Washington Attorney General Bob Ferguson is suing Barronelle Stutzman, owner of Arlene’s Flowers and Gifts, after she refused to provide flowers for a gay wedding. I have been writing about the tension between free exercise rights and anti-discrimination laws — a subject that I discussed at the conference this week at the Utah Valley University’s Center for Constitutional Studies. This is now an issue that is arising with greater regularity, including conflicts over wedding cakes and other items.
Ferguson is acting under provisions of the state’s Consumer Protection Act that bar discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and is seeking an injunction requiring the florist to comply with the law. He is also demanding a fine of $2,000 for each violation.
The case involves the refusal to serve customer Robert Ingersoll. Stutzman insists that her religion barred such work. She described the scene: “He [Ingersoll] said he decided to get married and before he got through I grabbed his hand and said, ‘I am sorry. I can’t do your wedding because of my relationship with Jesus Christ.’ We hugged each other and he left, and I assumed it was the end of the story.”
However, the Attorney General says that the standard is clear: “If a business provides a product or service to opposite-sex couples for their weddings, then it must provide same-sex couples the same product or service.” Advocates of such enforcement note that we long ago stopped businesses from refusing to serve people due to their race and that this is merely an alternative form of discrimination.
Recently, a same-sex couple sued over an Oregon bakery’s refusal to make a cake for a same-sex couple.
The question is whether anti-discrimination laws are cutting into free exercise and first amendment rights for religious individuals, particularly those who believe that they are engaged in a form of expression or art in the preparation of flowers or cakes. These types of expressive acts may be distinguishable from other public accommodation cases like hotels or restaurants. Even though the same religious objections can be made by an evangelical Christian hotel owner, the flower and cake makers can claim that they are engaged in a more expressive form of product. It is, in my view, a difficult question because I do not see how anti-discrimination laws could not be used to negate a wide array of expressive activities.
I have long been a critic of the Bob Jones line of cases on tax exemption. I have long held the view that we took the wrong path in dealing with not-for-profit organizations, particularly in such cases as Bob Jones University v. United States, 461 U.S. 574 (1983). We need to re-examine how anti-discrimination laws are encroaching upon religious organizations to give free exercise more breathing space in our society — a position I discussed in a book with other authors.
I find these more recent cases more difficult than the tax exemption cases. I find the analogy to race discrimination in public accommodation to be compelling. I have also been a long supporter of gay rights and same-sex marriage. However, I have serious reservations over the impact on free exercise in an area of core religious beliefs. What do you think?
Source: Seattle Times
Yawnnnnnnnnnnnnnn…………..
Si-reeens!
They sure do sing pretty, Mike A.
Or in the words of Delmar O’Donnell, “Can’t you see it, Everett? Them sirens did this to Pete. They loved him up and turned him into a… horny toad.”
Gene H.:
I love feeding obsessions. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q4egb2gpIg4
Happy National Day of Reason
“know many red-haired Jennys”
should be:
“knew many red-haired Jennys”
Really, got my tense mixed up.
david2575:
I have no doubt that others have experienced it. My question is: by what means does one know that that experience is not imaginary?
Gene,
“I got better.”
There’s a long road between “better” and recovered. I know many red-haired Jennys. Life is good sometimes, despite its failures.
It all boils down to this.
Enacting a law permitting legalization of gay marriage is an act by the legislature permitted to it by the constitution. The legal entity that is a marriage is a statutory construct is defined already by previous legislative action. The legislature already regulates what the age of marriage might be and in most states how closely related the spouses can be in order to be permitted to marry under the laws of the state. They can just as easily define marriage between same sex partners as they can between a man and a woman. In fract, if the legislature wanted it could allow marriage between four persons if it chose, there is no constitutional restriction in doing so. That is just the way it is.
The fact that religious dogma disagrees with this is again irrelevant because religious dogma is not codified by definition into US law, it might resemble it but it is not because of it that it is codified.
One issue that people have difficulty accepting is that just because they disagree with something does not mean that they should be accomodated. The constitution of the US prohibits a state sponsored religion and as such the legislature is prohibited from enacting and the gov’t subsequently enforcing laws that are purely religious in nature and are considered unconstitutional. People can say, well God declared the Hatch Act to be an abomination and it is purely irrelevant to the argument because the scope of statutory law is outside the scope of religion.
