as easy as breathing.  To disagree with him and those who share his view is to be a bigot.  Per se.  That's it.  End of discussion.

And while I appreciate your restraint, HJW is far from the only one who does this.  

Daniel apparently can't quite bring himself to disagree with people like HJW on this point.  Rather, he says that calling people like me "bigots" is "pointless" and something "that should be avoided."  That's appreciated.

So the government gets to disregard the First Amendment over here because it provides some services to the general public over there?  Surely not.

"Hey, the government handles national defense, ergo it can take away your right to Free Speech."

"Hey, the government facilitates interstate commerce, ergo it can take away your right to Free Exercise."

"Hey, the government pays for the post office, ergo it can take away your right against self-incrimination."

And so on.  Ad infinitum.  I think this line of reasoning would give "the government" carte blanche to run roughshod over our constitutional rights.

Thanks,

-Smac

I seem to have upset you. I am working from the position that SCOTUS has declared LGBT individuals should receive protections in employment and housing (like other minorities), yet some religious organizations wish to maintain their ability to discriminate against LGBT individuals in housing and employment (amongst other ways) based on their religious beliefs.

I'm curious what part of the definition of a "bigot" you believe doesn't fit the example I've been sharing...readily, repeatedly.

 

Quote

 

bigot

NOUN

1. a person who is obstinately or unreasonably attached to a belief, opinion, or faction, especially one who is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward a person or people on the basis of their membership of a particular group.

 

 

So if I have a religious belief that LGBT individuals should NOT receive civil rights protections for housing and employment, even after SCOTUS has said they deserve those rights, then it would seem my religious belief is prejudiced against or antagonistic toward an LGBT person, or the group in general. Whether or not that prejudice is considered "obstinate" or "unreasonable" would totally be in the eye of the beholder. Obviously a person who holds such a belief would not view the belief to be unreasonable, even if it goes against the SCOTUS ruling.

 

But we're not really talking about beliefs. We're talking about actions. We're talking about the right of religion to actively discriminate against a group of people, specifically in housing and employment, even after SCOTUS has ruled they should enjoy those civil rights protections.

 

The reason I consider that position to be "obstinate" and/or "unreasonable" is in part because there is not a belief or teaching in the LDS church that specifically states that LGBT individuals should not be allowed housing or employment based on their sxual orientation or practice. Sure, there are teachings against LGBT behaviors, but where is the teaching that these people should be discriminated against in housing and employment. Of course it doesn't exist. Similarly there is no teaching against housing or employing other people or groups the church considers to be sinners. The belief in what is or isn't sin, and the belief that sinners should be discriminated against are two separate things. People are simply conflating a belief/teaching against homosxuality into a belief that they should be discriminated against. In my opinion this is unreasonable.

 

Don't get me wrong, I understand why someone wouldn't want to be labeled a bigot but the term exists and is accurate in some cases. I don't use it lightly.

 

[smac97]

18 minutes ago, HappyJackWagon said:

I seem to have upset you.

Not really.  Your insistence that anyone who disagrees with you is a per se bigot is par for the course.  Nothing new there, except that you presented it in a thread specifically created to discuss "compromise."  

You exposed the futility of the proposal, that's all.  

Quote

I am working from the position that SCOTUS has declared LGBT individuals should receive protections in employment and housing (like other minorities), yet some religious organizations wish to maintain their ability to discriminate against LGBT individuals in housing and employment (amongst other ways) based on their religious beliefs.

I said: "It's not 'bigoted' to disagree, on religious and reasoned grounds, with the morality and propriety of homosexuality or same-sex marriage."  (I should have said "propriety of homosexual behavior..." and have edited my post accordingly.)

You responded: "Sure it is. The beliefs may offer a justification that some may find sufficient, but it's still bigoted."

To disagree with you and yours is to be a bigot.  That's your position.

Quote

Don't get me wrong, I understand why someone wouldn't want to be labeled a bigot but the term exists and is accurate in some cases. I don't use it lightly.

I get you.  Believe me.  I get what you are saying.

To disagree with you is to be a bigot.

And religious people like me are supposed to discuss "compromise" with such ugly and false assertions in place and in full view.

-Smac

Edited June 30, 2020 by smac97

[HappyJackWagon]

21 minutes ago, smac97 said:

Not really.  Your insistence that anyone who disagrees with you is a per se bigot is par for the course.  Nothing new there, except that you presented it in a thread specifically created to discuss "compromise."  

You exposed the futility of the proposal, that's all.  

I said: "It's not 'bigoted' to disagree, on religious and reasoned grounds, with the morality and propriety of homosexuality or same-sex marriage."  (I should have said "propriety of homosexual behavior..."), and have edited my post accordingly.

You responded: "Sure it is. The beliefs may offer a justification that some may find sufficient, but it's still bigoted."

To disagree with you and yours is to be a bigot.  That's your position.

I get you.  Believe me.  I get what you are saying.

To disagree with you is to be a bigot.

And religious people like me are supposed to discuss "compromise" with such ugly and false assertions in place and in full view.

-Smac

You didn't really address the questions in my post. You're a thoughtful person so I'm interested in your response. I defined the word "bigot" and I'm essentially asking why it doesn't fit.

Quote

The reason I consider that position to be "obstinate" and/or "unreasonable" is in part because there is not a belief or teaching in the LDS church that specifically states that LGBT individuals should not be allowed housing or employment based on their sxual orientation or practice. Sure, there are teachings against LGBT behaviors, but where is the teaching that these people should be discriminated against in housing and employment. Of course it doesn't exist. Similarly there is no teaching against housing or employing other people or groups the church considers to be sinners. The belief in what is or isn't sin, and the belief that sinners should be discriminated against are two separate things. People are simply conflating a belief/teaching against homosxuality into a belief that they should be discriminated against. In my opinion this is unreasonable.

For the record, I agree with you that finding compromise on this issue is a bit of a futile endeavor and I've stated that a number of times on this thread. I don't believe it is appropriate to compromise on some issues... like civil rights protections.

Edited June 30, 2020 by HappyJackWagon