Ship of Fools: Religious Exemption From Laws

Thread: Religious Exemption From Laws Board: Oblivion / Ship of Fools.

To visit this thread, use this URL:
http://forum.ship-of-fools.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=70;t=030828

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

I came across this, which naturally reminded several past DH discussions. (My first reaction was to check the calendar and verify what year it was.)

quote:
In February, Dunahoo, 40, and her 37-year-old husband, Stanley Hoskins, who have two children, were looking to rent an RV space when she contacted Baker. “We were trying to save money to get our life on track,” she said.

On Feb. 28, she arrived at the RV park and gave Baker a $275 check for rent for the month.

“He was real nice,” she said. “He invited me to church and gave me a hug. I bragged on him to my family.”

The next day, she said, Baker telephoned her and said, “Hey, you didn’t tell me you was married to no black man.”

She said she replied that she didn’t realize it was a problem.

“Oh, it’s a big problem with the members of my church, my community and my mother-in-law,” she quoted him as saying. “They don’t allow that black and white shacking.”

“We’re not shacking. We’re married,” she replied.

“Oh, it’s the same thing,” she quoted him as replying.

So, do Mr. Baker's religious beliefs entitle him to an exemption to the Civil Rights Act? I'd say no, but I'd say the same thing about exempting believers from other generally-applicable anti-discrimination laws, including ones incorporating sexual orientation. It seems like an impossibly narrow needle to thread to argue that laws against racial discrimination are widely applicable but saying "it's my religion" gets you out of obeying anti-discrimination laws when it comes to sexual orientation, but I'm confident some shipmate will make the attempt.

The article does not mention which church Mr. Baker attends. I'd be quite interested in any responses they might have on this subject, should some enterprising reporter track them down.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I don't think religion gives a license to discriminate against anyone, be it based on skin color, sexuality, gender expression, national origin, or whatever.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

In fact you can. It would astonish you. Don't forget you can already deny your employees birth control (even if they are not of your faith) and claim it is a religious issue.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Forgot to add, I am waiting for this to go to its logical conclusion. I murder you, and claim that it is a tenet of my worship of Cthulhu, or Baal, or whoever.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Well yes you legally can. But I assert you should not be able to. Our constitution is meant to protect our religious beliefs, which has to include protecting us FROM the religious beliefs of others.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

There was a link there to a Christian objection to a "religious freedom bill" in Mississippi which seems designed specifically to overthrow the Civil Rights Act.

How long will it take for people not to think like this?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

Religious organizations have long had special carve-out exemptions from certain non-discrimination laws, particularly in areas of religious discrimination. From a legal perspective churches (and other religious congregations) are more akin to private clubs than they are to public accommodations, so they're allowed to discriminate in ways that wouldn't be available to secular businesses. What intrigues me is that what was originally a narrow exception instituted for obvious and pragmatic reasons (e.g. a church is allowed to engage in religious discrimination by insisting the new pastor is an adherent of their faith) is being asserted by ordinary lay believers as their inherent right (e.g. an auto mechanic insisting all his employees be of his faith).

[ 04. April 2016, 17:58: Message edited by: Crœsos ]

Posted by Lyda*Rose (# 4544) on :

Racist jerks. [Mad]

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

Auto mechanics are kind of dicey, but I could easily see that you would want all the employees of your Episcopal church to be at least Christians. Hospitals are another gray area (it is probably not possible to get all your nurses to be Catholics; there just aren't enough nurses as it is).
The auto mechanic IMO should not get to employ only his co-religionists, unless he fixes cars by the laying on of hands and anointing with holy motor oil. He should certainly not be able to bail out on other laws by claiming that it is against his religion to pay health benefits/allow people to have vacations/work on Sunday/whatever dingbat concept he fishes up out of his left ear.
Otherwise, if he alleges that God said to hit you on the head with a socket wrench and bury your body out back, do you have any recourse?

Posted by Soror Magna (# 9881) on :

I bet the argument will be that the "closely-held corporations" of the Hobby Lobby include every small business owned by an individual or family as well.

Posted by W Hyatt (# 14250) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
In fact you can. It would astonish you.

I agree - astonishing.

Posted by Barnabas62 (# 9110) on :

I'm not entirely sure this is a DH topic, though I guess an open discussion on the US constitutional position would seem, inevitably. to bring a couple of nags into play. So it can stay here pro-tem, to await developments.

Barnabas62
Dead Horses Host

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

Discrimination as a religious accommodation was ruled out by the Supreme Court, for example in Bob Jones University and the IRS.