Darren, I have never argued that the constitution forbids same-sex marriage, or that it bars states from allowing same-sex marriage. I agree with you that the state legislature is permitted to redefine marriage if it so chooses.
My position includes the idea that redefining marriage creates a legal quagmire. There are a plethora of laws created with the idea that marriage was between a woman and a man. Many of these laws create incentives for the formation of a strong family unit, so that instead of just couples shacking up and having children out of wedlock, a union is formed whereby children are raised by couples who have certain duties and obligations toward each other. To redefine marriage is basically a method to hijack all these laws and make them apply to a type of relationship that was never in mind by the legislature when they created the marriage laws in the first place.
The real root of the issue here is whether same sex marriage is exactly the same as opposite sex marriage. My argument from biology is that it is not the same thing. The various religions of the world might come to the same conclusion for different reasons, but such does not invalidate the analysis of the unions from a biological, psychological, and social perspective.
Another element of my argument is that I accept the concept of Natural Law Theory, which is that laws that accurately accord with the reality of natural law are of great benefit to society, while laws created from the imagination of men to curry favor with certain individuals or groups are bad laws. I would go further, in fact, and declare them invalid laws, not laws at all, and that they should not be followed by anyone.
The idea of inalienable rights comes from Natural Law Theory. It is the concept that men have certain inalienable rights, given to them, NOT by any constitution, but by the Creator or Nature. These rights exist despite what any law says. Any law which infringes upon these rights are not valid laws at all, and no man is obligated to obey them.
While the homosexuals claim to be fighting for their inalienable right to marry each other, I argue that they are either misguided or intentionally deceiving everyone. Their group is defined by behavior and sexual inclinations, which do not even have any sharp line of demarcation. People of all sorts experience various degrees of sexual attraction not only to opposite and same sex, but sometimes different objects, body parts, animals, pictures, videos, and even animals. Often both single and married people may experience sexual attraction toward people they never want to marry. People identify themselves as heterosexual, homosexual, bisexual, transgender, and questioning, and even if self identified in this way, many experience all the forms of sexual attraction also experienced by the other groups. Sexual attraction is not the basis for marriage, plain and simple. Sexual attraction might be a mechanism to lead someone toward marriage, but people are not forced into marriage because of their sexual attraction, and they might marry without any sexual attraction whatsoever. In a nutshell, homosexuality just turns marriage upside down and creates chaos because it does not comply with natural law. The right solution is to define their committed relationship in a different way.
One consideration that nobody seems to consider is that homosexuals are constantly looking for the stamp of approval from others in society. This same sex marriage thing may simply be a phenomena of that drive, looking for social acceptance. They may claim that they want all the benefits, and maybe there is some greed element in some individuals wanting the monetary benefits, but I think it more likely that they just want acceptance. In the recent Montana Supreme court case last December, they were asked what legal concreteness to marriage would remain if their relief was granted, and the answer was basically how people viewed it, the symbology of it, that they were married. The court rightly rejected such an answer because such a diminished view of marriage would necessitate a drastic rewrite of the law. Society should not abandon its long held understanding of an important public relationship like marriage just because a group identified by sexual inclinations wants social approval and to be viewed by society in the same light as everyone else. In some cases, sexual inclinations do lead people to a different status in society. I don’t care whether it is a chronic masturbator, a pedophile, a person addicted to pornography, or whatever. Behavior leads to psychological changes and to people viewing that person in a different way. Accept it. I have to accept my own status of being odd, believing in God but having a disdain for religion. They also should accept the social side effects of what happens because of their decisions.
davidm2575:
No, I am looking for theistic knowledge that can be shown to come from something other than imagination.
Other than your imagination, how do you know the “spirit” exists?
Not true, logic is a method for obtaining knowledge. Galileo used a thought experiment to invalidate Aristotle’s claim that heavier objects fall faster.
The two “proofs” you offered are just disguised products of someone’s imagination.
davidm2575,
To Nal: “From your assumption, you ASSUME that only the physical brain is a source of knowledge, and observations through the flesh, the five senses, are the only way through which knowledge can come.”
Isn’t the “physical” brain the same brain where your spirituality resides? If not how are you, and according to you, millions of others cognizant of, “the report from literally millions of so-called ‘born again’ Christians that such a [subjective] proof does work.”
How does that work? Without the physical brain, I mean? I know of no other brain, though I do know of collection plates.
