Message received.
I don’t know what Arizona Republican legislators are running from now: they have accomplished their mission. They’ve made it abundantly clear that they don’t like or respect the rights of gays, bi-sexuals and transsexuals, and want to leave no question in the minds of anti-gay bigots (or good and gentle religious people across the state who want to discriminate against gays because they thing doing so is “moral”) that the nationwide cultural shift to approval of gay marriage, a.k.a, equal rights under law, hasn’t changed this: Arizona Republicans back your dislike of these perverts’ sinful, corrupting lifestyle, whatever the law is.
The disingenuous and offensive argument being made by Republican supporters of the modifications of an 1999 Arizona law called the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) is, in essence, that Arizona businesses can already discriminate against gays, and so can those of lots of other states. This isn’t an anti-gay law! It’s a religious freedom law! Yes, and the Civil War was about States rights. The new bill’s clear motivation—Timing! Timing!— is to strengthen the hand of businesses, organizations, corporation and non-profits that object, allegedly or actually on genuine religious grounds, to serving, employing, or dealing with gays. More than that, however, the goal is to line up the legal, moral and ethical authority of the state behind those who want to treat gays in this fashion, whatever the reason, rather than behind the rights of the LBGT community to be treated like all other citizens.
The adoption of such a of such a bill into law would harm every single member of the LBGT community whether they were ever refused service or not. By asserting that it is fair and reasonable to treat them differently and with less respect than other Americans, Arizona will have declared that in its view, they are not as worthy of rights and protection as other Americans. They are not welcome.
That was the message, in great measure, of the state’s controversial anti-illegal immigration legislation of a few years ago: let illegals know they are not welcome. I endorsed and still endorse that message, for illegal immigrants should not be welcome, and it is incomprehensible that anyone should be welcome to break important and standing laws. The message of the new version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, however, is un-American….and it has already been sent.
Governor Jan Brewer is playing coy about whether she will sign the bill or not, and that is a message too. It tells everyone, but especially the state’s gays, that she approves of the vile message being sent, but perhaps not all the consequences of sending it. She has been waiting to see where the winds are blowing, especially those carrying money to her state. Now it looks as if Arizona will be the target of serious economic consequences and even boycotts if the bill becomes law, much as it did when it initially rejected Martin Luther King Day, and even in Arizona, most bigots prefer money to what they call “principle.” If Brewer found disparate treatment of citizens according to their sexual preferences to be wrong, she would have sent a very different message, by announcing immediately that the bill was an embarrassment to Arizona, that it did not correctly represent the attitudes of the citizens of the state, and that it would be Dead On Arrival when it reached her desk. She does not possess the courage or the dedication to justice, fairness and equality to send that message., even if she agrees with it.
Whether the bill is passed or not, its message has already insulted and marginalized the LBGT community in Arizona and out of it, and steeled the resolve of religious conservatives who refuse to recognize when their religious beliefs have begun doing more harm than good, as well as the outright bigots who rationalize their hate—it’s mostly based on ignorance, habit, and “Ick!“—with religious beliefs that they only break out when they’re useful.
The bill also sends a useful message to everyone else about the stubborn, deceitful, irrational politicians who sent it, and their party. They are kicking and screaming and holding their breath until they turn blue because they don’t like where the culture is going, and they continue to back an ugly, smelly, limping nag in a lopsided race to determine what’s right and wrong in a democracy based on equal rights. They are going to lose. Indeed they have already lost; the only question is how much these bitter and inflexible politicians are willing to lose on the inevitable results.
_________________________
Facts: The Christian Post, LA Times
Graphic: Cocorioko
Ethics Alarms 
a) if this bill fails, then I would suppose it would mean that businesses also weren’t allowed to forbid people from carrying permitted concealed weapons, what with that being a civil right too (and one actually written down).
b) I will say it again – let businesses refuse service. If they want to refuse a customer, that is perfectly acceptable. You aren’t required to shop there, and no one is kept from opening a competing business, so let them be bigoted asshole – they will go out of business due to lack of customers (or will continue to succeed if their product is deemed worthy, their prices are better, or the local community feels the same.
The fact that people think forcing others to engage in business is where that fuckwit Congressman got the notion that Congress has the authority to ban gays from the NFL. I am less concerned that the bill was even written and spoken of in polite society than I am by the chance that the government will pass it and be allowed this sort of authority.
If you don’t like how a business is run, don’t patronize it. Shop a competitor or, if their in none and it seems there would be support for it, start a competing business.
The market has a solution for this that allows for people to have choice. I thought choice was a good thing. When did it become bad?
It became bad when it took too long to work and blacks died while trying to find doctors who would treat them. You really think the kind of treatment Jackie Robinson got —your team can stay here, you can’t—should be enshrined in law?
That’s a classic Rand Paul theory. It fails Kant 101. If one business can do it, every business can do it, and then you can starve unpopular groups to death. Not on these shores.
Besides, when the law already says you can’t refuse service to some groups, as it does now, allowing you to refuse service to others automatically creates a stigma. Bron v. Board of Education: separate isn’t equal, and it isn’t.
You’re right – separate is frequently better.
If you don’t like the way a business acts, don’t. Give. Them. Money.
They will fail, and they won’t be able to refuse service any more.
Why do you think forcing people to do things is the right answer? By this logic, forcing people to buy insurance is just fine and dandy too – hell, for most it isn’t even making them do something against their religion.
Separate but equal only was ever better for white people Scott. You know that — you’re not an idiot. The schools were better, the parks were better, the public bathrooms were better, etc.
You certainly don’t have to, but I challenge you to come up with 5 concrete examples of accommodations or services that were better for black people between Plessy v. Ferguson and Brown v. Board — anywhere in the United States.
This is just a myth — and it also presumes choice — where a lot of people don’t have any. Suppose you live in a food desert and the only grocery store decides to ban gays? The choice is starving I guess — or living off McDonalds. But wait, I know what you’ll say, “move.” Well, my guess is that you might need to eat food other than McNuggets by the time you sell your apartment (or rent a new one), move your kids to a new school, possibly find a new job, etc. — and all that with the big assumption that you can afford to move in the first place. This is how segregation ends up working — those in the minority just end up suffering.
This also illustrates one of the fundamental problems with the Libertarian movement right now. Superficially, many of its social policies sound like good ones — but when you scratch the surface you find that not only are they unsound, but many of the sponsors are transparently racist or sexist or bigoted or extreme pro life or (fill in the blank). Until the party fixes this, I don’t believe they will ever get serious mainstream traction, especially since we’re quickly heading to a majority minority country.
So your basic argument is “people make choices and decisions I don’t like, therefore we must force them to make ones that I do like”?
Sure. You go ahead. I’ll just go back to preparing my violent insurrection because fuck you, you don’t get to make my choices.
My argument, I thought, was quite simple — you don’t get to legislate discrimination under the guise of the First Amendment. If a religious belief became popular than Blacks were sinners and should be shunned, would you argue that a religious bakery owner could refuse service to black people? What if the business was Walmart or GM?
So again, fuck anyone’s beliefs, fuck any actual choice, force them to do what you think is right.
Gotcha.
So again, fuck anyone’s beliefs, fuck any actual choice, force them to do what you think is right.
**********
Doesn’t sound very American, does it?
Not the kind of ideals the past five generations of your family have been fighting for? 😦
Imagine sending your kid off to war for a country like that.
(I’d shoot him in the leg first.)
Half the people in this country are a f-ing disgrace.
The never-ending hate.
The cramming of “truth” or “fairness” down throats.
The “atheist movement”, as if that is what it was.
People that haven’t worked a day in their lives, doing the dole and camping out all over the country “protesting”.
If it wasn’t so pathetic it would be sad.
Do you know what Americans are most of all?
They are angry.
Very angry.
I have a notion to become a contrarian and say no to everything that comes down the pike – just because I can.
At least while I still have the right.
Scott, and Libertarians in general, don’t talk about legislating discrimination. The point of view is that there are some things that the government shouldn’t have their finger in.
There’s no law specifically allowing you to hop on one leg down the street, there’s no law saying that you can’t. That doesn’t make it legislated.
The thing is that the market is usually good at winnowing out bigots in business, and your examples of Wal-Mart and GM fall flat. Not for the reason that they’re both too business savvy to alienate customers, then because they both operate in markets where they could discriminate, and don’t. In fact…. I challenge you to name a single multinational company that does.
Well, the AZ law isn’t in effect yet, give businesses some time! But if you don’t think that multi-national businesses have discriminated in the past against Blacks, you need to crack a history book.
I just can’t give credit to the argument that because some multinationals discriminated at a time where discrimination was not only legal, but commonplace is evidence that they still would today, even though they can and don’t.
NOBODY is talking about denying food to people because they are gay. If that is happening, it’s wrong.
We’re talking about preventing the state from being used to compel expression and association, particularly when it comes to same-sex weddings. In the case of the New Mexico photographer, the lesbian couple in question were able to find another photographer.
Let’s flip this scenario around – if the legislation were being proposed in Massachusetts to allow gay-owned businesses to refuse to serve the Westboro Baptist Church because Phelps and Company were suing those gay-owned businesses for religious discrimination (say, for refusing to provide a cake, a floral arrangement, or to provide photographic services for one of their protests), would there be the level of outrage we are seeing over the Arizona legislation that provides a similar exemption for those who conscientiously object to participating in or providing services to a same-sex wedding? I would imagine not.
So, I think the opponents of this legislation are world-class hypocrites, for starters. They would be howling and protesting if a gay florist were compelled to provide arrangements for the Westboro Baptist Church under threat of lawsuits or worse. Yet they have celebrated the notion of compelling Christians who have objections to same-sex marriage to provide services.
To me, that is the first problem with your argument. It embraces a double standard.
The second problem is far more fundamental: The fact is that we are already seeing the state compelling association, something that the Supreme Court refused to do in Boy Scouts of America vs. Dale, among other cases (including Beck vs. Communications Workers of America). But the cases that prompted this law go further, where states are trying to compel forms of expression (the Supreme Court ruled against coerced expression in West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette and Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International, Inc.). In this case, be it a floral arrangement, a custom wedding cake, or photographic services, we are talking about creative expression.
Is same-sex marriage so important that we must create an exception to the First Amendment’s protections against compelled association and expression – exceptions that are far more likely to have a disparate impact on certain religious groups (evangelical Christians, Mormons, Catholics, Orthodox Jews, among others) than others? Or is this more about giving one group of people – a preferred group among the legal, media, and entertainment elites – the tools to bully another groups of people who those same elites look down on?
Ether way, it does not sound as if it is about equality at all. Furthermore, these precedents, in the hands of a President and Administration that gave this country the scandal surrounding the IRS targeting the Tea Party, would be a devastating blow to the First Amendment in practice. So that leads to what I believe is the fundamental question:
Is forcing a photographer, baker, or florist to provide services to a same-sex wedding worth wrecking the protections of the First Amendment? To me, the answer is “no,” and I don’t have to think too hard about this one. Government-compelled expression and government-compelled association are not American values – and I feel that this bill, hard as it may be for some to swallow, is the only option to prevent the truly un-American specter of compelled expression and compelled association from casting its shadow across the country.
If that happens, then we will have truly crossed into something un-American.
You’re wrong there. Every liberal I know defends the Westboro Baptist Church and the KKK. We have to — free speech is free speech, however distasteful.
This, however, is just discrimination. And businesses don’t get to hide behind the First Amendment to justify their bigotry.
A good example is what Chicago tried re Chik-Fil-A. No one got behind it.
Remind me what party runs Chicago? Or Boston? Or calls for them to be run off of college campuses? Or who requires a student apologize for sending a .gif of Obama kicking a door?
I think you missed my point. Yes, a LIBERAL mayor tried to do the same thing and his liberal party (and others across the country) explained to him that he was an idiot and that they weren’t going to support him.
“I don’t know anyone who voted for Nixon…”
Enough to force a gay florist to do the WBC’s floral arrangements?
Yup. A gay florist should do the WBC’s floral arrangements. They probably have some guidelines for all of their customers to follow with regards to “appropriate messaging”, but the florist should take their money just like anyone else.
If you want to stand on principle, then take the punishment that goes with it. Otherwise, if you offer a product or service for a price to the general public, then honor your word and fulfill the order.
If you are truly religious, then your business should be a religious business. That’s the only exemption I could fathom. Are you a business of your state or of your church? If you are a “christian shop”, file as a religious non-profit and donate the proceeds back into your religion.
But you don’t actually offer it to the general public – it is a self-selecting group, and you can still refuse if they won’t pay enough.
