Freedom of Religion

[Lothar]

She still claims that those licenses are not valid without her signature

Might be true. It's up to the state legislature and the AG to figure that out. Last I heard she'd asked them to put something in about "by order of the court" in place of having her name or just an empty space.

you should "expect" that you are going to have to deal with people you don't agree with or like personally and who DO want to do business with you because you sell something they want

likewise, so what? Plenty of businesses will turn you away for not wearing a shirt, or for various other reasons. Why turn it into a fight, unless you have to because there are literally no other options -- no room to compromise and no room to walk away?

What else is there besides the "Big Stick" if you've been aggrieved by someone else? .... Once any disagreement or fight starts, fairness and kindness go out the window. Sad, but that's the facts of life.... Wouldn't you get pissed and want some satisfaction?

Our entire lives are spent learning to be better people. The facts of life is that some people are racist, sexist, or whatever -- but we don't just say "that's the facts of life, get used to it". We also call out racists for being racist. And I say, we should go beyond that. We should call out racists for being racist, but we should also call out jerks for being jerks. We shouldn't just tolerate that people "get pissed and want some satisfaction". You suggest that I'd do the same, but I wouldn't, because I'm a better person than that. And I expect everyone to be capable of being a better person than that, and I absolutely will be critical of people who aren't.

Let's stop making excuses for people who don't know any way to settle disagreements other than escalation. Yeah, sometimes it's the only choice, but most of the time there are better ways to solve it, including everything from compromise to walking away. If "human nature" makes people unable to find those other ways, they need to grow up. Like the saying goes, boys will be boys until someone teaches them to be men.

[sigma]

TC, I want to add that the white American or European has much more chances to assimilate into Russia than the Negro, Arabs, Chinese or Vietnamese for example. As for appeals to the court here, the most important are the unwritten laws than the formal laws.

[callmeslick]

TC, I want to add that the white American or European has much more chances to assimilate into Russia than the Negro, Arabs, Chinese or Vietnamese for example.

congratulations for your society's blatant bigotry. So much easier for 'people that look like us' to assimilate. Nice. In other words, the problem isn't with those arriving, but with those that reside there already.

As for appeals to the court here, the most important are the unwritten laws than the formal laws.

and here, you essentially admit that you have no real Rule of Law. Sweet. What a freaking paradise Russia is.

[woodchip]

Slick, you could say the same for the Chinese and the Japanese.

[sigma]

There is a good proverb - "When in Rome, do as the Romans do". Here does not need aliens who want to live according to their laws. And they quickly understand it.

[Sergeant Thorne]

Notice to Kim Davis and Mike Huckabee, marriage has already been redefined before.

http://news.yahoo.com/lgbt-group-burns- ... 53686.html

I don't think it was ever seen as a sale. Dowry is not an uncivilized practice. A young woman getting married represents a significant decrease in household productivity in various cultures, and a significant boon to the new husband. No-a-days, in American society, a young lady may be more of a financial drain on the household than anything--there may well be grounds to consider reversing the practice.

[Tunnelcat]

Plenty of businesses will turn you away for not wearing a shirt, or for various other reasons. Why turn it into a fight, unless you have to because there are literally no other options -- no room to compromise and no room to walk away?

That's a whole different issue of appearance, dress code or cleanliness, that might turn off other customers or be considered a sanitation and health issue. For arguments sake, what if you had some disfiguring and horrible scare on your face and some business owner told you to leave because you were scaring off his customers? What then? Would you just walk out or get mad? Most normal people would be embarrassed at first, then get mad and want satisfaction.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/06/ ... DV20140613

When you refuse to do business with someone, you can't be arbitrary and single out only one person or group. Your business policy has to apply to everyone equally, not against those particular people, or person you don't like for some reason. I guess right now the sticking point is that being gay or gender variant is not a protected group, at least on the federal level. In some states, they are a protected class however. But as a business owner, how would you tell if they didn't tell you outright or have a same sex partner along as a clue? Would you as a business owner refuse service to these people after initially welcoming them into your business?

https://www.legalzoom.com/articles/the- ... appearance

[Tunnelcat]

I don't think it was ever seen as a sale. Dowry is not an uncivilized practice. A young woman getting married represents a significant decrease in household productivity in various cultures, and a significant boon to the new husband. No-a-days, in American society, a young lady may be more of a financial drain on the household than anything--there may well be grounds to consider reversing the practice.

Have you considered the reverse? I've heard of hard working wives who are putting up with deadbeat or unemployed husbands and having to support them. I guess you never read Dear Abby. The fact is, after divorce, many women have to go to court to force their deadbeat ex pay for his child's support. A lot of these guys think that once the marriage is over, the child's support is the wife's responsibility.

[Lothar]

When you refuse to do business with someone, you can't be arbitrary and single out only one person or group. Your business policy has to apply to everyone equally

The majority of policies I've heard don't single out a person or group, but rather, a type of event, namely, same-sex weddings (compare to Spidey's comment a few posts back.)

Many same-sex couples could ask their heterosexual parents to order the wedding cake, or to pay for the catering. Do you think these shops would respond differently? The customer would be heterosexual, but the event of a same-sex wedding would be the same, and that's what the objection is to -- not to serving homosexuals, but to participating in their wedding celebration. (The Indiana pizza guy's original comments were that gays were welcome in his shop, but he wouldn't cater a same-sex wedding.)

I realize my own position of "walk away" from almost every confrontation is a bit extreme -- if someone refuses to serve you because you have a scar on your face, it's their loss, particularly because you probably have friends who won't do business with them any more, but I understand a lot of people want "satisfaction" and believe it comes from vengeance rather than forgiveness. But even if you sue sometimes, it's ridiculous to get into lawsuits trying to force people to participate in ceremonies with religious significance which are in conflict with their religious beliefs. People who keep saying things like "don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married" need to stop making excuses for jerks trying to force others to participate in their weddings. If you say people shouldn't interfere because they can opt out, let them opt out. Carry through on your promise that they won't be forced to violate their religious beliefs. Otherwise you're just another religious bigot using your newfound majority power to impose on minorities.