Gene,
RW emailed me and asked if I had a picture of you!? 🙂
“….he offers a subjective proof, that if someone keeps his teachings through word and deed, something spiritual will happen…”
***************************************
“Subjective proof” is an oxymoron. You either have something subjective, or you have evidence. We keep hearing the term “natural law” from David as if it is something real and provable. It’s not. It is a philosophical term that has proven to be remarkably fluid in the past, depending on which philosopher you read.
On the other hand, we have the laws of nature, which are diametrically opposite in meaning and practice to “natural law.” Laws of nature can be observed, measured, quantified and predicted. Unlike “natural law,” laws of nature are true, simple, absolute, unchangeable, predictable, and stable.
For example:
Law of Gravity.
Newton’s Laws of Motion.
Law of angular momentum.
Laws of thermodynamics.
Laws of behavior (Pavlov & Skinner)
….and hundreds more.
ipse dixit just doesn’t cut it anymore.
David,
Addition involves choice huh…. Tell that to a child of a crack addict….. Tell that to a child of an active alcoholic….. You are a POS….
Gene H.:
I defended a couple of stalking cases this past year. You know how to reach me if necessary. =D
davidm2575:
What alternative does that person have, other than his imagination, to know if a god has manifested itself to that person? What alternative does that person have, other than his imagination, to know if “something spiritual” has happened?
Your “subjective proof” has all the hallmarks of a product of one’s imagination.
Nal wrote: “What alternative does that person have, other than his imagination, to know if “something spiritual” has happened?”
You are still arguing from your assumption that knowledge can only come from the five senses of the flesh. Basically, you have decided already that there is no alternative, that spirit does not and cannot exist. From your assumption, you ASSUME that only the physical brain is a source of knowledge, and observations through the flesh, the five senses, are the only way through which knowledge can come. This was the primary debate during the Enlightenment period. Granted, the vitalist position of life has very much become a minority position now, but from a strictly logical point of view, you have to admit that it is only an assumption that you have, the assumption that the spirit does not exist and therefore knowledge to the brain apart from physical observation could only be imagination and speculation of the brain. Even if you have never experienced spirit as a separate force, you cannot disprove that others have experienced it. That is the hole in your logic.
Please note that the so-called “fact” in the referenced article was that NO epistemological alternative is offered by the religious, which is absolutely false. I gave you two: 1) a subjective proof in the form of a private manifestation if teachings of Christ were observed and followed, and 2) the testimony of reliable witnesses. These are indeed two alternatives, so the reasoning in that article is flawed.
gbk,
There has been more than one Jenny too. I’ve had a weakness for Jennys and Jennifers since my grade school crush on Jennifer Mills. And strangely enough, all but two of them have been red heads and to a one they have been a siren. I’ve got the busted boat hulls to prove it. One of them even turned me into a newt.
I got better.
Mostly.
Gene,
Well, at least you have higher standards than most people:
(Rachael! Call me! ;))
“The problem in the bulk of reasoning in the list is the assumption that knowledge comes only through physical observation of the material world. It does not allow for subjective proof or for proof in the form of the reliable testimony of trustworthy witnesses.”
That’s because subjective proof is useless. Subjectively I can prove that Rachael Weisz wants to have wild crazy sex with me because I subjectively believe that to be true despite all of the objective proof to the contrary with her being married to Daniel Craig and not returning my phone calls.
As for your “reliable testimony of trustworthy witnesses” as related to the Bible? Considering that the Bible consists of second hand relations (at best) of stories told hundreds of years after the fact, I don’t think you know what the words reliable or trustworthy mean in relation to evidence. The Bible is hearsay at best. To be clear: Hearsay is information gathered by one person from another person concerning some event, condition, or thing of which the first person had no direct experience.
Too bad for you that objective proof is both the standard courts of law generally rely upon to prove matters of fact, its also the underpinning of the scientific method. You might as well have said, “If you disregard provable facts based in empirical data, religion makes perfect sense.”
You’ve demonstrated that “logic and reason” are words that you know, but do not understand. Your above statement is the equivalent of an ipse dixit argument: it’s true because you say so and have no objective proof. That’s bad logic and bad evidentiary practice.
It’s no wonder Nal and OS are tying you in knots with faulty reasoning like that. With a couple of exceptions, we’re a logic oriented group around here. In fact, several of us are professionally trained logicians (including OS).
We tend to argue based on objective evidence around here. Why? Because this is a slice of the real world, not a fairy tale. In the real world, subjective evidence and hearsay is worth exactly squat.
