Jim Crow isn't dead

[crispybits]

I'd agree with a religious person not serving a gay couple if that religious person could point to the rule(s) in their religion that prohibited it. Not rules that prohibit gayness, but rules that prohibit association with gays. From a christian perspective that rule does not exist as far as I'm aware. Jesus specifically taught that you should love the sinner despite hating the sin. Jesus sepcifically taught that you should not judge anyone else and leave that bit to God. Jesus specifically taight that you should treat EVERYONE how you yourself would like to be treated. There were no caveats in those teachings about "unless they're gay" or "unless they're muslim" or "unless they're black" or anything else.

Again, my understanding is that it's not about "not doing business with gays." I'm sure it would not have invalidated his/her religion to bake a cake for a gay man or woman that just came into his/her shop. The issue is about supporting a gay marriage which is explicitly against most Christian religions (and I believe Judiasm and Islam). So it's not like Jim Crow at all in that businesses would just not deal with blacks and the situation had nothing to do with marriage, it had to do with racism. Yes, gay marriage has to do with equality under the law, something I support. But not selling a cake for a gay wedding is not government action and does not invalidate the legal wedding ceremony in any way, so I struggle with equality issues.

So the whole issue is not about Jim Crow and it's not about not recognizing gay marriage legally. Going to a Christian baker to buy a wedding cake for a gay marriage and then suing said Christian baker is politics.

I do understand your point, I just think it's an invalid argument. Lets do a quick thought experiment (and remember when reading that I am not claiming every aspect of this is a direct analogy to the gay equality political struggle).

Imagine that during the racial equality struggle there was a religion, lets call it Froddism. That religion held as a part of it's doctrine that black people were inferior to white people and should not be accorded any human rights but instead treated the same as cows or horses or dogs, as property to be owned and traded etc etc. That black people should never associate with white people, and definitely never marry them. The Froddists vehemently opposed racial equality laws, and held that it was their right to hold these views as an integral part of their religion. They refused to allow black people to be customers in their shops and restaurants and hotels. They campaigned long and hard that to force them to treat black people equally would be a violation of their religious freedom.

Now jump forwards a bit to the present day, with the much changed attitudes towards racial equality in most sections of society. Do you think a Froddist could walk into the Supreme Court and hope to even get a judge or jury to entertain the notion that the Froddist should be allowed to racially discriminate based on their religion, under the flag of freedom of religion?

Under the law right now, it doesn't matter if you hold fundamental and integral religious beliefs about racial equality or inequality. If you discriminate against black people because they are black you will be breaking the law and will be subject to any sanctions or punishments imposed by the law. Religious freedom is not a get-out clause to do anything you like as long as it's written in whatever book you hold holy, the laws of the state still apply to you.

This is why the politics is necessary. The sexuality equality fight is not yet won. Many areas of the US and the rest of the world do not yet allow the gay portion of humanity the same institutional rights as straight people. Therefore the people who feel that they are being discriminated against will bring more cases, seeking to establish precedents and principles that will move the struggle forwards and hopefully move society forwards towards one where sexuality is an irrelevance to all reasonable people, just as race has largely become today. And just like the Froddists would have long ago lost their fight to have their form of bigotry recognised as a God-given right, so too will many Christians find (I hope) that they too cannot hide behind the bible as an excuse to discriminate against gay people.

Yes the politics will have victims, yes it may go one step forwards and two steps back sometimes and yes not everyone will agree on every aspect of how to fight that fight and how to change society to a more equitable one, but the basic fact that it is a fight that still needs fighting is undeniable.

[thegreekdog]

I've had a few beers, so bear with me.

I don't think you understand my point because your scenario is not limited to whether Froddists must support a black marriage. Your scenario posits that the Froddist religion treats blacks as second class citizens. So, unlike the gay marriage real life scenario, your Froddists wouldn't ever deal with a black person.

But let's deal with your scenario anyway (because scenarios are cool).

With much-changed attitudes in society, do I think a Froddist could win a Supreme Court case? No. Do I think a Froddist SHOULD win a Supreme Court case? Yes with a caveat. The First Amendment is supposed to take precedence over everything (it doesn't in real life, but I'm talking about what I think the ruling should be, not what the ruling would be). The only caveat to that is that if the goverment has a compelling interest (i.e. racial equality) to enforce the anti-Froddist law, the government wins. I think, under your scenario where a Froddist business doesn't even deal with a black person, there is probably a compelling government interest.

But again, we don't have that. In the gay marriage context, the government would have to show that it has a compelling state interest in violating religious liberties to force a business to provide goods and services to a gay marriage (not to gays, to a gay marriage). Do I think the religious folks are going to win that argument at the Supreme Court? No. Do I think the religious folks SHOULD win that argument at the Supreme Court? Yes, without the caveat because I don't think there is a compelling government interest here.

Also, I have to quibble a little bit with your "institutional rights" discussion in the second to last paragraph. There is no "right" to get marriage benefits; as I've argued before, government-recognized marriage is a government-created fiction to allow couples to achieve certain benefits (and detriments to some extent). There is a right to equal protection under the law (where "protection" includes "benefits") so maybe that's what you're talking about (if it is, I'm with you).

Finally, my preference (as it is with virtually everything) is to allow our society to figure this out. If you take a poll right now, I bet most people are supportive of gay marriage in the United States (or at worst indifferent). States are beginning to recognize gay marriage. Federal government will be there soon too, in my opinion. Gays are an accepted part of culture for most people. So it's a different fight going on right now. Yes, I think there is a fight and it should be done, but suing a Christian for not making you a cake for your gay wedding is not something I respect. If the gays couldn't get a cake anywhere, different story, but the gays can (I bet some enterprising baker gave the gay couple a free cake for advertising purposes).

Anyway, now I'm rambling. I'm going to go back to my Yards Brawler (a session beer... delicious).

[mrswdk]

Are Froddists anything to do with Lord of the Rings?

[crispybits]

TGD I'm not only talking about the baker and the wedding cake. This discussion kick-started again because of that proposed AZ law that would have allowed people to refuse any kind of service based on religious freedom. There have been guesthouses that have refused to allow gay couples to sleep in their rooms if you want another example. Yes the marriage thing is taking it one step further, but there is no denying that religious people have been refusing service to people just because they are gay in other instances, and the obvious intent of the AZ law wasnt to prevent people being sued for non-participation in gay marriage specifically, the proof of which is that gay marriage doesn't even exist right now in AZ.

The marriage and the baker was just a convenient example to use because it was high profile. I could have used this example instead:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25119158

Yes it's from the UK but that's where I get most of my news exposure so I knew where to look - I'm sure I could find other examples from the US of similar refusals without the marriage element.

The key point here is where does freedom of religion have it's outer limits? At what point does someone's faith take precedence over the life choices of others in a multi-cultural, multi-faith pluralistic society? The question seems simple for me - if you are bound to break an explicit tenet of your religion by taking an action, then (with certain serious exceptions like the faith healing groups letting their children die without proper medical care) you can claim religious freedom. I have no problem with that and I'm willing to bet neither do 99.9999% of atheists or others. Nobody wants to force anyone to go against their firmly held beliefs. But if you want a get-out based on the fact that your religious laws are being broken by someone who does not share your beliefs, especially when your service does not directly facilitate them breaking your religious belief, then you're going to be disappointed (I hope).

Making a cake or selling flowers or whatever to a gay wedding does not facilitate the gay wedding. The wedding can (and will) happen without the flowers or the cake. By providing these kinds of services to gay weddings not only is the religious person not breaking their religious rules themselves, but they are not providing a service which makes it possible (where it would otherwise not be possible) for others who do not share their religious faith to break those rules either. The services are completely incidental to whatever perceived violation of God's law is happening. That is where the distinction has been made in law before, and that is where I believe the distinction will be made here as well in the end.

[mrswdk]

I imagine that the Bible Belt fundamentalists who go around refusing to serve people whose actions go against their religious beliefs would say that they don't want to assist someone who is doing something that they (the Christian) believes will damn that personal to Hell. 'If we didn't do it then someone else would' is a pretty weak excuse for anything. That's why 'aiding and abetting' is a crime (obviously if we're talking about homos then we're talking about perceived sinful activity, not criminal activity, but the principle is the same).

[chang50]

I imagine that the Bible Belt fundamentalists who go around refusing to serve people whose actions go against their religious beliefs would say that they don't want to assist someone who is doing something that they (the Christian) believes will damn that personal to Hell. 'If we didn't do it then someone else would' is a pretty weak excuse for anything. That's why 'aiding and abetting' is a crime (obviously if we're talking about homos then we're talking about perceived sinful activity, not criminal activity, but the principle is the same).

And as long as these people represent a sizable voting block they will be allowed to discriminate on such pitiably inadequate and irrational grounds.Luckily I have never lived in a society where this nonesense is widespread.What these fundies need is to learn from the good old C of E,provide the services people expect,ie match batch and dispatch but not take it so seriously.I'm a lifelong atheist AND a godfather to two kids,now adults,back in the UK.Bit hopeless telling fundies to relax I know..

[crispybits]

I imagine that the Bible Belt fundamentalists who go around refusing to serve people whose actions go against their religious beliefs would say that they don't want to assist someone who is doing something that they (the Christian) believes will damn that personal to Hell. 'If we didn't do it then someone else would' is a pretty weak excuse for anything. That's why 'aiding and abetting' is a crime (obviously if we're talking about homos then we're talking about perceived sinful activity, not criminal activity, but the principle is the same).

Yep and whether they have a cake or not, or whether they have flowers or not, does absolutely nothing to either assist or prevent the marriage. If you extend that argument to it's logical conclusion the shop that sold an armed robber the jeans he was wearing on the day he held up a petrol station is aiding and abetting the robbery.

To be aiding and abeting you have to be providing some sort of support by which the act itself is made possible or at the very least easier. The actual gay marriage is neither made possible nor easier by the cake or the flowers.

[mrswdk]

Cutting the cake is a pretty important symbolic part of a Western marriage, no? If the Christian cake makers refuse to make the cake, then the gay couple won't just give up. They'll go to another shop, because they need a cake for their wedding ceremony. By selling them a cake, the baker is playing a symbolic role in their wedding ceremony. It's not the same as refusing to sell them chewing gum.