I do agree that at some point, a self-owned business, because the business and the individual can’t be separated, should be given the leeway to make these decisions. But a threshold at 5 employees (or some other arbitrary number) should subject the business to the laws of the state. Much like the healthcare law doesn’t affect any business with less than 50 employees.
When a business gets to a size where they are employing the talent that would otherwise compete against them, they need to be inclusive. If you employee a league of 20 photographers, are you sure that every single one of them has religious beliefs about gay marriage? Even if that’s the case, why don’t you employ one who doesn’t? Can we be sure that all 20 genuinely are against gay marriage or is there a possibility that some of them fear for their jobs and are simply parroting the boss?
So, as with all things, size matters.
The hyper free market stance coupled with the Property Rights are absolute, would argue that regardless of the size of the company, the owner or owners would establish the service policy. If the 20 person photography group all were cool with photographing a gay wedding, but the owner/owners said no, then theoretically, the owner’s wishes carry on. Additionally, in the hyper free market stance, any one of those workers can quit and become a competitor that doesn’t discriminate.
That may be right. So, if we’re taking things to their “hyper” extremes, we should say that everyone’s opinions should be on full display. If you are a discerning business that doesn’t allow your cakes to be used in non “hetero-wedding” situations, then that should be posted in full view so all customers can make informed decisions.
And businesses don’t get to hide behind the First Amendment to justify their bigotry.
the problem is that some business activities may implicate the First Amendment.
Applying anti-discrimination laws to effectively require sellers of photography materials to members of the Westboro Baptist Church would be unlikely to implicate the First Amendment, even though such materials would likely be used to film their pickets.
On the other hand, a law effectively requiring photographers to photograph Westboro Baptist Church pickets would implicate the First Amendment.
I think this is right.
If a Catholic can’t refuse to photograph a same-sex wedding because of their religion, a gay photographer can’t refuse to photograph a WBC protest just because they don’t like the WBC.
Why does the WBC deserve to be treated like second class citizens?
Forget the photography, Scott. I think a discriminating photographer is a jerk, but the law should side with him. It’s expressive. If the Arizona law was restricted to wedding cake bakers, florists, photographers and event organizers, I wouldn’t have written the post.
Fine.
If a catholic limo-drive who owns his own limo (and is the only limo available) doesn’t get to say no to driving the newlywed gay couple after the wedding to the reception, then the gay limo driver who owns his limo (and is the only limo available) doesn’t get to refuse driving the WBC around.
Again, if you support forcing the gay driver to drive around the WBC, then fine, at least you are being consistent in your desire to force people to provide a service to people they don’t like or who’s message they oppose.
A photographer isn’t expressive, not when they are producing the images requested of them on the market, which IS what a wedding photographer does. They aren’t capturing images expressing their own consciences, they capture images commissioned to express the consciences of those they are contracted with.
I can show you my (awful) wedding pictures and disprove that. Photography is art. Wedding photographers are composing and expressing—that’s why you want pros.
Nope. All products and producers spread the spectrum from “crappy” to “excellent”. Which is why you want consummate professionals to handle any product or service you contract. But only a certain industry receives 1st amendment immunity, and I’m beginning to feel more and more that that is crap.
1. What does outrage have to do with it? Rejecting that law would be correct too—ethical, in line with American principals. (Note: I wrote the opposite initially, because I misread the question. THIS is what I meant to write.)
2. Whose “they?” Pretty lame device, that—choosing a description of a group that includes “hypocritical” and then saying the the opposition consists only of hypocrites. I would oppose either law, on the same principle.
3. How does providing services as required by law constitute supporting gay marriage? Does selling food to criminals support crime? It’s a phony argument to rationalize punishing legal and ethical conduct that you don’t approve of. Wrong.
4. “Is same-sex marriage so important that we must create an exception to the First Amendment’s protections against compelled association and expression – exceptions that are far more likely to have a disparate impact on certain religious groups (evangelical Christians, Mormons, Catholics, Orthodox Jews, among others) than others?” Oh, give us a break. You live in a community, a nation, a culture. That requires certain levels of participation and association, or society is a farce, and becomes a group of armed camps. You have to sell gays cheese, not live in the same room with them. And what compelled expression?
5. “Furthermore, these precedents, in the hands of a President and Administration that gave this country the scandal surrounding the IRS targeting the Tea Party, would be a devastating blow to the First Amendment in practice.” An extremely dishonest argument. A principle is invalid because the current government is likely to abuse it? Every principle known to civilization is vulnerable to that objection. The system, and citizens, are supposed to make sure principles aren’t abused. They have the tools, if they use them properly.
6. As I’ve said before, artistic expression is different, and the law should not compel it under any circumstances. The bakery was found to be a business, not expression. A photographer is an easier call: a photographer can take photos of someone or not as she pleases, or should be able to. A florist? Tough call, like the baker. If every wedding arrangement and every cake is simply made to order, it could reasonably be called a service and expression-free. I understand the tactic of going right to the gray area, but the topic should be kept to the unambiguous businesses. Should you be required to rent a motel room to a gay couple? Let them see a movie? Sell them pencils? Condoms? Of course. Saying no is un-American, unless you think American means “keeping other Americans from the enjoyment of life” because you don’t like their sex lives.
Why would a law allowing people to refuse service to gays be wrong, but a law allowing refusal of service to the WBC ok? It would be one or the either, you can’t have both.
I didn’t say that, or mean to. Let’s be clear: GAYS SHOULDN’T BE ABLE TO REFUSE SERVICE TO FRED’S FANATICS, AND HE SHOULDN’T BE ABLE TO REFUSE SERVICE (as opposed to religious services) TO GAYS. Clear? (I’ll check what I wrote to make sure I didn’t mess it up.)
UPDATE: yup, misread the question, and wrote the opposite of what I intended. Fixed.
Jack: “It’s a phony argument to rationalize punishing legal and ethical conduct that you don’t approve of.”
Not quite. It is a GENUINE argument. It is not to rationalize anything. It is not meant to PUNISH anything, but to refrain from PARTICIPATING in legal but UNETHICAL conduct you don’t approve of.
Those are the distinctions. You may deem the conduct ethical; fine. Others don’t. And, being forced to bake the cake, arrange flowers, etc. Is mandated PARTICIPATION in conduct one finds morally questionable.
It is not analogous to say selling food to criminals is a support of crime. The better analogy would be selling bottles (perfectly legal and ethical), selling rags (perfectly legal and ethical), and selling kerosene (perfectly legal and ethical) in downtown Boston right after Game 7 of the World Series, because, win or lose, there will probably be a riot. It is all ethical, but I would not want to do it. (Okay, my analogy is not perfect either, because rioting is illegal, but it gives you an idea where they are coming from.)
The act itself is participation in the conduct. And, that should not be coerced, not in a free country anyway.
-Jut
1. I disagree. When we get to something creative – or in areas of art (look at an episode of Cake Boss on Netflix for some perspective, and the cakes created, and tell me again, that a baker isn’t engaged in creative expression). Look at the Facebook Page of Sweet Cakes by Melissa, one of those bakers, and tell me those cakes aren’t works of art (albeit edible art).
2. “They” refers to the opponents of SB 1062.
3. For some photographers, bakers, and florists, what they do is to glorify God through their works on this world. Take a look at some of the businesses featured on the 700 Club.
4. I agree there are certain levels of participation, but some of the first people who came to America came for religious freedom nearly 400 years ago. In 1791, the First Amendment guaranteed freedom of speech. 71 years ago, the Supreme Court declared compelling Jehovah’s Witnesses to recite the Pledge of Allegiance was unconstitutional – something far less intrusive than forcing someone to spend hours taking photographs or to create a wedding cake. Those are bedrock principles of this country – part of the very culture you cite.
5. Part of addressing an abuse of power is to ensure that some powers are not there to be misused. If I know someone is trying to use the IRS to harass political opponents of a political administration, one remedy is to reduce that agency’s power. If people are trying to use anti-discrimination laws to coerce artistic or creative expression, then the proper response is legislation like SB 1062.
6. See item number one. Photographers, bakers, and florists DO get close to the artistic expression line. The First Amendment is not something to tamper with. That we consider doing so in the cases of Elane Photography, Sweet Cakes By Melissa, or Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts is frightening to me. Those who are supporting such coerced expression, in my view, are supporting something that is at odds with what this nation was founded on.
Freedom of speech includes the freedom to NOT speak. Freedom of expression includes the right to NOT express something. Freedom of association includes the right to NOT associate. Freedom of religion includes the right to NOT have a religion.
The notion of any coercion in those four areas is, quite frankly, un-American – far more so than the passage of SB 1062. But hey,. Jan Brewer will likely veto the measure.
1) and I think the “it’s creative, it’s art” line is abused. Like much of what is called “art” is just abuse. In the landscape industry, our designers are artists, but they SELL their art on the free market. If it’s sold on the free market it either ISN’T art, OR I want EVERY profession (or at least owner’s of particular professions) to be protected by Freedom of Speech, because it’s crap when an isolated sector can claim 1st amendment immunity for what they profess and express to earn a living doing, but no one else.
3) then glorifying God doesn’t get compensated on the market. Caveated by saying that of course they can be compensated if the market so chooses, but for their own consciences, they ought to have a higher standard.
“When the law already says you can’t refuse service to some groups, as it does now, allowing you to refuse service to others automatically creates a stigma.”
I hope Scott will agree with me here, as I think we’re on the same page. As he says- let businesses allow or disallow service. Broad strokes, full stop. I don’t like that the government has put themselves in the business of telling actual business with whom it must operate. Just because they’ve done it before doesn’t mean they should keep doing it. Surely you’re not going to argue that a law somehow becomes more ethical just because other similar laws exist.
There’s a reason that Jim Crow laws were passed. The market was not discriminating nearly as much as the racists wanted it to. It took government actions to compel them to do so. As one example, http://archive.mises.org/13502/jim-crow-government-against-market-forces/ describes court cases brought by railroads that didn’t want to segregate any more. Yes, it’s mises.org, but it provides a specific example and links to other resources.
For all that people whine about market discrimination, it took government action to actually create widespread racial hardship.
Regarding Kant 101: I want everyone to recognize that they don’t have a right to control my freedom of association. That necessarily includes the freedom to disassociate. I think racist discrimination is bad, but empowering the government in that fashion is worse. If you can find actual examples for purely market driven forces increasing discrimination, I’ll reconsider my objection to the portions of the civil rights which prevented private discrimination.
What’s wrong with mises.org that garners the shrug off of “Yes, it’s mises.org, but…”?
I have no problem with it, although it’s fairly extremely libertarian. I am used to non-libertarians, if they are familiar with it all, dismissing the source instead of the argument. I’ve gotten in the habit of acknowledging when I’m using a partisan source in an effort to avoid the “I can believe you cited them, so I won’t listen to you” foolishness. It seems to help when I’m posting on Slashdot. It’s not actually necessary here, and it is probably a bad habit.
If you look on some of the TV stations in AZ that have put up a poll asking how many oppose and how many are for SB1062 you’ll see an overwhelming number oppose the bill. One station’s poll said 91% oppose it and 9% approve. If passed, SB1062 will have a negative impact on far more people/groups than what at this time “appears” to be their initial target.
Unfortunately, many of our politicians not only pander to a far-right constituency within the state but cooperate with groups outside the state, even to the extent of allowing them to have input on a bills content. Prime examples are Private Prison Corporations, Scientology, and Aryan Groups [from Kansas whom actually helped write SB1070]. Anything and everything is for sale in AZ if the price is right. Recently AZ ranchers and farmers got a bill into committee which has the potential to rescind how farm animals are treated/housed/cared for. If it becomes law there is little or no oversight on the conditions under which farm animals are raised. After a recall of 8.7 million pounds of meat in California, inspectors found that conditions were crowded, filthy, deplorable. If the bill passes we made also find contaminated meat in Arizona’s food supply.
Sounds like a problem the voters should deal with, not the federal government.
The root of most of the divisive and contentious crap that’s dragging our national energy down — the belief that every location should have the exact same cookie cutter national solution.
I’m having a really tough time with this one. On the one hand the movement seems to be a logical extension of what ultimately became the Civil Rights Act of 1964, disallowing public accommodations from refusing service on the grounds of race and doing away with separate lunch counters and other attempts, primarily in the South, to make people of color unwelcome. That was naked color hatred, and almost no faith condones it except the Westboro Baptist Church, certain old-school branches of the Dutch Reformed Church, and, in all fairness, certain Black Muslims (“sun people” vs “ice people”).
