Marriage and other LGBTQ Rights

[Xyzzy]

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2014/...ical-influence

[kladner]

Originally Posted by Xyzzy

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/2014/...ical-influence

Oh my brothers.....

[xilman]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

Here is the actual text of the Arizona law: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062s.pdf

It is only two pages long, so it should be a quick read.

And Philmore, I completely agree, although I would probably phrase it as "God is forgiving of the penitent". Jesus had some harsh words for those who didn't sincerely try to change, or for those who tried to hide behind the letter of the law while ignoring the spirit of it.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-26363704 is the first I read of some sort of sense being shown.

[Brian-E]

Originally Posted by xilman

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-26363704 is the first I read of some sort of sense being shown.

This looks to me like a Republican governor putting the requirements of her function in front of party politics. Good to see!

[jyb]

Originally Posted by Brian-E

This looks to me like a Republican governor putting the requirements of her function in front of party politics. Good to see!

Though I am loath to express cynicism, I'm afraid I don't share your sunny view of her reasons. It looks more to me like she was responding to the considerable pressure put on her to veto the bill. Such pressure came from some national Republican quarters (e.g. Arizona senator John McCain) as well as from many business interests within the state (apparently state tourism officials had already begun to see a drop in interest, and the NFL was reportedly considering moving the location of next year's Super Bowl out of Arizona).

[xilman]

Originally Posted by jyb

Though I am loath to express cynicism, I'm afraid I don't share your sunny view of her reasons. It looks more to me like she was responding to the considerable pressure put on her to veto the bill. Such pressure came from some national Republican quarters (e.g. Arizona senator John McCain) as well as from many business interests within the state (apparently state tourism officials had already begun to see a drop in interest, and the NFL was reportedly considering moving the location of next year's Super Bowl out of Arizona).

I believe that both of you are right in part. Some of the Republicans who voted in favo{,u}r have subsequently expressed regret at having done so. They apparently thought it good for the caucus ("party" in most versions of English) despite their personal misgivings.

[cheesehead]

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

Here is the actual text of the Arizona law: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062s.pdf

Though there's no reference to "gay" in the text, there's also no reference to either "skin" or "color". So, someone who has a sincerely-held religious belief that he must not serve customers who have dark skin is given protection by this bill. Do you consider that a desirable effect of this supposed "religious freedom" law?

How, exactly, would anyone be kept from using this law to claim protection from being punished for, or restrained from, any sort of discrimination whatsoever, so long as that person has a sincerely-held religious belief that such sort of discrimination is a requirement of his religion?

Should it be valid for any Arizona businessperson to claim this bill's protection of his refusal to serve black (or red or yellow or brown ...) people on the grounds that his sincerely-held religious beliefs (perhaps based on certain Old Testament passages) prohibit that? If not, why is the bill written in such a way as to allow that claim?

Originally Posted by Zeta-Flux

One puzzling thing here in America is that some of those opposed to religious interference in law because they don't want other's morality imposed upon them in law [and I sympathize with this position] nevertheless want to impose their moral view that discrimination is bad by having legal consequences for (their view of) bigotry.

Yes, isn't it strange that some who are opposed to religious interference in law because they don't want others' morality imposed upon them in law nevertheless want to impose their moral view that discrimination on the basis of skin color or ancestry or previous condition of servitude of ones great-great-grandparents is bad by having legal consequences for (their view of) racial bigotry?

Shouldn't white people who sincerely hold a religious belief that black people are inferior to white people be allowed to discriminate against black people?

Isn't any one religious belief just as good as any other religious belief -- when claiming religious freedom to discriminate, at least?

Or might you agree that maybe, just maybe, some religious beliefs are just not valid excuses for discrimination?

[chappy]

http://www.andrewturnbull.net/states.html

nice graphic of the state of the same-sex union.

(USA centric, I know.)

[Zeta-Flux]

Originally Posted by cheesehead

Though there's no reference to "gay" in the text, there's also no reference to either "skin" or "color". So, someone who has a sincerely-held religious belief that he must not serve customers who have dark skin is given protection by this bill. Do you consider that a desirable effect of this supposed "religious freedom" law?

I'm admittedly not an expert on the law. I've read the text now, and have read some commentary on both sides. So take what I say with a grain of salt.

When you ask "Do you consider that a desirable effect of this supposed "religious freedom" law?" I see some different possibilities for what you mean. If by "that" you mean something like:

(A) The ability to claim in court your right of conscience is being unduly burdened, and have the judge seriously consider that claim.

Then yes, I would think that is a desirable effect. (I think this right mostly already exists under the old wording, although the changes to the law would have clarified a few areas where this right was unclear.) On the other hand, if you mean something like:

(B) The ability to automatically win in a court case when a sincerely-held religious belief has been burdened.

