|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Dead Horses: Stonespring's Same Sex Wedding Photography Question
|
Planeta Plicata
Shipmate
# 17543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm pretty sure no one takes the message on the cake to be an assertion of either fact or opinion being expressed by the baker. No one thinks the baker is checking to make sure that Sylvia is really twenty-nine like it says on the cake rather than thirty-one like it says on her birth certificate, or that he truly believes a cake's intended recipient really is "The World's Best Grandpa".
Surely it's not the case that the government can compel expression in cases where there's no chance that people will believe that the compelled expression is actually endorsed by the person being compelled. That's certainly not the state of the law in the United States: In Wooley v. Maynard, for example, the Supreme Court held that the appellees—who were Jehovah's Witnesses—couldn't be compelled by the (apparently somewhat irony-challenged) state of New Hampshire to display license plates that carried the state motto, "Live Free or Die". Presumably no one thinks people really believe the things written on their license plates, but that didn't affect the analysis.
I'm also surprised that many people think it's totally irrelevant that the photographer's refusal probably wouldn't have been particularly burdensome the couple's wedding plans. (One of the amicus briefs asking the US Supreme Court to grant cert noted that there were over 100 wedding photographers near Albuquerque, many of whom would probably have been willing to photograph the wedding.) Again, the Supreme Court hasn't historically found the burdensomenes of the discrimination irrelevant in determining whether the government can prohibit it: the cases that held that banning discrimination in public accomodations was constitutional (Katzenbach, Heart of Atlanta Motel, etc.) relied heavily on the evidence compiled by the government detailing the difficulties African Americans faced due to widespread discrimination in public accomodations. Obviously taking into account the magnitude of the burden caused by the discrimination raises line-drawing issues (How important is the service being offered? How easy would it be to find a replacement?), but that's exactly the sort of line-drawing courts do all the time in religious accomodation cases.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
You could, and the Respondents did, argue that discriminating against same-sex weddings is not the same as discriminating against homosexuals, but the ALJ deals with that argument as well. quote:
That, however, is not the case here. In this case, Respondents' objection to same-sex marriage is inextricably tied to the sexual orientation of the parties involved, and therefore disfavor of the parties' sexual orientation may be presumed. Justice Scalia, the author of the majority opinion in Bray, recognized that "some activities may be such an irrational object of disfavor that, if they are targeted, and if they also happen to be engaged in exclusively or predominantly by a particular class of people, an intent to disfavor that class can readily be presumed. A tax on wearing yarmulkes is a tax on Jews." Id. at 270. Similarly, the ALJ concludes that discrimination against same-sex weddings is the equivalent of discrimination due to sexual orientation.
The quoted opinion by Justice Scalia goes on to note that the fact that a targeted activity is engaged in exclusively or predominantly by one group of people isn't ipso facto proof that the targeted activity is motivated by animus towards that group of people. (Which should be obvious: one can refuse to publish Black Panther literature, for example, even though pretty much all Black Panthers are black.) The point of the yarmulke example is that hardly anyone is against yarmulkes for reasons other than the fact that they're worn by Jews. Whether it's possible to be opposed to same-sex marriage for reasons other than disliking gay people is a difficult question, but the fact that there are (admitedly, a very small number of) gay people who oppose same-sex marriage (for reasons other than being opposed to marriage in general and without being obviously self-hating) suggests that it's within the realm of possibility. But the ALJ doesn't even make an effort to consider the question.
[ 24. January 2014, 08:14: Message edited by: Planeta Plicata ]
Posts: 53 | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jane R
Shipmate
# 331
|
Posted
Planeta Pilatica: quote:
I'm also surprised that many people think it's totally irrelevant that the photographer's refusal probably wouldn't have been particularly burdensome the couple's wedding plans.
I'm surprised that so many people think the photographer is entitled to be an arsehole when turning down business.
Scenario 1: "Sorry, I'm already booked for that day." Clients may SUSPECT that they've been turned down because they're a gay couple, but shrug their shoulders and take their business elsewhere.
Scenario 2: "Spawn of Satan! Gay Marriage Is An Abomination Unto The Lord! Taking photos of your wedding will irretrievably corrupt my Art/make my brain explode/melt my camera*! [etc]" Clients are deeply upset (the whole business of getting married is stressful enough without having to put up with this kind of thing) and take photographer to court.
*delete as appropriate
[ 24. January 2014, 08:33: Message edited by: Jane R ]
Posts: 3958 | From: Jorvik | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Planeta Plicata:
Surely it's not the case that the government can compel expression in cases where there's no chance that people will believe that the compelled expression is actually endorsed by the person being compelled.
Surely it is. Tobacco warning labels come to mind as an obvious example.
quote:
Originally posted by Planeta Plicata:
I'm also surprised that many people think it's totally irrelevant that the photographer's refusal probably wouldn't have been particularly burdensome the couple's wedding plans. (One of the amicus briefs asking the US Supreme Court to grant cert noted that there were over 100 wedding photographers near Albuquerque, many of whom would probably have been willing to photograph the wedding.) Again, the Supreme Court hasn't historically found the burdensomenes of the discrimination irrelevant in determining whether the government can prohibit it: the cases that held that banning discrimination in public accommodations was constitutional (Katzenbach, Heart of Atlanta Motel, etc.) relied heavily on the evidence compiled by the government detailing the difficulties African Americans faced due to widespread discrimination in public accommodations.
And yet the "discrimination is okay provided there is some kind of separate, but no doubt totally equal, accommodation available" is widely regarded as one of the most morally and legally bankrupt concepts in U.S. law. I can't think of a U.S. case more reviled and rejected than Plessy v. Fergusson (though there are a few that are equally reviled), yet here you are endorsing its underlying tenets.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Planeta Plicata
Shipmate
# 17543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jane R:
Planeta Pilatica: quote:
I'm also surprised that many people think it's totally irrelevant that the photographer's refusal probably wouldn't have been particularly burdensome the couple's wedding plans.
I'm surprised that so many people think the photographer is entitled to be an arsehole when turning down business.
And I in turn am surprised people think being an arsehole in turning down business should always and everywhere be illegal. And you think there's a prison overcrowding problem now...
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Planeta Plicata:
Surely it's not the case that the government can compel expression in cases where there's no chance that people will believe that the compelled expression is actually endorsed by the person being compelled.
Surely it is. Tobacco warning labels come to mind as an obvious example.
Should've said "it's not the case that the government can always compel expression just because everyone understands the speech is compelled." As the example I gave demonstrates. In other words, whether people understand the expression is compelled or not isn't that relevant.
quote:
And yet the "discrimination is okay provided there is some kind of separate, but no doubt totally equal, accommodation available" is widely regarded as one of the most morally and legally bankrupt concepts in U.S. law. I can't think of a U.S. case more reviled and rejected than Plessy v. Fergusson (though there are a few that are equally reviled), yet here you are endorsing its underlying tenets.
Yeah, so I'm actually not for reasons so numerous and obvious that I suspect this is just a rhetorical flourish, but the most obvious is that Plessy and Brown (and Bolling—everyone forgets about that one) involved state action. The equal protection clause only applies to actions by the government: a schoolteacher can't be nasty to the black students in his class but people (horrible people) are free not to make friends with black people. People have an expectation of equal treatment from their government—which, after all, they vote for and pay taxes to—that they don't necessarily have from other people. That's why public universities can only use affirmative action subject to certain strict constraints while private universities have a freer hand.
Cases like this involve a different question: whether the government can pass laws compelling people not to discriminate. Obviously in some cases they can (employers, university admissions, etc.), but whether they can when the requirement not to discriminate conflicts with other constitutional rights—even granting that we're talking about the constitutional rights of bad people—is an open question, at least outside of New Mexico.
[ 24. January 2014, 16:25: Message edited by: Planeta Plicata ]
Posts: 53 | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Planeta Plicata:
[Yeah, so I'm actually not for reasons so numerous and obvious that I suspect this is just a rhetorical flourish, but the most obvious is that Plessy and Brown (and Bolling—everyone forgets about that one) involved state action. The equal protection clause only applies to actions by the government: a schoolteacher can't be nasty to the black students in his class but people (horrible people) are free not to make friends with black people. People have an expectation of equal treatment from their government—which, after all, they vote for and pay taxes to—that they don't necessarily have from other people. That's why public universities can only use affirmative action subject to certain strict constraints while private universities have a freer hand.
Cases like this involve a different question: whether the government can pass laws compelling people not to discriminate.
The government regulates business. Until such time as they do not, they can compell business owners to comply with law.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Planeta Plicata:
Cases like this involve a different question: whether the government can pass laws compelling people not to discriminate.
Actually it's a question of whether government can pass laws compelling businesses not to discriminate, in this case ones that fall under the general rubric of "public accommodations".
quote:
Originally posted by Planeta Plicata:
Obviously in some cases they can (employers, university admissions, etc.), but whether they can when the requirement not to discriminate conflicts with other constitutional rights—even granting that we're talking about the constitutional rights of bad people—is an open question, at least outside of New Mexico.
I'm not sure "running a business without being answerable to the law" is really a constitutional right.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Planeta Plicata
Shipmate
# 17543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by lilBuddha:
The government regulates business. Until such time as they do not, they can compell business owners to comply with law.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
I'm not sure "running a business without being answerable to the law" is really a constitutional right.
The fact that the government can compel a business to do some things doesn't mean the government can compel a business to do anything.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Planeta Plicata:
Cases like this involve a different question: whether the government can pass laws compelling people not to discriminate.
Actually it's a question of whether government can pass laws compelling businesses not to discriminate, in this case ones that fall under the general rubric of "public accommodations".
The fact that a business is a "public accommodation" is irrelevant to the constitutional analysis here: this case doesn't involve the federal government trying to regulate businesses through the Commerce Clause. State governments like New Mexico's are entitled to regulate people and businesses (whether they're public accommodations or not) under their general police powers except where the regulation is inconsistent with the constitutional right of the business or person being regulated—here, the photographer's First Amendment rights.
[ 24. January 2014, 18:54: Message edited by: Planeta Plicata ]
Posts: 53 | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Planeta Plicata:
The fact that a business is a "public accommodation" is irrelevant to the constitutional analysis here: this case doesn't involve the federal government trying to regulate businesses through the Commerce Clause. State governments like New Mexico's are entitled to regulate people and businesses (whether they're public accommodations or not) under their general police powers except where the regulation is inconsistent with the constitutional right of the business or person being regulated—here, the photographer's First Amendment rights.
Except there's no clause in the First Amendment protecting the right to engage in discriminatory business practices.
[ 24. January 2014, 19:33: Message edited by: Crœsos ]
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Planeta Plicata
Shipmate
# 17543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
Except there's no clause in the First Amendment protecting the right to engage in discriminatory business practices.
It's basic First Amendment law that "[s]ince all speech inherently involves choices of what to say and what to leave unsaid, one important manifestation of the principle of free speech is that one who chooses to speak may also decide 'what not to say.'" Hurley v. Irish-American Gay, Lesbian & Bisexual Group of Boston, 515 U.S. 557 (1995) (citations omitted). Do check out that case, incidentally: a unanimous Supreme Court applied that principle to find that Massachusetts couldn't prevent a parade from excluding an Irish-American LGBT group despite it being undisputed that the parade was a public accommodation under Massachusetts law.
The New Mexico Supreme Court decision attempts to distinguish Hurley and similar cases on the dubious ground that for profit public accommodations have more limited First Amendment rights than other public accommodations. I'm not sure why that matters; it's certainly not the case in other areas of First Amendment law, for good reason. (The New York Times Company's First Amendment rights aren't more limited than ProPublica's.) And it's telling that the New Mexico Supreme Court doesn't cite any authority for the distinction it's drawing between for-profit and non-profit public accommodations.
[ 24. January 2014, 20:19: Message edited by: Planeta Plicata ]
Posts: 53 | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Planeta Plicata:
The New Mexico Supreme Court decision attempts to distinguish Hurley and similar cases on the dubious ground that for profit public accommodations have more limited First Amendment rights than other public accommodations. I'm not sure why that matters; it's certainly not the case in other areas of First Amendment law, for good reason.
This is usually a recognition of the fact that not-for-profit organizations often exist to promote a specific agenda and are often granted exemptions to discrimination laws germane to that purpose. (E.g. churches are exempt from religious anti-discrimination laws when selecting clergy, to cite an obvious situation where a not-for-profit organization has broader First Amendment latitude than a for-profit corporation would.) For-profit organizations theoretically exist for the purpose of generating profits and are not given the same exemptions. There's a related discussion on this thread.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Planeta Plicata
Shipmate
# 17543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
This is usually a recognition of the fact that not-for-profit organizations often exist to promote a specific agenda and are often granted exemptions to discrimination laws germane to that purpose. (E.g. churches are exempt from religious anti-discrimination laws when selecting clergy, to cite an obvious situation where a not-for-profit organization has broader First Amendment latitude than a for-profit corporation would.) For-profit organizations theoretically exist for the purpose of generating profits and are not given the same exemptions. There's a related discussion on this thread.
I agree that that's one reason why legislatures often choose to write such exemptions into statutes (as they did with the PPACA) but I don't see why the constitutional analysis would distinguish between for-profit and non-profit public accommodations. In fact, in cases like this, the fact that the defendant is a for-profit company arguably strengthens the case that the defendant is engaged in protected viewpoint advocacy: it's actually turning down money from a paying customer in order to express its views, or to avoid expressing views it disagrees with (or, if you like, to discriminate against a gay couple).
Posts: 53 | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Planeta Plicata:
I agree that that's one reason why legislatures often choose to write such exemptions into statutes (as they did with the PPACA) but I don't see why the constitutional analysis would distinguish between for-profit and non-profit public accommodations.
