kdaddy Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 This thread has done nothing to change my perspective. But it has told me a lot about a few of the posters in this forum. A lot of disappointing stuff. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjeffeory Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) This thread has done nothing to change my perspective. But it has told me a lot about a few of the posters in this forum. A lot of disappointing stuff. Absolutely. ....and what I would like to know is why wouldn't that law affect people of color or women or whatever other group? If it's based upon Religion, then I can imagine some religions who don't like Inter-Racial marriages or who wouldn't want to do business with women... Incidentally this whole topic made me think about this scene from Priscilla, Queen of the Desert where a local mine worker had "nothing here for people like you"... Kinda funny scene, but that's what I thought of.... http://movieclips.com/78MDh-the-adventures-of-priscilla-queen-of-the-desert-movie-weve-got-nothing-here-for-people-like-you/ Edited March 30, 2015 by jjeffeory Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ScoutMello Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 So glad to hear that you would support the rights of the baker who would decline to put a happy wedding greeting on Fred and Steve's cake because his religious views didn't support it. To deny the baker that right would be discriminatory. No, it's not. You are free to believe and practice whatever faith you want. When you provide a public service, you are expected to provide it to the public. Not a subset of the public you happen to agree with. Either provide the public service, or do not. That is your freedom, and that is as far as it extends. By being expected to respect civil rights, you are not being discriminated against. You are being required to adhere to the generally agreed upon social contracts set by the society you are a part of. You are not being asked to change your beliefs. You are not being barred from practicing your faith. All that is being asked is that you tolerate people different from you just enough that everyone can get through their day unmolested. It's funny how 'tolerance' can have such negative connotations for people in these discussions, when it's really such a low bar to expect. You don't have to love everyone. You don't even have to like everyone. You just need to tolerate them. That's it. Tolerate. "allow the existence, occurrence, or practice of (something that one does not necessarily like or agree with) without interference." 4 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2muchcoffeeman Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 that baker is NOT afforded the same defense as the Christian baker above, because his refusal has nothing to do with religion, despite being just as much an "act of conscience". That interpretation is incorrect. The definition of religion is the individual's reliance upon his/her conscience to determine for him/herself what is truth, i.e., the truth about existence, the truth about meaning, the truth about creation. Notice that, in arriving at one's own idea of truth, there is no requirement it be done in the name of any organized religion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2muchcoffeeman Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 You are not being asked to change your beliefs. You are not being barred from practicing your faith. These statements would be true if, by "practice your faith," we mean an empty exercise in a meeting, once a week in a closed room, to recite a creed and pray. If, by "practice your faith," we mean the ability to actually live out its precepts outside the walls of a church, synagogue or mosque among the relationships with family, friends, neighbors and society at large, then these statements are not true. As a Christian, I would simply make the cake or take the pictures or rent the room because A) it's good business, and B) I understand my faith to require me to model it in my own living, not impose its standards on others. You don't bully people over to your way of seeing the world. There are limits. As a doctor, I would not perform an abortion. As a governor, I would not approve of the death penalty. As a minister, I would not officiate a wedding of two people of the same sex. But I would bake them a cake, and smile doing it. However -- and this is crucial -- I would protest being forced, under pain of state punishment, to behave the exact same way I would if left to my own conscience. "Well then," you might say, "if you bake the cake, you don't have anything to worry about." They say the same thing in totalitarian societies. As for me, I'd rather not live in a country where the standard is "just obey the law and you'll have nothing to worry about." That's the world Winston Smith lived in. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleran Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) That interpretation is incorrect. The definition of religion is the individual's reliance upon his/her conscience to determine for him/herself what is truth, i.e., the truth about existence, the truth about meaning, the truth about creation. Notice that, in arriving at one's own idea of truth, there is no requirement it be done in the name of any organized religion. If you are referring to interpretations of what constitutes religious beliefs under Federal Laws such as Title VII, you are correct that "ultimate" type beliefs - about existence, purpose, death, etc., can be deemed religious even absent actual religion. But social philosophies - which would more than likely encompass feelings about homosexuals, inter-racial marriage, bigotry, etc., even though strongly held, are NOT deemed "religious beliefs" when not associated with actual religion, for Title VII purposes. And beyond specific statutory applications (eg. - the language granting consciencious exemption status specifically states that actual religion is not required), the Supreme Court decisions since Yoder have consistently held that 1st Amendment protections will not extend to personal and philosophical belief systems. I have no idea whether Indiana has expanded its statutory definition of religion as far as Title VII or not, but I'm open to elucidation from am Indiana specialist. The text of the law did not do so on its own, and specifically referenced the 1st Amendment, and adapted it's phraseology "exerice of religion", as opposed to holding religious beliefs, so until I see it tested in court, I will respectfully bet against your statement. Edited March 30, 2015 by Eleran Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
84BDsop Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 As a minister, I would not officiate a wedding of two people of the same sex. Please explain how that would be any different that refusing to perform a wedding of two people of differing races....Loving vs Virginia linda settled that. Refusal to do so IS discrimination....no differernt, to my mind, that a gay couple marrying. Tbhe only difference is the genders pof the people involved. Changing the color of a jacket doesn't change the fact that it's still a jacket...changing the focus of discrimination from black/white marriage to gay marriage doesn't change the fact that it's still discrimination. What don;t get is why people think it's any of THEIR #*&^%&^$$$ing business if two guys want to get hitched. George Takai's marriage has done precicely jack effing crap to my marriage...no effect, nip, nada, none. If two guys getting married somehowe affects your marriage, I would suggest you look for the reason in the mirror. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2muchcoffeeman Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 (edited) Please explain how that would be any different that refusing to perform a wedding of two people of differing races....Loving vs Virginia linda settled that. Refusal to do so IS discrimination....no differernt, to my mind, that a gay couple marrying. Tbhe only difference is the genders pof the people involved. Even in states where same-sex marriage is legal, the laws do not require ministers (rabbis, etc.) to officiate same-sex unions. That was what the (mistaken) hysteria in Hawaii was all about. Religious folks (some, not all) concluded the new law required the clergy to sanctify a same-sex marriage if asked to do so. In fact, the law specifically protected clergy from being forced to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. Why? Because even the supporters of the law recognized that it's one thing for the state to recognize same-sex unions, it's another to force the church itself to create those unions. Because you're right: It's none of my business if two guys want to get hitched. But when they show up at my pastorage door and ask me to bless their union, they have made it my business. Edited March 30, 2015 by 2muchcoffeeman 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2muchcoffeeman Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 I have no idea whether Indiana has expanded its statutory definition of religion as far as Title VII or not, but I'm open to elucidation from am Indiana specialist. The text of the law did not do so on its own, and specifically referenced the 1st Amendment, and adapted it's phraseology "exerice of religion", as opposed to holding religious beliefs, so until I see it tested in court, I will respectfully bet against your statement. You may win that bet. I'm not any kind of legal expert, and don't know whether Indiana law parses any difference between "exercise of religion" and holding of religious belief. On the surface, it seems to me to be a tortured distinction, given the First Amendment's prohibition of the government getting into the religion-definition business. But then, that's the law: lots of torture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eleran Posted March 30, 2015 Share Posted March 30, 2015 . But then, that's the law: lots of torture. It certainly has been for 26 years of my life ... [and there has been a series of 7th Circuit cases regarding a prisoner in Wisconsin that have tried to state that atheism is a religion for purposes of Free Exercise, but the logic is strained beyond credulity in my opinion, especially when they tried to state that atheism has a code of ethics ... really? we have our own manual now? Ethics, yes ... code of ethics, no. I believe the cases around that single prisoner are still evolving] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts