Thursday, April 2, 2015

Rant Warning - Consciencious Objection - Yay or Nay?

Okay, I know I may be preaching to the choir here, but here is my question of the day. When did we get to the point where we are no longer allowed to conscientiously object to participate? I have been spending way too much time "debating" the whole Indiana "Religious Restoration Act" in Indiana on Twitter. Yes, I "twitter", so sue me.

But, honestly, when did we reach the point where tax-paying American citizens are no longer able to object to participate just because they do not want to? Just because one opens a private business that happens to be on a publicly-funded thoroughfare, why do we lose our right to not to participate in any event for which our religious convictions preclude our participation?

Now, I do not personally object to same-sex marriage, I am not particularly religious, and do not own a private business, but...and that is a big BUT (and by big, I mean Kardashian-butt "big")! Maybe it is bacause I live in a multi-culti city with many kosher businesses, but I just don't understand. Specifically, I know the risk to the neighborhood kosher businesses if I should decide to enter a kosher business with any non-kosher products against posted warnings. They would have to shut down, scrub the place clean, and be re-certified as "kosher" by an annointed Rabbi, so I respect their kosher laws so they can avoid the issue (and selfishly, because if they had to close I would not be able to partake of their delicious, old-fashioned, hand-rolled bagels...).

Why is it not the same for business owners who believe that they cannot participate in same-sex marriage events whether by baking a cake, providing a venue, or taking photographs? Do I agree? No, I do not necessarily. But do I respect their right to not particpate? YES! And I do not agree that businesses that decline to participate in events for which they conscientiously object and who are specifically targeted should be force to participate by threats of lawsuits and violent intimidation.

What do you think?

49 comments:

Kit said...

I'll post what I posted on the other thread, and then a thought:

Stories like this push me in a different direction than you on the topic of the RFRA.
LINK

A family that owns a pizza store is asked whether or not they would cater to a gay couple for their wedding (why would anyone use pizza for their wedding?) they said no on the basis of their religious beliefs, but they would serve gay couples.

What came next? Trolls posted phony bad reviews on their Yelp site and, more disturbingly, a storm of death threats was sent at them. One local high school coach jokes about burning the store down.

They are now closing it in response, possibly permanently.

This isn't "fighting for equality," this is a witch-hunt.

Kit said...

re the RFRA law.

I am still on the fence about it. The libertarian in me (who is for allowing gay marriage) is for the law, saying that any business owner should be able to refuse service to anyone and is disgusting by the Left's attempt to, once again, wage a war of extermination against anyone who even privately disagrees with them.

Interestingly, however, it is the conservative in me who is, at the most, very queasy about the RFRA law, believing that there are times maintaining social order is more important than individual liberties and that allowing anyone to refuse service to anyone else sets the stage for social anarchy.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, I've discussed the theory of this enough that I'm sick of talking about it. Fortunately, the GOP seems to realize this isn't helping them and they are bailing out. That bodes well for 2016.

What I will say is that I find the whole thing to be rather cynical. The Indiana GOP passed this thing promising that it would allow individuals to discriminate against gays, but then denied that when confronted about it... so basically, they passed a meaningless yet provocative law for fun... or they were lying. After getting caught lying, they decided to flip this thing around by changing it so it specifically disavows what their supporters want it to do in the first place. In effect, they are ensconcing in the law the very opposite of what they hoped to achieve. Pathetic.

And ultimately, I think all this really was was an attempt to force social issues back into the political cycle.

Kit said...

Ideally, my imagined law would be where places like Memories' Pizza could refuse service for events, be they same-sex weddings, a Christmas ceremony, or Neo-Nazi parties celebrating the coming day when Hitler will emerge in Antarctica from his base within the Earth's hollow interior.

But would not protect them from refusing to serve certain individuals, unless those said individuals engaged in an activity detrimental to the business.

Kit said...

And by detrimental I mean yelling f-bombs, bothering other customers, or going doggy-style on your partner in the play-pen.

AndrewPrice said...

Kit, Here is my earlier response to your first comment...

First, I won't defend these people. They violate the minimum requirements to be members of a civil society and they should be civilly and criminally liable for slander/liable and harassment. They should do time for all threats and be forced to pay over money damages to the victims as reparations.

That said, I separate out the asshole activists from the policy. We should never base our laws and policies on how much we like advocates. If that was the case, then society would collapse because it would become the majority just voting away the minority.

And you definitely should not judge a cause by its asshole faction. Should we judge Christianity from the occasional guys who kill gays or the Westborough Baptists or abortion clinic bombers? Do we judge the military by the handful of rapists in their midsts? Activist love to play that game, but the public doesn't.

Third, let me suggest that the people who brought this up are just as guilty of stirring the nest. That is the problem with these issues: they are fought by obsessed nutjobs who want to force everyone else into the debate. And both sides are guilty of the same conduct. Both sides are stacked with crazies who send death threats and try to arrange boycotts and slander their opponents. Both sides hope to provoke the other side into doing something stupid that will then confirm to them that they are morally right.

So I judge issues on the issues, not the personalities.

AndrewPrice said...

Kit, There is no requirement that you serve people who are disruptive. You just can't discriminate based on certain demographic facts.

Kit said...

Whether such an ideal can be made into law, I don't know.

As a flip, personally, if a business owned by a wacko-leftist* refused to provide service for a ceremony honoring returning vets, I would say go to another store.

Same goes for an atheist business owner who is asked to provide service a Christmas-themed event.

Personally, if someone is forced to provide catering for an event they are morally against then I would be very reluctant to eat whatever food they provide.

*wacko-leftist small business owners do, in fact, exist.

ScottDS said...

[I'd have a pizza place cater my wedding!] ;-)

This whole thing stinks. Yes, the social liberal in me isn't a fan of the law, but the Libertarian in me says keep the law and let the marketplace decide. Unfortunately, that can be distorted which is what happened here (bogus Yelp reviews) and now this couple has lost their livelihood. And ya know what? Despite disagreeing with them... I feel bad for them!

(And yes, if I ran a restaurant, as a Jew, should I be required to cater a Nazi rally?)

I fear some kind of potential backlash against the LGBT crowd. Americans may not be fans of discrimination, but they're not fans of people being unfairly targeted either.

Kit said...

I guess my position is that businesses should be allowed to refuse service for certain events but not individuals because of their demographic.

The wacko-leftist could not refuse service to a soldier but should not be forced to provide, say, catering to an event for returning vets and a devout Christian could not refuse service to a gay couple but not be forced to provide catering to a same-sex wedding.

It is where I stand now. I'm still thinking the issue over.

Kit said...

Scott,

re Memories Pizza, what disturbed me the most was the sheer glee in many places of the left and the gay-rights community. They really seemed delighted to see trolling and death threats forcing a business to close, possibly permanently.

ScottDS said...

Kit -

I agree, and it makes me ashamed to be... I guess they call it an "ally." To paraphrase Buckley, it makes you want to stand up and yell "Stop!!"

AndrewPrice said...

Kit, As I say above, I have no use for those people. I see the same crap at sports sites and in the comments at Yahoo. They need to start punishing the people who break the law and banning the people who can't be civil.

As for those who are simply fellow travelers in glee, they should be called out by the conservative media. Ask the lead activists to disavow these people, and when they don't, then turn that into a scandal. But saying, "There are some jerks on that side, let's punish everyone on the other side" is just a bad basis for making laws.

In terms of separating individuals from events, the problem there is that it's a semantics game. What's the principled difference between letting twenty gays/blacks/Jews eat at your place together versus banning them if they try to have a "party" at your place?

Kit said...

Andrew,

I more or less agree with what you are saying.

"What's the principled difference between letting twenty gays/blacks/Jews eat at your place together versus banning them if they try to have a "party" at your place?"

That is the problem I see as well. As I said above, "Whether such an ideal can be made into law, I don't know. "

AndrewPrice said...

By request, I was asked to explain why Indian's law is different than other states and the national RFRA:

A great many people who have discriminated against others have tried to cite to the RFRA or its state equivalents as a defense. Basically, they have said that they can't be held liable for discrimination because the RFRA (or state version) lets them discriminate based on their religious beliefs. The courts have uniformly rejected that contention, claiming that the RFRA does not provide a valid defense for discrimination.

Unlike the other laws, the Indiana law includes a specific provision which says that any individual who gets sued for discrimination can invoke Indiana's RFRA law as a defense. In other words, Indiana tried to create a situation where the law went the opposite way of every court decision on other similar laws.