I could be argued (and, in fact, I do argue) that such exemptions are written into discrimination statutes not as nice freebie handouts legislatures give to favored viewpoints and religions, but as stipulations required to pass constitutional muster. In fact, casting them as "nice freebie handouts legislatures give to favored viewpoints and religions" illustrates exactly the constitutional problem with this view.
quote:
Originally posted by Planeta Plicata:
In fact, in cases like this, the fact that the defendant is a for-profit company arguably strengthens the case that the defendant is engaged in protected viewpoint advocacy: it's actually turning down money from a paying customer in order to express its views, or to avoid expressing views it disagrees with (or, if you like, to discriminate against a gay couple).
As far as I know, no one has ever questioned the sincerity of Ms. Huguenin dislike of homosexuals, or at least her dislike of homosexuals who marry. In fact it seems to be one of the generally agreed upon facts of the case. Just because someone sincerely wants to discriminate doesn't give them a legal exemption from anti-discrimination laws. If that were the case such laws would be impossible to enforce.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Planeta Plicata
Shipmate
# 17543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Planeta Plicata:
I agree that that's one reason why legislatures often choose to write such exemptions into statutes (as they did with the PPACA) but I don't see why the constitutional analysis would distinguish between for-profit and non-profit public accommodations.
I could be argued (and, in fact, I do argue) that such exemptions are written into discrimination statutes not as nice freebie handouts legislatures give to favored viewpoints and religions, but as stipulations required to pass constitutional muster. In fact, casting them as "nice freebie handouts legislatures give to favored viewpoints and religions" illustrates exactly the constitutional problem with this view.
Why would crafting an exemption for non-profits be necessary to pass constitutional muster? (Serious question.)
quote:
As far as I know, no one has ever questioned the sincerity of Ms. Huguenin dislike of homosexuals, or at least her dislike of homosexuals who marry. In fact it seems to be one of the generally agreed upon facts of the case. Just because someone sincerely wants to discriminate doesn't give them a legal exemption from anti-discrimination laws. If that were the case such laws would be impossible to enforce.
Actually, the sincerity of a person's religious view is a necessary precondition to their invoking both the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act and New Mexico's state-law equivalent. As you say, that's not sufficient to grant them an exemption from a generally-applicable law—that would be totally unworkable. (They're only entitled to an exemption if "the application of the restriction to the person is essential to further a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.") But any sincere religious belief is sufficient to trigger the scrutiny required by the RFRA and is therefore relevant to Ms. Huguenin's RFRA claim.
[ 25. January 2014, 02:55: Message edited by: Planeta Plicata ]
Posts: 53 | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Planeta Plicata:
Why would crafting an exemption for non-profits be necessary to pass constitutional muster? (Serious question.)
Not non-profits per se, but the kind of organizations whose purpose is some forms of issue advocacy or religious proselytization/education. In other words, certain types of non-profits require an exemption, but not all. To go back to an example I cited earlier, not exempting churches (a sub-set of non-profit organizations) from religious non-discrimination laws in their hiring practices would be a violation of the First Amendment's free exercise clause. Likewise a group advocating for the rights of women could plausibly argue that it can make its case more plausibly with female spokeswomen than with male spokesmen, meaning that making such an organization abide by gender non-discrimination laws when hiring for such positions interferes with its right to free speech. As I noted, not all non-profits can plausibly make this argument, but virtually all the organizations for which this reasoning is applicable fall under the "non-profit" classification.
quote:
Originally posted by Planeta Plicata:
quote:
As far as I know, no one has ever questioned the sincerity of Ms. Huguenin dislike of homosexuals, or at least her dislike of homosexuals who marry. In fact it seems to be one of the generally agreed upon facts of the case. Just because someone sincerely wants to discriminate doesn't give them a legal exemption from anti-discrimination laws. If that were the case such laws would be impossible to enforce.
Actually, the sincerity of a person's religious view is a necessary precondition to their invoking both the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act and New Mexico's state-law equivalent.
The distinction between "sincere" and "insincere" religious belief is one of the vaguest in U.S. law, and one I usually regard as legal boilerplate. The U.S. maintains no Department of Doctrine to determine what people "really" believe and courts will virtually always accept someone's claim of religious sincerity.
quote:
Originally posted by Planeta Plicata:
As you say, that's not sufficient to grant them an exemption from a generally-applicable law—that would be totally unworkable. (They're only entitled to an exemption if "the application of the restriction to the person is essential to further a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.") But any sincere religious belief is sufficient to trigger the scrutiny required by the RFRA and is therefore relevant to Ms. Huguenin's RFRA claim.
The New Mexico Supreme Court opinion lays out a plausible line of reasoning that New Mexico's RFRA (the federal RFRA was held to be inapplicable to the states) was only meant to be applicable to government action, not suits between two private parties such as in this case.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Planeta Plicata
Shipmate
# 17543
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The New Mexico Supreme Court opinion lays out a plausible line of reasoning that New Mexico's RFRA (the federal RFRA was held to be inapplicable to the states) was only meant to be applicable to government action, not suits between two private parties such as in this case.
