@Awctndb,
Thanks for your opinion.
Does anyone have a link to the texts of the Indiana and Arkansas laws as they’ve now both been revised, showing the revisions?
Can someone explain to me in simple English the point of the Indiana law now that they passed a new one saying that gays cannot be discriminated against? So the first one says that if my religious convictions prevent me from serving gays I don’t have to, but the second says I can’t do that? What am I missing? Why didn’t they just repeal the first one?
Here’s the emendations to the Indiana law:
https://s3.amazonaws.com/s3.■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■■/documents/1699997/read-the-updated-indiana-religious-freedom.pdf
Because there was no competing Constitutional right involved. The lunch counter and bus owners just didn’t “like” black people. Not liking someone’s race doesn’t cut it to rebuff the Constitutional prohibition against racial discrimination.
In the present issue, there are two competing Constitutional rights colliding: Religion vs. Equal Protection. How do we reconcile them? Some want to force religious people to change their beliefs to accommodate everyone, under the guise of calling them “bigots.” Can we do this? I don’t know as I’m not religious, but I’m going to assume that we cannot, or that it is not reasonable or Constitutional to ask them to do so.
Some people, like CF, like to come up with extreme outlandish possibilities of what could happen if the law stands and people are allowed to stick to their religious convictions when it comes to making a living. The reality is that CF’s ideas are outliers; the vast majority of business people are out to do as much business as possible, not make a religious statement.
Its a relatively new issue. Same-sex marriage has never been a part of our society, nor apparently contemplated by the Constitution (I don’t think). We are going to have to figure it out.
Interesting. As revised, the law now expressly states that it doesn’t authorize discrimination, or offer a defense to an action or prosecution for discrimination, on grounds including sexual orientation or gender identity. However, it doesn’t prohibit such discrimination, either. So my first impression is that the revision will make an important difference only in municipalities that already prohibit such discrimination, such as Indianapolis and a number of other cities. Businesses will no longer be able to argue that this Act overrides or pre-empts such anti-discrimination laws. Which is a good thing. In places without such laws, the status quo ante would seem to obtain: discrimination against LGBT people (and others not protected by federal law) – whether in employment, housing, public accommodation, or the provision of goods and services available to the general public – is just as permissible as it was before in those locations, but I would hope that people would at least think twice now about the general trend in public opinion.
On the contrary, segregationists did try to wrap themselves in the mantle of religion. They claimed integration was against God’s word.
It’s precisely because of awctndb’s post #305 that I prefer to have religious freedom throughout our personal and social lives, rather than being subjected to what I consider the bad theology of others, supported by governmental and economic structures. There’s a big difference between a man being able to grow a beard, and a business denying me service because of who I am. Everyone keeps saying use another florist, another baker. What if there isn’t another? Then these people have to do without.
And speaking of discrimination, I’m seeing a lot of discriminating among sins. Does the baker who feels he is somehow supporting gay marriage by selling a wedding cake likewise research all engaged couples to see if one of them is lusting after his neighbor’s wife? Has anyone refused to bake a cake for someone who doesn’t honor his or her mother or father? I can tell you one thing, if our religious baker only baked cakes for those who loved their neighbors as themselves, he’d go broke in short order.
I heard about a man once who had dinner with a tax collector, who everyone knew were all thieves. He didn’t just sell him something - he actually participated in the dinner. It’s a real shame our baker wasn’t there to warn him off from associating with such a sinner.
“so how can someone acting on behalf of the state refuse to conduct the marriage on religious grounds?”
The United Church of Christ filed a lawsuit in GA arguing that the state’s (then) ban against gay marriage prevented us from doing our job of marrying people that we felt should be married, since marriage is a spiritual as well as a legal union. When PA legalized gay marriages, our pastors were reminded by the denomination that none of us were required to perform them or force our churches to host them.
We members of the clergy are agents of the state when convenient for the state, and religious officials when convenient for the state. That’s why, for example, we get w-2’s and pay self-employment tax (because churches cannot be taxed the employer’s share of social security).
As far as marriages go, my denominational worship book, like many denominations, states that “marriage should not be entered into lightly and unadvisedly but with diligence and prayer”. It goes on to describe love of husband and wife as symbolic of Christ’s love for the Church - which is an open door for conservative pastors to argue against gay marriage (we also have an amended version to use with same-gender couples).