However, in this case we are dealing with religious issues, and the government, I submit, needs to tread a lot more carefully, lest it get too close to violation of the Free Exercise Clause. Like it or not, the belief that gay behavior is inherently wrong has been around for at least 3,000 years, and it isn’t going to go away without a fight. I submit that it doesn’t help that, rightly or wrongly, it appears that the gay community wants to be treated like they are somehow special compared to the boring heterosexual types. It also doesn’t help that they have unapologetically vicious spokesmen like Dan Savage (I still wonder how he has survived as long as he has without pissing the wrong person off and getting beaten senseless or murdered).
As a religious person I believe that faith is in fact under attack, and not just by ideological atheists who want to scrub it from the public square because they believe in another form of hatred (sorry,hating someone because he believes and you don’t is just as bad as hating his color). I believe that the gay community, or elements of it, have been treasuring up the years of admittedly lousy treatment, and now they see their chance to push back against the religious people, especially those who are still holding firm to the belief that this behavior is sinful.
Maybe writing this law is an extreme measure, but I think it’s symptomatic of the fact that this conflict is about to get settled once and for all, and conflicts like this never get settled once and for all without at least litigation.
I tend to agree, but I do not think this issue will be “settled once and for all” – any more than abortion was “settled once and for all” by Roe v. Wade.
If anything, those who voted for this bill, by trying to protect the First Amendment protections against state being used to compel expression and association DESPITE the tidal wave of opposition (and a badly-written bill), are Ethics Heroes, not Dunces.
Jack blew this one, and he’s blown it badly.
Jack’s got his biases, same as any other. Usually I’m with him all the way, but, since he does a lot of work in theater, as I THINK he referenced in another post, he tends to run into more openly gay folks and have more openly gay friends than someone working in say, finance or engineering. That’s got to color his approach to things. I can honestly say, although I do know some openly (or obviously) gay people I do not call any of them friends. I don’t hate any of them, but I’m not interested in being pushed into a friendship with any of them either.
I’m a singer in addition to a lawyer, and I’ve done the occasional wedding gig for nominal pay or solos with a choral group, although I don’t by any means hold myself out as a professional singer. I’ve freely crossed musical and even religious genres, including singing in Hebrew for a Holocaust program even though I am myself a Catholic – I see no problem there, there is nothing the Jews believe that I don’t. However, I’d feel both strange and out of place singing for the wedding of two men, enough to the point where I think I couldn’t do my best work. Should I be forced to accept such a gig or forego these little side gigs altogether? I hope not, I would consider that an unnecessary governmental intrusion into my life.
The problem is there’s already some case law out there that’s gone the other way wrt gay people forcing themselves into acceptance, most notably the St. Patrick’s Day parade cases out of Boston and New York, where, suffice it to say, the SCOTUS ruled that freedom of association includes freedom NOT to associate, so private organizations who organize these events can exclude groups whose message conflicts with the organizations’, meaning NO gay pride banners. What is more, there’s also case law saying that public workers can’t be denied the freedom of expression right to march in ethnic parades or behind official banners in their uniforms, so, although mayors can choose not to join the parades themselves, they can’t pull the cops or firemen out of it or tell them they can’t march with their uniforms on. Is it time to revisit this question and tell private organizations they can’t exclude messages they dislike? If we’re going to tell businesses they can’t pick and choose who they do business with, I can’t see why logically that’s not the next step.
However, let’s not kid ourselves, this stream is only going to flow one way. You won’t see Catholic organizations in gay pride events, and you won’t see pro-Taiwan groups joining the Chinese New Year parade. But you will see gay groups making themselves VERY visible at St. Patrick’s Day events, and you will see far-left “peace” groups pushing their way into veterans’ events, and you may even see “peaceful” groups like CAIR making themselves known at Israel Day events. It really comes down to no one is going to be allowed to say “no” to whatever cause is popular culture’s pet cause at the moment.
“Jack’s got his biases, same as any other. Usually I’m with him all the way, but, since he does a lot of work in theater, as I THINK he referenced in another post, he tends to run into more openly gay folks and have more openly gay friends than someone working in say, finance or engineering. That’s got to color his approach to things. I can honestly say, although I do know some openly (or obviously) gay people I do not call any of them friends. I don’t hate any of them, but I’m not interested in being pushed into a friendship with any of them either.”
How is that a bias? People who don’t know any gay people well and yet argue that they should be marginalized don’t know what they are talking about. Knowledge isn’t bias. Experience can create biases, but not necessarily. I’ve been to gay weddings, had gays in my wedding, work and talk to them every day, have them in my house, work with them, hire them, have disputes with them…the works. They are people and citizens. It’s an inescapable conclusion, not a bias.
Who’s arguing they should be marginalized? I’m just saying this issue isn’t as clear-cut as the Civil Rights Act because religion is involved. People and citizens? Absolutely. Do they have the right not to be bullied, harassed, etc., same as the rest of us? Absolutely. Do they have the right to shove their own agenda ahead, even steamroller those who might disagree with them? Hell no, especially when that disagreement flows from something that’s supposed to be protected under the Constitution.
It doesn’t bother me that a gay couple live down the street from me, and I’m not going to harass them or be deliberately unpleasant to them. However, I’m also not going to invite them to dinner, I’m not going to talk to them unless there is a need to do so, and I don’t want them near my kids (though I’ll handle that tactfully, of course, i.e., “Charlie, you need to go help your mom… NOW,” not “Get away from that (epithet)”). As pointed out above, freedom of association includes the right not to associate, and when I decide who I want in my life or near my family, mine is the final word. When we start messing with that, I think we are becoming less American as well.
Let’s also make it clear, I’m not ok with out-and-out denial of basic, neutral services to someone because of their orientation. I don’t think it’s ok to throw someone out of your grocery store because you know he’s gay, though you are not obligated to serve him with a smile. I don’t think it’s ok to boot a gay couple from your restaurant for simply ordering a meal, though you can boot them if they act in an obnoxious manner, same as anyone else who misbehaves.
However, I don’t think you’re obligated to actively participate in behavior you have a sincerely belief-held problem with. We’ve carved out religious exceptions to the draft, in fact some even celebrate them and time and again we hear about how guys like Pete Seeger and Philip Berrigan were heroes of dissent because of their strong beliefs. I’ve been to cafeterias in heavily Jewish but otherwise commercial institutions i.e. Kushner Companies) where of course pork is nowhere to be found and if you order say, roast beef and Swiss on rye the cheese comes on a separate plate, you must place it on the sandwich yourself. I wouldn’t dream of asking them to serve me ham or whatever, it’s their cafeteria and they can put whatever they damn well please on the menu. The same applies to artists like photographers, bakers, singers, etc. It’s their shop or their talent, they decide what they do with it, without the state’s heavy hand coming in and telling them they must embrace this. I dunno if you completely missed the boat on this one like IM says you did, but I think your strong condemnation of it is a bit too strong. I think a narrower version of this law could and should become law.
1. Who’s arguing they should be marginalized?
Arguing that every member of a group can be refused a room, a meal, the opportunity to buy pants at the store he wants to, get a beer at a bar he likes isn’t marginalizing that group defies logic. Of course you’re arguing that. Brown v. Board of Education. It says “Separate is inherently unequal.” SCOTUS doesn’t qualify it with race.
2. “However, I don’t think you’re obligated to actively participate in behavior you have a sincerely belief-held problem with.”
You’re not. I would say taking photos at a wedding—yeah, that’s participating. Preparing a cake or a flower arrangement? I’m not convinced. But that’s weddings…this law isn’t about wedding services. It’s about businesses. Merchants. Plumbers.Pharmacies. It’s about people who think simply helping gays get through life is “participating,” which is unreasonable.
3. It doesn’t bother me that a gay couple live down the street from me, and I’m not going to harass them or be deliberately unpleasant to them. However, I’m also not going to invite them to dinner, I’m not going to talk to them unless there is a need to do so, and I don’t want them near my kids (though I’ll handle that tactfully, of course, i.e., “Charlie, you need to go help your mom… NOW,” not “Get away from that (epithet)”).
Explain to me how you didn’t just describe outright bigotry. Would you write the same about Jews? What’s the difference? You are shunning people you don’t know a think about because of what they ARE, and nothing else. That’s bigotry. There’s no logic or fairness to it, and it’s interesting that you could just write something like this. How can that attitude be justified? Because if you are going to treat another human being as not fit for human companionship, the burden is on you to articulate why. Sure, you CAN treat redheads like shit, or short people like shit, or Catholics, or Jews, or Republicans. But you teach your children a deadly lesson, and anything you think separates this from pure prejudice is a fanciful rationalization.
You’re a smart guy. I don’t get it.
“As pointed out above, freedom of association includes the right not to associate, and when I decide who I want in my life or near my family, mine is the final word. When we start messing with that, I think we are becoming less American as well.”
Then you are defending the neighborhoods that rejected black suburbanites in the 50s, because they didn’t want them as neighbors. Freedom to associate with whom you choose is absolute. Freedom not to associate is subjects to the same rules as other conduct—you have that freedom, until it starts harming others or society. And this crosses that line.
Sorry, but the SCOTUS said otherwise in the St. Patrick’s Day parade cases, they specifically said freedom of association includes the right not to associate, and that’s why the SCOTUS hasn’t touched the question of “white flight.”
Yes, I will defend people who saw their neighborhoods slide, real or perceived, their property values drop, and who voted with their feet. In the end your first duty is to your family and your finances, and if my neighborhood starts to slip in value to the point that I’m going to lose my equity that I was going to borrow against to send my kids to college, then I’m getting out and finding a neighborhood that isn’t slipping, and integration be damned.
As for the part about deciding who I want to associate with, you’re a smart guy too, in fact a VERY smart guy, and I’m sure you “get” that you don’t have to let everyone into your life who asks, and you don’t have to give a reason why. By your own writing, you deal with gay people all the time and have gay friends, and you’ve embraced their causes. I don’t, I don’t, and I’m not interested, nor do I want their causes rammed down my throat. I don’t see how that’s any different than turning away a would-be friend who you decide is “not your type” or turning down an offer of a date or a dance because the profferer isn’t good-looking enough, or shutting down a friend or relative at a party who starts going off on some cause you don’t agree with.
“freedom of association includes the right not to associate” in that case. It is not an endlessly broad opinion or principle. Obviously the freedom not to associate applies in certain settings, like when a group’s parade is allowed to pick its participants. (Gay pride parades don’t have to include Eeyoure, and that’s right too.) That’s no analogy here. And again…ethics. Not law, ethics. Supporting an unethical law still means you’re unethical. I am 100% certain, by the way, that if this law got to SCOTUS, it would be quickly and easily overturned. Which is why it not only is ethically wrong, but legally stupid.
Have you, in fact, read the law?
I don’t know a single person who doesn’t want people who enjoy homosexual sex to not be treated the same as everyone else under the law. I’m sure they exist, but I’ve yet to meet one.
I do know several, myself included, who don’t think that anyone should be able to force or manipulate anyone else into endorsing their preferred sexual behavior. Most people who are “different” in some non-advantageous way just want to be left alone and not have a spotlight shone on them. It’s another thing entirely to go around screaming for validation. And a worse thing to demand it under penalty of law.
The above doesn’t necessarily relate to the law being discussed here (I don’t know enough about its provisions) but there is a strong push to force private orphanages, ministers, etc. to endorse and validate gay marriage, which is just about as pathetic a cry for illegitimate validation as you can get.
There is nothing in the post, the topic or the law suggesting involuntary endorsement. (The link I provided describes the law from a very positive, sometimes misleadingly so, viewpoint.) Some people behind the law (and on this thread?) seem to think treating gays with the respect, consideration and respect anyone deserves constitutes endorsement, as in “to do this suggests that I don’t think you are scum”. Letting someone buy your apple or rent your hotel room is not an endorsement.
I think it is endorsement, and you ought to also. But endorsement isn’t the issue here, unless homosexuality, at it’s root, is conduct. But it isn’t, it’s a preborn disposition, in which case, endorsement is completely moot. I can’t approve or disapprove of a piece of granite being a rock, it is a rock whether I like it or not. I can’t approve or disapprove of a person being black, they are black whether I like it or not.
I CAN disapprove of two people making out in my store, because that is conduct. I can disapprove of a teen swearing obscenities in my shop, because that is conduct.
I think at the root of this, is still a hang up about the nature of homosexuality. Is it choice or is it innate?
I’d submit that yes some of it is choice, just as there are all sorts of people who choose to ‘be’ a certain way in life that is not natural to their character or constitution. Probably not a majority. For most it is innate.
For some with religious opposition to homosexuality, they see the associated conduct of the homosexual and condemn that, while acknowledging that we are all flawed creatures but must transcend those flaws and live what is according to them, a better life. They equally condemn the behavior of the adulterer, despite a natural hard wiring in some humans to be extremely promiscuous. They condemn the conduct of violent, despite some humans being hardwired to be short tempered.