[Tunnelcat]

When you refuse to do business with someone, you can't be arbitrary and single out only one person or group. Your business policy has to apply to everyone equally

The majority of policies I've heard don't single out a person or group, but rather, a type of event, namely, same-sex weddings (compare to Spidey's comment a few posts back.)

Many same-sex couples could ask their heterosexual parents to order the wedding cake, or to pay for the catering. Do you think these shops would respond differently? The customer would be heterosexual, but the event of a same-sex wedding would be the same, and that's what the objection is to -- not to serving homosexuals, but to participating in their wedding celebration. (The Indiana pizza guy's original comments were that gays were welcome in his shop, but he wouldn't cater a same-sex wedding.)

What's the difference between serving gays in your shop verses catering a wedding, especially a civil wedding? You're still making food for people who you believe violate your religious beliefs, marriage ceremony or not. I mean, just being homosexual is a violation of most Christian's religious beliefs. Getting a heterosexual person to buy the cake for the gay couple is insulting and demeaning. It would be comparable to a black couple asking a white couple to buy something from a whites only business because they wanted that business's product and couldn't get it any other way.

I realize my own position of "walk away" from almost every confrontation is a bit extreme -- if someone refuses to serve you because you have a scar on your face, it's their loss, particularly because you probably have friends who won't do business with them any more, but I understand a lot of people want "satisfaction" and believe it comes from vengeance rather than forgiveness. But even if you sue sometimes, it's ridiculous to get into lawsuits trying to force people to participate in ceremonies with religious significance which are in conflict with their religious beliefs. People who keep saying things like "don't like gay marriage, don't get gay married" need to stop making excuses for jerks trying to force others to participate in their weddings. If you say people shouldn't interfere because they can opt out, let them opt out. Carry through on your promise that they won't be forced to violate their religious beliefs. Otherwise you're just another religious bigot using your newfound majority power to impose on minorities.

Not all people are thick skinned, or forgiving for that matter. We're back to human nature and human variation. Some people will forgive and move on, some don't forget, get mad and want to get even. If we could all forgive or respect one another, then we'd have no need for lawyers, would we?

Lothar, you like to fantasize that we can all be goodness and nicey nicey to each other if we'd try, when humans are rarely that in real life. There is rarely a lot of politeness, forgiveness, respect or civility for others and their opinions in today's world. I lament it too, but hey, I'm also in the minority on this thought. Reminds me of something I heard about Walt Disney. When the 1960's came around and all that inconvenient political upheaval came about, like college war protests, the women's sexual revolution and all that racial rioting and the Civil Rights Movement came into the forefront, he lamented the good old days when white Protestant males ruled their roosts like kings, workers never talked back nor joined unions to demand better pay, women stayed barefoot, pregnant and in the home like good little wives, Americans never questioned the president and his policies, and racial diversity or disharmony never had to be depicted in his cute little fantasy movies of the day.

[Spidey]

For you tc…

So you have your new catering business going and all is well, then one day the grand dragon of the local KKK comes in to your business and demands you cater their next gathering, where just for the record, nothing illegal will be going on.

Will you refuse?

[Lothar]

What's the difference between serving gays in your shop verses catering a wedding

A wedding is a ceremony that holds religious significance for many people, even if the people holding it don't view it that way. You don't force people to participate in events of religious significance against their will.

Getting a heterosexual person to buy the cake for the gay couple is insulting and demeaning

You missed the point.

I wasn't recommending it as a strategy. I was noting that it wouldn't solve the problem, because the problem isn't "the customer is gay" but "I'm being asked to be involved in a same-sex wedding"; the problem is the EVENT rather than the CUSTOMER. It doesn't matter that you apparently don't understand why people view weddings as religiously significant and don't understand why they might want to decline participation in weddings they don't approve of; what matters is that you respect their decision not to participate. (I don't understand why my sisters converted to Orthodox Messianic Judaism, and I'm absolutely convinced they're wrong, but I don't wave bacon at their kosher dishes.)

you like to fantasize that we can all be goodness and nicey nicey to each other if we'd try

Not at all. You don't become all goodness and nicey nicey by trying hard; every human has deep and inherent selfishness and evil inside of them, and it can't be overcome just by fighting it. Humanity is broken and in need of a Savior. This is just one of my ways of pointing it out.

[Vander]

A wedding is a ceremony that holds religious significance for many people, even if the people holding it don't view it that way.

That's something I never quite understood. If a religion defines marriage as between a man and a woman, wouldn't a same sex marriage not be a marriage in that sense? If that is the case, wouldn't refusing to service such a wedding grant the legitimacy that, yes, this *is* a marriage in the religious sense?

[Lothar]

A wedding is a ceremony that holds religious significance for many people, even if the people holding it don't view it that way.

That's something I never quite understood. If a religion defines marriage as between a man and a woman, wouldn't a same sex marriage not be a marriage in that sense? If that is the case, wouldn't refusing to service such a wedding grant the legitimacy that, yes, this *is* a marriage in the religious sense?

No.

Let me give a related example: my sister is Orthodox Jewish, and a photographer. She'll gladly photograph a party for a Bar/Bat Mitzvah. But if you asked her to photograph a themed bachelorette party, with a Rabbi stripper and snacks made to look like Torah scrolls and such, she would turn you down. That event is not a "real" religious celebration in her eyes (or probably anyone else's), but it is something she would view as a mockery of her sacred ceremony, and rightly so. She might even decline to photograph a "cultural Jewish" B-Mitzvah that didn't follow Kosher food rules for the seudat meal, because even though it's intended genuinely, she views it as a corruption of her own sacred tradition.

Likewise, some people view same-sex weddings as distorting their sacred traditions, and they choose not to participate. The implication isn't legitimacy, but corruption or disrespect for said traditions.

[Tunnelcat]

For you tc…

So you have your new catering business going and all is well, then one day the grand dragon of the local KKK comes in to your business and demands you cater their next gathering, where just for the record, nothing illegal will be going on.

Will you refuse?

No. They'll just poop it out in a couple of days anyway. Now if they wanted a cake made with racial slurs written all over it, then yes, I'd refuse. I'm not going to make something with derogatory and hateful language towards others written on it, with my hand. The law backs me up in that case too.