However, a number of southern states are not convinced that the U.S. constitution overrules state decisions, e.g. Alabama and the ongoing court cases about same sex marriage.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

I'm not convinced that there should be any general religious exemption. If an obligation is not sufficiently important to impose on religious people then it probably shouldn't be imposed on anyone.

There are probably counter-examples, where someone's beliefs make compliance unduly burdensome, and granting an exemption won't hurt others, but racism isn't going to be in that category.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

Eliab, where would that leave women as clergy in the various churches where that is still banned? Or referring to the Vosper thread in Purg, would it be impermissible discrimination to refuse to accept/ordain an atheist or Muslim in any of the Christian churches, where the candidate has obtained the necessary educational qualifications? How do you draw the line, if we agree that it is wrong to refuse (eg) gays? Very hard.

Posted by Anglican_Brat (# 12349) on :

My understanding of Canadian nondiscrimation law is that any Church exemption only applies to clergy. Church advertisements for janitorial or administrative staff do not specify that the employee must be a member of that denomination.

Of course, some advertisements specify "should be familiar with the tenets and traditions of the church." Usually, the people who are most familiar with the tenets and traditions of a particular church, are members of that church. [Smile]

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

There are probably counter-examples, where someone's beliefs make compliance unduly burdensome, and granting an exemption won't hurt others, but racism isn't going to be in that category.

Giving communion wine to children?

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

There's a story from yesterday, of having stewardesses on flights to Tehran wear headscarves. What about Orthodox Jews refusing to sit next to women on trains or planes? A woman filed suit the other day after being forced to move to accommodate the guy next to her.

Posted by M. (# 3291) on :

If he had the problem, why didn't he move?

M.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

I wrote to the Guardian on that very point. They didn't print it.

The woman asked him where in Torah it said he should not sit next to a woman - and there was a screen or curtain between them. He agreed that there was nothing on that precise point but that if someone were to be put in danger "he" should remove "himself" from it.

The woman felt that she would not be comfortable sitting there through the journey, so accepted the offer of another seat which was not the one she had booked.

The airline uses her acceptance of the offer as an excuse for not compensating her for the way they treated her.

My feeling is that 1) as a result of his objection, and bearing in mind news items about the ways Orthodox men have treated women, she was more obedient to Torah than he was: 2) If he was that concerned about the unspecified danger to him from girl cooties, he should, at the time of booking his seat, have specified that it should not be next to a woman: and 3) he was the one who saw a danger, so he should have moved.

keqr lqightwcopiqernhcxzmpi hgqoireujx; GR

Deliberate gibberish substitute for real feelings.

[ 05. April 2016, 17:18: Message edited by: Penny S ]

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

The Atlantic magazine seems to be doing a series, or maybe it's an issue, on modern religion. Here's another religious-freedom article, this one about Bible verses on cheerleading banners.

Posted by Brenda Clough (# 18061) on :

And another, in which our beliefs call for discrimination against gays.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
The Atlantic magazine seems to be doing a series, or maybe it's an issue, on modern religion. Here's another religious-freedom article, this one about Bible verses on cheerleading banners.

Before I clicked, I thought the highlighted phrase meant "Bible verses having to do with cheerleading banners" and was eager to find which those were.

Posted by Eliab (# 9153) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:

quote:
Originally posted by Eliab:

There are probably counter-examples, where someone's beliefs make compliance unduly burdensome, and granting an exemption won't hurt others, but racism isn't going to be in that category.
Giving communion wine to children?

That's a great example of what shouldn't be a religious exemption.

Does it do children real harm to sip wine? Yes? Then ban it. No exceptions. Faith does not justify child abuse.

Meanwhile, on this planet, where it's harmless, don't ban it. Let them have a sip to try the taste. Or join in a toast at a wedding. Or to receive a sacrament. No exceptions.

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
There's a story from yesterday, of having stewardesses on flights to Tehran wear headscarves.

Story here. This is not exactly under the same category as the other examples in the thread because it involves a dispute between an employer and employees, not a request to ignore a generally applicable law. It's been recognized that certain employers have the right to dictate how their employees dress on the job, and flight attendants have long been considered to be within that category. As far as I know neither Air France nor the flight crew union is arguing that their religious beliefs (or the religious beliefs of their customers) provides an exemption to whatever labor laws govern disputes like this. They're each simply claiming that the change in uniform for Tehran-bound or Tehran-originating flights [is/isn't] within an airline's authority to dictate the uniform of flight crews.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
It's been recognized that certain employers have the right to dictate how their employees dress on the job, and flight attendants have long been considered to be within that category.