That's the same argument the Court of Appeals endorsed, but as Eugene Volokh explained, it's a pretty implausible reading of the text of the statute (which applies broadly to government "institutions," which would seem to include the New Mexico Human Rights Commission and the state courts) and inconsistent with the history of the statute. But it is, admittedly, the last word on the issue, unless the statute is amended or the court later overturns its own ruling.
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Planeta Plicata:
Why would crafting an exemption for non-profits be necessary to pass constitutional muster? (Serious question.)
Not non-profits per se, but the kind of organizations whose purpose is some forms of issue advocacy or religious proselytization/education. In other words, certain types of non-profits require an exemption, but not all. To go back to an example I cited earlier, not exempting churches (a sub-set of non-profit organizations) from religious non-discrimination laws in their hiring practices would be a violation of the First Amendment's free exercise clause.
But the types of non-profit public accommodations that the Supreme Court has found can't be compelled not to discriminate aren't the type of non-profits you're talking about. Excluding gays isn't central to the mission of the South Boston Allied War Veterans Council or the Boy Scouts, so it seems to me like the distinction the New Mexico Supreme Court is drawing is unsupported in—and probably even inconsistent with—binding precedent.
[ 25. January 2014, 05:35: Message edited by: Planeta Plicata ]
Posts: 53 | Registered: Feb 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Planeta Plicata:
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
The New Mexico Supreme Court opinion lays out a plausible line of reasoning that New Mexico's RFRA (the federal RFRA was held to be inapplicable to the states) was only meant to be applicable to government action, not suits between two private parties such as in this case.
That's the same argument the Court of Appeals endorsed, but as Eugene Volokh explained, it's a pretty implausible reading of the text of the statute (which applies broadly to government "institutions," which would seem to include the New Mexico Human Rights Commission and the state courts) and inconsistent with the history of the statute. But it is, admittedly, the last word on the issue, unless the statute is amended or the court later overturns its own ruling.
The problem with this interpretation is that it puts us right back at making any sort of anti-discrimination law unenforceable. For that matter, following this interpretation would make most generally applicable labor and safety laws unenforceable as well. All it takes is a claim that something in the law violates your religious beliefs and courts have to butt out.
It should be noted that Mr. Volokh mades an error of fact when he asserted that "the state [of New Mexico] itself discriminates against same-sex commitment ceremonies in its own marriage laws". It was rather famously discovered later that New Mexico had no laws on its books forbidding marriage between partners of the same gender.
quote:
Originally posted by Planeta Plicata:
But the types of non-profit public accommodations that the Supreme Court has found can't be compelled not to discriminate aren't the type of non-profits you're talking about. Excluding gays isn't central to the mission of the South Boston Allied War Veterans Council or the Boy Scouts, so it seems to me like the distinction the New Mexico Supreme Court is drawing is unsupported in—and probably even inconsistent with—binding precedent.
Deciding what is and isn't "central" to the mission of a non-profit is fairly similar to deciding whether a religious belief is "sincere". Courts are heavily dependent upon self-reporting.
To take a related example, the U.S. government never questioned whether racial discrimination was "central" to Bob Jones University's Christian beliefs, or that its "central mission" was education, which could be done in a non-discriminatory way. The University's self-reporting was considered sufficient to establish the fact.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
The House of Reps in the State of Kansas passed a law by a 72-49 margin that would allow anyone to discriminate against any partnership if it collided with their religious beliefs in the provision of both private and state services.
It was clearly aimed by protecting "Christian" photographers who objected to working at same sex weddings, but was so broadly written (so as to not appear homophobic) that it could give cover to doctors who refuse to treat a pregnant woman who is living with her unmarried male partner, or firefighters who refuse to save the burning home of a divorced and remarried couple. The State could deny a gay couple a business license or refuse to register their title to a newly purchased home.
"Rep. Mark Kahrs, R-Wichita, said the bill would protect a lesbian photographer who wanted to refuse to work for a Catholic wedding based on the church’s stance against same-sex marriage." Except that it doesn't, because federal law makes discriminating against someone on the basis of religious belief illegal and that would supersede this bill.
FWIW, the two Episcopal Church Bishops issued a sharply worded condemnation of the bill.