[Tunnelcat]

What's the difference between serving gays in your shop verses catering a wedding

A wedding is a ceremony that holds religious significance for many people, even if the people holding it don't view it that way. You don't force people to participate in events of religious significance against their will.

That's pretty shallow. I was married in a civil ceremony on the grounds of my parents house. There was nothing religious about it at all. We were making to a commitment to each other for the rest of our lives, presided over by a judge and licensed by the state and not making a commitment to a God or a religion. The judge, a friend of the family, was Jewish, wore his Kippah and he didn't mind marrying 2 non-Jews. We didn't mind being married by a Jewish Judge and the ceremony itself wasn't Jewish at all. We haven't needed God's sanctity to make it last for almost 40 years. Love will do that, not religion.

Getting a heterosexual person to buy the cake for the gay couple is insulting and demeaning

You missed the point.

I wasn't recommending it as a strategy. I was noting that it wouldn't solve the problem, because the problem isn't "the customer is gay" but "I'm being asked to be involved in a same-sex wedding"; the problem is the EVENT rather than the CUSTOMER. It doesn't matter that you apparently don't understand why people view weddings as religiously significant and don't understand why they might want to decline participation in weddings they don't approve of; what matters is that you respect their decision not to participate. (I don't understand why my sisters converted to Orthodox Messianic Judaism, and I'm absolutely convinced they're wrong, but I don't wave bacon at their kosher dishes.)

You can't separate the EVENT from the couple. That's the only reason Kim Davis refuses to sign their licenses, because those couples are gay, not straight. Other than that, the ceremony is identical, at least with a state, non-religious ceremony. Only the participants are different, and it's because of that difference those other couples are singled out as violators of some person's religious beliefs when they want to get married and live their lives the way other people are afforded in a Democratic, secular, country. We are not a Christian Theocracy, although I'm quit sure Mike Huckabee would want it that way so's that none of his Christian friends would have to violate their morals doing the state's business.

you like to fantasize that we can all be goodness and nicey nicey to each other if we'd try

Not at all. You don't become all goodness and nicey nicey by trying hard; every human has deep and inherent selfishness and evil inside of them, and it can't be overcome just by fighting it. Humanity is broken and in need of a Savior. This is just one of my ways of pointing it out.

Now we get to the meat of the issue. We can all become good only if we welcome into our lives, Christ, the Savior. That's what I believe is the fallacy of Christian beliefs towards their fellow non-Christians and it's baloney. It's like if we all accept Christ, everyone will start being nice to one another and forget or override their basal instincts and hormones, which were programmed into us by a God if you believe God made us. Wake up, we're complicated beings, not programmable robots who can turn off their instincts and chemicals because they suddenly believe in Jesus. In fact, I believe someone has to become a little irrational to accept Biblical history purely on faith, written long ago by superstitious and frightened people. Maybe we can change things in our lives that were part of our accumulated upbringing and experiences, but definitely not the basal coding we were born with, and that basal coding, not just that of the brain, but the whole system, subconsciously controls quite a bit of what we do in our lives, like it or not.

If Christians really revered Christ, then they'd follow his teachings, to love your fellow man, be kind to him and love him as your own, despite the vast differences between us. Instead, I see the Bible used and twisted into a reason to reject or marginalize a fellow human being because he is different, or in the case of a gay person, somehow evil and not deserving of love, respect, or to be treated with respect as an equal human being. Christians are using Christ and the Bible as their pillar of superiority, with which to stand over and oppress, marginalize and reject, instead of being welcoming as Christ taught His followers. Stand outside your group-think Lothar and try to get a different view, if you're really a Christian.

[Vander]

No.

Excluding the bachelorette party, I guess I'm still not clear as to why it's mockery if it, by definition, isn't the thing it's supposedly mocking. It's something else! It seems like such an easy 'out,' but as someone whose belief structure applies agency to humanity rather than the divine, I often struggle with dogmatic logic.

How would these principles be applied to an anniversary party thrown by a gay couple? (Is there a sacred religious ritual marking an anniversary?) How about a Super Bowl party thrown by a gay couple? Would my secular opposite sex wedding be considered a mockery? Is it ok because I'm only wrong for denying religion, not mocking because I'm not marrying another man? I'm just trying to determine the angle of the slope.

I'm more curious than anything. I'm not looking to force anyone to do my atheist bidding, and barring extreme circumstance, the market (bows head) would working things out.

[Lothar]

What's the difference between serving gays in your shop verses catering a wedding

A wedding is a ceremony that holds religious significance for many people, even if the people holding it don't view it that way. You don't force people to participate in events of religious significance against their will.

That's pretty shallow.

It's "shallow" for people to take their own religious beliefs seriously and to consider certain types of ceremonies to have significance within their religion, even if others don't? That's a very strange definition of "shallow".

It's up to you to interpret your own ceremony however you like, and up to the other participants to interpret it however they like. If I choose to interpret it differently, that's my right. If my sister chooses to interpret it differently, that's her right. You can view your ceremony as "purely secular", but if others choose to interpret it according to whatever religion they desire, it's not your place to deny them that choice.

You can't separate the EVENT from the couple

But you can separate the significance of the event from other event types. A same-sex couple holding a superbowl party has no religious significance. Nobody is out there worrying that two guys holding a superbowl party are going to force them to violate their religious beliefs. Nobody is denying service as a whole to same-sex couples (or, if they are, they're losing in court.) People are denying participation in the EVENT. And that's absolutely in line with both the expectation of freedom of religion in US law (RFRA, Title VII) and with the rhetoric coming from same-sex marriage advocates ("don't like same-sex marriage? Don't have one.")

It's like if we all accept Christ, everyone will start being nice to one another

That's not how it works, no; it's much more complicated. I also won't address it further, as this thread is not about whether my religious beliefs make sense, but how peoples' religious beliefs (right or wrong) interact with the law -- what they can and can't be compelled to participate in.