Is this the inverse of the British Airways cross necklace case? The flight attendants are being asked to wear what they regard as Islamic dress. It's particularly interesting given the French laws against religious dress - my understanding is that it would be illegal for an Air France flight attendant to wear this uniform in a French courthouse.

Posted by Penny S (# 14768) on :

As far as I can make out, the rules about what the women wear applies off the plane, not on it, so isn't this about what they wear in their off-duty time? And thus not exactly about in work dress codes.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
My understanding of Canadian nondiscrimation law is that any Church exemption only applies to clergy. Church advertisements for janitorial or administrative staff do not specify that the employee must be a member of that denomination.

Of course, some advertisements specify "should be familiar with the tenets and traditions of the church." Usually, the people who are most familiar with the tenets and traditions of a particular church, are members of that church.

The same here, at least under Commonwealth and NSW laws - can't speak for other states. Th question is why is that justified?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Penny S:
As far as I can make out, the rules about what the women wear applies off the plane, not on it, so isn't this about what they wear in their off-duty time? And thus not exactly about in work dress codes.

It's a little more complicated than that. From the previously linked article.

quote:
Female members of flight crews have been ordered to cover their hair once they disembark in Tehran and unions are demanding that the flights be made voluntary for women.

<snip>

[Deputy head of the SNPNC flight crews' union] Mr. [Christophe] Pillet said flight crews were prepared to wear headscarves in Iran when out of uniform, but objected to being ordered to wear them as part of their uniform.

Unions want Tehran flights to be made voluntary without penalties for staff, deductions from wages or consequences for their careers.

The main points of controversy seem to be whether headscarves can be required while on duty but not in flight (not all of a flight attendant's duties take place while in flight) and whether flight crews can voluntarily decline duty on the Paris-to-Tehran route.

Posted by HCH (# 14313) on :

In the original post, we have a quotation that "it's a big problem with the members of my church". Do we read that as saying that "it's a big problem with the leaders and theology of my church"? Is this religious bigotry or a cultural bias?

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

quote:
Originally posted by HCH:
In the original post, we have a quotation that "it's a big problem with the members of my church". Do we read that as saying that "it's a big problem with the leaders and theology of my church"? Is this religious bigotry or a cultural bias?

I'm not sure there's a clear dividing line between those two. During the civil rights era you'd often see pro-segregation demonstrators with signs that said things like "Integration is Un-Christian", or quoted one of the many Old Testament verses on keeping various tribes separate. If there's a cultural bias religious belief will often be used to support it, and if there's religious bigotry the culture will typically be shaped to emphasize it.

So I guess the answer to your last question is "yes".

[ 21. April 2016, 18:24: Message edited by: Crœsos ]

Posted by Crœsos (# 238) on :

Just came across this story of a small town postal carrier refusing to deliver mail to a recreational marijuana facility. (For the record, the recreational marijuana use is legal in Washington state.) The same for the local adult book and video store. This differs a little from the racist landlord mentioned earlier in that a postal carrier is an agent of the state, but it really is striking how religion seems to have become little more than an excuse for otherwise inexcusable behavior.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Just came across this story of a small town postal carrier refusing to deliver mail to a recreational marijuana facility.

It is normal for postal workers to refuse to deliver mail to the door of someone with a poorly-controlled aggressive dog, on safety grounds. (For the record, owning dogs, even big ones that bark at people, is legal everywhere.)

It's legal for you to own a big dog, but it's also reasonable for the postal worker not to want to come anywhere near it. So there's more here than "It's legal for me to do this, so you gotta".

I find it easy to imagine people not wanting to go in to a sex shop. Probably almost everything in the sex shop would be illegal to display on a billboard outside the shop: if it's not suitable for public display, is it reasonable to force a public employee to look at it?

As far as the marijuana store goes, I assume that the store is for the sale, and not for the consumption, of marijuana. If the mail carrier was asked to walk into a cloud of marijuana smoke to deliver the mail, then refusing is clearly reasonable on exactly the same grounds as "I'm not going near that dog." If, on the other hand, the mail carrier wants protection from seeing plastic tubs containing the different varieties on offer, and shelves with pipes and other smoking paraphernalia, then I'm don't think it's reasonable.

Posted by Amanda B. Reckondwythe (# 5521) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Brenda Clough:
I could easily see that you would want all the employees of your Episcopal church to be at least Christians.

Can't imagine why. I know many a church organist or choir member who is Jewish. And speaking of Jewish, synagogues have since time immemorial employed a "Shabbas goy" (Sabbath gentile) to do all those things that Jews can't do on the Sabbath.

