This thread is based on assumptions that its participants share my views expressed below. 1. posters support civil rights extension to gays. 2. Posters do not believe it proper to include 'religious exemption' in state or federal legislation. We have many states where basic civil rights protection in employment, housing and accommodation eludes gays and lesbians just as it does in the federal civil rights act. One of the unintended consequences of the recent SCOTUS victory will be that it will be even harder to get the votes in state legislatures to pass legislation obliging equal treatment. That poor pious florist or baker will be the poster child for opposition and the focal point of debate. Now I happen to be one of those who think it is a TERRIBLE precedent to write laws of any sort with giant loopholes for theists as a reward for their religious fervor. I think it a near useless exercise that only rewards lawbreakers with big bibles or lawbreakers who rush out to buy big bibles But if the only way to get the bill passed, is to include an exemption based on faith, and our choice is no civil rights bill, or a weak one, what do we do? Do we tailor the exemption so it is narrow and it does not include employment and housing discrimination and plug our nose? or do we just do without the bill, walk away from the bad precedent I describe above? I gues I am asking how dangerous is this compromise?
It all depends on how the law is written. Mostly, I think it's unnecessary to write protections into law that are already covered by the First Amendment. Rather, I think the problem lies in people trying to reinterpret "religious freedom" to mean something more than it really does. It's how we got things like the now-overuled bans on state recognition of same-sex marriages. Obviously the fight for freedom and equality didn't end for us with the Supreme Court overturning the aforementioned bans. Nor did it end when Indiana was forced to rethink overreaching legislation that sought to expand the religious freedom of some while trampling on the rights of others. It didn't stop Michigan from adopting exemptions that allow religious organizations involved in adoptions to continue taking state (that is, taxpayer) money while continuing to practice undue discrimination. There's nothing stopping those organizations from continuing to offer adoption services and practice their religious faith without taking our tax dollars. So it's obviously not really about their religious beliefs, and very much about their greed. In my view, no good ever comes from trying to insert religion into government. The two should leave each other alone for their mutual protection.
I agree with all of this. I don't care one way or another if state senators want to insert 'feel good' language protecting the rights of priests not perform marriages or churches to refuse communion to gays. Hey if that's what' it takes to get 4 more votes on an extension of civil rights to gays, let them duplicate to their hearts content! I'll write the boilerplate in ! You have not told me what you'd do if the amendments those four senators insist on, deal with a big fat exemption for theists who don't want its provisions to extend to them beyond their comfort level. Is whatever is left over as meat in the bill, worth tolerating the precedent setting double standard in which theists get one standard of scrutiny by the Civil Rights bureau or commission, and the rest of the employers and landlords eget another standard of scrutiny. I do not think we will get these bills out of the judiciary committees and onto the floor without facing this choice. I don't think the votes will be there.
The thing is we have the first amendment. With this: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof. I think the Hobby Lobby decision by the SCOTUS reinforced the first amendment. If you are going to force religious institution and or individuals to do things against their religion you are going to need more than just a law. You will need another constitutional amendment which weakens the free exercise of religion.
W disagree about the Hobby Lobby decision. If in your view the courts are already going to make sure that 1. Christians get to throw my ass out of their apartment complex once they discover I am having sin filled gay sex right on their property, under their roof, and on their carpet, 2. Christians get to deny me my wedding cake because it will feed lots of folks celebrating my sinful same sex marriage, or 3. Christians get to fire me because their pay is reaching into my bedroom to buy lubricant, condoms and graphic paraphernalia for my homosexual journey to lust. Then presumeably won't be requiring any language in that legislation to ensure the same thing. I don't think that will sell.
With Hobby Lobby, contraceptives are out there in any drug store for around 10 dollars for a months supply. It isn't like all of a sudden all contraceptives were taken off the market as a lot of people tried to make us believe. Besides I believe an employer who is offering health insurance and paying for it or most of it which is usually the case with companies they ought to be able to decide themselves what the policy they are paying for is in it. That is why I think it was a good decision. Anyone can throw you out of an apartment as long as they have a valid reason and follow proper procedures. If some baker didn't want to bake me a wedding cake for whatever reason, I don't think I would try to force him too. There are way too many other bakers out there to take my money. I would want a baker I know is going to bake me the best cake he can, not one that is just throwing one together because he has to under the law. It might not taste that good. As for the job, there is protection against that. Also I have run into a lot of people who are not Christian who think the gay lifestyle is wrong. Laws are not going to change what is in a man's heart, although they do even the playing field and sometimes it does take a law to get someone to do something that is right.
We will see. It is tricky when it can be deemed or seen as challenging the first amendment. I am not in your shoes so there is no way I could fully understand. Protecting religious liberties along with individual liberties are important. Individual liberty with marriage is now a fact for all individual citizens. I suppose the SCOTUS will have to make another ruling on what you highlighted above at some time or another. It is a dang shame to have to make a choice between religious liberty and individual rights. It should never come to that. It wouldn't if those religious types practiced their tenet or commandment or what ever it is of Loving they neighbor. Also if I got it right, it is in the eyes of god to judge who sinned or not, not people. But I am not really religious, at least in the western mode of religions.