I guess I'm still not clear as to why it's mockery if it, by definition, isn't the thing it's supposedly mocking

Something that bears no resemblance to something else is simply a new thing. What makes a mockery or a corruption is when thing A is intentionally made to resemble thing B, but is lacking or distorted or inappropriate in some critical way. People mock religions by making up a fake belief that's superficially similar (flying spaghetti monster, anyone?) People mock cultures or individuals by mimicking and exaggerating mannerisms. Many Hollywood marriages are widely considered to be a mockery of marriage because they have some of the superficial trappings, but often lack attributes like self-sacrifice and generosity and commitment.

It's not my place to tell other people what they should and shouldn't view as making a mockery of their belief system. That's a big part of what "freedom of religion" means -- if you think a ham and cheese sandwich is a violation of your religion, you have every right to think that, and I have no right to force you to accept the legitimacy of ham and cheese (that would be a form of intolerant bigotry, in fact.) If you think same-sex marriage is a violation of your religion, you have every right to think that. If you think interracial marriage is a violation of your religion, you have every right to think that as well.

You have the right to participate in whatever religion you want to. You don't have the right to stop others, or to threaten others, from practicing their religion -- but you do have the right to choose not to participate. Force of law should be limited to stopping direct harm, not used to compel people to take an active role in ceremonies or activities that are a violation of their sincerely-held religious beliefs.

[Ferno]

I have no idea how you intend for that article to answer the questions above. It clearly says "no" to Kim Davis, but what about Office Depot?

I've known you for a long time. You're capable of answering directly and in your own words, and doing a better job than the articles you typically link to.

Of course it says 'no' to kim, but it touches on other aspects, where words can carry so much weight. But when words become actions that hurt others, then it becomes a problem.

With the office depot premise, they have a corporate policy of what they can and cannot print. They have an entire legal team dedicated to defining the difference. If it seems like hate speech but is not, then no further action is necessary. When it crosses the line and inspires (or is likely to inspire) action, then it becomes actual hate speech. Thus, Office depot can be held culpable for printing such articles.

A small group's common opinion does not, and should not outweigh the larger populaces' stance. Especially if the small groups' opinion places themselves and those like them above society's greater good. History has taught us that lesson over and over again.

[Lothar]

When it crosses the line and inspires (or is likely to inspire) action, then it becomes actual hate speech

No offense, but if you read the actual flyer Office Depot chose not to print, you'd have to be a total dumbass to think it would inspire violence. Or, possibly, someone whose perspective has been so badly warped (by media manipulation or their own personal beliefs) that criticism and calls for ending violence somehow sound violent.

A small group's common opinion does not, and should not outweigh the larger populaces' stance.

The point of religious freedom is that small groups can hold and express opinions, even offensive ones that the larger populace would like to silence. Calls to imminent violence, threats, or "fighting words" are not protected speech (Brandenburg v. Ohio, Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire) but advocacy for offensive opinions absolutely is.

Office Depot certainly has the right to a more restrictive policy than the Supreme Court. They can choose not to print "offensive" material even if it's perfectly legal. I think it was a mistake, and apparently they agree, but it is their right.

[Tunnelcat]

But you can separate the significance of the event from other event types. A same-sex couple holding a superbowl party has no religious significance. Nobody is out there worrying that two guys holding a superbowl party are going to force them to violate their religious beliefs. Nobody is denying service as a whole to same-sex couples (or, if they are, they're losing in court.) People are denying participation in the EVENT. And that's absolutely in line with both the expectation of freedom of religion in US law (RFRA, Title VII) and with the rhetoric coming from same-sex marriage advocates ("don't like same-sex marriage? Don't have one.")

Since when is getting a civil county marriage license a religious EVENT? I thought that was why civil marriage was created, to give a non-religious marriage option to those who want it? Unless of course you believe that all marriage is some type of religious sacrament, which I personally do NOT. I think civil marriage itself does NOT have any religious connotations, nor is it a religious EVENT. It is a government sanctioned joining of 2 people who want to live together, love each other deeply and receive the state benefits it gives. I didn't want to get married in a church because I'm not religious. Those gay couples weren't getting a religious or church marriage either. All they got was a lousy piece of paper saying that they were married in the eyes of the state, NOT THE CHURCH. Kim Davis has no religious grounds to stand on to deny doing her job because all she's required to do is give licenses for government sanctioned civil marriage, not a religious ceremony.

As for not wanting to make a product that will be used for a gay marriage, I don't have any solution to the issue other than to not be in that type business where that person has to violate their morals to DO BUSINESS in the first place. Until gays are a federally protected class, there's going to be issues with deeply religious people.

This whole back and forth between us perfectly illustrates the point in your other post as to why people can't seem to come to a consensus when it comes to emotional decisions, as in having anything to do with politics, religion, rights or even denying someone their due process or rights because of a religious belief, because there are no real "facts" here that can be argued, only emotion-based opinions.

By the way Lothar, I think you deleted something about of your own bias towards Jews and your sister converting to Judaism or something like that. I can't prove it and I can't find it, but it was somewhere in and about this statement of yours at one time. Hiding something you said?

Let me give a related example: my sister is Orthodox Jewish, and a photographer. She'll gladly photograph a party for a Bar/Bat Mitzvah. But if you asked her to photograph a themed bachelorette party, with a Rabbi stripper and snacks made to look like Torah scrolls and such, she would turn you down. That event is not a "real" religious celebration in her eyes (or probably anyone else's), but it is something she would view as a mockery of her sacred ceremony, and rightly so. She might even decline to photograph a "cultural Jewish" B-Mitzvah that didn't follow Kosher food rules for the seudat meal, because even though it's intended genuinely, she views it as a corruption of her own sacred tradition.

[Spidey]

People get into business based on what they know how to do, opportunities that present themselves along with other things, future moral conflicts really have no place in the consideration, unless you believe you are supposed to give them up when getting into business.

I find your concept of what a business is supposed to be, very offensive. I have no obligation to give up my morals, only start a certain type of business or be subservient to the public. (unless I wish to get a public accommodation license)

You seem to miss the point of the public accommodation laws, which are intended to protect the public, and wish to apply them to all businesses, therefore abandoning any sort of balance of rights.