[ 08. June 2016, 20:11: Message edited by: Amanda B. Reckondwythe ]

Posted by Josephine (# 3899) on :

After the Supreme Court refused to intervene, Washington State pharmacies are still required by law to fill prescriptions even if a pharmacist working there has a religious objection to the medication in question. This is a decent summary of the case and the issues surrounding it.

I understand why a healthcare worker might want to refuse to provide care based on religious objections. But if a patient has a right to receive care, it seems that the healthcare providers have a duty to provide it.

Not too long in the past, I nearly died as a result of a GI bleed. Had anyone on the medical staff said, "Oh, I can't participate in this treatment; I have a religious objection to blood transfusions," it might have gone badly for me.

I'm not entirely sure how you accommodate both the patient and the worker in these cases.

Posted by no prophet's flag is set so... (# 15560) on :

I think you assess degree of harm, and decide that someone's health is more important than someone's belief in something. And if someone tries to discriminate then the media does a story like this. The business was sold shortly thereafter with the understanding that it was hurt quite significantly financially.

I guess God left not being an asshole out of the 10 commandments. Which in addition to discrimination, resulted in a whole whack of really bad badness in the Old Testament.

Posted by Golden Key (# 1468) on :

Some Muslim cabbies refuse passengers with guide dogs on a religious basis, considering the dogs unclean. (I knew some Middle Eastern cultures considered them unclean; but I thought that was cultural. Of course, culture and religion can get mushed together.) Some also refuse passengers who have alcohol with them.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

In my younger days I had two doctors refuse to deal with contraception. They each had some excuse, but it turns out they were both Roman Catholic. I wish they had said up front, like when I made my appointment, that they wouldn't deal with birth control or contraception.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I think you assess degree of harm, and decide that someone's health is more important than someone's belief in something.

If your "conscience" prevents you from complying with the law, don't get a job/own a company which deals with the public.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
In my younger days I had two doctors refuse to deal with contraception. They each had some excuse, but it turns out they were both Roman Catholic. I wish they had said up front, like when I made my appointment, that they wouldn't deal with birth control or contraception.

I used to have a GP who took the same position, but there was a big sign up in reception to that effect, advising those who wanted to discuss contraception to make an appointment with one of the other partners in the practice. Seemed a fair enough balance to me.

[ 08. July 2016, 17:31: Message edited by: Albertus ]

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

If the other doctors in the practice had ample time and no objections, it is a workable solution. Not sure about acceptable though. How far do you extend the inconvenience? The practice next door? Down the road, across the city? A hundred miles away?

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

The two doctors I mentioned above worked alone, which was more common back in the ancient times when birth control was an issue for me.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

No inconvenience involved there for anyone, as far as I can see. Sole GP practice is quite uncommon in the UK (OK, England & Wales- can't speak for Scotland & NI) nowadays and pretty much everywhere I've been registered with, you'll usually be offered a choice of an appointment with 'your' doctor or, if one is available earlier, one with another member of the practice.

Posted by Augustine the Aleut (# 1472) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I think you assess degree of harm, and decide that someone's health is more important than someone's belief in something.
If your "conscience" prevents you from complying with the law, don't get a job/own a company which deals with the public.

I once had to point out this possibility to a young Mormon who wanted to take a job as a retail clerk at a Liquor Control Board of Ontario outlet without having to deal with alcoholic beverages.

The clergy exemption in Canada is, in our context, common sense. I do not see courts taking action against RC or Orthodox bishops who refuse to ordain women or against mosques refusing to hire Coptic scholars of Islamic and Qoranic studies.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Augustine the Aleut:
I once had to point out this possibility to a young Mormon who wanted to take a job as a retail clerk at a Liquor Control Board of Ontario outlet without having to deal with alcoholic beverages.

I'm surprised that he would even be allowed to work there. I would assume that his bishop or someone else in authority would have forbidden it.

Posted by Belle Ringer (# 13379) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by no prophet's flag is set so...:
I think you assess degree of harm, and decide that someone's health is more important than someone's belief in something.
If your "conscience" prevents you from complying with the law, don't get a job/own a company which deals with the public.

Sometimes circumstances or expectations change long after one takes a job. New boss new set of guidelines. Finding a different job can be difficult, esp if you are over 50.

Church history is full of people dying rather than obey orders to do something that contradicted their religious beliefs, so telling people to just ignore their beliefs isn't a realistic solution.