It all boils down to is it choice or nature. Its a hard obstacle to breach.
If the law isn’t involuntary endorsement, it certainly isn’t mandatory discrimination.
The question of whether being gay (at least in males) is innate or “a choice” is pretty conclusively answered (I won’t say “settled.”) I’ve never known any gay man to say he felt he had a choice, and if one had a choice, why would he ever voluntarily subject himself to the kind of sneering abuse you see in Arizona and elsewhere? Harvard’s chaplain for many years pronounced himself gay, and also celibate and a virgin. Why in the world would any business legitimately exclude him because of how he felt, and how he was? Pure bigotry, no? On the other hand, refusing a customer because of private conduct or the presumption of private conduct, all legal—how can that be defended logically or ethically?
Uh, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was about race, not orientation, and doesn’t touch on it. Some states have broader civil rights statutes, like NJ’s Law Against Discrimination (LAD), but the Federal statute isn’t there.
Title II goes a bit beyond race:
All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.
A shame that a) public refers to “government”, not “open”, and b) sexual orientation isn’t anywhere on that list.
You beat me to it. Sorry, but gays are not on the list of protected classes for that statute.
So what? This is ethics. The law says it illegal to be a jackass and discriminate against specific groups. Looking for loopholes so you can be unfair and unjust to someone is not an ethical argument.
I think that will change at the Federal level and already has in many state statutes.
Did you hear about the three state senators who have asked Brewer to veto it–after they voted for it?
http://www.azcentral.com/news/politics/articles/20140224arizona-gop-senators-sb-1062-ask-brewer-veto.html
I’ve got to go to Atlanta to talk to some lawyers, some of whom are gay, about legal ethics. Don’t interpret my silence on re-ponging the old, old arguments I heard from Georgia boy (and later Governor) Lester Maddux about why it was un-American for that evil lib LBJ to tell him that his restaurant had to sell chicken to all them “niggers” as a lack of commitment or interest.
It does amaze me that the core ethical concept that society doesn’t work very well when we allow whole populations to be treated as second -class citizens for any justification, religion being among the lamest, hasn’t taken stronger hold. If you don’t want to serve everyone in the community, then don’t start a business. Seems pretty simple and fair. Those “No Irish” signs are very embarrassing today—why does anyone think “No Gays or Lesbians” will be, or should be, any less embarrassing 20 years from now? Oh, I see—if God had written “No Irish” in the Bible somewhere, or carved it as #11 on those tablets, that would make it OK. Isn’t it obvious how unpersuasive that argument is?
All this does is make religion look petty, ignorant and foolish. You know what is going to hurt religion far, far more decisively than government restrictions ever could? Stands like this one, that are certain to make anyone who knows and works with gays wonder—“What is WRONG with these people? Why do they think it’s fine to make life miserable for good, kind, smart and productive citizens like my friends/brother/ sister/ sister who is now my brother, or that the laws should let them do it? Why would I ever want to adopt a belief system that ends up there?” (Republicans, of course, are taking the same, foolish risk.)
I’ll be back to check on the thread in several hours. Be nice.
Well, if you think “religion” is making itself “look petty, ignorant and foolish” by pursuing simple, day-to-day, freedom-of-choice liberties – amidst and despite a society whose governance is ever more obviously and pervasively petty, ignorant and foolish, plus openly hostile to those simple liberties for persons of certain religions – then you are making yourself, and the laws you stand for, look petty, ignorant and foolish, while pushing heavy-handed, over-lawyered, double-minded, hypocritical, creatively oppressive notions of “equality.” (That’s as nice as I can be.)
Next up — stoning women who have sinned! Heck, some cultures still do it, why not here? It doesn’t matter that it is a crime if it violates someone’s religious beliefs. You can’t put me in jail — I’ve got First Amendment rights! .
If the woman consents to being stoned, who are we to say otherwise.
You are in this instance saying that someone not wishing to be part of some action should be protected, but in the other case you are saying that someone who doesn’t want to take part in an activity must be required to do so.
What is more, no harm comes to the gay couple when a florist refuses to make wedding arrangements, but harm comes to the woman who is stoned (we assume against her will). This fundamental difference required the woman not be stoned, using violence if needed to stop it, but no amount of force – governmental or otherwise – is appropriate to force a man to give his labors against his will.
Unless you actually do support slavery…
I’d wager that most women object to being stoned — just like young girls object to having parts of their vaginas cut out and sewn back together. That’s why they have to be restrained kicking and screaming. If you don’t want to “serve” gay people — then don’t open a business. Regarding your example, if the only grocery store in your town refused to sell you groceries (I grew up in a town with only one grocery store, one florist, one dry cleaners, etc.) then you ARE being harmed. If there is more than one store, your separate but equal analysis still is bogus because it presumes that they are in fact equal. We have historical evidence that this never was true. More importantly, religion comes in all shapes and sizes. What if a business decided not to sell to women? Or not to sell to women unless their shoulders and head were covered? What if a business owner decided never to sell to women who actually (or were suspected) of having an abortion? What if a Islamic-owned store decided not to sell to Christians? Or, vice-versa? This list is potentially endless. Jack’s analysis is spot on. You can be a hater or a non-hater, or “I love but don’t agree with gay marriage,” or whatever you want to call yourself – but if you own a business, or operate a hotel, are a landlord, etc., you can’t discriminate.
So what other conduct do you want to force people to engage in because it makes you feel good?
Remember kids, you can only become a productive member of society if you do things Beth likes and if you have a world-view that is the same as her’s.
You couldn’t be more wrong. I don’t agree with you half the time, and I would still serve you if I had a business open to the public. But, if I had a sign on the front door that said “No Libertarians Allowed,” that would be discrimination — even if there was an identical store across the street with a sign that said “No Progressives Allowed.” This kind of bullshit leads to further polarization and generally is toxic to society. You, as a customer, are free to discriminate against ME, just like you could either choose to send less or more business to Chik-Fil-A based on your opinion of the owner’s religious beliefs. The reverse is not true.
The same religious justification being used here is the same (almost word for word) that people used to say about people of different nationalities, color, gender, etc. in the past. This includes the rationalization of “No, I just don’t think there are things that the government can’t legislate.” When it comes to discrimination, legislation can and does make a difference. I believe that you think this — but true haters are using this as a cover for bigoted behavior. That you (and others on this blog) fail to see this is mind boggling to me.
No, it would be your choice as a business owner, and I think you should be absolutely free to run your business in the manner of your choosing.
Really? People used to say “Because my religion is opposed to being female, I won’t serve you”? Or “My church teaches, and I believe, that being Irish is a sin, so I won’t make a cake for you”?
Please, give an example of that. Please.
I don’t fucking care if someone uses their freedom to engage in bad behavior, even behavior I find repugnant.
You have the freedom to cheat on your husband on a daily basis. Some people do so. This doesn’t mean that it should be mad illegal to cheat on your spouse.
You have the freedom to speak (for the purpose of this discussion) however you choose. The fact that some people might use that freedom to speak in a way you find exceedingly offensive, or in favor of a position that disgusts and enrages you, does not mean that it should be illegal for them to do so.
We have the freedom to own firearms. The fact that some people will use those weapons to commit a violent act doesn’t mean we should ban guns.
It is exactly the same in this instance. Simply because you do not like how some people will act in the exercising of their freedom doesn’t mean you get to take that freedom away, and quite frankly fuck you and fuck everyone who thinks that it is perfectly acceptable to do so. Which of your rights would you like to see taken away because people don’t like it, hmm? Would you like to be required as a lawyer to represent anyone who comes to you with a case in your area of practice? Should a criminal defense lawyer who’s sister was raped be required to defend a rapist?
If not, why not? Isn’t that person innocent until proven guilty? Don’t they have an absolute right to the attorney of their choosing? Why must the accused be discriminated against by that lawyer? Why is that OK?
Collosians 3:18: Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as it is fit in the Lord.
1 Corinthians 14:35: – for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.
1 Corinthians 11:9: Neither was the man created for the woman; but the woman for the man.
Below is a “pastoral letter” from the Massachusetts Congregationalist Clergy, August 1837. It addressed the issue of Sarah and Angelina Grimke, who were anti-slavery activists in New England.
“We invite your attention to the dangers which at present seem to threaten the female character with wide-spread and permanent injury.
The appropriate duties and influence of women are clearly stated in the New Testament. Those duties and that influence are unobstrusive and private, but the souce of mighty power. When the mild, dependent, softening influence of woman upon the sterness of man’s opinions is fully exercised, society feels the effects of it in a thousand forms. The power of woman is in her dependence, flowing from the consciousness of that weakness which God has given her for her protection, and which keeps her in those departments of life that form the character of individuals and of the nation.
There are social influences which females use in promoting piety and the great objects of Christian benevolence which we cannot too highly commend. We appreciate the unostentatious prayers and efforts of woman in advancing the cause of religion at home and abroad:–in Sabbath-schools, in leading religious inquirers to the pastors for instruction, and in all such associated effort as becomes the modesty of her sex; and earnestly hope that she may abound more and more in these labors of piety and love.
But when she assumes the place and tone of man as a public reformer, our care and protection of her seem unnecessary; we put ourselves in self-defence against her; she yields the power which God has given her for protection, and her character becomes unnatural. If the vine, whose strength and beauty is to lean upon the trellis-work and half conceal its clusters, thinks to assume the independence and the overshadowing nature of the elm, it will not only cease to bear fruit, but fall in shame and dishonor into the dust.
We cannot, therefore, but regret the mistaken conduct of those who encourage females to bear an obtrusive and ostentatious part in measures of reform, and countenance any of that sex who so far forget themselves as to itinerate in the character of public lecturers and teachers.
We especially deplore the intimate acquaintance and promiscuous conversation of females with regard to the things “which ought not to be named”; by which that modesty and delicacy which is the charm of domestic life, and which constitutes the true influence of woman in society, is consumed, and the way opened, as we apprehend, for degeneracy and ruin. We say these things, not to discourage proper influences against sin, but to secure such reformation as we believe in Scriptural, and will be permanent.”
The “things which ought not to be named” was a reference to the women’s speeches which detailed the subjection of slave women, who had no right to marry, to the sexual demands of their masters and overseers. The clergy thought such truthful talk was unnatural and against God’s ordained purposes for women.
That took me about 5 seconds — and there are thousands of other examples. The Bible is still being used as a sword against gay people — but it wasn’t too long ago that it was also used against women and minorities.
That was nice and all, but were you going to give an example where being female was against a religion and used as a reason for not selling some good or service to them, or just a guy saying it was wrong for a woman to speak out about something?
Because really, I would have at least expected you to point to the Catholic church not allowing female priests.
The point is, Scott, that citing the Bible, as Steve has, as sufficient authority to justify discrimination because, you know, the Bible is The Word, is cherry-picking of the worst order. Either God has issued a retraction someplace that I am not aware of, or we have concluded that large sections of the Bible are crap…being crap, either God isn’t infallible, or he didn’t write it. You can’t have it both ways. “I don’t have to have a smidgeon of facts or logic to explain why gays should be oppressed, it’s just the way it is: see: The Bible. Beth points out the reason why this is neither honest or persuasive. We—and religious citizens–have rejected the Bible often. They don’t WANT to reject the Bible’s condemnation of gays.
So the claim of “that happens” was hyperbole? That’s fine.
I’m done with this shit show anyways. Apparently liberty is only acceptable if people use it in a way that others find acceptable.
I leave you to enjoy whatever gets taken away next. Hopefully it won’t be something you actually care about.
Terrible analogy.
Oh, they will be and should be embarrassing. That doesn’t mean they should be illegal. Believe that certain conduct should be legal does not mean I think such behavior is ethical.
-Religious people already believe that ANY sex outside of or before marriage is a sin. And that sin makes us worthy of death. I doubt that this far less widely restrictive exclusion on a certain kind of sex will make the Bible much less popular. People tend to overestimate just how popular following Jesus really is. Sure, some people appreciate religious types for all of the orphanages and hospitals, the Scientific Revolution, AA, etc., but I don’t know how many fans of celibacy before marriage there really are out there.
-What exactly are the provisions of this law? I haven’t heard anything about a business (say, a restaurant) being allowed to turn away gay patrons. But then again, nothing of what I have read about the law (including this post) explains what exactly it does or doesn’t do. If it’s purpose is to defend flower shops, wedding chapels, etc. from being forced to offer produces and services they don’t want to offer, then it may be defensible. “No gays” signs, I assume, aren’t even being discussed (how would you know who enjoys homosexual sex by looking at them anyway?) Incidentally, I would be passionately against a law that allows shops and restaurants from turning away gay patrons, but I suspect that that isn’t what’s really going on here.
