Religious Freedom in the US

[mrswdk]

http://www.cnn.com/2017/09/07/politics/ ... index.html

The king of conservative media (or whatever) is drudging up old 19th century anti-Catholic stuff. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Know_Nothing

if you would like to spend your free time caring about 1,000 US Nazis doing completely irrelevant-to-policy things, go ahead dude. Just don't act like it's a big deal.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Yeah, the opposition may be mentioning that she's Catholic, but I think the real issue is that she's anti-abortion. There are many types of Protestants and most Muslims and various others who are also anti-abortion, so I think if she was associated with one of those she would be equally opposed.

No she wouldn't. There are tons of people of Islam apologists in the pro-choice crowd, to the point of delusion. i.e. forcing the women to wear sheets over their bodies somehow empowers them.

-TG

What about women who choose to wear Halloween costumes without anyone forcing them to?'

Wut

Freedom of religion does not mean someone can do literally anything they want as long as they cite religious beliefs. Would it be okay for people in America to carry out human sacrifices if that was part of their religion? Should Southerners who cited religious reasons for enslaving and/or lynching black people have been allowed to keep doing so?

It seems fair enough to say that citizens can't discriminate against each other just because they're religious. Not sure why you guys are so desperate to protect the right to be gratuitously homophobic.

In the bakery case it's not freedom of religion, it's the right to refuse service. A store can refuse to serve someone with no shoes or shirt, how is it any different? If i own a store, i should be able to conduct business or not with whomever i choose.

-TG

[mrswdk]

Either way you're still talking about someone refusing to serve a customer for no reason other than that the customer is gay. I don't really understand why that is a right that you need or want to protect.

[Dukasaur]

Either way you're still talking about someone refusing to serve a customer for no reason other than that the customer is gay. I don't really understand why that is a right that you need or want to protect.

It shouldn't matter what the reason is. I, for instance, won't hire people with silverware in their face. I'm still waiting for some asshole with a bullring in his nose to sue me and claim his human rights are being violated.

Freedom of association is a the root of a free society. Freedom to associate implies the freedom to not associate. If you don't like somebody, you shouldn't have to deal with them. Why shouldn't even be a question.

[jonesthecurl]

Religious freedom is a mistake.

Omnis enim orbis terrarum sub Roma regebatur benevolentiam ora Iovi.

One State Religion must be chosen and all heretics and infidels must be destroyed.

All Hail Zeus-Jupiter-Wotan-Amon-Ra.

blasphemer. Zoroaster would take all them on with one hand tied behind his back. Come to that, Kali would take them all on with THREE hands tied behind her back.

[mrswdk]

Either way you're still talking about someone refusing to serve a customer for no reason other than that the customer is gay. I don't really understand why that is a right that you need or want to protect.

It shouldn't matter what the reason is. I, for instance, won't hire people with silverware in their face. I'm still waiting for some asshole with a bullring in his nose to sue me and claim his human rights are being violated.

Would you also be happy for a government department, police precinct or hospital to refuse to hire people who are gay, black etc.?

[DirtyDishSoap]

(1) Catholic judge - The woman has consistently maintained both through the questioning and prior that religious preferences should not enter into decisions. As Duk notes, the issue is that she may be anti-abortion. If she is anti-abortion, she should be questioned on that basis, not on her religion.

She should be questioned if she's making her decisions based off of her religious beliefs. It's a conflict of interest between state vs the individual.
Take this for example.

Religious Judge and Same Sex marriage.

Would you not agree that in this case, that the basic right to marry who you choose, regardless of orientation, should be trumped by someone's religious belief? Wouldn't you agree that the judge should be impartial to his or hers religious beliefs in a matter of law?
It's off topic, but it should give you a picture that a religious judge has made decisions in the past based off their religion.

If there is a trend or a patter in the judge that has her religion influence in her decision making, then it should be questioned (but not persecuted).

On the other hand, a win for small business's and their right to refuse service.
https://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/2017-09-08/justice-department-sides-with-bakery-against-same-sex-coupletbd

I'll read the Wikipedia article later when I have time.

