This week, I appeared on the CNN special addressing the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) in Indiana. While I have been a long-standing supporter of same-sex marriage, I raised concerns over the dismissive treatment of religious concerns over the scope of anti-discrimination laws and how they may curtail free exercise of religion. I have previously written both columns and academic work on this collision between the two areas of law. In the program, I raised an example of the growing conflicts that we discussed earlier on this blog of a bakery that refused to make a cake deemed insulting to homosexuals while other bakers are objecting to symbols that they view as insulting to their religious views. This issue also came up with an advocate for LGBT rights on the show:
On the show, Sarah Warbelow, legal director of the Human Rights Campaign, appeared and gave an excellent case for those opposing this law. The HRC does very good legal work and has a distinguished history advocating LBGT rights. I however was most interested in one exchange with host Christ Cuomo:
Cuomo: Now, Sarah, you’re going to hear people flip this analogy on you and say, “Well, wait a minute, if this were a Jewish baker and some KKK couple came in and said, “We want you to make a cake.” If he said no, well than how would you feel about the situation?
Warbelow: Well, most of these business owners really are providing cakes across the board, but there are a select few who are choosing to discriminate. And there’s a huge difference between having to write something objectionable on a cake and being asked to provide a cake for a same sex couple.
The exchange was interesting between Warbelow seems to suggest that bakers should be able to refuse “something objectionable on a cake” but insists that bakers cannot refuse to make cakes that they find objectionable for same-sex couples. For some religious bakers, a cake with a same-sex image or language is objectionable.
My point is only that we are brushing aside a difficult and unresolved question of where to draw this line. We are all so eager to show (as I did above) that we support homosexual rights and/or same sex marriage, that there is little frank discussion of the obvious conflict with free exercise and free speech. There is also a limited discussion of the difference between certain forms of expressive arts like photography or baking as opposed to less expressions forms like diners or transportation businesses. For example, there does seem a meaningful distinction between serving a gay couple at a diner and a photographer who is asked to participate in a same-sex marriage and celebration in recording the event and arranging photo settings. That does not mean that we would not reach the same conclusion, but we are not having this debate.
I have struggled with this collision between anti-discrimination laws and free speech/free exercise for many years. I still remain uncertain on whether to draw this line between the two cakes that I described. We should have an answer for those citizens who are raising these concerns rather than dismiss them all as bigots. If the HRC is saying that bakers can refuse to make objectionable cakes, we should have a better understanding of when such objections are deemed legitimate and protected. Free speech and free exercise are rights that require bright line rules to avoid the chilling effect of possible criminal or civil liability. We need to be able to explain why the refusal to make one of these cakes is an unlawful form of bigotry and why the other is a permissible form of free speech.
What do you think?
“Many many many people including clergy, and business people are not in favor of discrimination against gays.”
Many many many people including clergy, and business people voted for Obama.
And they were horribly wrong.
It’s a logical fallacy again, Inga:
Argumentum ad majorem.
Squeeky, your schtick is getting old. I’ve supported my argument with NUMEROUS citations. Many many many people including clergy, and business people are not in favor of discrimination against gays. Your side lost this battle. Don’t be a sore loser.
@trooperyork
You said, “They want submission and compliance.”
Which, if you think about it, is what most anal sex is all about. I guess it has just drooped over from their sex lives to their real lives. Just like gay men killing each other by stabbing them with knives. All that phallic symbolism. Freud would have a field day if he was still alive.
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Opting out of joining in celebrating a same sex marriage is not discrimination. Period.
http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2015/april-web-only/rfra-indiana-arkansas-four-letter-word-religious-freedom.html?start=2
“Walker says now it’s time to take a break, since RFRA’s reputation has taken such a hit.
“I hate to say, ‘Take a deep breath,’ since it such a cliché,” he said. “But maybe we should take 100 deep breaths. Let’s hold off for a little while. In this toxic political environment, things will blow sky high.”
Current RFRA laws, like those in Indiana and Arkansas, were passed in the wake of legalized same-sex marriage. That was bad timing, said Walker, and led to accusations that RFRA is intended for discrimination against gays.
No judge is going to accept that faith allows people to discriminate, said Walker.
“RFRAs are not designed to allow people to discriminate,” he said. “The courts are almost certain to find that the state has a compelling interest in preventing discrimination.””
@Ingannie
Nice try at distraction, Annie. Why don’t you make this a “learn-able moment” for yourself. Why don’t you just come out of the closet and admit that you are an agenda driven cultist who only PRETENDS to engage in discussions. I sincerely believe there is a good person lurking somewhere inside you that is screaming to get out.
If you take this chance, when it is already obvious to everybody here what kinds of games you are playing, then YOUR life automatically gets better. You can start engaging in real discussions, and actually learn and teach things with the people here. You aren’t really fooling anybody but yourself. Just start being honest, and you won’t have to fake it anymore. Faking and posing is a tremendous burden to the person doing it, and there is no reason for you to make yourself labor under that onus.
Plus, maybe you can uncover the reasons why you hate Christians and hate the church. Because hatred takes a toll on people and it is taking a toll on you. This is a really good time for you to shake off the burdens and start a new life.
Sincerely,
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Can I have what you are smoking Jim22. It must be some good stuff. Do you live in Colorado?
“understand that providing them goods and services in the marketplace is an act of Christian hospitality, not an indication of approval of their nuptial decisions.”
You have repeatedly posted this.
It makes no sense.