Gene, your animus is not necessary. Typically people use the word “proof” in only one way… objective proof, so it is difficult for people holding fast to that assumption to grasp the meaning of a concept like Subjective Proof. You claim it is meaningless only because you don’t understand the principles involved with it. For example, subjective proof is useless if one is dishonest with themselves, as illustrated in your example. The concept of subjective proof is akin to Descartes’s third maxim for his code of morals, that a person cannot control things external to him, so he should be honest with himself and his own thoughts in his examination of truth.
Science for the most part deals with aggregates of data and the repeatability of physically observable events. Singular events, especially observed only by one person, are much more difficult for science. If the event left behind physical evidence, it can be examined, but if no evidence remains, the event basically falls outside the realm of science to investigate.
The concept of the existence of God is considered generally to be outside the realm of science. Good science is careful not to take any position on the existence of God. It is basically a “no comment” kind of thing. However, science proceeds as if there is no God, because it has defined the path of truth as being only that which comes through observations of the five senses, and that which can be quantified mathematically. Ironically, science is the one that says, “ignore religion and regard only facts provable through empirical observation.” More than that, most scientists proceed to investigate with the assumption that all mysteries can be explained through empirical data, and that currently observable natural laws are sufficient to explain every mystery. This is an assumption, in fact, a defining principle for science. It has proved useful in most cases to root out the dishonest investigators and speed along the process of discovery. Scientists proceed merrily along in their research, letting the philosophers and theologians do their own thing.
For theologians and philosophers, however, the field of inquiry is much broader. Contrary to your assertion, they generally do not ignore science, but attempt to deal with the discoveries of science in a rational and logical way. Of course, religion is full of frauds, which complicates matters and makes it difficult for some to acknowledge the truth of my last sentence, but considering honest investigators, religion is not allowed to ignore science or any forms of objective proof. Truth is truth whether physical or metaphysical. The conflict between science and religion, for the most part, has to do with different assumptions and different language (use of words). As an example, when I say Subjective Proof, you immediately object as does OS and literally thousands of other scientists. Clearly such a concept is not taught in the science classroom. That does not mean that the concept is invalid.
The concept of Subjective Proof is basically that it does not necessarily involve empirical data or even necessarily repeatability, which are the hallmarks of objective proof. Rather, it is simply the idea that a person has observed or experienced an event that he knows to be real and true. For example, I mentioned the promise of Christ, that if someone followed his teachings and obeyed his commandments, then God would come and manifest himself to them. Assume for just a moment that such an event could happen. I know you probably cannot fathom it, but that is only an assumption. From a logician’s point of view, if we assume that it DID happen, for the person who experienced that, the principle has been proven. It is called subjective proof because it is proof only to the subject who has experienced it. Unlike empirical proof, he cannot prove anything about it to other people. Nevertheless, he knows what happened and he needs no further proof.
In regards to witnesses in the court system, such witnesses are not objective proof. This is why the credibility and reliability of the witness is examined. If it were based on objective truth, there would be no need to examine such things. We would simply contrive an experiment based upon the testimony and prove empirically what was being said. In most cases, that cannot be done. We rely solely upon what the subject claims to know as fact.
As for the reliable testimony issue, you have brought up the Bible, not me. I was speaking in general terms of people who report their experience and understanding. The Bible might be considered as such by some individuals, but I had in mind more recent testimony. This is not the forum for more detailed analysis of exactly what the Bible is, but I find your perspective to be a false narrative easily disproven by numerous studies, some of which are based on empirical evidence. Nevertheless, I don’t really care if you find the Bible to be hearsay or even false hearsay. Such a conclusion does not affect anything I have said. I have only been discussing the issue of logic and reason, the basis for bigotry, the inherent assumptions involved in all reasoning, and such matters that do not require any belief in some sacred collection of writings called the Bible.
Please do not try to stereotype me as a religious man just so you can justify in your mind how I must be an idiot. Address only the arguments that I make. If you think I don’t understand logic or if you find me to be irrational in statements that I make, just point out the fallacy and make your case. Ad hominem slurs against me do not add much to the discussion and only serve to reinforce emotionally (as opposed to logically) the unspoken assumptions of people who have a different opinion from me.
gbk,
I snorted coffee when I read that. Thomas Aquinas was the exception, not the rule. For every one of him, you had two or three Tomas de Torquemada. But good humor is where you find it.