Taking a job that can be expected to require behaviors you disagree with, that's stupid and should result in being fired. So one solution is to make more clear at the start what the duties might include - driving people and their dogs in a taxi, handling and serving alcohol in a restaurant, selling cigarettes and pork sausage in a grocery. We could screen future MDs for willingness to do all medical procedures, but what happens if one converts later in career?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Belle Ringer:
Sometimes circumstances or expectations change long after one takes a job. New boss new set of guidelines. Finding a different job can be difficult, esp if you are over 50.

Any job which serves the public needs to understand that is the focus, not their personal beliefs.

quote:

Church history

is irrelevant to this issue. And thinking church is relevant, or at least has primacy, is a large part of the problem.

quote:

We could screen future MDs for willingness to do all medical procedures, but what happens if one converts later in career?

If one converts to a belief which conflicts with their career, they change careers. Will this always be easy? No. Will it always be without hardship? No. But Christianity doesn't call for defending your own beliefs at the expense of others, but rather at the expense of self.

I am rather tired of the followers of Jesus twisting his intent to engage in prejudice he would not have.
ETA: I am not accusing you of doing this.

[ 11. July 2016, 17:18: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Indeed, lB, this whole thing is about Christians protecting THEIR rights, defending THEIR beliefs, etc. At no point in church history has that been a good thing. It was either frowned on as the vainglory it is, or it led to bloodshed (religious wars, Inquisition, crusades, etc.).

Christians are called to lay down their lives for others, not to trample others for themselves.

Or as somebody put it, if thine adversary maketh thee bake one cake, bake for him two.

Posted by Pigwidgeon (# 10192) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Or as somebody put it, if thine adversary maketh thee bake one cake, bake for him two.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
If the other doctors in the practice had ample time and no objections, it is a workable solution. Not sure about acceptable though. How far do you extend the inconvenience? The practice next door? Down the road, across the city? A hundred miles away?

Yes, you need to consider inconvenience--but you also need to consider the depth of the injury to a person's livelihood and faith. The "hundred miles" you spoke of--is that a greater or lesser burden than saying to a doctor, "You must either leave your faith or your livelihood, for which you spent at least ten years of education"?

The contraception thing is a real issue for RCs, not a minor niggle, and it is a well-known position of the RC church--not something one individual made up, possibly as a scam. I disagree with them, but I defend their right to follow their faith.*

* I may be slightly influenced by the fact that an RC physician refused to prescribe birth control to my mother, and by the time she found a different doctor a couple weeks later, she was pregnant with me.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Or as somebody put it, if thine adversary maketh thee bake one cake, bake for him two.

...and so when someone asks you to bake a cake saying 'burn the faggots' or 'send the [highly derogatory terms] back to Africa' you just offer it up and get baking...?

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Or as somebody put it, if thine adversary maketh thee bake one cake, bake for him two.

...and so when someone asks you to bake a cake saying 'burn the faggots' or 'send the [highly derogatory terms] back to Africa' you just offer it up and get baking...?

You are the most recent person unable to distinguish between what you make, and who you make it for.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The contraception thing is a real issue for RCs, not a minor niggle, and it is a well-known position of the RC church--not something one individual made up, possibly as a scam. I disagree with them, but I defend their right to follow their faith.

Are we talking about them following their faith, or them forcing someone else to follow their faith? You can prescribe birth control pills without taking them.

Posted by Nicolemr (# 28) on :

quote:
Yes, you need to consider inconvenience--but you also need to consider the depth of the injury to a person's livelihood and faith. The "hundred miles" you spoke of--is that a greater or lesser burden than saying to a doctor, "You must either leave your faith or your livelihood, for which you spent at least ten years of education"?

Seems to me that's exactly the sort of sacrifice that Jesus expected his followers to make for their faith.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Or as somebody put it, if thine adversary maketh thee bake one cake, bake for him two.

...and so when someone asks you to bake a cake saying 'burn the faggots' or 'send the [highly derogatory terms] back to Africa' you just offer it up and get baking...?
You are the most recent person unable to distinguish between what you make, and who you make it for.

Sorry, genuinely don't understand your point. Please explain, if you can bear with me.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

Making a cake with ugly slogans: what you make

Making a birthday cake for a gay person: who you make it for

They're not the same. I can refuse to make cakes with slogans, and still sell cakes to gay people. They're two different categories of selection.

A birthday cake versus a cake with ugly slogans. The difference is WHAT you make.

A gay customer and a straight customer -- the difference is WHO you make it for.

I don't know how to make this any clearer so I hope this does the trick.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:

quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Or as somebody put it, if thine adversary maketh thee bake one cake, bake for him two.