Maybe business is subservient to the public in a collective type society, but not in a free society.

[Lothar]

I think you deleted something about of your own bias towards Jews and your sister converting to Judaism

I did not. Whenever I modify any of my posts, I put EDIT: and an explanation of what I edited (with the exception of stickies that are expected to undergo regular revision.) Perhaps you're thinking of something from another post, or perhaps you misinterpreted something the first time you read it.

Unless of course you believe that all marriage is some type of religious sacrament, which I personally do NOT

Nor do I. But some people do. What you believe is relevant for your own freedom of religion; what they believe is relevant for theirs. If someone believes that your wedding has religious connotations, you cannot simply insist them out of that belief, nor can you impose your belief upon them. Your belief only matters for your decision to participate, not for anyone else's. Because it is their sincerely-held religious belief, whether or not it's "correct" or "makes sense", you cannot force them to violate that belief through participation in your event. This is absolutely necessary for freedom of religion.

You should take the time to read both RFRA and Title VII to get a feel for how US law works in this case. We give people fairly wide latitude for their religious convictions -- employers are required to allow people to take religious holidays off, pharmacists who are religiously anti-birth-control are not required to dispense birth control pills, etc. The expectation is that you work around it. The only time you don't work around it is if it would place an "undue hardship" -- basically, if a workaround would be completely unfeasible.

As for not wanting to make a product that will be used for a gay marriage

That's an interesting way to phrase it. My concern is with "service jobs" (caterers and photographers and the like, who would actually be on premises and at the event), people who are specifically being asked to tailor a product for the wedding (custom-produce a cake for the couple), or people who are asked to put their name on something in connection with the ceremony.

I would not expect a florist to have a valid religious exemption from delivering flowers, nor a baker to have a valid exemption for selling a generic cake straight out of the case, nor a tux rental place to have a valid exemption for renting a tux. These are all cases where they're just making a generic product, and where a "no" would be discrimination against the person. Whereas the previous paragraph describes circumstances where they're being asked to specifically participate in a ceremony that holds religious connotations for them, in which case they are declining to participate in the ceremony.

This whole back and forth between us perfectly illustrates the point in your other post ... there are no real "facts" here that can be argued, only emotion-based opinions

The other post was about people changing their beliefs about facts -- being more likely to be skeptical or to discount the significance -- when they don't like the proposed solution. I don't see any indication here that we disagree about the facts, that either of us is being more skeptical or discounting the significance of facts. So no, it's not a perfect illustration of that thread; it's in fact the opposite (and you should read the other article more carefully when you have a chance.)

Instead, this is entirely philosophical. How should "freedom of religion" be applied? Do you have the right to impose your religious beliefs on others? What does it even mean to impose your beliefs? My argument is simple -- when it comes to marriage, that's a ceremony that many people view as religious, so anyone should be able to decline to take part in any marriage (in name, presence, or action) if they view it as a violation of their religion -- not to impose their beliefs, but to avoid being imposed upon. As a society and as individuals, we need to work around that -- take Kim Davis' name off of the certificate, if someone says "I can't cater for you" find a different caterer, etc. We should only "impose" when there's no other way, and even then, we should impose the minimum amount possible, in both directions. (This is also a broad principle in US law -- also applying to other freedoms like speech. Impositions on others' personal freedom should only happen when there's a "compelling interest" that can't be accomplished otherwise, and then the imposition should be "narrowly tailored" and use the "least restrictive means". The three phrases in quotes here will seem familiar if you understand the concept of Strict Scrutiny.)

[Tunnelcat]

People get into business based on what they know how to do, opportunities that present themselves along with other things, future moral conflicts really have no place in the consideration, unless you believe you are supposed to give them up when getting into business.

I find your concept of what a business is supposed to be, very offensive. I have no obligation to give up my morals, only start a certain type of business or be subservient to the public. (unless I wish to get a public accommodation license)

You seem to miss the point of the public accommodation laws, which are intended to protect the public, and wish to apply them to all businesses, therefore abandoning any sort of balance of rights.


Maybe business is subservient to the public in a collective type society, but not in a free society.

Out of curiosity, what morals do you personally hold that would be violated by serving every law-abiding, cash carrying, properly dressed and reasonably clean citizen of our country?

On the flip side, how would you feel if you were a black person and some white person forbid you from even entering his/her place of business because he didn't like you as a black person, based on his/her morals of race superiority? Remember, that argument, Biblical arguments and your argument above were used at one time to exclude blacks, Jews and even women (Junior Chamber International, for example) from public businesses in the past.

I did not. Whenever I modify any of my posts, I put EDIT: and an explanation of what I edited (with the exception of stickies that are expected to undergo regular revision.) Perhaps you're thinking of something from another post, or perhaps you misinterpreted something the first time you read it.

Uh huh. You definitely said you disapproved of your sister converting to Judaism, somewhere recent. Now, it's gone.

Unless of course you believe that all marriage is some type of religious sacrament, which I personally do NOT

Nor do I. But some people do. What you believe is relevant for your own freedom of religion; what they believe is relevant for theirs. If someone believes that your wedding has religious connotations, you cannot simply insist them out of that belief, nor can you impose your belief upon them. Your belief only matters for your decision to participate, not for anyone else's. Because it is their sincerely-held religious belief, whether or not it's "correct" or "makes sense", you cannot force them to violate that belief through participation in your event. This is absolutely necessary for freedom of religion.

Miscegenation (a cultural concept as well) and slavery were both defended as tenets of moral faith that people argued as the reason to preserve that repression and codify it in state law. That's no longer the case. Why are those morals no longer being defended? What's different?

If a person is one of those "some people", which is true, I'm not going to argue on that point, I'm still of the opinion that they should not be doing a job serving the general public, because we have in this country this conflicting concept what's called the separation of church and state.

"I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should 'make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,' thus building a wall of separation between Church & State."

