I was just thinking about this and it’s not entirely true…I immediately thought of lawyers who can turn away people who want to hire them and the lawyer doesn’t owe them an explanation. There was a thread a few years ago back about physicians who refused to have vaccinated patients so effectively turn them down for services. If I strip away all the emotions surrounding religion, gay rights, I’m struck by the fact that THIS particular service unlike others apparently must never turn away prospective customers and that the “reason” - the baker’s admission that he did so because he does not believe in same-sex marriages - is somehow different than a physician who refuses to treat an unvaccinated or a lawyer who simply decides he doesn’t want a particular paying client. Now I’m even more confused than I was last night. And I have to ask myself…what if a lawyer turns down a gay couple, or the physician turns away a gay couple with unvaccinated children…is that discrimination or not?
I am not an attorney, but I believe an attorney can decline to take a case for a number of reasons (not their area of specialization, conflict of interest, do not feel the case has merit… for lack of a better word). And IIRC physicians can decline to see an unvaccinated person who potentially pose a risk to themselves or perhaps others in the office. Those aren’t cases of blatant discrimination. Now… a pharmacist refusing to fill a birth control prescription, that to me is discrimination.
“Unvaccinated persons” is not a protected class. “Lawyers” is not a protected class either, you can refuse to rent to lawyers, but cannot refuse to rent to a particular race, for example.
Gays are not a protected class.
I believe that there are other threads about the Colorado bakers ???
My understanding is that in many states, “gays” ARE a protected class.
“Twenty-two states plus Washington, D.C and Puerto Rico outlaw discrimination based on sexual orientation, and twenty states plus Washington, D.C. and Puerto Rico outlaw discrimination based on gender identity or expression.”
MODERATOR’S NOTE: This thread has gone way off topic. Please get back on track so that the thread can remain open.
Apparently, he’s going to lie in honor in the capital rotunda next Wednesday and Thursday, if anyone is so inclined.
The greatest tenant of faith is forgiveness something in short supply these days. He was a member of the greatest generation and it is good to honor those from the past and reflect. You don’t have to align with a viewpoint or even totally understand the totality of 9 decades to not appreciate the impact of their lives. I am certainly not a “follower” but can grasp the powerful life he led. My parents always said never speak ill of the dead. This is one time I will take their advice.
I’m inclined to be offended by this. Isn’t there a thing called separation of church and state?
I wish that a different method had been chosen to recognize his impact.
Our money still says In God We Trust and it is our nation’s motto so seems fitting for a man of the cloth. It might be better energy spent being offended by something else. YMMV.
I’m offended as well. I’m sick of the government commending people that have hurt so, so many Americans. It needs to stop.
He was not a political figure. He was religious. Keep them separate.
Seems to me that being lain in state in the Capitol has been something reserved for public officials and former military members. How many people outside that group have lain in state at the Capitol? Rosa Parks did I believe. Can’t really recall others.
Does my non-offense cancel out someone else offense?
https://www.aoc.gov/nations-stage/lying-state
Those who were neither politicians nor military were:
Rosa Parks
Jacob Joseph Chestnut and John Michael Gibson
Pierre Charles L’Enfant
Only 3 private citizens have Lain in Honor at the Capitol Rotunda
2 US Capitol Police Officers who died in the line of duty in 1998 and Rosa Parks in 2005.
The honor shouldn’t be used as a political maneuver.
L’Enfant was in the military though seems like he is most known for designing the layout of DC (and may well not have been lain in state just based on military service). Chestnut and Gibson were US Capitol police officers killed in the line of duty so though not politicians, they were federal government employees (and died defending those in the very building in which they were lain in state).
L’Enfant’s remains were at the Capitol as part of a reinterment process to Arlington National Cemetery 84 years after his death. I’d put that in its own category.
Apparently there is a difference between “lie in honor” and “lie in state”. Politicians and military types lie in state. Civilians lie in honor. As for Graham, while I have no use for the man, I don’t particularly care. Maybe I’m fresh out of “offended” energy.
Why would anyone think it is a political move? He was counsel to many presidents in addition to his national following. Politics and religion in this country are intertwined and It isn’t a scary thing. The man is deceased.