We all counsel with couples before we marry them because of our ordination vows - most other “agents of the state” who do weddings do not. I have refused couples when I do not feel that they should be married - our religious affiliation allows us to do that.
"Why couldn’t black people just find another lunch counter to eat at? Why couldn’t Rosa Parks just find another bus to ride?
Because there was no competing Constitutional right involved. The lunch counter and bus owners just didn’t “like” black people. Not liking someone’s race doesn’t cut it to rebuff the Constitutional prohibition against racial discrimination."
May Christians used to (and some still do) use the argument that Noah’s son, Ham, was condemned by God and thus discrimination is biblical - Ham’s descendants are the African peoples. Using that argument today could protect discriminatory acts against African descendants under the religious freedom acts.
“We all counsel with couples before we marry them because of our ordination vows - most other “agents of the state” who do weddings do not. I have refused couples when I do not feel that they should be married - our religious affiliation allows us to do that.”
My church does that, as well. They generally don’t marry underage couples or couples marrying for fraudulent reasons. There was a kerfluffle in my church about a couple marrying for immigration purposes where it was clear that it was a financial arrangement. But I do think eventually there will be a couple who wants to make a point and will target unsympathetic clergy.
Okay, then I guess the answer is that we can force religious people to change their religious convictions or go out of business.
I wonder why we allow religions like Catholism, Mormonism and Islam to discriminate against women for church jobs.
“Okay, then I guess the answer is that we can force religious people to change their religious convictions or go out of business.”
If one wants to have a business opened to the public then yes. If they don’t like it they can find another line of work.
In Indiana, if you live outside the major population centers, you can discriminate based on sexual identity. There’s no statewide law. As I see it, the original Indiana law was a blunt overriding of small “d” democracy in which the will of voters in places like Indianapolis (and Marion County), Ft. Wayne, South Bend, etc. was thwarted. I see the original more as a case of “the people speak unless of course we object to what they say” than about “religious freedom”. One can argue about the small d democracy of a judicial decision, but this was a genuine flouting of actual democratic decisions by the people of these localities. You either respect the will of the people or you don’t and it’s clear the answer was they don’t until big business objected. As for the people who live in those localities, the same logic applies to any decision you don’t like: you are free to move. Don’t like the government policies? You are free to move.
As an example, I know people who live in NH and commute to MA because they want to own weapons and that is highly regulated in MA. They don’t like the government policy so they moved. And some have found work in NH. Don’t want to live in Bloomington, which has an anti-discrimination law, then live outside it and do what you want.
“Okay, then I guess the answer is that we can force religious people to change their religious convictions or go out of business.”
No one is saying that at all. And I think you know that.
“I wonder why we allow religions like Catholism, Mormonism and Islam to discriminate against women for church jobs.”
Churches are not part of general commerce. Churches are private organizations frequented by people exercising their right to freely choose their own religion. Churches are perfectly free to hire only their own adherents and use them in whatever capacity they choose. It doesn’t infringe on all the other people who don’t believe in their religion. If a Catholic nun doesn’t believe in church practice that dictates she can’t be a priest, or a priest disagrees with the prohibition against marriage, they do what they’ve done for several centuries: become an Anglican.
lol, that sounds just like the “if you don’t like it, then move” solution.
Neither are government or schools or hospitals (arguable), etc. but they can’t discriminate on the basis of gender.
Sell a wedding cake that says in great big ol’ script: 'soon as we tie the knot, I intend to do one or all of your girlfriends, dear"?
Maybe as a joke piece the groom might get it by but I might be missing your point.
The law itself (as revised) – like most laws dealing with this kind of thing, including express non-discrimination laws – exempts churches and clergymen from its provisions, which I imagine means they have the right to discriminate against LGBT people, even when operating something like a gift shop, in choosing their customers or (more pertinently) hiring their employees, . So I don’t think they have to worry.
To the extent they operate in commerce, of course (as opposed to engaging in direct religious practice), churches and clergymen are not free to discriminate on grounds of race, etc. There has been a lot of litigation on how to decide cases at the margin, for example, whether a Christian religious school has the right to discriminate against Jews or atheists or single mothers in hiring a math teacher (as opposed to a teacher of religion).
^Yes, I didn’t get into that in my previous post, but I did mean church as church, not church as school or hospital.