...and so when someone asks you to bake a cake saying 'burn the faggots' or 'send the [highly derogatory terms] back to Africa' you just offer it up and get baking...?

Besides what mousethief said, I don't see why a Christian, or any good hearted person, would think those are comparable.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Nicolemr:

quote:
Yes, you need to consider inconvenience--but you also need to consider the depth of the injury to a person's livelihood and faith. The "hundred miles" you spoke of--is that a greater or lesser burden than saying to a doctor, "You must either leave your faith or your livelihood, for which you spent at least ten years of education"?

Seems to me that's exactly the sort of sacrifice that Jesus expected his followers to make for their faith.

True--but is it our business, either as Christians or as fellow citizens, to exact that sacrifice? I'm not at all interested in building crosses for other people.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
The contraception thing is a real issue for RCs, not a minor niggle, and it is a well-known position of the RC church--not something one individual made up, possibly as a scam. I disagree with them, but I defend their right to follow their faith.
Are we talking about them following their faith, or them forcing someone else to follow their faith? You can prescribe birth control pills without taking them.

Stretch your imagination a little.

When there has been a shooting and a child is dead, what is virtually the first thing everybody asks? "How did X get hold of that gun," right? And then the everlasting gun control thread fires up again. Because rightly or wrongly, we believe that those who supply the instruments of destruction bear some responsibility for their later use.

I do not agree with the RC view of birth control. But from their viewpoint, this is a nearly exact analogy. And I have no desire to force someone to disobey conscience, even when it is (as I believe) misinformed.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

I do not agree with the RC view of birth control. But from their viewpoint, this is a nearly exact analogy. And I have no desire to force someone to disobey conscience, even when it is (as I believe) misinformed.

A person has no business getting into a career where such a conflict will occur. Despite the protestations, what we seem to see most is people starting businesses/jobs in which job description and religious belief will conflict and expecting exemption.

ETA: This really isn't all that difficult. Service industries are obligated to serve within the guidance of the law, not their "conscience".

[ 12. July 2016, 04:14: Message edited by: lilBuddha ]

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:
True--but is it our business, either as Christians or as fellow citizens, to exact that sacrifice? I'm not at all interested in building crosses for other people.

We don't set out to create crosses. We set out to build an equitable society. At some point that will mean making policies that choose between conflicting desires. And that may mean a Catholic pharmacist has to dispense BCP, or a fundamentalist cake maker has to make a cake for a gay person. At that point a "cross" is generated. It's an unfortunate side effect of trying to build a multi-cultural, multi-ethnic, multi-religious society.

I understand that 99% of the population of Malta is Catholic. Presumably a lot fewer people there are going to ask for a BCP script to be filled. But that's not here and we're not they.

Posted by Lamb Chopped (# 5528) on :

Think about what that means. Orthodox (in the sense of historic, traditional, majority stream) Christians, Jews, and Muslims are going to be barred from quite a few occupations. Pharmacy, because they won't do abortion pills, and in some cases contraception, and you won't permit them to send customers elsewhere; medicine, because they have similar reservations in that field; jurisprudence, because even judges who are not normally performing same sex marriages may be asked (as one I know has been) and lose their positions over a pure hypothetical; wedding related industries, for the same reason; restaurants except fast food places, ditto; DJs and musicians, same; nurses (my mother is one and has declined to assist at abortions--she would no longer be able to do so); and so forth.

Note that these people are out of step only with the last dozen years or so of a few Western societies--historically, and globally, they are aligned with the majority. Most of them are willing to send people elsewhere, or to refer them to a colleague--they simply can't bring themselves to do what in their sincere belief compromises their faiths. Would you really put the whole lot of them over the barrel with regards to all these occupations?

If so, you are taking a "no compromises" position that is intolerant and doctrinaire in the extreme. Such measures aren't going to convert them to your worldview; they will only result in the creation of a large underclass. We saw something similar in the middle ages with the various occupations that were barred to Jews; now we'd be adding a large chunk of Christian and Muslim believers to that category. This cannot be a good thing.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

You're confounding a lot of things. The current homophobia is very recent. The very idea of finding out if someone was gay before making them a birthday cake is brand new. I'm sure Christian bakers were baking birthday cakes for gay people 50 years ago, and when they walked out with the cake, the bakers looked at each other and giggled and said, "He's gay." But it's only been fashionable to refuse to do business with gay people for a very brief time.

We've had oral contraceptives since 1960. The majority of pharmacists in practice were born since then. They grew up in the era of oral contraception. It's not like we've just realized in the last 10 years that hey, sometimes doctors prescribe birth control pills!