-If the ONLY argument you could make against a government endorsement of homosexual marriage was “it’s in the Bible” then yeah, that’s not a good argument. But I find that the principles in the Bible are the most provable and worthiest of principles, when tested even apart from any religious argument. Gay marriage really is no exception. Most of the pro arguments are purely emotional, most of the anti arguments are more reasonable (and layered, and require more thought than it takes to think two moves ahead in a game of Connect 4, which is why most people don’t even bother to understand them.) One such argument: http://www.npr.org/2013/03/20/174848127/severing-love-from-diapers-gay-marriage-opponents-make-their-case. I have yet to hear a response to this line of concern that even so much as grasps it.
-I really do try and want to understand where others are coming from and where my chain of logic might be weak. But I can’t get on board with homosexuals being described as a classification of person, as in the “no Irish” analogy. Homosexuals are not a community except in the sense that My Little Pony fans are. They are part of their own cultures, families, and ethnicities (most of whose members are not gay), and they happen to be fond of a certain kind of sex on top of that. Apart from a sex-life that isn’t strictly heterosexual, this community has absolutely nothing else in common. Some of them hate their homosexual urges and wouldn’t wish them on their worst enemies. Many gay men love their wives (and are attracted to them) and consider their temptation to look at other men as destructive as any other kind of cheating. Some people experiment with or dabble in homosexuality, and others identify as gay from a young age and aren’t attracted to women. Some people like only blondes, some people have foot fetishes, some people are furries, and some people are asexual and don’t see what all the fuss is about. I fail to see a homogenous race of people in any of this. I WANT to; I don’t enjoy being called nasty names or considered to be “on the wrong side of history” (which apparently means first century Rome now.) But I can’t commit intellectual suicide, either. Somebody has to persuade me with sound logic.
Look, if you don’t want gays to be seen as disgusting, evil, filthy group of degenerate perverts, maybe you shouldn’t go with “Bronies” as any sort of example… 🙂
Before I go full Eeyore (next comment of mine), full disclosure: I have not read the law, nor do I intend to read it. I do worry that its passage would enable backfiring in ways its backers are not anticipating. Suppose a member of a sect of Christians who consider homosexuality OK owns a for-profit business, and refuses service to a member of a sect of Christians based on knowledge, or at least on reasonable suspicion, that the would-be buyer’s sect considers homosexuality a sin?
One more thought, before I go full Eeyore: As part of my attempt to live a Christian life, I cannot ignore having been taught, and coached, and having practiced, the teaching to “bless those who curse you” and by doing so, “heap hot coals upon their heads.” If I was a cake-baker and two males approached me who acted like “quite the couple,” and said they would like for me to bake a cake for “their wedding,” I would not automatically think that I am a blaspheming satan-worshiper and enabler of evil-via-sex if I agreed to bake their cake. But that is just me. I might even think, “a-HA! I’m getting the business for this one, while (rival across town, another Christian) is turning it away – hooray for me and MY business!”
My heart is where yours is on this. I’ve done videography for weddings, and I don’t think that I would turn away any kind of job. I have seen all sorts of debauchery and shameful behavior at wedding receptions; it is not generally a merchant’s duty to weigh in on or consider the morality of his customers’ legal behavior. I can think of exceptions, though. Most gay marriages probably wouldn’t be one of those.
Ministers, I think, for example, should (and I think, do) have the right to pick and choose whose marriages to do. There are plenty of scenarios wherein a minister’s conscience might disallow solemnizing a wedding. If the pro-gay-marriage crowd intrudes on that sort of freedom of conscience, then shame on them.
As for the minister/officiant retaining the right to refuse, that’s a given, and another root of the muddiness of this issue. In the ‘free market’ of religions, whoever is ‘selling’ the god you want to ‘buy’, go to that ‘store’, but remember. each store has an exclusive ‘product’ that is only tailored to the exact specifications of that ‘store’.
If you believe you can make that religion change its views for you, you don’t believe in that religion, so get lost.
As I say, from a solely religious angle, Muslims shouldn’t view Hindu marriages with any legitimacy, Buddhists shouldn’t view Zoroastrian marriages with any legitimacy, Jews shouldn’t view pagan marriages with any legitimacy, and vice versa.
Oh, and no one should care either….
re: “persecution of Veterans, the disabled, the pregnant etc”
Unless someone can convince me that there is something worse than allowing people/businesses the freedom to act in their own self interest as they see it, I’m not persuaded that any law that limits such freedom overrides the guarantees provided by the Constitution.
Are you suggesting that laws that prescribe or proscribe behavior, even behavior that you have a strong opinion about, are subject to abuse? If so, you’re right. But, the consequences keep most things that don’t meet community standards from happening.
If people/businesses face negative consequences they modify their behavior. But, it’s artificial and harmful for government, particularly partisan government to step into most social issues.
The more I think about it, the more it makes my head hurt.
Jesus loved EVERYONE.
Why are they forgetting that?
I understand their arguments, even if I disagree with it. In the book of Leviticus; “a man shall not lie with another man as a woman, it is an abomination” then “their blood shall be upon them”.
The problem is that the Bible is a practising Christian’s guidebook on how to get into heaven. Some Christians cherry pick what they think is acceptable out of the bible, some try to follow it as much as they are able. It’s a spectrum. When you try to interfere with a fundamentalists belief system, it’s no wonder that they get angry, you are fucking with their afterlife. We need to be wary about dictating the faith to the faithful.
I’ve never quite accepted the idea of imputing a particular sexual orientation to a wedding. I’m also convinced that one cannot make a logically rigorous deduction that because someone rejects same-sex marriage, therefore he is “anti-gay,” although I grant that those holding both views are not uncommon.
But for the sake of argument, let’s decouple the idea of sexual orientation from marriage: no “gay marriage” and no “traditional marriage.” Consider marriage solely to be the union of two consenting individuals, full stop.
Now imagine a small, family-run bakery whose owners believe, as part of their faith (let’s say Christian), that marriage can only be between one man and one woman without any regard to sexual orientation. That is, a marriage between a homosexual man and a lesbian or a bisexual man and a heterosexual woman would both be valid. Let’s also say that these imaginary bakery owners have no personal ill-will or disdain toward homosexuals, homosexuality, and even homosexual behavior. In fact, if a lesbian wished to have a cake baked for her cousin’s birthday, these Christian bakers would be glad to do so.
Here is where I am troubled by the jump from rejecting same-sex marriage to being an anti-gay bigot. Suppose that, for whatever bizarre reason, two heterosexual men planned to get married in a state where same-sex marriage is legal. These men then enter the aforementioned bakery and ask that they prepare a cake specifically for their wedding. Because the bakers reject marriage between same-sex individuals according to their religion, they refuse to make the cake.
How would one then make sense of this scenario? Yes, it may seem absurd to give a hypothetical thought experiment of two straight men getting married, but grant that just as the law is blind to race, it must also be blind to sexual orientation. If these bakers refuse to bake a cake for a same-sex wedding between two straight men, would they still be considered hateful, backwards, homophobic bigots – just as bakers in Oregon have been viciously vituperated? In fact, had that bakery in Oregon argued that they would not service any same-sex wedding regardless of the sexual orientation of the individuals involved on religious grounds, could they have protected themselves from the lawsuits against them alleging discrimination based on customers’ sexual orientation?
Moreover, I don’t think that a parallel can be drawn to racial segregation in this case. If one believes that marriage is between one man and one woman, then adding an arbitrary qualifier – “of the same race” – would clearly be unjustified discrimination. Similarly, one could not legislate that marriage be solely between one man and one woman of heterosexual orientation. But to say that merely believing that marriage is between one man and one woman, period, and refusing to service a wedding celebrating such is somehow “anti-gay,” and furthermore comparable to Jim Crowism or anti-miscegenation laws is a comparison I just cannot see.
Because for Jack and others who oppose SB 1062, t s not just about having same-sex marriage be the law of the land in all fifty states. Any opponents or critics of the gay-rights movement must be silenced and put in their place – or publicly shamed as bigots, First Amendment be damnded.
Tolerance is a one-way street in this case.
There are reports that they may have successfully bullied Jan Brewer into vetoing the bill.
That was good Eeyore-ing. I bow to you, I.M! No surprise, if Brewer vetoes.
The Historical Minority’s Immunity, again. “Hate those evil, persecutory religious nuts,” again.
Funny (not!), how “equality” gets re-defined from time to time.
Money will win; the governor will veto. That is my prediction. The future aggrieved (those whose liberties the law would have protected, if passed) have been tossed their pound of feathers.
Suck it up, all you Arizonans whose religion conflicts with full emotional, intellectual, religious, ethical, and economic embrace of homosexuality. You are going to get Queer Sex shoved into your faces and crammed down your throats like you never thought possible. And, it’ll be the LAW. Forget about ever again hearing a sermon that refers to homosexuality as a sin – at least, such a sermon that is not followed by (or better yet, interrupted by) arrests, that is. You won’t even be able to have available in your own churches, or allowed to print and distribute, a version of the Bible that the state does not approve. The state will tell you what is, and is not, hate. You’ll be criminals, even before you act, because you think wrongly, therefore you are criminals. You will be second-class (maybe lower) citizens of Arizona, and it will be all your fault and no one else’s, because you don’t think right and you stubbornly refuse to think right. You can practice your love and your sex and your hate, just like the Pilgrims on the Mayflower did. In Arizona, sex trumps religion – any kind of sex, over any kind of religion; that will be the LAW.
The future, allegedly would-have-been-aggrieved in Arizona, and the forces they manage to con into supporting them, will soon resume their aggressive, hateful, persecutory marginalization of people with whom they disagree. A triumph of history and ethics! Oh – and, of “equality.” Not.
“Queer Sex shoved in your faces?” (Nice capitalization.) If anyone is shoving “sex” in your face (queer or otherwise) — I say feel free to discriminate. I don’t let employees or customers have sex in front of me either.
As part of my attempt to live a Christian life,
**********
Christians aren’t supposed to be hating, but they are.
I want to see you go Full Eeyoure.
I’m coming up with an idea called The Haters Tax.
You can hate and refuse service to your particular group of loathing but then you must pay 50% of your profits to their charities.
hehe
My comment at 4:55 pm was the one where I went “full Eeyore.” Projecting negatively. Expecting the opposite of what I would prefer, to occur.
You get “hate” out of a simple, uncoerced act of refusal?
SB 1062’s proponents had best be ready, if their bill becomes law, for some unexpected consequences.
A few years back, a group of Muslim cab drivers serving the Minneapolis-St. Paul Airport were campaigning for the right for religious reasons to refuse to transport passengers carrying alcohol (not open containers: think sealed bottles brought in by passengers on arriving flights).
In that case, the Metropolitan Airport Commission acted on its authority, through threat of suspension/revocation of airport taxi licenses, to block the cab drivers from refusing service — but if an SB 1062-like law had been in force at that time in Minnesota, the MAC would have been powerless to act and the cab drivers would have prevailed.
Puts a whole different spin on “public accommodation” when YOU’RE the one who might be refused service, doesn’t it?
CW: “Puts a whole different spin on “public accommodation” when YOU’RE the one who might be refused service, doesn’t it?”
Actually, it doesn’t, because taxis ARE a public accommodation. I am fine with regulating cabs, buses, trains, hotels, and probably even restaurants. I can also see the distinction between them and bakers, florists, and photographers.
Bottom line: not everything is a public accommodation.
-Jut
I think they should have been free to refuse service to people carrying alcohol. I also think the airport should have been free to not let people who discriminate in that fashion operate directly from their airport. I also think that anyone who wants to should be able to operate a taxi, but Minneapolis is one of the places where that is doable, so I suppose it wasn’t an issue here. It would have been amusing to see some taxis displaying “Alochol containers welcome”.
This is the hyper free market stance.
In this conflict, who owns what, what’s stipulated in contracts, is what decides.
If a Muslim owns a cab, let him reject alcohol carriers, if so carry f them cause him to violate his moral against transporting intoxicants. If the Muslim works for an owner who insists the Muslim drive the alcohol carrier, the Muslim can always decide what’s more important.
But gosh, Kant’s Universal…
If we had a community perpetually on egg shells wondering when the next guy they are counting on for services can up and quit despite a reasonable or a good faith expectation of service, is that a healthy community?
If a person is intolerant of the bigoted beliefs of another does that make the make the person a bigoted person too?
I am so confused. Libertarians want Constitutionally protected unfettered rights to do as they choose even if it means that social collapse; which would entail a complete abrogation of Constitutional ideals. We cannot all have our own Constitution. Conservatives want to embrace liberty and freedom while opposing absolute free choice. Progressives want to promote liberal thought and actions provided it coincides with their particular agenda and whose costs are borne by all even if they object.