[Dukasaur]

Either way you're still talking about someone refusing to serve a customer for no reason other than that the customer is gay. I don't really understand why that is a right that you need or want to protect.

It shouldn't matter what the reason is. I, for instance, won't hire people with silverware in their face. I'm still waiting for some asshole with a bullring in his nose to sue me and claim his human rights are being violated.

Would you also be happy for a government department, police precinct or hospital to refuse to hire people who are gay, black etc.?

Institutions run on public money need to serve all of the public. Private individuals don't.

Odd that you snipped this line:

Freedom of association is a the root of a free society. Freedom to associate implies the freedom to not associate. If you don't like somebody, you shouldn't have to deal with them. Why shouldn't even be a question.

[mrswdk]

Snipped it because it's not really relevant. Association is about being able to form groups, clubs, spend time with whoever you want to.

It shouldn't matter what the reason is. I, for instance, won't hire people with silverware in their face. I'm still waiting for some asshole with a bullring in his nose to sue me and claim his human rights are being violated.

Would you also be happy for a government department, police precinct or hospital to refuse to hire people who are gay, black etc.?

Institutions run on public money need to serve all of the public. Private individuals don't.

So you think the government has a duty to ensure it does not discriminate against or marginalize any of its citizens, but at the same time it should allow its citizens to discriminate against and marginalize each other?

[Mokerslag]

IT'S DESCEPTION ''FREEDOM''. KAPITALIZED PEOPLE, PEOPLE OF THE TOP DO EVERYTHING TO DESTROY FREEDOM IN A STRATEGIC WAY.

Everybody is fooled like a nut. --->

IT'S SUCKSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Either way you're still talking about someone refusing to serve a customer for no reason other than that the customer is gay. I don't really understand why that is a right that you need or want to protect.

Duk hit it on the head. If i own a business, like the bakers, it's similar to owning a home. Who enters the premises is a right i have to control. By forcing one to associate with someone they don't wish to associate with, you're giving away autonomy.

I'm not saying it's a sound business decision.

-TG

[mrswdk]

Hurr, freedom.

So if Walmart put in place a policy saying staff are not allowed to refuse service to gay customers, is that bad because it has just reduced the autonomy of the individual sales clerk?

Pretty sure your answer to that is going to be 'it's a private company so it can enforce whatever policy it likes', which then brings us to the same question I just asked Duk: why is it okay for a private company to force its employees to serve gay customers, but its not okay for the government to force its citizens to serve gay customers?

[DirtyDishSoap]

Hurr, freedom.

You just answered your own question.

[Dukasaur]

Association is about being able to form groups, clubs, spend time with whoever you want to.

Yes, and that includes being able to enter into business transactions with whomever you want to.

So you think the government has a duty to ensure it does not discriminate against or marginalize any of its citizens, but at the same time it should allow its citizens to discriminate against and marginalize each other?

Yes, that would be a fair summation. The government has a duty to be fair and impartial. Private citizens have no such obligation.

[mrswdk]

So you think the government has a duty to ensure it does not discriminate against or marginalize any of its citizens, but at the same time it should allow its citizens to discriminate against and marginalize each other?

Yes, that would be a fair summation. The government has a duty to be fair and impartial. Private citizens have no such obligation.

I don't know which country you think you're talking about but private businesses in the US, Canada, the UK etc. are all legally obliged not to discriminate against employees or potential employees on the basis of factors such as ethnicity, sex, age and so on (for example). So yes, private citizens are under some obligations to be fair and impartial.

Why are you advocating for a duty to be placed on government agencies to be fair and impartial, while at the same time advocating for non-government agencies to be free to be as unfair and partial as they like? Does this mean you think all employment discrimination law should be scrapped?

[2dimes]

So, in Dukistan, you are required to hire the gays but have a right to refuse to make them a cake?

[Dukasaur]

So you think the government has a duty to ensure it does not discriminate against or marginalize any of its citizens, but at the same time it should allow its citizens to discriminate against and marginalize each other?