Now this statement of Jefferson's also says that we can't prohibit the free exercise thereof, and thus, Kim Davis, should be free to follow her morals. However, the flip side is that since she is involved in state business, she is now forcing her beliefs on those who don't agree with her religion just by working in that position and refusing to do that job for certain people, which, in my opinion, is now violating that wall of separation between church and state. So who's rights are tantamount? The right to follow her religious beliefs or the rights of those not of her religion? We have an impasse. This will be interesting since most of the younger generation now believes in LGBT rights, just as my generation thought that blacks should also have their civil rights.

[Lothar]

I did not. Whenever I modify any of my posts, I put EDIT: and an explanation of what I edited (with the exception of stickies that are expected to undergo regular revision.) Perhaps you're thinking of something from another post, or perhaps you misinterpreted something the first time you read it.

Uh huh. You definitely said you disapproved of your sister converting to Judaism, somewhere recent. Now, it's gone.

Everything I said about my sister's conversion is still there.

Maybe you're just not remembering it accurately enough to be able to find it again. Given that you don't seem to understand the rest of my position very well, that shouldn't surprise me.

Miscegenation (a cultural concept as well) and slavery were both defended as tenets of moral faith that people argued as the reason to preserve that repression and codify it in state law

I would absolutely defend the right of someone who thought inter-racial marriage was "against their religion" not to participate in an inter-racial marriage. That doesn't mean the law should make such relationships illegal (if you think "codify it in state law" is even remotely an accurate assessment of my position, you need to read more carefully) but it does mean the law should allow people to opt out of being involved. I don't care how wrong people are; people are entitled to wrong religious beliefs!

I'm still of the opinion that they should not be doing a job serving the general public, because we have in this country this conflicting concept what's called the separation of church and state.

... Kim Davis, should be free to follow her morals. However, the flip side is that since she is involved in state business, she is now forcing her beliefs on those who don't agree with her religion just by working in that position and refusing to do that job for certain people

We also have a related concept called "reasonable accommodation". Kim Davis wouldn't be able to force her beliefs on anyone if proper accommodation was made -- take her name off of the certificate, and give her deputies authority to sign without her involvement. Reasonable accommodation allows for everyone to practice their religious beliefs without anyone forcing theirs upon others.

Again, you should read RFRA and Title VII (which is quoted in the EEOC compliance manual.) In particular, note that the EEOC uses this specific example: "a Christian pharmacy employee [who] needs to be excused from filling birth control prescriptions". Being a pharmacist is a job which serves the general public, yet a pharmacist can refuse to perform that piece of his job, as long as he passes those customers along to someone who can perform the job. Noesen v. Med. Staffing Network, Inc. actually provides a great template for this type of accommodation, showing both what accommodations should be made and what accommodations qualify as an "undue burden".

[sigma]

These debates about the superiority of one religion over another reminds me of the dispute is highly intelligent robots, which their creators, that is, people sewed up different programs called "Evangelism", "Islam", "Judaism", etc. for additional control of these robots. And each of these robots will defend his point of view, because he can't go against religious program that manages them. While the robot - an atheist sees clearly that the other robots are infected, but it can not explain to them the reason for their hostility, because they do not want to hear it.

[Spidey]

Exactly, if you won’t dispense birth control pills, that’s legal, if you won’t dispense them to black people that’s illegal.

Tc…

I don’t know about morals, but I can think of a few ethical problems.

I probably wouldn’t take part in a cigarette sales campaign, and probably not booze either. So if you wanted my services for either I would probably decline.

On your flip side question, I have no idea how I would feel, but I do know how I feel dealing with the local corner stores around here, that don’t really give a ★■◆● whether I shop there or not. (can’t speak English, serve others regardless of my position in line, don’t carry stuff I want…etc) Believe me…I know what it is like to be a victim of racism, but if someone like me says anything, they get referred to as spoiled privileged whiners.

Please keep in mind, I never said one word about excluding certain groups of people…its you that keeps dragging the debate back to that. You seem to have a particularly hard time separating people from activities.

[callmeslick]

[We also have a related concept called "reasonable accommodation". Kim Davis wouldn't be able to force her beliefs on anyone if proper accommodation was made -- take her name off of the certificate, and give her deputies authority to sign without her involvement. Reasonable accommodation allows for everyone to practice their religious beliefs without anyone forcing theirs upon others.

however, there is no example extant of that principle EVER being applied, nor even being considered legally applicable to an elected official refusing to perform part of their sworn duties. Sure, you can make allowances for dress codes, other processes for EMPLOYEES in a governmental agency, but there is nothing the least bit reasonable about the public official in charge of issuing marriage licenses as one of her core duties not having to do so.

Again, you should read RFRA and Title VII (which is quoted in the EEOC compliance manual.) In particular, note that the EEOC uses this specific example: "a Christian pharmacy employee [who] needs to be excused from filling birth control prescriptions". Being a pharmacist is a job which serves the general public, yet a pharmacist can refuse to perform that piece of his job, as long as he passes those customers along to someone who can perform the job. Noesen v. Med. Staffing Network, Inc. actually provides a great template for this type of accommodation, showing both what accommodations should be made and what accommodations qualify as an "undue burden".

see above, employee vs elected public officials

[Tunnelcat]

Lothar, as long as Davis and other moral objectors who are pubic officials step aside and defer their jobs to others so that they don't have to violate their religious morals, that's barely acceptable. My objection is that she's NOT doing the PUBLIC job she's being paid for, but what the hell, I'm not paying taxes in Tennessee. But remember, once gay marriage became legal, Davis decided upon herself to refuse to sign marriage licenses and NOT let her deputies do it in her stead. It's almost like Evangelicals picked her for starting their war. Then, when she stood up there on a public pedestal, whining like a Christian martyr and victim, that's where I decided she had abdicated her public duties to those of us who aren't Christian. She's still in the news making a big stink and crying to reporters about the whole thing, trying to drum up more support and sympathy. It's nothing but sick theater. Why can't she shut up, keep her morals to herself in peace and just allow her deputies give those gay couples that piece of paper? So simple.