I agree with Scott Jacobs that the consumer has the absolute freedom to not patronize an establishment based on the owner’s personal biases just as I agree with Milton Friedman regarding the freedom of choice. Darsha opined that 91% of Arizonans oppose the bill so it stands to reason that at least in Arizona the LGBT community will not be facing a “food desert” as described by Beth. Nor is it likely that the LGBT community will not be served as were Blacks seeking medical care prior to 1960.
While I will admit that prejudice and bias exists – and always will, our society has evolved tremendously since then and to suggest that bias against any particular sector is so prevalent that it would lead to total exclusion is hyperbole. As such, I consider it an unethical argument. With that said, I agree that this bill is unneeded to protect religious liberty. You cannot advocate for religious liberty if you deny it to others just as you cannot eliminate bias and prejudice by providing a club for minorities to beat you with when they simply feel offended but are not discriminated against. (See Samuel L. Jackson v Rubin)
Where I disagree with Scott and others is that the creation of laws protecting rights of a select few, that includes this bill will ultimately cause society to break into various factions each seeking to advance its own agenda. Beth stated, “. . . we’re quickly heading to a majority minority country”. We have to ask ourselves now how will our society survive when multiple minorities are all socialized to become reliant on legislated protections? How will equitable treatment ever be achieved if we all feel aggrieved. Who will be the favored minority when one demographic group grows so large as to displace other ethnic groups? Favoring one group at the expense of others defines discriminatory practices and is exactly what we are legislating against. If we are truly honest with ourselves we must admit that we currently allow discriminatory employment practices within minority owned firms by not requiring similar diversity goals with respect to all ethnic and cultural attributes. This itself violates the comparative virtue fallacy.
Jack stated “The adoption of such a of such a bill into law would harm every single member of the LBGT community whether they were ever refused service or not. By asserting that it is fair and reasonable to treat them differently and with less respect than other Americans, Arizona will have declared that in its view, they are not as worthy of rights and protection as other Americans. They are not welcome.”
Jack, I respectfully disagree with this statement. This bill [does not] have the ability to harm everyone. It serves only to separate rather than unify. This bill plays no favorites. Every sector of our society has unique characteristics that many in other sectors find objectionable. This bill not only gives the religious community a legislatively protected ability to discriminate it allows the LGBT or another minority community the right to claim its own ability to discriminate against others on the grounds of its political, sexual, or religious purposes as well. Assuming we want to remain a Constitutional Republic we need to find ways to protect, if not assimilate, all beliefs as part of our social consciousness.
When a society devolves into feuding tribal factions all we can expect to see is more social unrest and economic collapse.
Jack stated “The adoption of such a of such a bill into law would harm every single member of the LBGT community whether they were ever refused service or not. By asserting that it is fair and reasonable to treat them differently and with less respect than other Americans, Arizona will have declared that in its view, they are not as worthy of rights and protection as other Americans. They are not welcome.”Jack, I respectfully disagree with this statement. This bill [does not] have the ability to harm everyone. It serves only to separate rather than unify. This bill plays no favorites. Every sector of our society has unique characteristics that many in other sectors find objectionable. This bill not only gives the religious community a legislatively protected ability to discriminate it allows the LGBT or another minority community the right to claim its own ability to discriminate against others on the grounds of its political, sexual, or religious purposes as well. Assuming we want to remain a Constitutional Republic we need to find ways to protect, if not assimilate, all beliefs as part of our social consciousness.”
You disprove your own argument, but never honestly address what I was obviously referring to. Making society less unified—not less homogenous, but less unified, is bad for everybody. It undermines the whole concept of a community and a society. But I am shocked that you fall for the intellectually dishonest dodge that this affects everyone the same. Please. Yes, under Jim Crow, blacks could discriminate against whites, too. Whoopee. The kind of discrimination this law is aimed at is majority discrimination against gays, because gays are the one at risk minority not protected by Federal law. You can’t discriminate against women, blacks or Jews without getting sued and charged. This is pointed at gays. Don’t say “everyone is treated the same.” That’s absurd.
A community prominently allowing businesses to penalize gays for being gay stigmatizes them. Harms them. Robs them of their rights to enjoy life. Drives them back into the closet. This is pure Brown. That’s the law of the land, too: Separate is unequal. And Brown IS settled law. It’s here to stay.
What the Arizona law seeks to protect can’t be defended on ethical grounds, and anyone who defends it on ideological grounds is arguing that abstract ideology is more important than ethics—fairness, equity, decency. The law steps in when ethics fails. It fails here. Too many people are hostage to 3000 year old biases and hatreds still fed by organized religion, and they want the liberty to mistreat gays. Sorry if that part of your religion has been exposed as ignorant, cruel, damaging and wrong, guys, but its not the first time, and it won’t be the last. Take your orders from dead Holy Men who didn’t know what an electron or an RNA molecule is, and this is bound to happen. Learn. Grow. Improve. That’s the essence of ethics. Stop searching for justifications for acting like assholes.
Brown also dealt with government-provided – and legally required – facilities. You were required to send your child to school, you are not required to shop for flowers.
Stop confusing public and private services. It makes you sound like a liberal, and ill suits you.
SCOTUS dicta states general ethics principles, and Brown did as well. I’m not citing it for law, I’m citing it for ethics. You and others are saying “there’s no harm when everyone treats a group as a second class subgroup that needs to be quarantined.” The Supreme Court, properly, said “bullshit.” It was liberal judges who said it, but that not a liberal conclusion. It’s just logical and right.
No, that is manifestly not what we are saying.
What we are saying is that people have a right to be bigoted asshats, we have a right to not like them for being bigoted asshats, we further have the right to not do business with them due to their being bigoted asshats, and that the government forcing them to act aginst their bigoted and asshatted ways doesn’t actually change the fact that they are bigoted asshats.
Freedom is not something you get to decide applies only to things you like – if it is to mean anything at all it has to be a willing and free choice. Forcing specific conduct that violates someone’s morals is not only immoral, it is evil and tyrannical, and it only means that the next group in power gets to tell you what to do.
Personally, I would like to quarantine such people as would partake in Occupy Wall Street rallies, and yes, I actively treat such people – to their face – as second-class citizens, because they are fucking morons and their idiotic – frankly retarded – world view makes them beneath contempt.
Doesn’t mean we should, but I should have the freedom to do so.
Again, freedom is not absolute. This is ETHICS. The conduct is wrong, and it isn’t victimless. Laws decide what you don’t have the freedom to do, and those things are abuses of freedoms that hurt people, families, communities, the ethical culture, and the nation. You don’t have an unlimited license to be an asshole. And the Republicans pushing this law aren’t willing to concede that the conduct they want to facilitate is acting like assholes. You know why? Because they are bigots. Because they want to hurt gays, and want to drive them underground, or out of the state. That’s the goal.
They hate gays, and think they are right to hate gays, because they are dead red ignorant as ignorant can be. All the “liberty” stuff is cover. People abusing their personal liberty to make it impossible for law abiding, decent people to live is exactly what the law should do.
You want to kick someone who doesn’t bathe, or who shouts obscenities, or who wears a T-shirt denigrating your wife out of your store forever? That fine. That’s right. That’s social control, the right way. You want to refuse to serve someone you know nothing about, who is polite and honest, because you don’t like his politics, his face, his partner, his voting choices, his nationality…well, that’s picking at the fabric of a society, it’s more than being an asshole.
The comparison with Jim Crow is correct in every way. Ditto “Ship of Fools.”
You are engaging in some spurious assumptions. That is unethical on it’s face and no different than the behavior you’re criticizing. Not wanting to be a part of something is not hate nor is it an indication that you want that thing to disappear nor that you want to hurt the people doing it. It is not bigotry. And it is not ignorant. It is freedom. If you want to take it away from some be careful because you might be the next to be judged a hater and a bigot and we all know what can happen to those people.
“Sorry if that part of your religion has been exposed as ignorant, cruel, damaging and wrong, guys, but its not the first time, and it won’t be the last. Take your orders from dead Holy Men who didn’t know what an electron or an RNA molecule is, and this is bound to happen. Learn. Grow. Improve. That’s the essence of ethics. Stop searching for justifications for acting like assholes.”
Sorry, Jack, that sounds a bit Dan Savage-esque, a hate-spewer if ever there was one . May I remind you that at least two of the world’s three major religions take the position that the holy book is the complete record and must NOT be added to, taken from, or changed? What you are saying sounds dangerously close to what I hear spouted from the religion-haters at the Freedom From Religion Foundation, who are as big of haters as the KKK or Nation of Islam. “We’re so much smarter than those silly theists who cling to those tribal images, and we have to crush those outdated beliefs.” Hostility to religion is also not allowed by the Constitution, and there is a legitimate tension here, and not all believers are assholes first and anything else afterward.
If one behaves like an asshole, one is an asshole, and the fact that God, or a book attributed to God, says that it’s OK to act like an asshole doesn’t change the fact that one is acting like an asshole. If God says to act like an asshole, then God is acting like an asshole. Sad but true. He does this a lot in the Old Testament.
“May I remind you that at least two of the world’s three major religions take the position that the holy book is the complete record and must NOT be added to, taken from, or changed?” The discussion, as well as much else I’ve writtien on the topic, demonstrates that I need no such reminder, and that I don’t care. I have stated many times that morality can be unethical—this is a prime example. When morality leads to results that ethics clearly show are wrong, that’s a strong clue to intelligent, open-minded, rational people that the morality is wrong.
It’s ridiculous to fall back on the Bible, when all but the most unhinged faithful have quietly jettisoned the parts of the Bible that are legally untenable and ethically repugnant, like superiority of men over women, stoning adulterers, and much else. Don’t play the Dan Savage card—Savage is heteful in his rhetoric, but not completely mistaken in his conclusions. The shunning of gays can’t be ethically defended. If you think it is, defend it—not by “God says so,” which is an appeal to authority (like all morality, a logical fallacy) but with facts. This is against the Golden Rule, absolutism and utilitarian theory–it is indefensible…mistreating people who are harming no one, and living their lives legally and ethically.
I’m not kidding or being snotty: I know its hard to accept that what you have been taught to believe is hurting people, and simply wrong. I’m not underestimating how tough that is. But it’s a test that ethical people have to pass.
I can and I will play it, I hate that man with a passion, and I hate rhetoric that comes close to what he says with only slightly less passion. Dan Savage is the second biggest asshole of all in this whole world. I said before and I’ll say it again, he is damn lucky someone hasn’t beat him senseless with a pipe or shot him. You deliver a collective “fuck you” to everyone who disagrees with you, things like that happen, just like in school if you mouthed off you had no reason to later complain to the principal if you ended up lying in the baseball field with the tobacco juice beaten out of you.
Yes, I get that you don’t care what any religion says, and I have to say I think that’s also wrong constitutionally. You may be an expert on ethics, but in the end you’re still only one person, and it’s hubristic to set yourself up as judge and jury of morality as well as ethics. The First Amendment protects free exercise, so the folks on the other side here DO have a legal leg to stand on.
Who’s falling back on the Bible? I’m just saying that discarding the holy books that 2-3 billion people believe in with a breezy dismissal is unlikely to persuade. This thread shows you aren’t going to win everyone over to your side, in fact some will object quite strongly.
I understand that it is nearly impossible to persuade closed minds. I regard you as being better than that.
Religions say many useful and valid things, and morality is full of wisdom that we ignore at our peril. I don’t care about something JUST because a religion says it. That’s very different from saying I don’t care what religions say, which is not true. It is true that I don’t care what people claim that “God says.”
Stop it. Providing a service to gays is not “participating” in being gay. This is the logic used by bars who won’t serve Republicans. It is per se unethical. it violates every ethical system.
“Not wanting to be a part of something is not hate nor is it an indication that you want that thing to disappear nor that you want to hurt the people doing it. It is not bigotry. And it is not ignorant. It is freedom.”
Blind foolishness. Since it is not being “part” of anything other than the social contract, it IS bigotry, and attempting to hurt others for no counterbalancing purpose that is societal valid. You don’t have freedom to hurt people.
Ah, then to the extent I mischaracterized what you said, I apologize, I think it’s important to draw that distinction. Some folks in this debate (not necessarily in this thread) are loud and proud religion-haters, and I think anyone who goes that route loses the moral high ground.
Sadly for social engineers I do have freedom to hurt people. And with that freedom I have a responsibility to weigh the consequences and decide what I want to do about it. The hurt you’re talking about here is not something that can be legislated away because it’s not nice. It has to be taken away, if it needs to be taken away, by people acting within their own personal freedom to choose their behavior.