Andrew Sullivan (who I am not usually a fan of) had this to say:
quote:
"Even if you believe that gay people are going to Hell, that they have chosen evil, or are somehow trying to subvert society by seeking to commit to one another for life, it does not follow that you should ostracize them. The entire message of the Gospels is about embracing those minorities despised by popular opinion. Jesus made a point to associate with the worst sinners – collaborating tax-collectors, prostitutes or lepers whose disease was often perceived as a sign of moral failing. The idea that Christianity approves of segregating any group is anathema to what Jesus actually preached and the way he actually lived. The current Pope has explicitly opposed such ostracism. Christians, far from seeking distance from “sinners”, should be engaging them, listening to them, ministering to them – not telling them to leave the store or denying them a hotel room or firing them from their job. But then, as I’ve tried to argue for some time now, Christianism is not Christianity. In some practical ways, it is Christianity’s most tenacious foe."
For now, it looks like the Kansas Senate has quashed the bill, but I have a feeling another, differently worded one will take its place. Similar bills are moving through the Idaho and Tennessee legislatures.
[ 15. February 2014, 17:46: Message edited by: ToujoursDan ]
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
St Paul had something to say about Christians serving those who were different from us:
Romans 12
[ 15. February 2014, 18:38: Message edited by: Anglican_Brat ]
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
The House of Reps in the State of Kansas passed a law by a 72-49 margin that would allow anyone to discriminate against any partnership if it collided with their religious beliefs in the provision of both private and state services.
It was clearly aimed by protecting "Christian" photographers who objected to working at same sex weddings, but was so broadly written (so as to not appear homophobic) that it could give cover to doctors who refuse to treat a pregnant woman who is living with her unmarried male partner, or firefighters who refuse to save the burning home of a divorced and remarried couple. The State could deny a gay couple a business license or refuse to register their title to a newly purchased home.
As I once noted elsewhere, anti-gay activists really seem to be copying wholesale from the Segregationist playbook. I know a lot of anti-gay folks object to that comparison being made, but you can't propose Jim Crow laws for gays and not expect people to make the connection!
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
I'm waiting for "I don't mind Lesbians but would you want your sister to marry one?"
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
I used to feel that comparing the fight for LGBT rights to the fight against Jim Crow was an exaggeration that made my side look over the top, but more and more I think it's simply true. In some places there are no troubles, and in other places the law is working on becoming separate and not equal.
It is a tricky thing, though. In some places, as far as legal persecutions, a comparison can be made. The problem comes in equating them directly, they are not completely identical.* And there is perception. Those who face one will generally not see the other as equally oppressive. So though making the comparison might be fair,the reaction to it will still be contentious.
*Not better v. worse, just different.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Palimpsest
Shipmate
# 16772
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
And for anyone who's been under a firehose or had to fight that level of oppression I imagine the comparison feels very off.
It's hard to make quantitative comparisons of oppression but some see the similarities, e.g. Loving on Same Sex Marriage rather than the differences.
Posts: 2990 | From: Seattle WA. US | Registered: Nov 2011
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
And for anyone who's been under a firehose or had to fight that level of oppression I imagine the comparison feels very off.
Then why do the oppressors keep trying to run plays from the same playbook?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
I was thinking about this as I walked to my local Timmie's this morning.
Religious freedom is one thing and it's something I value too, as a gay Christian, the right to worship how I choose.
But is it really "religious freedom" if the local Timmie's clerk tells me "Sorry, I can't serve you coffee, I object to your homosexuality."
I don't go to stores expecting the sales people to "validate" anything about me. I expect them to help and serve me that is consistent with their roles as sales persons, no different than anyone else.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Arabella Purity Winterbottom
Trumpeting hope
# 3434
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Anglican_Brat:
I don't go to stores expecting the sales people to "validate" anything about me. I expect them to help and serve me that is consistent with their roles as sales persons, no different than anyone else.
Excellent summing up of the whole argument. To which I would add, I, as the customer, am likewise not there to do anything but purchase the product/service they are offering. In other words, we meet on equal grounds.
--------------------
Hell is full of the talented and Heaven is full of the energetic. St Jane Frances de Chantal
Posts: 3702 | From: Aotearoa, New Zealand | Registered: Oct 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Niteowl
Hopeless Insomniac
# 15841
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
These bills now seem to be falling under public pressure.
South Dakota lawmakers toss out 'mean, nasty, hateful, vindictive' bill
Idaho rep withdraws religious freedom bill
Tennesee - Controversial Senate Bill 2566 effectively killed in committee
So justice wins... for now.
There are 2 important elections coming up: 2014 midterms and 2016 Presidential. The GOP is finally aware that it has a major image problem and is trying to temporarily repair that image. Either they genuinely give up the moral, gender and racial paths they've beaten in the past or risk losing more elections. Rand Paul was quoted as stating if the GOP doesn't change there won't be another GOP White House in his time. I hate to say it because I'm in that age group, but until the boomers have control of the GOP taken away from them, there probably won't be a genuine change. Just cosmetics to try and win elections.
