Marriage and other LGBTQ Rights

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

My reaction, though I am aware of heavy prejudice and bias in myself which makes is hard for me to accept ideas which deviate from my own preconceptions, is to reject the article's suggestion that Christianity is (still) the motor behind social reform and the move towards equality.

Perhaps a better interpretation of the article is that the ideal of human equality, espoused by Jesus, is the principle behind social reform and moves toward legal equality, as well as being a major principle of Christianity.

One could also look at the idea that when Jesus declared that his new principles superceded some of the Old Testament, among what was superceded were the Old Testament prescriptions of punishment for homosexuality and other sins. (casting stones, etc.)

[cheesehead]

[OT]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Alexis de Tocqueville (of whom I had never previously heard!) probably had it spot on at the time he was writing

He was an early sociologist and political scientist. After experiencing failed attempts at democratic government in France, he wanted to study American government and society first-hand. He visited the U.S. for nine months in 1831, taking extensive notes, then wrote De la démocratie en Amérique.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tocqueville

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_in_America

http://www.gradesaver.com/democracy-...short-summary/

Many Americans could probably remember hearing of de Tocqueville's Democracy in America at some time, but few have actually read more than a few selected quotes. (I haven't.)

http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/sear...de+Tocqueville

English:
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/815

French:
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/30513
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/30514
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/30515
http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/30516

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by Spherical Cow

Over here! Mired in Arizona, where our legislature is marching steadfastly into the past (as one headline put it).

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Politic...ome-Christians

In effect, the state has passed a law that allows businesses to refuse to do business with gays on religious grounds without fear of litigation. I believe the vote was straight down party lines- Republicans for the law, Democrats against. It awaits the governor's signature...

Norm

Flame on. I mean really flame on.

Typical retarded Republican religious SPOS. Just like some of the
participants herein.

The bit about "religious beliefs" is nothing but a f*cking lie. They are
using it as an excuse to disseminate their hatred toward
a minority by passing laws making it legal to discriminate based upon
these so-called religious beliefs.

People have a right to practice whatever religious perversions come into
their tiny minds. They do not have a right to use those beliefs as an
excuse to pass hateful laws that discriminate against others.

The people who pass these laws are nothing more than sub-human pieces of shit.

[xilman]

[kladner]

Originally Posted by xilman

Right on, Bob!

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by Spherical Cow

Over here! Mired in Arizona, where our legislature is marching steadfastly into the past (as one headline put it).

You, and people with similar approaches to yours as regards their religion, could well be the driving force needed to move the world towards peace, harmony and equality.

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Perhaps a better interpretation of the article is that the ideal of human equality, espoused by Jesus, is the principle behind social reform and moves toward legal equality, as well as being a major principle of Christianity.

I would have no quarrel with this at all. I still think that the article was attributing reform and moves towards equality to Christianity itself, with the dubious corollary that without Christianity this progress would not be occurring, but I'm only quibbling and there's no harm in putting a favourable interpretation on things.

Thanks, by the way, for your useful links concerning Alexis de Tocqueville.

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

Flame on. I mean really flame on.

I couldn't agree more.

Does anyone here think that the recent legal moves in Kansas and Arizona, seeking to allow discrimination against gay people, have anything to do with religious freedom? And if so, what religious freedom is it? I'd be genuinely fascinated to hear the arguments of anyone who is prepared to defend this.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

Does anyone here think that the recent legal moves in Kansas and Arizona, seeking to allow discrimination against gay people, have anything to do with religious freedom?

If one has been taught since childhood, and genuinely thinks, that (ones) religion should be supreme over secular law, then one could genuinely view it as a matter of religious freedom. This would not be the only such conflict existing, so the same person would have been viewing many other conflicts of secular law vs. religion as matters of religious freedom, though not currently a focus of public attention.

And if so, what religious freedom is it?

The freedom to practice ones religion wherever that is superior to secular law.

- - -

There would be far more people for whom it's not fundamentally a matter of supremacy of religion over secular law, but instead a belief that our secular laws were established on a base of religion. Therefore those (usually "liberal") secular laws which are in conflict with that perceived religious basis are invalid and should be repealed, or at least civilly disobeyed until then. That latter opinion would have been shaped/reinforced by the expressed views of other folks close to one. Those, in turn, would be heavily influenced by whichever of such conflicts had been recently the focus of public attention.