[crispybits]

No wedding has a ceremonial cake cutting. The party after the wedding has a ceremonial cake cutting. Does the baker's religion have something against parties too?

By providing the cake the baker is playing exactly no part in the wedding. Neither is his cake. Again, using that logic you would have to say that a car manufacturer has played a part in a fatal stabbing because the perpetrator drove away in their car afterwards, or a McDonalds played a part in an armed robbery because the robbers went there for dinner that night...

[mrswdk]

If you say so. Maybe you should go ask a baker for their two cents.

[muy_thaiguy]

A "wedding cake" isn't actually cut during a wedding. At least none that I have been to or heard of. And it's not really considered "ceremonial" either. Traditional, yes.

[Phatscotty]

Can religious people still shun others? Can other people still tease religious people? All this forcing of values and banning of disapproval can get confusing!

[thegreekdog]

TGD I'm not only talking about the baker and the wedding cake. This discussion kick-started again because of that proposed AZ law that would have allowed people to refuse any kind of service based on religious freedom. There have been guesthouses that have refused to allow gay couples to sleep in their rooms if you want another example. Yes the marriage thing is taking it one step further, but there is no denying that religious people have been refusing service to people just because they are gay in other instances, and the obvious intent of the AZ law wasnt to prevent people being sued for non-participation in gay marriage specifically, the proof of which is that gay marriage doesn't even exist right now in AZ.

The marriage and the baker was just a convenient example to use because it was high profile. I could have used this example instead:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-25119158

Yes it's from the UK but that's where I get most of my news exposure so I knew where to look - I'm sure I could find other examples from the US of similar refusals without the marriage element.

The key point here is where does freedom of religion have it's outer limits? At what point does someone's faith take precedence over the life choices of others in a multi-cultural, multi-faith pluralistic society? The question seems simple for me - if you are bound to break an explicit tenet of your religion by taking an action, then (with certain serious exceptions like the faith healing groups letting their children die without proper medical care) you can claim religious freedom. I have no problem with that and I'm willing to bet neither do 99.9999% of atheists or others. Nobody wants to force anyone to go against their firmly held beliefs. But if you want a get-out based on the fact that your religious laws are being broken by someone who does not share your beliefs, especially when your service does not directly facilitate them breaking your religious belief, then you're going to be disappointed (I hope).

Making a cake or selling flowers or whatever to a gay wedding does not facilitate the gay wedding. The wedding can (and will) happen without the flowers or the cake. By providing these kinds of services to gay weddings not only is the religious person not breaking their religious rules themselves, but they are not providing a service which makes it possible (where it would otherwise not be possible) for others who do not share their religious faith to break those rules either. The services are completely incidental to whatever perceived violation of God's law is happening. That is where the distinction has been made in law before, and that is where I believe the distinction will be made here as well in the end.

I don't know that there is a specific tenet of any Christian religion that I'm familiar with that prohibits "being gay." So not sure where those "religious" people are getting their rationale. In any event, I think that's a different issue (and one where I agree with, assuming that I'm correct in that there is no genuine religious basis to refuse someone a good or service because the erstwhile customer is gay).

[Phatscotty]

some gay couples are trying to force religious business owners to participate in their civil unions, that is definitely trying to impose a certain set of values, and very radical values at that.

...

Make no mistake, the First Amendment here is directly under attack, and the gay agenda has been hijacked as the vehicle against it. It's the perfect wedge issue, 100% emotion vs 100% values

Not only is your dichotomy worthless -- the "gay agenda" is about a value (equality and fairness) -- but you admit it in the very same post. Accusing people of just preying on emotions is not cool. We're both fighting for values, you're just prioritizing one (liberty) differently than we are.

The issue became about 'love', when gay marriage passed, the headlines were 'love wins', the logic for passing gay marriage, spoken by the president, vice presidnet, and everyone else was "It's all about who you love" I find it highly unreasonable for you to request emotion be separated for something that was so clearly and undeniably promoted as emotional.

[thegreekdog]

I imagine that the Bible Belt fundamentalists who go around refusing to serve people whose actions go against their religious beliefs would say that they don't want to assist someone who is doing something that they (the Christian) believes will damn that personal to Hell. 'If we didn't do it then someone else would' is a pretty weak excuse for anything. That's why 'aiding and abetting' is a crime (obviously if we're talking about homos then we're talking about perceived sinful activity, not criminal activity, but the principle is the same).

I'm fairly certain Christian fundamentalists don't care much whether their customers are murders, thieves, rapists, or molestors, or that their customers lied, stole, coveted spouses of their neighbors, or disobeyed their parents. Or... hey... don't believe in God!

To be fair, I find the whole thing stupid. I'm just arguing because there needs to be some semblance of an intelligent argument on the side of the Christian fundamentalists who will sell a cake to an atheist, Jew, or Muslim in potential violation of the First Commandment, but won't sell a cake to a gay couple (who are not, technically, violating a commandment).

[AndyDufresne]

I think the real answer here is dismantling the free market system. You're welcome.


--Andy