That's why people complained, because they said this was an attempt to allow individuals and companies to discriminate against gays. Ironically, after claiming that this is exactly what this law will do, the GOP is now backtracking and claiming that the law doesn't allow discrimination at all... and they are racing to "fix it" to make that very clear.

So basically, they passed a law which they now claim doesn't actually do anything and they are rushing to make sure that is clear.

Kit said...

Scott,

I'm pro-same-sex marriage as well. Though it is more from a libertarian, "let 'em have it," view than anything else. This story disgusts me.

Second, Buckley said, "Stand athwart history and yell, 'Stop!'" not "stand up and yell, 'Stop!'"
A conservative misquoting that statement by Buckley is like a Baptist misquoting John 1:14. It is literally printed on their t-shirts. ;-)

Really, the entire "Stand athwart history" quote is on my Facebook banner.

Kit said...

Andrew,

What do the other laws do?

Kit said...

Ok, from what I've read of the law the problem, it seems, is that it is very, very vague. Vague enough for it to be defended as both anti-gay and not anti-gay. Which actually makes me dislike it even more.

AndrewPrice said...

Kit, As far as I can tell, all it really did was allow Indians to collect unemployment if they got fired for smoking peyote. And no, I'm not kidding.

What the law really does is change a standard the courts use. By and large, the government cannot pass a law restricting the free practice of religion without a compelling state interest. In the 1980s, the court began to allow this if the law in question was written in a neutral way which didn't seem to mention religion. The RFRA and the state equivalents say that the court must consider that even "neutral" laws can affect the exercise of religion.

AndrewPrice said...

Kit, Yeah, that too.

Kit said...

Andrew,

And if a law is that vague everyone has to wait until a judge rules on it to find out what it even says? Let alone its constitutionality.

Kit said...

"As far as I can tell, all it really did was allow Indians to collect unemployment if they got fired for smoking peyote. And no, I'm not kidding."

Well, it was the Clinton years.

Kit said...

"As for those who are simply fellow travelers in glee, they should be called out by the conservative media. Ask the lead activists to disavow these people, and when they don't, then turn that into a scandal."

Agreed.

Anthony said...

For my money, Judge Napolitano summed the situation pretty well. Like I said before, I think the Indiana law was a very broad law created to address a very narrow problem (Christian businessmen who didn't want any part of gay weddings).

http://townhall.com/columnists/judgeandrewnapolitano/2015/04/02/indiana-and-the-constitution-n1979636/page/full

Goldwater paraphrased Thomas Jefferson, who argued that the only moral commercial transaction is one truly voluntary on the part of the buyer and the seller. That argument has an attractive leave-me-alone appeal to it; yet, the public policy of the nation since 1964 has unambiguously rejected it. Today in America, if you operate a public accommodation or deal in real estate, you cannot choose your customers; they choose you. This Indiana statute is arguably an effort to bring back the pre-1964 days with respect to sexual orientation.

tryanmax said...

Legalities aside, I just don't understand why anyone would want something like a wedding catered or photographed by an unwilling party. Sounds like a recipe for bad food and bad pictures.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, Agreed. But the let me point out an often overlooked fact... people are stupid... intensely stupid.

AndrewPrice said...

Anthony, That's exactly what it is, despite the obviously false denials now. Indiana has been told that it must allow gay marriage. So they thought they could neuter that by passing a law which allows private individuals to discriminate against gays and thereby let an army of individuals make the gay marriage law substantively meaningless... "Oh, you can get married, but we ain't gonna treat you like it!"

AndrewPrice said...

As a follow up to my comment on what the law can be used for, I have been thinking about this and I think the only real uses at this point would be for Muslims. They could use this to argue that (1) noise ordinances that ban the call to prayer violate their free exercise, (2) animal protection ordinances that prevent them from gruesomely butchering their halal-compliant meats violate their free exercise, and (3) they could argue that any law that forbids them to wear the burqa violates their free exercise.

Probably not what the GOP had in mind.

Kit said...

"I just don't understand why anyone would want something like a wedding catered or photographed by an unwilling party. Sounds like a recipe for bad food and bad pictures."

I know a woman who said a gay friend of hers held exactly that point. I think most gays hold that view.

AndrewPrice said...