--------------------
"love all, trust few, do wrong to no one"
Wm. Shakespeare
Posts: 2437 | From: U.S. | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
But here in Arizona, nothing changes... quote:
The Arizona Senate on Wednesday passed a bill backed by Republicans that would expand the rights of people to assert their religious beliefs in refusing service to gays and others...
![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
But here in Arizona, nothing changes... quote:
The Arizona Senate on Wednesday passed a bill backed by Republicans that would expand the rights of people to assert their religious beliefs in refusing service to gays and others...
Having read the bill in question, it seems to be written so broadly that it allows "exercise of religion" to be a legal justification for any form of discrimination (race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc.). Indeed, it seems to be written in such a way as to allow religious pleading to be an exemption to just about any law, except for zoning ordinances and the tax code.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
ToujoursDan
Ship's prole
# 10578
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Crœsos:
quote:
Originally posted by Pigwidgeon:
But here in Arizona, nothing changes... quote:
The Arizona Senate on Wednesday passed a bill backed by Republicans that would expand the rights of people to assert their religious beliefs in refusing service to gays and others...
Having read the bill in question, it seems to be written so broadly that it allows "exercise of religion" to be a legal justification for any form of discrimination (race, gender, religion, sexual orientation, etc.). Indeed, it seems to be written in such a way as to allow religious pleading to be an exemption to just about any law, except for zoning ordinances and the tax code.
Which will put it in violation of federal law, so will quickly be invalidated.
--------------------
"Many people say I embarrass them with my humility" - Archbishop Peter Akinola
Facebook link: http://www.facebook.com/toujoursdan
Posts: 3734 | From: NYC | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
If it passes, I hope liberal religious people use that to the max.
That's a losing strategy, as illustrated by this bit from an Arizona Daily Star article:
quote:
Foes, however, sought to concentrate on what they said would be more concrete effects of such a law. Sen. Robert Meza, D-Phoenix, said the measure would allow a hotel operator who believes Mormonism is a cult to refuse to provide rooms to a family who walked in wearing Brigham Young T-shirts indicating their religion.
[Bill sponsor Steve] Yarbrough did not specifically dispute that. But he said the question of whether such an action would be allowed would be based on whether the government has a “compelling interest” in forbidding such discrimination and whether any laws were the least restrictive necessary.
So you can see how this will likely play out through selective enforcement and special pleading. Preventing discrimination against popular groups is a "compelling government interest", whereas preventing discrimination against unpopular groups isn't.
quote:
Originally posted by ToujoursDan:
Which will put it in violation of federal law, so will quickly be invalidated.
Assuming it passes the Arizona House of Representatives. At the moment it's just a bill.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Gwai,
That is a master class example of sarcasm.
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
"“A person does not lose their First Amendment freedoms when they start a business,” she said. “In America, people are free to live and work according to their faith.”
Actually, this isn't exactly true, at least not how I understand religious freedom works.
When one sets up a business and opens it up to the public, then one must serve the public.
Religious freedom, as I understand it, is the freedom to practice one's faith. Now I agree to some degree that one can't restrict this right simply to worship. I'm a Christian and my political view points are formed on some basis on my Christian faith. In public discourse, while I would provide secular and public reasons for my arguments to engage with people who are not of my faith, I also would say that of course, my religion influences my politics.
But all of the examples I use doesn't harm anyone else. Me going to church on a Sunday inflicts no burden on non-Christians who prefer to stay home. And stating that I'm a Christian in public discourse doesn't harm anyone.
It is not true that religious freedom means you can say or do whatever you want in an employment setting. If a Mormon sales clerk decided to proselytize during work hours and on work time, she would be promptly dismissed on the basis of not doing her job.
Heck, try being a Roman Catholic priest and performing a same-sex wedding in his church. The same right-wing commentators who now scream "religious freedom" would all back the RC church in firing the said priest.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Gwai:
Fair enough, Croesus. I guess we'll just have to hope for the sanity of the Arizona reps or of the judges.
The word "sanity" and the words "Arizona reps" should never be used in the same sentence. We can only pray that our idiot Governor doesn't sign it. She's surprised us a few times recently by acting like a decent human being. If she does sign it, it will be tossed by the Feds, but I'm getting really tired of our Legislature passing laws which are tossed after we, the taxpayers, have been stuck paying for the legal shenanigans.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
Yup, they passed it.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
lilBuddha
Shipmate
# 14333
|
Posted
Colour me shocked.
Fucking bastards. Lets fill the Grand Canyon and dry up their tourist revenues. I am grabbing a shovel and booking a flight, who is with me?
--------------------
I put on my rockin' shoes in the morning
Hallellou, hallellou
Posts: 17627 | From: the round earth's imagined corners | Registered: Dec 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
Our Bishop and Cathedral Dean have responded.