I see 'religious liberty' in the sense the first amendment concerns, much more narrowly. I don't think it was ever intently to be a trump card religious folks could play to exempt them from the bone fide efforts of legislators to regulate conduct of businesses or individuals. If a statute is not based in animus towards a faith, does not seek to pick favorites between faiths, reflects a legitimate secular purpose and does not encumber people from their exercise of their faith, then it reflects a proper use of power. By exercise, I mean attending their house of worship, reading and studying their holy literature, praying in the time and method of their choosing, and engaging in the rituals, ceremonies, sacraments of their faith. I do not mean to include the way they eat, dress, pay taxes, have sex, engage in commerce, or how they urinate. It hamstrings government exponentially to expect it to bob and weave around everybody's cleric, holy book and custom let alone every interpretation of same.
I can agree with most of that. One thing the first amendment meant to do was no government church such as the Church of England which England collected taxes to support it from everyone. Believer or not. I think it gave the religious the freedom to pray where ever they want and worship where ever. I do not think anyone should use religion to discriminate. If so I would say they are basically going against their religious doctrine. Somewhere I heard the phrase of loving the sinner but not the sin. Now I do not know if that is in the bible or not, but it makes sense since I am pretty sure love thy neighbor is. Also what about Judge not least ye shall be judged. That is in the bible. So you pretty well convinced me. Sometimes one just needs to think some. There should be no law needed, but the constitutionality of such a law will probably be challenged on religious grounds. But that would be the religious acting in a way that actually is against their religion.
The way I see it. Its up to the employer to manage his resources in such a way that laws are obeyed. If you own a bakery, you make sure at least one employee of your staff does not mind decorating that damn cake with the two grooms on top. You post a notice that you require at least a weeks notice for any wedding cake and you make sure that cake gets scheduled for Alex the liberal to finish it so that Sally the conservative Baptist doesn't have to. but you don't impose Sally's faith based choices on that couple.
I'm honestly confused. It sounds as if you think I've dodged something? Thing is, that 'something' doesn't seem to actually be referenced in your OP, so I had no way to know I was supposed to address it. Going to need more background if you still desire an answer to this.
Hey, we ought to make you a congressman. You just came up with a common sense solution to a thorny problem. Common sense is what is missing in this nation today, if they ever had it. I love your solution. You got my vote.
Now that I reread my OP, I think I put it so clumsily as to lead to this problem. So if you put this paragraph from the OP : But if the only way to get the bill passed, is to include an exemption based on faith, and our choice is no civil rights bill, or a weak one, what do we do? Do we tailor the exemption so it is narrow and it does not include employment and housing discrimination and plug our nose? or do we just do without the bill, walk away from the bad precedent I describe above? I guess I am asking how dangerous is this compromise? together with this one: You have not told me what you'd do if the amendments those four senators insist on, deal with a big fat exemption for theists who don't want its provisions to extend to them beyond their comfort level. Is whatever is left over as meat in the bill, worth tolerating the precedent setting double standard in which theists get one standard of scrutiny by the Civil Rights bureau or commission, and the rest of the employers and landlords eget another standard of scrutiny. I do not think we will get these bills out of the judiciary committees and onto the floor without facing this choice. I don't think the votes will be there You should get my question. I don't think we will get civil rights protection through state legislatures without a religious exemption at least for public accommodation. I am pretty fiercely philosophically opposed to those exemptions which treat theists differently from non-theists. I want government to be pretty indifferent to organised faith, not to target it for extra scrutiny, nor extra love. Is it worth voting for a civil rights bill, if we are simultaneously sowing these weeds along with our flowers?
The hangup for me was the "four senators" referenced. It seemed like you were talking about a specific situation in a particular state. So without knowing who and where, and with no link to the actual bill or at least reporting on it, we would be left to guess what exactly it included. But I agree - I'm not on board with carving out special rights for those who claim a religious belief. I would oppose such a theoretical bill. If we're discussing the proposal of an actual bill, then I still want to see what's in it.
I'm pretty sure that the CoE does not benefit from taxes in the UK - Here is a breakdown of where the CoE's funding comes from - https://www.churchofengland.org/about-us/funding/wherefrom.aspx the only thing I see on that list that "might" be seen as an income from tax is the grants.
I don't think I could plug my nose and vote for a bill with an exemption based on religious belief beyond the scope of the first amendment. I don't think we can promise people of faith that they will never have to make hard decisions between their 'God' and their government and I don't think we ought to try. The first amendment does not require that government promise every person of faith, or anyone else for that matter, a clear conscience, unimpeded by moral challenges.
Bump in case there are more liberals and enlightened non liberals that have joined the forum and fit the criteria described in the OP. 1. posters who support civil rights extension to LBGTQ in state and federal laws civil rights laws . 2. Posters do not believe it proper to include a 'religious exemption' in state or federal legislation for theists who don't want to serve same sex clients who are married or intend to be married. Those of you ( social conservatives and libertarians) who do not share either of these positions and aspirations, as a basic premise for discussion, will most likely derail discussions with questions outside the purview of its intent. My hope is that you take advantage of the other hundred threads that exist to debate the larger questions or start another