As predicted, they have revised the Indiana bill and converted it into a gay rights bill, banning discrimination based on sexual orientation or gender identity... that means transgender people can pick and choose bathrooms.

So what started as a hard-core religious right attempt to legalize discrimination against gays has ended with Indiana going the completely opposite way and passing a gay rights/anti-discrimination law.

Details of the amendment here.

This is how these things always end.

BevfromNYC said...

They could use this to argue that (1) noise ordinances that ban the call to prayer violate their free exercise, (2) animal protection ordinances that prevent them from gruesomely butchering their halal-compliant meats violate their free exercise, and (3) they could argue that any law that forbids them to wear the burqa violates their free exercise.

The call to prayer thing has already been an issue at some college campus. Also oddly, in NYC schools rooms have been set aside for Muslim children to prayer where Christian children are not.

Kosher laws also command ritual butchering laws that have been challenged by PETA. Also dress codes in kosher/orthodox businesses have recently been challenged for requiring women to cover up.

The burqa challenge has already come up in a courtroom. A pin-headed liberal judge refused allow a woman with a head-scarf on to be heard until she removed her head-scarf. His reasoning was "separation of church and state" and she was violating his secularly orthodox courtroom [my words]

Kit said...

This is what happens when legislators do not pause and think.

Like Claudio or Romeo they rush in like fools where angels would fear to tread.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, Those are basically the kinds of things the RFRA could be used for. That does mean, however, that someone does need to invoke it first.

On setting aside a room for Christians, I think the issues there are either that (1) the Christians didn't ask for one or (2) the schools may have concluded that since Christians aren't required to pray five times a day, but Muslims are required, that an accommodation must be made for Muslims. Not sure though as I haven't looked into it.

It is my understanding that PETA has lost every challenge to Kosher or Hallal practices.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

I object to the RFRA but not for the reason some might think:
http://blogodidact.blogspot.com/2015/03/you-built-that-rfra-and-i-object.html

I don't want govt. to be responsible (by force) of my morality or anyone elses.
And yes, democrats as well as most republicans are guilty of this.
I want my God given rights and individual liberties without the interference of the thought police, morality thugs, and mob rule.

This doesn't mean, however, that I condone violating anyone elses rights and individual liberties, just as I don't want mine violated.

BevfromNYC said...

Ben - I am in total agreement with you and that is what reasonable, rational people want and do. Live and let live. I won't inflict my beliefs on you and visa versa. But I have come to believe that people are no longer reasonable or rational. It is not about fairness or "equal justice" or even solutions or compromises. It's about "winning" the argument and self-righteously demoralizing your enemy. Sadly, the enemy is anyone who presents a rational, reasonable solution.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

Bev, I concur.
Many on the left and some on the right conflate their wants and desires with their rights and they want govt. to enforce their wants and desires and turn them into rights (such as the "right" to free birth control).

Also, far too many Americans don't even know what their rights, liberties and responsiblities irt to their rights and liberties are.
Which is why they ignorantly (and some, maliciously) want govt. to force anyone who disagrees with them to do their bidding.
That isn't liberty, it's tyranny.

AndrewPrice said...

Ben and Bev, I agree with you in principle, but sadly, that ship has sailed. There are certain limits that the public simply wants and will demand we keep. There aren't many, but they are there. One of those is that people dealing in commerce can't discriminate based on demographic reasons, e.g. race, religion, gender, etc. (Note this does include ideological, so you can discriminate against Nazis... or Democrats.)

I see zero desire on the part of the public to even consider changing this, so I think it's counterproductive to fight it. The best we can achieve is to keep it from expanding.

To do that, there are lessons here that conservatives need to learn, but they aren't bothering because they'd rather keep fighting the gay issue. That one is lost... get over it and learn from the loss. Study why it lost so you don't lose the next one! (Answer: conservatives never made a credible argument that granting what gays want would hurt society. Same reason they are losing the marijuana legalization war.)

BevfromNYC said...

OT - Yesterday Sen. Menendez (D/NJ) was indicted on corruption charges. Btw, this is what happens when you cross the wrong person in politics The Dem powers have known for years about Menendez's issues with using his office to help his political donor/cronies. But stuff like this is never used until it becomes politically advantageous. He refuses to resign and why should he? Btw, I read that Republicans have a long standing rule that anyone who is indicted on any kind of corruption must resign. The Dems have no such rule.