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
orfeo
Ship's Musical Counterpoint
# 13878
|
Posted
A friend posted a link on Facebook to a cafe in Tucson that has responded by putting up a sign saying "we reserve the right to refuse to serve Arizona legislators".
--------------------
Technology has brought us all closer together. Turns out a lot of the people you meet as a result are complete idiots.
Posts: 18173 | From: Under | Registered: Jul 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by orfeo:
A friend posted a link on Facebook to a cafe in Tucson that has responded by putting up a sign saying "we reserve the right to refuse to serve Arizona legislators".
I love it! (But I would make an exception for those who fought against, and voted against, the bill.)
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Morons, f***ing morons.
So the probably didn't bother to get to grips with the idea, never mind read the whole thing.
And the so-called Chr****an right galvanised their swivel-eyed troops to harangue and pester their representatives and the result is this mess.
Should be the called the ABC measure
A Bigot's Charter
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Pigwidgeon
Ship's Owl
# 10192
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
And the so-called Chr****an right galvanised their swivel-eyed troops to harangue and pester their representatives and the result is this mess.
This being Arizona, there's also a lot of LDS influence, including some of the Senators and Representatives who pushed for it.
Now the official reaction from the LDS is that they want their members to decide for themselves. Since when??? The RC Church is just saying straight out that it's a great piece of legislation.
Here's a television interview with our Episcopal Cathedral Dean, and it also mentions the LDS and RC responses. (I have no idea if this link will work in other countries.)
--------------------
"...that is generally a matter for Pigwidgeon, several other consenting adults, a bottle of cheap Gin and the odd giraffe."
~Tortuf
Posts: 9835 | From: Hogwarts | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
L'organist
Shipmate
# 17338
|
Posted
Your Dean seems to be a level-headed chap and his pithy summing up of the situation puts most of our people on this side of the pond to shame.
As you may have seen, our own hierarchy have just managed to lash together 'advice' about SSM which is likely to lead to witch-hunts against gay clergy. Of course, they've already tried to suggest that the legalisation of SSM would be on a par with legislating to allow incest - no, I'm not joking, one of our bishops in the House of Lords, in front of TV cameras, no less.
--------------------
Rara temporum felicitate ubi sentire quae velis et quae sentias dicere licet
Posts: 4950 | From: somewhere in England... | Registered: Sep 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
leo
Shipmate
# 1458
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by L'organist:
the legalisation of SSM would be on a par with legislating to allow incest - no, I'm not joking, one of our bishops in the House of Lords, in front of TV cameras, no less.
Ye gods. There was a time when our bishops were temperate and scholarly. Now, they seem like a bunch of buffoons.
Or is it me just getting old and remembering 'good old days' that were never that good?
--------------------
My Jewish-positive lectionary blog is at http://recognisingjewishrootsinthelectionary.wordpress.com/
My reviews at http://layreadersbookreviews.wordpress.com
Posts: 23198 | From: Bristol | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Net Spinster
Shipmate
# 16058
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by leo:
Ye gods. There was a time when our bishops were temperate and scholarly. Now, they seem like a bunch of buffoons.
Or is it me just getting old and remembering 'good old days' that were never that good?
I think the latter. Just consider the bishops in times past who opposed ending slavery and the slave trade. Or those who opposed strictly civil marriage or allowing non-CoE to be married under forms other than the BCP. For instance when Unitarians sought the ability not to have to go through a Trinitarian ceremony. Or to allow non Christians or even non-COE into Parliament
The member of the Jewish faith must, if he acted up to his principles, be as diametrically hostile to the Christian Church as their Lordships would be to the promotion of Mahometanism. The noble Marquess said that they would form but a small voice in the Legislature; but if some measure of vital importance to the religious interests of the country should be defeated by a small majority, of which these Jewish representatives were a part, how could he complain, if he had himself contributed to give them a place in the Legislation? ... The proposed measure (whatever may be supposed by the noble Lord who has just sat down) is contemplated with conscientious dislike and anxious dread by a large class of persons whom I cannot but regard as the most valuable members of the community, and who consider it as a sort of insult to the religion which they reverence and honour. ... My Lords, it is very undesirable to give any grounds, whether just or no, for such an opinion; very undesirable to disgust the best members of society with the institutions of the country, or to encourage an opposite class in their indifference to all religion.
ABC
25 May 1848 (Lionel de Rothschild had been elected MP for London but was not permitted to take his seat in 1848, a bill eventually passed in 1858)
Browsing through Hansard's online records can be very interesting.
--------------------
spinner of webs
Posts: 1093 | From: San Francisco Bay area | Registered: Dec 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