My point is not that I hate LGBT, but that I hate the efforts to take away individual freedom of choice and give those choices to an outside entity. (An entity that can change it’s mind about what it favors without any input from the people it controls) I would think that every person who want’s to be able to make their own choices and accept their own consequences for their choices would see that.
I don’t think anyone is arguing that these people aren’t bigoted, or ignorant. They are. We get that. We just don’t think that’s something you can legislate out of people.
I think there’s a lot of hyperbole in your statements. And a little hypocrisy. You think it’s wrong to discriminate against people based on their political choices? Really?
But the hyperbole is what lowers my estimation of your arguments. You say things like “You and others are saying “there’s no harm when everyone treats a group as a second class subgroup that needs to be quarantined.”” No we aren’t. No one mentioned quarantine, ever. The argument isn’t exclusive to gay people, although I understand why the conversation is being framed that way, with this particular law. The libertarian point of view is that a retailer shouldn’t be forced against his will to do business with anyone, regardless of the reason, regardless of how bigoted or intolerant his views are. That contracts require two willing parties. You want to talk ethics? Fine. At least approach is from a net zero approach and accept that coercion is inherently unethical, even if it promotes something ethical.
Another hyperbole involves variations of “driving them out of the state” or “interfering with their ability to live.”…. You realize they’re in the state now, right? And they’re alive. Right? There’s no doubt in my mind that gay rights is probably this generation’s most pressing human rights issue… But to compare it to suffrage or slavery is just dishonest.
1. You think it’s wrong to discriminate against people based on their political choices? Really?
Not to serve them? Absolutely. And you can find posts here that so state. I have friends who range from Communists to crypto-fascists. No, I don’t discriminate due to political choices.
2. Nobody is arguing for legislating against bias, or even bigotry. It is bigoted conduct that harms others that’s at issue, and it is a government’s job to regulate conduct when it is harmful to society.
3. “The libertarian point of view is that a retailer shouldn’t be forced against his will to do business with anyone, regardless of the reason, regardless of how bigoted or intolerant his views are. That contracts require two willing parties. You want to talk ethics? Fine. At least approach is from a net zero approach and accept that coercion is inherently unethical, even if it promotes something ethical.”
Ethics have to be practical, or they are worthless. Sorry, this contention, which would have stopped the 1964 Civil Rights Acts (and almost did) is the libertarian Achilles heel (well, that and arguing that US didn’t have to fight WWII). Our society has rejected it, and correctly so, because it doesn’t work.
4. “Another hyperbole involves variations of “driving them out of the state” or “interfering with their ability to live.”…. You realize they’re in the state now, right?”
No hyperbole at all. After Arizona sent its “we don’t want you” message to illegals, they started leaving.This law will send any sensible gay packing—who want to live is a state that says “we want to allow people to discriminate against you.”
I am hoping that I don’t need to explain to you why being sent away from a store where you want to shop, refused service at the best restaurant in town, not given treatment by the specialist most able to treat your child, or any of the other daily indignities and handicaps this law endorses is indeed “interfering with their ability to live.”
“Not to serve them? Absolutely. And you can find posts here that so state. I have friends who range from Communists to crypto-fascists. No, I don’t discriminate due to political choices.”
I think we’re going to disagree here. I agree that we shouldn’t discriminate based on things outside of an individuals control, but political leanings are not outside of an individuals control, and while it might be shallow to discriminate against certain political groups, and while you might be a really good person for not discriminating against political groups…. They aren’t a protected class, and should not be.
“Nobody is arguing for legislating against bias, or even bigotry. It is bigoted conduct that harms others that’s at issue, and it is a government’s job to regulate conduct when it is harmful to society.”
I’m pretty sure some people on here are, even if you yourself are not. But more than that… When did it become a government’s job to do that? And how well is that working out for them? How much of the limited success we have had has been a matter of social change, and how much was actually driven by the law? Reciprocally, was the cause of equality helped or hinderd by “separate, but equal”? Frankly, I’m skeptical of any government’s ability to drive social change.
“Ethics have to be practical, or they are worthless. Sorry, this contention, which would have stopped the 1964 Civil Rights Acts (and almost did) is the libertarian Achilles heel (well, that and arguing that US didn’t have to fight WWII). Our society has rejected it, and correctly so, because it doesn’t work.”
Touche on WWII, although Libertarianism is a spectrum, and not all of us believe that. I think there’s a fundamental difference between public and private enterprise, and I think that every time you bring up something that mainly effects public policy and try to apply that to private enterprise, your inner liberal rattles it’s cage. Because the government requires tax dollars without discrimination based on race, gender, orientation et al. they have a duty not to discriminate, it’s already paid for.
“I am hoping that I don’t need to explain to you why being sent away from a store where you want to shop, refused service at the best restaurant in town, not given treatment by the specialist most able to treat your child, or any of the other daily indignities and handicaps this law endorses is indeed “interfering with their ability to live.””
Again…. You realize they’re alive right? Because they’re discriminated against now. They are shopping now, they are eating now, they are seeing doctors now. I’m not saying they don’t have a raw deal, I’m not saying that it shouldn’t be better, I’m pointing out that your rhetoric is excessive.
Jack,
Here is my original statement which seems to have taken on a new form:
Jack, I respectfully disagree with this statement. This bill has the ability to harm everyone. It serves only to separate rather than unify. This bill plays no favorites. Every sector of our society has unique characteristics that many in other sectors find objectionable. This bill not only gives the religious community a legislatively protected ability to discriminate it allows the LGBT or another minority community the right to claim its own ability to discriminate against others on the grounds of its political, sexual, or religious purposes as well. Assuming we want to remain a Constitutional Republic we need to find ways to protect, if not assimilate, all beliefs as part of our social consciousness.
How it came to be written as – This bill [does not] have the ability to harm everyone . . . I do not know! Looking back, perhaps I should have said this law sets a precedent to allow any other group to claim an exemption to discriminate based on its ideology.
I said it harms everyone not just a select group. Furthermore, adverse impact always affects people differently. Nothing is ever equal. It was not an intellectual dodge. I never stated that it affected everyone equally. We can also not conclude that every person in the LGBT community feel equally stigmatized. With respect to members of the LGBT community that are not protected by Federal law from discrimination by the majority, are you suggesting that Hispanics who have a greater population demographic than African Americans can discriminate against Caucasians but not African Americans because they are in they are minorities relative to one but not the other? My point is that laws that are intended to bring us together often have the perverse effect of driving us apart. Thus, I was agreeing with you but extending the argument to include all. Where exactly will all these protections lead when no one is the overwhelming majority? Will the protected use its protections to dominate others? Who will sort all of this out and at what cost?
I see no ethical or legal argument in promoting any law that gives social privileges to any demographic group. It does not matter whether you are seeking privilege on religious, racial or any other grounds. We need to move past all of this. If you pass a law to affect redress for past injustice, so be it but such laws must have a definitive end point which establishes when the social debt owed has been satisfactorily been paid. It cannot be an open ended obligation for if it is, it too is discriminatory.
I took the long view of the argument not just the immediate consequence. There is no doubt that any law that stigmatizes any group will have immediate detrimental consequences to that group; I never suggested otherwise. I was clear in my statement it also affects the entire community negatively. If we accept that a majority can pass such laws to ensure we do not affront any one else’s absolute liberties then we can anticipate that eventually other laws will be passed that make any everyone of us an outcast if we do not meet the prescribed societal expectations based on our beliefs or physical characteristics. That is why these laws harm us all. Our rights extend to the tips of our noses and no farther. This goes for evangelicals and gays alike.
Bottom line is this: I never defended the law and I thought I made myself quite clear. I am not searching for any justifications to rationalize preferential treatment under any guise. I don’t buy the argument that religious groups need protection. Furthermore, I don’t subscribe to any organized religion for exactly the reasons you stated in your last paragraph of the rebuttal. But I also accept the fact that religion is not the only source of bias and discrimination. I follow the Golden Rule with everyone.
I can honestly say this is too convoluted for me, at least this late at night. I erroneously added those words to your comment–I’m sorry!— because it made no sense as it was, and I really thought it was a typo. I wrote that the law was harmful. “I disagree with you, the law harms everyone” did not seem to follow from that. The concept that the law harms everyone, not just gays, was implicit, indeed explicit, in my statements in several places in the thread and the post that permitting this kind of discrimination harms society. Society=everyone.
“Where exactly will all these protections lead when no one is the overwhelming majority? Will the protected use its protections to dominate others? Who will sort all of this out and at what cost?”
What needs to be sorted out? You just don’t do it. Nobody should. It’s wrong Blacks can’t discriminate against Jews, gays can’t discriminate against Republicans….not in commerce, not in real estate, not in banking. The law can’t force you to sing for me, and that goes back to the common law, but except in the most extreme situations, a singer should sing for anyone who pays for it.. Lawyers are supposed to represent the salt or the earth and the scum of the earth. Doctors too.
I guess you lose me with terms like “privilege” and “preferential treatment.” What are you talking about? The ability to buy a sandwich without being told by some gay-hating religious hypocrite that “we don’t serve your kind” isn’t a privilege, its what every citizen should be guaranteed. It’s decency, fairness, and inherent human respect.
This article seems relevant:
http://radio.foxnews.com/toddstarnes/top-stories/have-christians-lost-the-culture-war.html
Here’s the thing. You don’t have to want to discriminate against gay people to think that it’s wrong for the government to keep making grabs and forcing leverage over independent private businesses. I think the people who would turn down business because it involves gay people are intolerant asses, but they have the RIGHT to be intolerant asses.
What if I don’t want to cater a graduation dinner for the son of a homosexual couple, because he graduated from my alma mater’s arch rival? What if I don’t want to lay a floor for a gay man because he’s always got “Vote Deomocrat” signs in his lawn and I’m a Republican? What if I don’t want to take wedding photos for a pair of lesbians because they’re both morbidly obese and I don’t want my professional reputation associated with that? What if I don’t want to do a custom paint job on a gay man’s car because he looks skeevy and has a creepy mustache?
Sure, those are all what I’d call bad reasons to turn down business, and they’d probably bring bad word of mouth, and hurt my professional reputation, but all of those reasons should be perfectly legal for a private business owner to do. What recourse, then, when one of the people turned down decides that it was because of their sex orientation? Is the onus on the business owner to provide some other reason that they turned down the customer?
Here’s the thing. You don’t have to want to discriminate against gay people to think that it’s wrong for the government to keep making grabs and forcing leverage over independent private businesses. I think the people who would turn down business because it involves gay people are intolerant asses, but they have the RIGHT to be intolerant asses
No, they really don’t. Rights stop when they start infringing on other rights, and that’s where society and the state has to start balancing. Then its utilitarian time, and “I want to be a bigoted asshole” loses to “I just want to be treated like everyone else and to go about my life.”
Nope, they have the right to do business with whoever they choose to, and to refuse service without giving a reason. And come on, we all know it’s not about “I just want to be treated like everyone else and to go about my life.” It’s “I want my orientation to be not just tolerated but celebrated, and anyone who tells me otherwise should be called names and suffer adverse consequences.”
Wanting to be treated like everyone else is “I want my orientation to be not just tolerated but celebrated, and anyone who tells me otherwise should be called names and suffer adverse consequences.”? You are paranoid and deluded, and betray the nasty motivations behind this. Wanting to be sold a stick of gum without being told “we don’t serve your kind!” really means that? How did you get so frightened of gays? Why can’t you see how ugly this is?
The principle that businesses can’t use personal characteristics to exclude citizens for service is accepted into the culture’s values. You are arguing for Jim Crow, and that battle is lost. You are not on the wrong side of history, but simple right and wrong. The gutsy thing would be to learn and accept it. I was taught all the same lies about gays that you were. My folks were anti-gay bigots all their lives, they couldn’t get it. But then, they were born in 1920.
No, that’s not what I said. What I said was that the rhetoric about equality often masks an agenda of forced acceptance and even celebration. I think it got lost in all of this that I am not ok with denial of basic services. No one should be kicked out of a grocery store for who or what they are unless they misbehave. However, no one should also be forced to participate in acts that contravene their values, i.e. a wedding. If this statute were narrowed down to things like that, I think it would fly constitutionally.
I am not arguing for Jim Crow, that was simply an attempt to keep slavery de facto when it was no longer defensible de jure. This ain’t it. I guess I must just have that moral blind spot when it comes to this particular issue. To me, there’s nothing ugly about defending the First Amendment, or traditional morality for those who choose to observe it.
But you and I are in agreement about expressive services, like photography. The tweaks to the law go far, far beyond that, to basis commercial establishments.
Then it needs to be narrowed, and kol b’seder.