On your other example of the pharmacist not giving out birth control pills. That pharmacist my have his or her moral objection, but as a women, I really find that offensive and ignorant. Birth control pills, with the exception of the day-after pill or Plan B, are not enabling any type of fetal murder. All those do is alter hormones and prevent conception. And many times, those pills are used for other medical reasons. It's a really insipid and ignorant objection and if I found out my pharmacist objected, I'd take my business to a different drug store and say "screw 'em". But as long as another pharmacist will do the job, I guess I have to accept that as the solution for other women.

Spidey, those are vices, and bad ones at that. I wouldn't participate in selling them either because they tend to kill people. I would also not go into business of selling guns for that reason either, and I'm not religious. As for separating the action from the person, that's the old hat usual excuse for not having to deal with someone you don't like. It's just as distasteful as Christians saying they like the sinner, but hate the sin. "Oh, I like the person, but I don't like how they act or live their lives." Tell me how you can separate a gay man from the gay sex for instance? Force him into abstinence? Hardy, given the human sex drive. Sometimes, it all depends on different people's interpretations on whether an action or event can be separate from a particular person. Many times, they are inseparable.

[callmeslick]

TC for Catholics, birth control isn't a matter of fetal murder, it is interference with God's plan for being Fruitful and Multiplying.

[snoopy]

Then, when she stood up there on a public pedestal, whining like a Christian martyr and victim, that's where I decided she had abdicated her public duties to those of us who aren't Christian. She's still in the news making a big stink and crying to reporters about the whole thing, trying to drum up more support and sympathy. It's nothing but sick theater. Why can't she shut up, keep her morals to herself in peace and just allow her deputies give those gay couples that piece of paper? So simple.

Simply put, because you won't like it when you're in the objecting minority & are getting shouted down by the majority. (By the way, I don't agree with Kim's actions... but "shut up and keep your beliefs to yourself" isn't a solution that I can buy in to.

On your other example of the pharmacist not giving out birth control pills. That pharmacist my have his or her moral objection, but as a women, I really find that offensive and ignorant. Birth control pills, with the exception of the day-after pill or Plan B, are not enabling any type of fetal murder. All those do is alter hormones and prevent conception. And many times, those pills are used for other medical reasons. It's a really insipid and ignorant objection and if I found out my pharmacist objected, I'd take my business to a different drug store and say "screw 'em". But as long as another pharmacist will do the job, I guess I have to accept that as the solution for other women.

Again, for me it comes down to a question of being willing to accept others' beliefs in the interest of other allowing me to live out mine.

Spidey, those are vices, and bad ones at that. I wouldn't participate in selling them either because they tend to kill people. I would also not go into business of selling guns for that reason either, and I'm not religious. As for separating the action from the person, that's the old hat usual excuse for not having to deal with someone you don't like. It's just as distasteful as Christians saying they like the sinner, but hate the sin. "Oh, I like the person, but I don't like how they act or live their lives." Tell me how you can separate a gay man from the gay sex for instance? Force him into abstinence? Hardy, given the human sex drive. Sometimes, it all depends on different people's interpretations on whether an action or event can be separate from a particular person. Many times, they are inseparable.

I agree - the existence of sinful actions are [always] inseparable from sinful people. That doesn't, however, make the actions acceptable. I believe that we are all in the same situation: we are all held to an impossible standard, and we are all in the same boat of acting in ways which are unacceptable. The implication of this is two fold: One, we're doomed unless someone (God) lives the perfect life for us and gives us the credit for it. Two, we must say "forgive us as we have forgiven others" - recognizing that we're in no better shape than anyone else around us. So, yes, I expect abstinence from gay man... in exactly the same way that I expect abstinence (both in action and thought) from unmarried heterosexual man.... all while recognizing that I haven't lived up to that standard myself.

[Spidey]

No you can’t separate the action from the person, but that doesn’t mean you have to hate everything about a person, because they have some flaws.

EDIT:

Removed

[Lothar]

there is no example extant of that principle EVER being applied... to an elected official

Right, Title VII is not directly legally applicable to elected officials. But it does demonstrate the ethical principle we generally hold in the US, which is that we make accommodations for people with religious objections, so long as we can do so without being overly burdensome. (I don't happen to know if Kentucky has a specific law relating to accommodations for elected officials, nor do I care.)

as long as Davis and other moral objectors who are pubic officials step aside and defer their jobs to others so that they don't have to violate their religious morals, that's barely acceptable

"Barely"? Why do you have to qualify it? If we can make accommodations so that nobody is burdened either by lack of service or by being asked to act against what they understand their religion requires, that's beyond acceptable, that's awesome!

Davis decided upon herself to refuse to sign marriage licenses and NOT let her deputies do it in her stead

the added complication here being, the certificate bore her name. Up until the point where they removed her name from the certificate, I could support her position. Not because I agree with her (I think the government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage, and neither should the church, so her whole protest is irrelevant to me from that perspective) but because I recognize that she should have the freedom to disconnect herself (in presence, action, AND name) from something she views as a violation of her religion. Her ongoing sympathy-drumming and interference, however, is going too far.

That pharmacist my have his or her moral objection, but as a women, I really find that offensive and ignorant

I'm sure there are people who find your view of traditional Catholicism offensive and ignorant. But honestly, who cares? What you or I or anybody else find "offensive", or what we disagree with, simply isn't relevant in relation to religious freedom. Of course, you do have the option to take your business elsewhere -- that's what I've been advocating all along. You don't need to pick a fight over someone else's religious beliefs. You can either work with another pharmacist at the same location, or take your business to a different location. (I also don't need to pick a fight with you over refusing to sell guns or booze or whatever, even if you work at a location that sells them, whether or not your objection is "religious" in nature. As long as you'll pass me off to your coworker who will, or if you're the sole proprietor, accept me walking out of your store and going somewhere else. I don't care if you're offended, and you shouldn't care if I'm offended.)

Tell me how you can separate a gay man from the gay sex for instance?

I have several friends whose sexual attractions differ from their sexual behavior. I know two celibate homosexuals, a monogamous hypersexual, a married demisexual, a non-predatory pedophile, and more. Shoot, I know lots of married guys who think other women are hot but who don't cheat on their wives. It's not at all difficult to separate behavior from attraction or from personhood.