If I provide the service of photographing a man copulating with a horse (no, trooper, I don’t mean Matthew Broderick), or spray paint to a teenaged hoodlum wearing an ANARCHY hat, or selling ‘promise’ rings to a lesbian teacher and her 14 year old ‘friend’, or rope, duct tape, tarp and twist ties to a serial rapist, that these are not an indication of approval of their actions?
Balderdash.
What one particular denomination or church might believe does not change the fact that other denominations or individuals do not agree. That is in fact the point.
There are many bakers or photographers that same sex couples can bring their business. Just as there are many churches that would be happy to marry them. But that is not what the goal is for proponents of gay marriage. They want to force everyone to adhere to their views. They want everyone to bow down to their “religion.” They have no tolerance for a conscientious objector. They will bring the full force of the government down to destroy bakers, photographers and venues who do not submit. Soon they will do it to churches. The fact that they have thousands of other places to choose from does not matter. They do not want freedom of choice. They want submission and compliance.
Trooper and Haz, What are you worried about? One of our wonderful politicians will stand up for our right just like they are for the pizza business.
https://baptistnews.com/ministry/organizations/item/29957-bjc-releases-statement-on-rfra-legislation-in-indiana-and-arkansas
“For our conservative Christian friends, try loving your LGBT neighbors unconditionally and understand that providing them goods and services in the marketplace is an act of Christian hospitality, not an indication of approval of their nuptial decisions.
**********************
Squeeky,
It’s pretty obvious you are quite confused politically and otherwise. Explain how you will vote for Hillary Clinton and hold the views you do. You are one messed up woman.
That is the plan Haz. I am sure the lawsuits and the test cases are already prepared and ready to go.
Jill & Jim
I discriminated all the time in my business and it is legal to do so as long as it isn’t based on race etc.
I would occasionally decline to do business with prospective clients. I didn’t have to give a reason. I was not obligated to take on each and every person who walked into my office.
My internal reasons were usually
1. Not enough assets to warrant my time or would be too costly to the prospect. No money.
2. Conversely thought that because they had a lot of assets $$$ that they didn’t need to pay any attention to my advice. Too much money and think they are king or queen.
3. They had a bad attitude from the get go. A-hole
4. They wouldn’t listen to me or wanted to argue about my advice. If you are going to be paying me you should listen.
5. Had an agenda in their investing philosophy that was a) stupid b)politically or ecologically motivated instead of logical. I want to make you money not support your agendas.
6. Too stupid to understand anything….tiresome and tedious to deal with. Constant deer in the headlights look. Sigh.
7. Will be constantly coming in to have me explain over and over and over concepts that we have gone over and over and over.
8. Will be constantly coming in to just visit and take up my time. I’m not a social director and have lots of other clients and lots of other work to do.I like you but…don’t have time to entertain you constantly
9. Will be prone to blame their bad decisions, despite my advice to the contrary, on me. I TOLD you to sell when your stock was at $50. It isn’t my fault you didn’t and now it is $10.
10. In general will be a giant P. I .T. A. http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pita
Being a PITA has nothing to to with race, creed or color. Anyone can be a PITA.
I didn’t have to say why. However, I did try to make it nice. I’m extremely busy. Booked up. Won’t have time to give your portfolio/plan the attention it deserves. Our investment and financial philosophies are too far apart. I think you will be a better fit with the XYZ firm. Here is a referral.
As I said. Some of my very best financial clients were same sex couples who had the assets, listened to the advice, needed help and took the suggestions to heart. We discussed the problems and came up with solutions. Very satisfactory clients.
We discriminate every day all the time in every decision we make. It is called self preservation. If we didn’t we would be walking into walls, driving the wrong way down dark streets, getting mugged and killed…..among other things.
No Squeeky, only in your twisted mind.
A couple has a right to ask for the ceremony. The religious functionary can say: No, I won’t do this. The couple can then protest that the religious functionary said “No”. What the couple cannot do is force the religious functionary to do their marriage.
That leaves out a few details.
An ssm couple requests a marriage ceremony at a Catholic church. The pastor politely declines, citing the centuries old Catholic belief that marriage is between a man and a woman, and wishes the couple well in their search.
Scenario 1: The couple complains to the local county officials and files a lawsuit demanding to be married in the Catholic church by the Pastor, who holds authority issued by the county government to sign marriage licenses. The county revokes the pastor’s authority to sign marriage licenses, since he won’t marry anyone who requests to be married, thereby making it not possible for him to legally marry ANYONE, including parishoners and other Catholics.
Scenario 2: The couple files suit challenging the church’s tax-exempt status on the grounds that (charitable works aside) the church receives benefit form the government, and must therefore hold to the government’s policy allowing same sex marriages. The church loses it’s tax exemption, ceases doing charitable work, and becomes insolvent.
So when you say What the couple cannot do is force the religious functionary to do their marriage, you leave the door wide open for the religious functionary and the church to undergo suffering and punishment at the hand of government for declining to perform a same sex marriage.
Is that what you meant?
She doesn’t read her own links, but cut-n-pastes them from Puffington or wherever.
@Pogo
Thank you!!! I always enjoy your piquant comments, too! Did you see where Ingannie tripped over her own link??? LOL!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Inga hates religion.
It’s no wonder she hates the freedom to practice religion.
@Ingannie
You’re COLD BUSTED Annie! The link you provided was NOT from “Blow Job Con” but “Baptist Joint Committee.” and says the opposite of what you said. If you had actually read your own sh*t before posting that link, you would have known this. But, you didn’t, because you are dishonest. You are a phony.
ROTFLMAO!!!
Squeeky Fromm
Girl Reporter
Squeeky, yours are good palate cleansers.
Max and Annie’s?
Endless lectures, like swallowing glass.