Then no. There are multiple hurdles that would have to be met. The judge in the case would need to decide if those conditions are met.

How, exactly, would anyone be kept from using this law to claim protection from being punished for, or restrained from, any sort of discrimination whatsoever, so long as that person has a sincerely-held religious belief that such sort of discrimination is a requirement of his religion?

Good question. I don't think anyone should be kept from using the law to claim protection. However, if you meant to ask, moreover, what prevents them from succeeding in court on such a claim, I would say it depends entirely on the case and the judge. The wording in the (modified, but not old) bill makes it clear that the claimant must establish the following:

E. A PERSON THAT ASSERTS A VIOLATION OF THIS SECTION MUST ESTABLISH ALL OF THE FOLLOWING:
1. THAT THE PERSON'S ACTION OR REFUSAL TO ACT IS MOTIVATED BY A RELIGIOUS BELIEF.
2. THAT THE PERSON'S RELIGIOUS BELIEF IS SINCERELY HELD.
3. THAT THE STATE ACTION SUBSTANTIALLY BURDENS THE EXERCISE OF THE PERSON'S RELIGIOUS BELIEFS.

Should it be valid for any Arizona businessperson to claim this bill's protection of his refusal to serve black (or red or yellow or brown ...) people on the grounds that his sincerely-held religious beliefs (perhaps based on certain Old Testament passages) prohibit that? If not, why is the bill written in such a way as to allow that claim?

To answer the second question first, I believe that bill is written to allow the claim, because we respect the right of conscience.

To answer the first question, I sincerely doubt you could find a judge who would be convinced that you have a sincerely held religious belief that prohibits you from serving people of a certain skin color. Or that providing your service is a substantial burden on your exercise of religion.

To be perfectly honest, I would very much doubt you would find more than a handful of people trying to make such a claim before a judge in the first place. There are always the loons out there, and the bigots, true. But I'm willing to endure their claims in order for my freedoms to be protected. On the other hand, I can believe people would tell a judge that supporting an abortion in any way would substantially burden their freedom to practice their religion. Or participating in a gay wedding. Or taking pictures of nude people. etc... [In other words, it might be better in understanding the purpose of this law to look at what cases are currently in litigation, or have been recently, rather than some far-fetched scenarios.]

Yes, isn't it strange that some who are opposed to religious interference in law because they don't want others' morality imposed upon them in law nevertheless want to impose their moral view that discrimination on the basis of skin color or ancestry or previous condition of servitude of ones great-great-grandparents is bad by having legal consequences for (their view of) racial bigotry?

Exactly. They recognize that on occasion morality has a place in law, but they seem to not recognize the validity of others expressing their moral views by voting their conscience.

Shouldn't white people who sincerely hold a religious belief that black people are inferior to white people be allowed to discriminate against black people?

In the private sphere, of course! We are not a police state which controls all the actions of the public.

In government or business, of course not. (Even if [and this is a HUGE if) a religious belief that black, or white, or whatever people were inferior was sincerely held, it would be difficult if not impossible to say that this inferiority somehow prevented you from selling groceries to them, and you were substantially burdened.)

Isn't any one religious belief just as good as any other religious belief -- when claiming religious freedom to discriminate, at least?

Nope.

Or might you agree that maybe, just maybe, some religious beliefs are just not valid excuses for discrimination?

I agree that some religious beliefs are just not valid excuses for discrimination (in both the public and private sectors). I don't believe, however, that this means we should disallow someone from claiming a serious burden on their religious practice. The validity of their claim should be given its day in court, if it comes to that.

[chappy]

Can you explain why I should hold that "religious belief" is a special class of belief deserving of more protections than other kinds of beliefs?

Although I generally think of Richard Dawkins as a redacted, his argument against this kind of thinking is pretty compelling for me. As an example he uses (and I'm paraphrasing from memory) the notion of Conscientious Objector. Where a famous philosophy professor who has published on ethics and whose thesis was written on the moral evil of war. That this hypothetical person would have spent hundreds and thousands of hours thinking critically about the subject and developing arguments for and against and settling upon a conclusion would have no basis for granting CO status.

Being born a Quaker would.

Just because a person believes something fervently doesn't mean that the Government should value that belief.

[Zeta-Flux]

Can you explain why I should hold that "religious belief" is a special class of belief deserving of more protections than other kinds of beliefs?

Yes, just as I could justify race as more deserving of protections than hair color.

But that's not to say I don't value the right of conscience, as in the example you provided, more than "religious belief".

Edited to add: Also, there is a difference between the government valuing someone's specific religious beliefs, and government valuing the right to believe as you wish.