And comparing somebody refusing to do a job because it conflicts with his religion, and society prohibiting somebody from doing a job because of his religion is just an inept comparison. The two are not even in the same ballpark.

Should the profession of phlebotomist have never been invented because there are people, namely Jehovah's Witnesses, who can't do it?

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Lamb Chopped:

If so, you are taking a "no compromises" position that is intolerant and doctrinaire in the extreme.

One side is asking to be allowed to be who they are and the other is demanding that they not be allowed to.
You appear to be using the "not accepting intolerance is intolerant" argument and it doesn't work.

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But it's only been fashionable to refuse to do business with gay people for a very brief time.

Much as the dinosaurs would have fought their own extinction.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But it's only been fashionable to refuse to do business with gay people for a very brief time.
Much as the dinosaurs would have fought their own extinction.

If it's extinction, it's extinction of a species that has only been on the planet for a very short time. Evangelicals existed in 1976 but didn't see a need to declare war on gays at that time.

Posted by lilBuddha (# 14333) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But it's only been fashionable to refuse to do business with gay people for a very brief time.
Much as the dinosaurs would have fought their own extinction.
If it's extinction, it's extinction of a species that has only been on the planet for a very short time. Evangelicals existed in 1976 but didn't see a need to declare war on gays at that time.

Granted that some American Christian "Values" are relatively recent. But they don't seem to know that and, in general, Christianity is less influential. ISTM, that is why the anti-science bent among them as well.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
Granted that some American Christian "Values" are relatively recent. But they don't seem to know that and, in general, Christianity is less influential. ISTM, that is why the anti-science bent among them as well.

The anti-science bent can be traced back to Ellen G. White. I have a very good book about it somewhere around here, called "The Creationists."

Posted by ExclamationMark (# 14715) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
But it's only been fashionable to refuse to do business with gay people for a very brief time.
Much as the dinosaurs would have fought their own extinction.
If it's extinction, it's extinction of a species that has only been on the planet for a very short time. Evangelicals existed in 1976 but didn't see a need to declare war on gays at that time.

You clearly didn't live in England. It wasn't just an Evangelical norm but a societal norm.

Same sex acts between (male) consenting adults - ie over 21 - were not decriminalised until 1967.

Posted by Palimpsest (# 16772) on :

One of the reasons for this bind for pharmacists is the fact that you have to be a state licensed pharmacist in order to dispense a lot of medications. There would be a lot less chafing if someone could get their drugs by mail or at grocery stores.
Yet pharmacists seem pretty firm on wanting to keep the license requirement.

The claim that they make sure you don't take a bad mixture of drugs is pretty ludicrous where I live. I've gotten little sheets from them warning about cross effects between drugs I was taking a decade earlier and the current new prescription and missing the rest of my current drugs. When I point it out to them they cheerily chirp about a mix up with the old and new computer system. If I depended on them to do that job I'd be in trouble.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by ExclamationMark:
You clearly didn't live in England. It wasn't just an Evangelical norm but a societal norm.

Same sex acts between (male) consenting adults - ie over 21 - were not decriminalised until 1967.

Well I don't want to start a pond war. But we know what you did to Wilde and Turing. And probably countless others not as famous.

Posted by Albertus (# 13356) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Making a cake with ugly slogans: what you make

Making a birthday cake for a gay person: who you make it for

They're not the same. I can refuse to make cakes with slogans, and still sell cakes to gay people. They're two different categories of selection.

A birthday cake versus a cake with ugly slogans. The difference is WHAT you make.

A gay customer and a straight customer -- the difference is WHO you make it for.

I don't know how to make this any clearer so I hope this does the trick.

Yes, perfectly clear. My confusion. I was thinking of the original Northern Ireland cake case when the bakery was asked- in what i can't believe wasn't a set-up- to make a cake saying 'support gay marriage'- that is, with a political slogan on it.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Albertus:
Yes, perfectly clear. My confusion. I was thinking of the original Northern Ireland cake case when the bakery was asked- in what i can't believe wasn't a set-up- to make a cake saying 'support gay marriage'- that is, with a political slogan on it.

Their overreaction to which touched off a firestorm. Could they not have just said, "We'll make a cake, but we don't put political slogans on our cakes. We can leave room for you to do that."

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
Their overreaction to which touched off a firestorm. Could they not have just said, "We'll make a cake, but we don't put political slogans on our cakes. We can leave room for you to do that."