Yes, that would be a fair summation. The government has a duty to be fair and impartial. Private citizens have no such obligation.

I don't know which country you think you're talking about but private businesses in the US, Canada, the UK etc. are all legally obliged not to discriminate against employees or potential employees on the basis of factors such as ethnicity, sex, age and so on (for example). So yes, private citizens are under some obligations to be fair and impartial.

Why are you advocating for a duty to be placed on government agencies to be fair and impartial, while at the same time advocating for non-government agencies to be free to be as unfair and partial as they like? Does this mean you think all employment discrimination law should be scrapped?

Yes. If you're dumb enough to hate Sikhs or whatever, you'll pay the marginal costs of cutting yourself off from this pool of potential applicants. If you have a long list of hates, you'll cut yourself off from several pools of potential applicants. Over time, companies that don't discriminate will do better than companies that do.

If you want to run a parochial business where only left-handed, red-haired, twice-widowed Mormons whose names begin with "T" are hired and served, that is your right. You'll pay the consequences of poor growth potential. As long as you don't fear the consequences, that is your right.

[DirtyDishSoap]

What Duk said. To summarrize: They have no obligation to hire anyone because of x reason. Any application/interview doesn't guarantee a job. Its up to the owners discretion of who he hires and who he wants to do business with.

[tzor]

"Religious Freedom" in the United States has always been somewhat of a smoke and mirrors game. The settlers came to this "new world" to promote their own particular denominations, not to live in peace and harmony with other denominations. (Fun fact: the people of Holland loved the Puritans and didn't want them to leave.) As England began to take control over the colonies, Anti-Catholic sentiment was stoked and nurtured. This wasn't the time to be Catholic in New York; just being a priest was a crime and preaching to the heathens was a capital crime.

SOURCE

The political conditions at home, and also the long contest between England and France for the control of North America, resulted in the enactment by the provincial legislature from time to time of proscriptive laws against the Catholics. Catholic priests and teachers were ordered to keep away from the province or, if they by any chance came there, to depart at once. Severe penalties were provided for disobedience to these laws extending to long imprisonment or even death. In the disturbances and panic of the Slave Insurrection of 1741 schoolmaster John Ury was tried and executed under these statutes for the crime of being a "Popish priest" and teaching his religion.

Some suggest that one of the reasons for the revolutionary war was that the King George was not too quick to convert newly conquered Catholic Canada from it's catholic (often referred to as popish) traditions.

SOURCE

In 1774, Parliament passed the Quebec Act, taking the enlightened position that the Catholic Church could remain the official church of Quebec. This appalled and terrified many colonists, who assumed this to be a British attempt to subjugate them religiously by allowing the loathsome Catholics to expand into the colonies. Colonial newspapers railed against the Popish threat. The Pennsylvania Gazette said the legislation would now allow “these dogs of Hell” to “erect their Heads and triumph within our Borders.” The Boston Evening Post reported that the step was “for the execution of this hellish plan” to organize 4,000 Canadian Catholics for an attack on America. In Rhode Island, every single issue of the Newport Mercury from October 2, 1774 to March 20, 1775 contained “at least one invidious reference to the Catholic religion of the Canadians,” according to historian Charles Metzger.

The religious freedom clause in the Bill of Rights is more of a federalism clause than a true religious clause as there were several states at the time of the ratification that actually had state religions. Others had special relationships with specific religious denominations. It was only decades after the adoption of the Constitution that religious freedom was pushed at the state level.

And this is just one facet of the story, like any gem there are hundreds of them all reflecting the light of hypocrisy. Yes there was a lot of religious freedom ... for a WASP. Those throughout history who actually fought for religious freedom often found themselves frustrated and bitter and with good reason.

[mrswdk]

What Duk said. To summarrize: They have no obligation to hire anyone because of x reason. Any application/interview doesn't guarantee a job. Its up to the owners discretion of who he hires and who he wants to do business with.