For instance, determination not to serve interracial-couple customers would probably have abated (though there may still be muttering) during the several decades since the 1960s as such couples' appearance among ones customers gradually become more common in ones experience (possibly with legal enforcement having been involved once or twice). There's also the considerable dying-off-of-the-old-guard effect.

[Zeta-Flux]

Does anyone here think that the recent legal moves in Kansas and Arizona, seeking to allow discrimination against gay people, have anything to do with religious freedom? And if so, what religious freedom is it? I'd be genuinely fascinated to hear the arguments of anyone who is prepared to defend this.

(Disclaimer: I don't know the full context of the law, nor am I defending it. I'm only going to present what I think is the argument the law's supporters would give.)

Their argument might go something like the following:

A marriage planner believes gay relations are sinful, and that by planning for a gay wedding they would be explicitly supporting such a union. So they refuse. This laws allows them to refuse without legal repercussions.

The government regulates business. Some of those regulations come into conflict with the rights of the individuals. For instance an individual has the right to freedom of speech, but not all speech is allowed in a workplace (an employer, for instance, can fire an employee for saying bad things about the business itself). This law is saying that the business owner's right to act according to conscience (whether or not we agree with what their conscience says) should not be subject to government sanction. Thus, a wedding planner should not be forced to plan for a wedding they morally disapprove of.

By the way, a similar argument is ongoing here in the U.S. concerning a business's right to not participate in or support abortions.

---------------------------------------

My personal view is that non-discrimination laws, when regarding individuals' characteristics (and not their freely made choices), are a good thing. However, I also believe that business owners should be allowed to choose *behaviors* they will and will not participate in, as long as those behaviors are lawful. Thus, for instance, if a nudist from a nudist colony calls for a photographer to come to the colony, the photographer should not be required to photograph the person; they should be able to object to going to the colony or photographing people naked.

Thus, I would support someone's refusal to paint flowers for a customer if their conscience forbade painting flowers. But I would not support someone's refusal to paint flowers for a black person, just because their conscience forbade them from painting for a black person. In the later case I support government interference (in their business practice), but not in the former case.

Similarly I would support a restaurant's refusal to serve soup (if the government suddenly passed a weird law making soup mandatory), but I would not support a restaurant refusing to serve soup specifically to an albino. The first is discrimination regarding a behavior--the restaurant does not want to behave a certain way; the second is discriminating with respect to a person's characteristics--it has nothing to do with the behavior.

This issue, for me, has little to do (per se) with religion and more to do with personal freedom. But I do see it butting up against freedom of conscience.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

If one has been taught since childhood, and genuinely thinks, that (ones) religion should be supreme over secular law, then one could genuinely view it as a matter of religious freedom. This would not be the only such conflict existing, so the same person would have been viewing many other conflicts of secular law vs. religion as matters of religious freedom, though not currently a focus of public attention.

The freedom to practice ones religion wherever that is superior to secular law.

This so called justification is horseshit, because it can justify anything in the
name of religious freedom. If one's religion believes Black people are
inferior it can justify discrimination. If one believes that Jews are bad,
it can justify discrimination. If one believes that their God wants virgins
sacrificed at age 13, it can justify murder.

No right is absolute. The above argument says that religious rights
triumph all others. Bull.

[R.D. Silverman]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

The government regulates business. Some of those regulations come into conflict with the rights of the individuals. For instance an individual has the right to freedom of speech, but not all speech is allowed in a workplace .

This shows a misunderstanding of the phrase "freedom of speech".
"freedom of speech" means that the GOVERNMENT can not (except in
certain restricted circumstances) control what you are allowed to say
and can not punish you for what you say.

(an employer, for instance, can fire an employee for saying bad things about the business itself). This law is saying that the business owner's right to act according to conscience (whether or not we agree with what their conscience says) should not be subject to government sanction. Thus, a wedding planner should not be forced to plan for a wedding they morally disapprove of.

This is a prime example of twisted thinking. One is NOT allowed
to discriminate against a class of people because you morally disapprove
of them. A business is NOT practicing discrimination against a particular
sub-class of people when it requires that ALL employees subscribe to
a code of conduct.

I morally disapprove of ALL religion and religious people. This does not
give me the right to deny them equal rights with everyone else.

My personal view is that non-discrimination laws, when regarding individuals' characteristics (and not their freely made choices), are a good thing. However, I also believe that business owners should be allowed to choose *behaviors* they will and will not participate in, as long as those behaviors are lawful.

No one is requiring that business owners participate in homosexual
conduct. But as long as they do business with the GENERAL PUBLIC
they may not pick and choose who they will provide services to based
upon their hatreds. They must serve ALL or NONE.