Well, given that their objection was to the specific political statement rather than to politics in general, they couldn't, because that would have been a lie.

You said:

quote:
A birthday cake versus a cake with ugly slogans. The difference is WHAT you make.

And in this case, it was the WHAT that the cake shop took issue with. They did not want to make a cake bearing political slogans that they disagreed with (as I remember, the logo of a particular organization campaigning for marriage for gay couples, and some kind of slogan).

The bakery in question say that they didn't care whether the customer was gay or not (he was, as it happens) - it was the content of the message they objected to. The court ruled that this was sufficient to fall foul of the anti-discrimination laws. I gather that a judgement has not yet been made in the appeal.

It might be worth noting that Peter Tatchell, whilst obviously disagreeing with the bakery's stance on marriage, is now defending their right not to print political slogans they disapprove of.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

But I think that it's the picking-and-choosing that's the problem. States can have no religious monuments on the capitol grounds, or allow any religious group to put a monument on the capitol grounds. Neither runs afoul of the establishment clause.

Analogously, if a city issues permits for groups to block off the streets for a parade, they can't discriminate between groups they like or groups they don't like.

Would not it be okay for a baker to say, "To prevent having to choose which political statements are okay and which aren't, we just won't do any." Either do all, or don't do any, and you're not discriminating.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:

Analogously, if a city issues permits for groups to block off the streets for a parade, they can't discriminate between groups they like or groups they don't like.

I think there's a rather strong philosophical difference between behaviour that we should require of our government and behaviour that we should require of one another. The government isn't just some other group of citizens - it's not just an individual enterprise. It is everyone's government, paid for by all of us, and entrusted to make laws for all of us. As such, I think it, and its agencies, are and should be held to a rather different standard.

If the government allows religion A to place a statue on public land, it has to allow religions B and C to do the same. Fine.

If I place a religious statue in my store, I have absolutely no obligation to allow anyone else to put their own religious paraphernalia in my store. Because it's my store. I can't prevent members of religions I don't like from coming in to my store and shopping, but they can't complain about not liking my statue.

So I think your government examples aren't terribly helpful, because I think there are stronger obligations on government than on private citizens.

But it's the picking and choosing which is at stake. Is a left-wing printer allowed to refuse the business of a right-wing politician? In most places, yes, because politics isn't a protected class, so it's OK to discriminate against people with politics you don't like.

I think some of the difficulty in the Irish bakery case is that the law itself is contradictory. The law prohibits discrimination on the grounds of sexual orientation, but also prohibits gay couples from marrying. And we end up with the situation where the court rules that a company must take work from an organization campaigning to change the law. Which just seems odd.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

I don't think that what statuary you put in your store, and what services you provide for customers, are at all related. The laws around commerce have to do with interactions between sellers and buyers, not to do with decorations. This comparison just doesn't work.

Posted by Leorning Cniht (# 17564) on :

quote:
Originally posted by mousethief:
I don't think that what statuary you put in your store, and what services you provide for customers, are at all related. The laws around commerce have to do with interactions between sellers and buyers, not to do with decorations. This comparison just doesn't work.

I meant that as a counterpoint to your "statues in the courthouse" thing.

Governments have an obligation to treat everyone equally because they're everyone's government.

Store-owners are obliged not to discriminate on particular protected grounds because we've decided that a society where black people can't sit at lunch counters, or gay people can't buy cakes, is worse than a society where you're compelled to serve people you'd rather not.

Posted by mousethief (# 953) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
Store-owners are obliged not to discriminate on particular protected grounds because we've decided that a society where black people can't sit at lunch counters, or gay people can't buy cakes, is worse than a society where you're compelled to serve people you'd rather not.

On this we are agreed.

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
[QUOTE]Store-owners are obliged not to discriminate on particular protected grounds because we've decided that a society where black people can't sit at lunch counters, or gay people can't buy cakes, is worse than a society where you're compelled to serve people you'd rather not.

As Mousethief says, on this we are all agreed, but where do you draw the line?

Posted by Gee D (# 13815) on :

quote:
Originally posted by Leorning Cniht:
[QUOTE]Store-owners are obliged not to discriminate on particular protected grounds because we've decided that a society where black people can't sit at lunch counters, or gay people can't buy cakes, is worse than a society where you're compelled to serve people you'd rather not.

As Mousethief says, on his we are all agreed, but where do you draw the line? Do you say that not accepting some slogans is not acceptable (which is where most of us are at) or do you say that you must accept non-celibate priests - or even that you must accept priests practising anywhere on the LDTBi etc spectra?

UBB.classic^TM 6.5.0