AndrewPrice said...

Bev, I remember him being under investigation for this years ago... maybe as far back as 2008. I had to chuckle when I saw the indictment. Let's hope it costs them the seat.

USS Ben USN (Ret) said...

"Ben and Bev, I agree with you in principle, but sadly, that ship has sailed."
Or is sinking,

Hi Andrew, sadly, you may be right. I do hope the USS Liberty one day rights itself once again, but if it does it will be a long slough.
I also hope we can at least put a stop to this madness, and prevent further damage.

AndrewPrice said...

Ben, I have two thoughts. First, absolutely, our mission needs to be to stop the expansion of this stuff.

Secondly, I think that this stuff will only go away when we reach a point where people genuinely believe it's not needed anymore. With only 30% of the public still thinking that racism is a problem, we are much closer to that than ever. But we aren't there yet. Will we get there? I think so. Keep in mind that as recently as the 1960s, America was suspicious of Catholics and before that the Irish and the Poles etc. Today, they're all pretty much indistinguishable from "whites" and "religious Americans." People integrate and then the need for laws protecting them fades away.

Kit said...

An irony here, that escapes most conservatives. While they are losing on the issue of gay marriage and marijuana legalization, they are (slowly) winning on abortion in spite of themselves.

tryanmax said...

Kit, I think the reason conservatives are winning on abortion is that they aren't making a big deal about it and the things they are pushing for are hard to be against. For example, higher facilities standards. It's hard to argue against making medical facilities clean, accessible (as in handicap), well-staffed, and regularly inspected. It puts the pro-choice side in the awkward position of discussing the width of hallways. The side that regaled us with the horrors of back alleys is now saying it's all good as long as there's a roof on it.

tryanmax said...

Andrew, Ben, et al.

"Raising Awareness" is the dying cry of a movement near its end. When I was a kid, everyone said we were working toward a colorblind society. Now I hear that colorblindness (or any other sort of social blindness) is its own form of bigotry, because it ignores the history and systems of discrimination blah, blah, blah.

I'm sorry, but the colorblind aims of the 70s--90s were right, and the current thinking is wrong. One cannot discriminate against that which one does not perceive. Simple as that. Raising awareness--not of race or gender, but of grievances--only serves to highlight distinctions and perpetuate rifts.

It's rather telling that virtually every identity movement is now raising awareness.

AndrewPrice said...

tryanmax, Nice observation. I too see evidence everywhere that the grievance lobby is in desperate straights. And the attempt to claim that a colorblind society is racist, something the public does not buy, is just an attempt to maintain their crumbling empires. Ditto on feminists and their sudden discover of the rape epidemic that doesn't exist.

Anthony said...

Tryanmax,

The public has always bern split on abortion. The big problem in quite a few states was courts.

Now the SC is in conservative hands and while not quite willing to throw out 'Roe v Wade' just yet, they are willing to interpret it more liberally and allow for judiciaries to strangle abortion providers to death with red tape.

Like I've said before, I think the problem is really determined women can abort on their own (Latin American countries tend to have far stronger anti-abortion laws than the U.S.). The US pro-life movement has focused on doctors, portraying woman as not accomplices, but victims.

An Indian woman in Indiana just got 30 years for feticide and child neglect after she either miscarried (her story and no drugs were in her home or her system) or botched her attempt to abort her pregnancy (prosecuter's story and she did live with very religious parents, was pregnant by a married man and had looked up abortion drugs online) and then threw the fetus (who she says was stillborn, but prosecutors stated was born alive and later died) in the trash.

A new phase is being entered and if played wrong it can reverse recent legal gains (though I think in the near term abortions and live births will continue to decline no matter what).

Anthony said...

A couple hundred thousand dollars have been raised for the owners of the 'no gay marriage' pizzeria and the sum is still climbing.

BevfromNYC said...

Anthony - Just for the record, the total raised was $842K. Now, liberal groups are jumping on the GoFundMe bandwagon to raise funds of their own for various and sundry things.

tryanmax said...

Assuming this guy is laying it on a bit thick, I think he's got the right approach: LINK This pretty much follows my understanding of "turn the other cheek." I'd love to see such an approach take off.

Post a Comment