P.S. it’s not fear, and it’s mostly good that this nation has come a ,long way from when my friends and I were sitting in the pub in college seeing who could make up the best anti-gay epithet, and whoever lost by making the lamest had to buy the next round (eventually one guy went to the UK for a semester and would never lose again, he picked up some sick, but VERY funny epithets). However, I’m afraid that the cultural pendulum is swinging too far the other way now, to the point where religious freedom will be damaged.
Why not? Can I or can I not say “I don’t want you as a customer because you…
-Always wear sweatshirts from a college I don’t like
-Wear a shirt that supports a candidate I despise
-Are active in the Boy Scouts, and I disagree with their stance on gay members
-Have terrible breath
-Talk my ear off every time you come in and waste my time
Wow – to think how many more dances I would have enjoyed, back in junior high, if only the government’s power had been energized and organized back then, to enforce the justice I deserved. Now I know: All those girls’ simple, civil acts of refusal, when I asked them if they would dance with me (for non-touching, non-slow dances, even), were acts of irrational, intolerable, despicable hate. Those girls were just haters – bigoted, petty, ignorant little assholes. Their exercise of their presumed freedom not to associate with me was pure hate crime.
Times have changed, thank the government; I feel so much better now – vindicated, even…superior – especially superior to those illegally discriminating, ignorant, cruel, indecent, unfair, disrespectful, wantonly societal fabric-shredding, damaging, wrong, bigoted, hateful female victimizers of me of old. And now I feel SO MUCH MORE equally protected. What WOULD I do, without Big Brother looking over my shoulder at my every interaction, critiquing, guiding, directing and disciplining me to associate and not associate only as is ethical and legal?
Next up: My enjoyment of my entitled eternal life, thanks to the government. It’ll take some patience on my part, but I think I’ve got what it takes. In a few millennia, I’ll be able to tell fellow “corrected” immortals, as the freedom to associate and not associate evolves full circle: “Too many people are hostage to 3000 year old biases and hatreds still fed by government, and they want the liberty to mistreat people who do not believe as the government requires them to. Sorry if that part of your government has been exposed as ignorant, cruel, damaging and wrong, guys, but it’s not the first time, and it won’t be the last. Take your orders from dead lawyers who didn’t know what justice or ethics is, and this is bound to happen.”
“To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”
– Voltaire
@Eeyoure,
Well and truly said.
I add only this (to paraphrase Benjamin Franklin): They who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Equality, deserve neither Liberty nor Equality.
Bullseye. Can we make 200 replies?
Silly appeal to authority, CW. My guess is that Ben, being ahead of the curve on civil rights, would not be supporting this law, or the motivations behind it.
“a little temporary Equality”? Seriously? Gay HAVE guaranteed equality. No one can ethically use their “freedom” to take that away from them.
Jack,
The Franklin paraphrase wasn’t intended to be a “silly appeal to authority” but a lifting, with attribution, of a well-crafted thought. (I agree that “temporary,” though fitting in the original “Security,” did not apply well to the paraphrase “Equality” and should have been left out.)
For too many years, our Federal, state, and local governments have provided unequal protection under the laws. In fits and starts, this discrimination by government has been curtailed.
The denial by the government of the rights and privileges of marriage to same-sex couples is discrimination that should be ended.
BUT — a government ending its own discrimination is quite different from a government forcing its citizens to accommodation.
Government power exercised to compel my behavior in a manner it sees fit is NOT “ethical” — it may be “right” or “just” or it may legally “promote a compelling interest,” but it’s no more “ethical” than it is for the government to compel me to help the poor in a manner it sees fit by taxing me and redistributing my money.
I think that’s fair and to the point, Bill.
If a violation of Godfrey’s rule.
Godwin.
It’s not a rule. It’s a way to to the hands of a debater when the Nazi experience is actually a useful perspective and a valid comparison. Like this.
Sorry, should not have been reading the early Middle Ages stuff last night. And sorry, it’s not a valid comparison… yet. When windows start getting kicked in and beatings begin and the cops and firemen stand by and do nothing, then I’ll agree.
The first step, Steve, is the state saying, “We hate your kind, and we want you to leave.” And that’s what this law not only says, but is DESIGNED to say, because its actual impact will be miniscule. Which is what I said in the post. It;s the message that is what is most unethical about the law, and that has already been sent, loud and clear.
I think gays can be excused for not waiting for the beatings and the broken glass.
I think ANYONE can be excused for not wanting that part, and I don’t want it to get there. I don’t read the law that way, I read it as saying “everyone’s values need to be protected, including believers.”
“I think gays can be excused for not waiting for the beatings and the broken glass.”
I’m fairly new here and I may be wrong, but this is a vivid example of at least one of your rationalizations. Does this happen often, or just when you feel strongly about something?
It’s an absolute example of the slippery slope logical fallacy.
1) I think that it’s bad to not want to serve gays at my place of business
2) People who don’t serve gays are bad
3) People who don’t serve gays hate gays
4) The Nazis hated the Jews
5) If they are not legally forbidden from not serving gays, these bad people will eventually perform the equivalent of Krystallnacht
The totally unsupported leap is that allowing private businesses the right to conduct business with whomever they see fit, will invariably lead to them PROACTIVELY going out and attacking gay people rather than REACTIVELY not serving them. It’s nonsense, of course.
And yet, SB 1062 will be vetoed.
Because of money.
Money: the greater god over the lesser (but almost equally mighty) god of government.
All the churches in Arizona can’t ante-up for “equal protection” like the Super Bowl can.
Then, just wait and see (like we have already seen, elsewhere): In their usual, persistent way, the forces that were arrayed against the real protections of SB 1062 will turn the political tables and commence avenging the alleged “attack” on their “rights.”
In relentless, deceitful propaganda, the avenging forces will link SB 1062 to Jim Crow-era bad laws. Vengeance will be delivered by way of enforcement of new, sweeping, intrusive and exactingly specific behavior-compelling and -limiting laws, (and perhaps in advance of those laws, by way of executive orders, those bulwarks of constitutional republics), with severe penalties for violations. Advocacy for the new laws and orders will be accompanied by the typical leftist drumbeat, playing the card: “If you are against [the law we want], you are a [fill in the blank describing the most loathsome imaginable person of the times who is a hateful enemy of all that is decent, and an enemy of all innocent, harmless persons “who just want to live their lives free from harm”].” The Change Advocate’s Bullying Pass will thus be secured: Emotion in, reason out. The laws will be passed with fanfare befitting perfection of the Magna Carta. History thence will record that persons hunted down and harmed by enforcers of the laws were “brought to justice,” for “the indispensable benefit of all the people, their eternal liberty and equality.”
So let me get this straight — companies have guaranteed they will refuse to sell their services to the people in Arizona because of it’s political orientation because they think it’s wrong for companies who might refuse to sell their services to the people in Arizona because of their sexual orientation.
Hm.
These companies refuse to compete in a market that contains competitors who might willfully cut out a huge revenue source? That just sounds dumb.
This might be a juncture where we might benefit from tgt’s discussions on the ethics of boycotts. I have to quit this discussion because it is making my head hurt.
Because “We are not going to give you special protection against anyone who doesn’t like you” equates to “we hate you.”
Do tell, does that mean the state hates fat people? Ugly people? Rude people? Does the state hate everyone that doesn’t have a law detailing that they are protected? Because if the only way for the state to show it doesn’t hate you is to create more laws further limiting free association by forcing people to be less mean… well that’s pretty fucked up.
Yes, allowing people to decide who they sell their goods or services to is exactly like making Jews identify themselves for an eventual holocaust.
Fuck. We have been figured out.
Someone tell them to stop construction of the “day centers”.
Mmmm, close. I think Bill is pointing out that under the Nazi regime homosexuals were also targeted and made to wear a pink triangle. I don’t agree that allowing individuals to decide who they will deal with informed by their faith is like marking homosexuals as by nature degenerate and targeting them for eventual liquidation. That sounds an awful lot like the oft-discredited slippery slope argument, where slipperiness depends on whether the slope tilts right or left. Hey, we’re on our way to 100 replies!
No but the people who will stand by and let homosexuals be discriminated against now are a lot like the people who stood by back then when it started.
So thinking everyone has a right to do business with the people they choose and no one else are like the people who did nothing while rights were denied others?
Get fucked.
Yes absolutely.
No thank you. I don’t fuck men. Try your mom.
Fuck you, you statist cunt. Requiring me to do something is entirely different from standing by while people are rounded up, their property confiscated, and set off to camps.
And if you think they are the same you are hopelessly ignorant.
Ahhhh are we upset???
The only one who is hopelessly ignorant is you.
If you don’t like living in a Republic , where all the citizens of the Republic are treated equally under the law of the Republic then maybe you should move some place where there are no laws .
Have you tried Fantasyland?
You’re the one who wants to force action.
I don’t think you understand what a constitutional republic actually is. What you are supporting is an authoritarian system.
You’re being silly. Un-libertarian does not equal a dictatorship.
Forcing action is authoritarian. The fact that it isn’t yet Cuba doesn’t mean it isn’t the use of government force to compel action against your will.
I know damn well what a constitutional Republic is and isn’t.
Yeah telling people that all citizens of the Republic have to be treated equally is so authoritarian. That’s it, keep believing that and painting yourself and others like you as victims.
Have you ever thought about therapy? You should. It may help with this persecution complex thing you’ve got going on.
“Yeah telling people that all citizens of the Republic have to be treated equally is so authoritarian. That’s it, keep believing that and painting yourself and others like you as victims.”
Yeah Bill, the state we have now, which tells all the people upon whom it exercises its powers which treatment is and isn’t equal protection, is so republican. That’s it, keep believing that and painting yourself and others like you as forward-thinking heroes.
“All citizens… are treated equally under the law…” Yes, UNDER THE LAW. Not “all citizens are treated equally by all other citizens.” Instead, that law has taken it upon itself to designate SOME citizens that cannot be told “I don’t like you, get the hell out of my store.”
As long as they also stand by and let heterosexuals be discriminated against, I have no problem with it.
If my girlfriend and I want to go dancing at a gay club and the bouncer tells us we aren’t welcome, then I’ll do everything I can to tell everyone I know what terrible service they have, and go somewhere else.
Sarcasm is isn’t an argument, and you’re ducking the point. The point is the creation of legally enforced second class citizens out of irrational animus by a majority, stigmatizing and marginalizing innocent, law abiding citizens.
Yeah and gays don’t have forelocks or speak Hebrew, so there.
It isn’t “legally enforced discrimination” you shitpile!
Quote where in the amended statute it does so.
Here, I’ll let Ilya Shapiro state our case…
I think something in your coding is wrong, that or my mouse is discriminating against your blue link…
Yeah, coding hyperlinks on the phone is rough…
Here.
Illya, Rand. One’s smart and the other isn’t, but they are both addled by strict libertarianism. The fact that libertarians reach this absurd and unethical position is a good example of what’s wrong with the theory. We would still have Jim Crow with this logic.
Is that analogous? I thought Jim Crow *compelled* discrimination and separation. The law in question above does not compel anything.
He already said above- he considers this law to be the state proclaiming “Gays, we hate you, and we want you to get out.” By that logic it is similar to Jim Crow. By the logic that no, Jim Crow compelled businesses to adopt a specific practice while this law limits ability of the government to compel businesses to act in a certain way, then it’s not the same at all. So, y’know, it’s predicated on “By not giving you waht you want, I show that I must hate you.”
We only had Jim Crowe because the government required discrimination.
But please, tell me how letting people choose is the same as the government requiring it.
Exactly right
One question.
Under the proposed bill, are businesses equally free to deny seervice to straights?
If so, I have no problem with the law, for it treats gay and straight equally.
The only thing the law does – the only thing – is allow the use of “religious belief” as a defense against discrimination suits.
It doesn’t mentions “gay” or “homosexuality” or “sexual orientation” even once.
So presumably, this defense would be available to persons accused of unlawful discrimination against straights.
If the law applies equally across the board, where is the discrimination?
The historical sequence of civil rights laws:
(1) Hate crime prohibitions enacted;
(2) Government-vs-citizen discriminatory laws (e.g., Jim Crow) repealed;
(3) Equal opportunity laws enacted;
(4) Hate speech prohibitions enacted;
(5) Public accommodation laws enacted;
(6) Citizen-to-citizen discriminatory laws (e.g., miscegenation) repealed;
(7) Affirmative action laws enacted;
(8) Reasonable accommodation laws enacted.
In barely 30 years, LGBT civil rights have progressed from zero to (5), with progress on (6). Remarkable.
There are no hate speech laws, nor could there be any.
No for lack of want, however. Criminalizing speech is the holy grail of the authoritarian.