I would also ask: How the f*ck does a business owner know what
"behaviors" are performed by others when they are away from the
owner's place of business. Or are they allowed to "judge" that someone
is gay because (perhaps) they are effeminate looking?

This issue, for me, has little to do (per se) with religion and more to do with personal freedom. But I do see it butting up against freedom of conscience.

Rights are not absolute. They sometimes conflict. The society we live
in has determined that the right to EQUAL TREATMENT FOR ALL takes
precedence over the right to practice prejudice based upon religious beliefs.

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by R.D. Silverman

This shows a misunderstanding of the phrase "freedom of speech". "freedom of speech" means that the GOVERNMENT can not (except in certain restricted circumstances) control what you are allowed to say and can not punish you for what you say.

Maybe that's why Government never fires employees. ;-)

That said, you are probably correct that my example was ill formed. Replace it with one where government laws restrict freedom of expression in and out of the workplace, such as working at the NSA. As another example, insider trading is illegal. In some cases this government regulation is appropriate (such as with insider trading), and in others it is questionable.

I look back at my post and see that I wasn't very clear in expressing what I think their argument would be. I think that they would say sometimes this interference is good, sometimes it isn't. Similarly, sometimes it is appropriate for government to make restrictions on companies regarding their conscience, sometimes it is not. In this case, they are saying it is not.

This is a prime example of twisted thinking. One is NOT allowed to discriminate against a class of people because you morally disapprove of them. A business is NOT practicing discrimination against a particular sub-class of people when it requires that ALL employees subscribe to a code of conduct.

I personally mostly agree with you, with the caveats that the discrimination you describe is based on an unchanging characteristic of that class of people, and that you are talking about the workplace. (Because, frankly, we ARE allowed to discriminate against any class of people for whatever reason we want, outside of the workplace. And I, for one, and glad of that freedom, even if some people misuse it. I would MUCH rather live in a country that allows bigotry, than one which punishes what it views as bigoted.)

It's a little harder to justify *not* discriminating in giving jobs at elementary schools to people who belong to the class "convicted pedophiles". In other words, when the class is determined by behavior, it is sometimes morally justifiable to discriminate. However, even when it is an unchanging characteristic, it is sometimes appropriate to discriminate (such as not hiring paraplegics as astronauts).

That said, I'm not a big supporter of government intrusion. I don't think we need to punish every little thing.

---------------

The rest of your response was to things I actually believe and am willing to stick behind.

No one is requiring that business owners participate in homosexual conduct. But as long as they do business with the GENERAL PUBLIC they may not pick and choose who they will provide services to based upon their hatreds. They must serve ALL or NONE.

But are they allowed to choose which types of services they provide? In their minds, it is a different service to photograph a family in a park than to go to a nudist colony and photograph them in the buff. That is not the type of service they chose.

Does the mantra "They must serve ALL or NONE" include the nudist? Yes. But their actions must conform to the type of service you are willing to perform. You don't inquire as to whether or not they are a nudist, that is irrelevant, unless they ask you to provide your service to them in the nude.

I would also ask: How the f*ck does a business owner know what "behaviors" are performed by others when they are away from the owner's place of business. Or are they allowed to "judge" that someone is gay because (perhaps) they are effeminate looking?

You seem to have misread my point. Let me say it again. My view is that the business owners should be free pick what types of services they provide (i.e. pick their own behaviors). I was not talking about judging someone's sexual preference; or trying to figure out what customers are doing in their own homes.

So, yes I believe that it should be lawful for a business to define itself as planning weddings between opposite genders and not between same-sex couples; or to provide health services related to women but not men. No, I don't believe it should be lawful for a business to inquire into the personal attractions of its customers, or discriminate because they think a man is effeminate.

Rights are not absolute. They sometimes conflict. The society we live in has determined that the right to EQUAL TREATMENT FOR ALL takes precedence over the right to practice prejudice based upon religious beliefs.

I agree that rights are not absolute. I agree they sometimes conflict. I agree here in the U.S.A. we value equal treatment for all. And I personally value it.

I don't agree with the idea that our society has determined that the right to equal treatment takes precedence over the right of conscience, especially outside the workplace. Nor that the right to equal treatment transcends rational reasons for discrimination. Nor that the right to "equal" treatment always applies when "equality" is defined in terms of freely chosen acts/behaviors (especially when they ask that we join in those behaviors, to any extent).