It’s not that simple. The right to free exercise of religion is one of a number of civil rights we possess, and they can come into conflict. When that happens, we have to engage in line-drawing to protect everybody’s rights as much as possible. When we talk about free exercise of religion, the courts have generally held that there must be reasonable accommodation–which means that other people’s freedoms can be impacted, as long as it’s not too much. For example, if you allow people to be conscientious objectors due to religious beliefs, that means that some other people are more likely to be drafted (when there is a draft).
However, this is not a point that contests the fact that they disagree with the message.
The problem with this type of argument is that you think that people should have the exact same level of reaction to everything they do not agree with and for every religious belief that they have.
That is ludicrous because NO ONE treats everything they disagree with the same; somethings are seen as more serious than others. Therefore, it is a fake argument to try and hold religious people to some made-up standard that everything they disagree with must be treated the same. No, there are things that take greater importance over others and for which one decides not to give.
That was the issue behind two recent cases at high schools in Missouri and Illinois. The government’s directive was that a student with a penis had the right to be in the locker room of students without one, despite the protests of those who wanted the locker rooms to remain penis free safe spaces.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/09/03/living/missouri-transgender-teen-feat/
However, your civil rights do not trump my religious rights, as they are both protected by the Constitution. Just because you decide to alter the “civil rights” of society does not give you the right to tell me to alter my religious rights/practices.
But how would the baker know about the divorced customer? It’s not obvious, as it is with a gay couple requesting a wedding cake. He’d have to ask, and I doubt that any baker would present a straight couple with a questionnaire about what sins they’d committed. Even if he wanted to go to that extreme length to keep himself pure, what’s to prevent the adulterous couple from lying? Is the baker going to put an investigator on them, or administer a polygraph? No, it’s obviously ridiculous. Whereas with a gay couple, the baker doesn’t have to ask. Because it’s “visible” while adultery is not, it becomes the baker’s business. If you believe that both adultery and homosexuality are sin, and that you’d be condoning sin by baking the cake, why should gays be refused when adulterers are not? That is discrimination based on the visibility of the “sin.” And hypocritical in the extreme.
And if he does go so far as to ferret out his adulterous customers and refuse to bake their cake, then he is imposing his religious beliefs on his customers. Which is wrong and, as I believe SCOTUS will eventually find, unconstitutional.
@raneck perhaps puts it better than I do:
And how about the psychological harm this is doing to transgender individuals … forcing them to act against themselves …so to speak
studies are showing the brains of transgender REACT according to their perceived gender identity not their biological sex … THERE IS A BIOLOGICAL BASIS FOR TRANSGENDER… working differently than cis brains
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/is-there-something-unique-about-the-transgender-brain/
When people are justifying discrimination based upon a sincerely held religious belief, I think it is worthwhile to question its sincerity and basis in religion.
The tenets of this religion are in a book, as it happens, and the book lists a lot of marriages that would go against this religion, so it’s not a made up standard. Unequally yoked, etc is there.
@zinhead, that second article is interesting, because there was a compromise–which plenty of people on both sides of the issue didn’t really like.
@awcntdb the Constitution doesn’t give you permission to practice your religious rights if it harms another person…
for example putting someone to death for working on the sabbath as the bible instructs…
But neither should the rights of LGBTQA people trump those of others, if harm is done.
I can’t count how many times I have seen stark naked toddlers walking around in changing rooms or even around public pools. I would want to call the management on them, but I don’t because I don’t want to cause a fuss.
I also can’t count how many times I have waited in line at a ladies room, but I can count the times I have given up and used a mens room. Why can’t I use a mens room?
Would it not be interesting for someone like me, who has no strong gender identity either way, to just use a mens room if I feel like it, or if there is a line at the ladies room? Would I be arrested?
As for “biological brain” and gender and all, I do not believe for a minute that men’s and women’s brains are different. At all. Period. So the most difficult part of TG conversations to me is understanding why anyone can think it would be positive, and backed up by science, that brains are different in men and women. It’s like saying brains are different in blacks and whites in my opinion. That’s not saying that someone can’t feel that they are male or female (even if I don’t), but then how can you castigate Rachel Dolezal?
The term “anybody” is a bit too broad in my view in that minors and adults are not equivalent persons in terms of mental capacity, maturity and ability to logically process what is around them.
At what point does this “unreasonableness” run into the ability for the person to process what they are seeing and what is going on? Would it really be considered reasonable for a minor female to be around a full-grown stranger penis and feel fine about it?
In the situation I described, could not find one family who thought that their young daughters should be just fine with this. Even the Dads were careful not to be nude around their daughters after a certain age. Same goes for very young boys and full-grown anatomical females in boy’s locker room.
There is increasing evidence that gender identity can not be changed and bears no relevance to biological sex… so there could be strong psychological impact to that person in forcing someone to not use the bathroom of their gender identity …
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/02/150213112317.htm
Interesting conflict , which takes precedence the biological impact of ones sex organs or the biological impact of their gender identity in brain … obvi, most transgender individuals will tell you it is the gender identity in their brain that wins… so why would we legislate that sexual organs take precedence ??
What “harm” is being done? As has been noted, there are no cases of the bogeyman scenario dreamed up by the authors of the bathroom law. And as has also been noted, if someone attacks someone in a bathroom, there are already laws prohibiting that.
@rhandco It has been scientifically proven that male and female brains are slightly different -certain parts are shaped different - and while these difference do exist most brains male and female are strikingly similar despite the paradox of how they process social behavior… but to say “at all. period.” is going against established medical facts.
See the following article concerning the transgendered teen in Illinois. The girls that were forced to share a locker room felt harmed.
I have a few questions/thoughts:
-
How often do wedding cakes have something written on them like Happy Wedding Jake and Scott? I’ve never seen a wedding cake with writing on it. Just flowers and pearls and fancy icing. Most don’t even have the little figures at the top any more, so the baker wouldn’t even have to place a plastic doll of two men on there. So how is fancy icing different on a straight cake than a gay cake? Is it just knowing who you are baking it for?
-
Gay couple on a budget walks into bakery, buys already made plain simply iced sheet cake out of display. Baker asks if they want anything done to it. No thanks, they say, we’ll take it as is. Baker says, what’s the occasion? Couple says, it’s for our wedding. Baker has done ZERO to “customize” or make the cake into “art”. Can she refuse to sell this pre-made plain sheet cake since she now knows it is for a gay wedding?
-
Order is placed for a fancy wedding cake. Baker only deals with the bride. Baker shows up at reception to deliver cake and quickly realizes it is a lesbian wedding. Now that he knows this, he does not want to be involved, and takes the cake back to the bakery, fully prepared to issue a refund. Allowed?
Sorry if these are nitpicky or stupid, I am just trying to see where the line might be drawn. (I think if you make wedding cakes, you should make them for everyone.)
@Zinhead This is not a legal justification:
She admits she doesn’t feel threatened, which is the ostensible reason for the bathroom law. She just feels weird about it. That’s not harm. There’s no constitutional right not to feel something is weird.
Reverse it. Say there’s a student born female, identifying male. Would the girls want that person in their lockerroom? I’m going to guess no.
@bearpanther You took the words right out of my mouth… i was literally just looking at wedding cakes and thinking those exact thoughts! !!!
@Lasma -
You can say the same thing about the transgender kid. She just felt weird changing in the boy’s locker room, or changing in a private locker room. Why do the rights of the transgender kid trump those of everyone else?