But then, nobody is being asked to participate in gay sex, as far as I can tell. They're being asked to participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony, which is separate both from the person and from the sex act, and which furthermore is a type of ceremony which many people view as religious in nature. For all we know, two dudes could be not at all sexually interested in each other, but be getting married because of taxes, immigration, as an elaborate prank on an ex-girlfriend, or any number of other reasons. It doesn't matter. If someone thinks that ceremony is a violation of their religion, they should be able to opt out.

[Tunnelcat]

TC for Catholics, birth control isn't a matter of fetal murder, it is interference with God's plan for being Fruitful and Multiplying.

Does that include overpopulating the earth to the point we poison ourselves with dirty air and water or starve ourselves because we've run out of arable land since we've bulldozed it all into parking lots, factories and buildings or dumped so much pollution it's so toxic we can't even live on it? I'm just saying that if we controlled our population sensibly, we can prevent a lot of the grief that comes with overpopulation. That doesn't mean we can't multiply and be fruitful, within limits. The Catholic Church needs to modernize their thinking. We now need to manage the Earth and our population. At least Pope Francis sees the light with man's effect on our climate. But as to birth control, it isn't evil. Abortion however, is. Birth control is the best prevention for abortions. If you want to prevent one, you need to allow the other. Catholic thinking is in the past and rigid.

No you can’t separate the action from the person, but that doesn’t mean you have to hate everything about a person, because they have some flaws.

Even if you hate something about a person and don't want to deal with them, you can at least respect them as fellow human beings by not denigrating them and marginalizing them as somehow lesser citizens.

"Barely"? Why do you have to qualify it? If we can make accommodations so that nobody is burdened either by lack of service or by being asked to act against what they understand their religion requires, that's beyond acceptable, that's awesome!

Barely, because she is being paid with public tax dollars and IF she pulled this stunt in my state, would partly be my tax dollars. If she's willing to step aside because of religious conflicts, she needs to allow others to perform her duties so that the job can get done.

the added complication here being, the certificate bore her name. Up until the point where they removed her name from the certificate, I could support her position. Not because I agree with her (I think the government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage, and neither should the church, so her whole protest is irrelevant to me from that perspective) but because I recognize that she should have the freedom to disconnect herself (in presence, action, AND name) from something she views as a violation of her religion. Her ongoing sympathy-drumming and interference, however, is going too far.

For once, we agree.

I'm sure there are people who find your view of traditional Catholicism offensive and ignorant. But honestly, who cares? What you or I or anybody else find "offensive", or what we disagree with, simply isn't relevant in relation to religious freedom. Of course, you do have the option to take your business elsewhere -- that's what I've been advocating all along. You don't need to pick a fight over someone else's religious beliefs. You can either work with another pharmacist at the same location, or take your business to a different location. (I also don't need to pick a fight with you over refusing to sell guns or booze or whatever, even if you work at a location that sells them, whether or not your objection is "religious" in nature. As long as you'll pass me off to your coworker who will, or if you're the sole proprietor, accept me walking out of your store and going somewhere else. I don't care if you're offended, and you shouldn't care if I'm offended.)

That' why I'm not Catholic. We don't agree on many things, especially as a woman. I'd still be irked if my pharmacist refused to sell me birth control pills, especially if that birth control went towards solving a health-related hormone problem I was having and not preventing some future pregnancy. For your information, birth control pills are often prescribed for health issues other than pregnancy prevention. I don't know if some pharmacist would allow that distinction, or believe it in the first place.

[callmeslick]

the added complication here being, the certificate bore her name. Up until the point where they removed her name from the certificate, I could support her position. Not because I agree with her (I think the government shouldn't have anything to do with marriage, and neither should the church, so her whole protest is irrelevant to me from that perspective) but because I recognize that she should have the freedom to disconnect herself (in presence, action, AND name) from something she views as a violation of her religion. Her ongoing sympathy-drumming and interference, however, is going too far.

the problem isn't that her name is on a form, the problem is that she chose not to relinquish the office that causes that fact to be the case. Her call: either do her freaking job or quit. Period. No 'accomodation' is valid for public officials, ever, or you have no rule of law. The bit you wrote about her ongoing campaign is accurate, if understated. It is beyond, to me, 'going too far'. It is utter disrespect for the very laws she swore to uphold.coupled with sheer political theater and selfishly hurting others in the process.

[callmeslick]

TC for Catholics, birth control isn't a matter of fetal murder, it is interference with God's plan for being Fruitful and Multiplying.

Does that include overpopulating the earth to the point we poison ourselves with dirty air and water or starve ourselves because we've run out of arable land since we've bulldozed it all into parking lots, factories and buildings or dumped so much pollution it's so toxic we can't even live on it? I'm just saying that if we controlled our population sensibly, we can prevent a lot of the grief that comes with overpopulation. That doesn't mean we can't multiply and be fruitful, within limits. The Catholic Church needs to modernize their thinking. We now need to manage the Earth and our population. At least Pope Francis sees the light with man's effect on our climate. But as to birth control, it isn't evil. Abortion however, is. Birth control is the best prevention for abortions. If you want to prevent one, you need to allow the other. Catholic thinking is in the past and rigid.

of course it is. You are right, but what's your point here?

[Tunnelcat]

At one time not so long ago, birth control was considered fetal murder to Catholics because they thought sperm was a fully formed human being. Don't you think some of that thought is still a hold over from more unenlightened times?

[Lothar]

Don't you think some of that thought is still a hold over from more unenlightened times?

Probably. Does it matter? A lot of people have stupid beliefs for stupid reasons. They're free to do that.

[Tunnelcat]

Ignorance impedes knowledge and understanding and closes the mind to learning new things.

[Foil]

The core issue here seems to be about accomodation. Employees can appeal to Title VII, but that doesn't apply for elected officials. So, the question becomes: Would it be appropriate to extend an accomodation to an elected official?

Lothar appears to believe it would be harmless and in everyone's best interest to do so. In general, I could see that, but I'm not so sure in this hyper-covered case, as it's not a simple matter to "pass it along to someone who can take care of the job" - a county clerk's role in the legal process isn't something easily bypassed/accomodated.