In the US it's illegal to factor someone's ethnicity, sex, age, sexuality etc. into your decision about whether or not to hire them, so actually yes employers do have an obligation to not discriminate against potential employees for those reasons.

[DirtyDishSoap]

Again, no. Equal oppurtunity doesn't mean "We'll hire you regardless of experience!".

Someone can submit an application, who is colored and be denied because the employer didnt like how he looked, acted, or any number of reasons aside from you just listed. Even then, do you really think someone is in the background, reading an employers thought on why he didn't hire someone? Lol.

[Dukasaur]

What Duk said. To summarrize: They have no obligation to hire anyone because of x reason. Any application/interview doesn't guarantee a job. Its up to the owners discretion of who he hires and who he wants to do business with.

In the US it's illegal to factor someone's ethnicity, sex, age, sexuality etc. into your decision about whether or not to hire them, so actually yes employers do have an obligation to not discriminate against potential employees for those reasons.

You're confusing a legal obligation with a moral obligation. Laws are written to be politically popular. They rarely pass a deep Aristotelian test of being ethically sound.

[mrswdk]

You still haven't really said why 'freedom' means that morally it is desirable for a government to allow its citizens to discriminate against people they don't like. Does 'freedom' also mean governments should allow its citizens to assault people they don't like?

It's a particularly confusing stance when at the same time you state that, morally, governments should prohibit their own employees from discriminating against anyone. Why is it okay for Apple or Google to refuse to hire black web developers but not okay for the Department of Education to do the same thing?

[Dukasaur]

You still haven't really said why 'freedom' means that morally it is desirable for a government to allow its citizens to discriminate against people they don't like. Does 'freedom' also mean governments should allow its citizens to assault people they don't like?

Now you're just trolling. Assaulting people involves aggressing against them. Choosing not to deal with them does not.

It's a particularly confusing stance when at the same time you state that, morally, governments should prohibit their own employees from discriminating against anyone. Why is it okay for Apple or Google to refuse to hire black web developers but not okay for the Department of Education to do the same thing?

Seems self-evident. The government claims the right to rule over everyone within its territory, therefore it takes on an offsetting responsibility to benefit all of those people.

Private entities do not claim to rule anyone, therefore they have only those responsibilities which they explicitly contract for.

Although, broadening the discussion to Apple and Google introduces a new element that wasn't present with the mom-and-pop grocery stores we were originally talking about. Publicly-held corporations aren't completely 100% private, really. Nesting under the wing of government protectorship as limited liability corporations do, one loses some of the autonomy that the sole proprietorship implies. How much, exactly, is too big a topic for us, I think, but I would definitely say that a publicly-held corporation has a larger debt of care than an independent business.

[TA1LGUNN3R]

Hurr, freedom.

So if Walmart put in place a policy saying staff are not allowed to refuse service to gay customers, is that bad because it has just reduced the autonomy of the individual sales clerk?

Pretty sure your answer to that is going to be 'it's a private company so it can enforce whatever policy it likes', which then brings us to the same question I just asked Duk: why is it okay for a private company to force its employees to serve gay customers, but its not okay for the government to force its citizens to serve gay customers?

The employee doesn't own the store. Similarly, if you enter my home you can't start moving the furniture around. As an employee they perform services for their employer and are compensated, which may include serving some persons they disagree with.

You still haven't really said why 'freedom' means that morally it is desirable for a government to allow its citizens to discriminate against people they don't like. Does 'freedom' also mean governments should allow its citizens to assault people they don't like?

It's a particularly confusing stance when at the same time you state that, morally, governments should prohibit their own employees from discriminating against anyone. Why is it okay for Apple or Google to refuse to hire black web developers but not okay for the Department of Education to do the same thing?

That argument doesn't follow. In fact, you're suffering a breakdown of logic. The u.s. constitution is written with the concepts of classical liberalism in mind: that the rights of an individual cannot be infringed simply because one is outnumbered by the many. Assault violates a person's right to life, therefore is illegal. Shopping for a cake at one store is not a positive right, and refusing service does not violate a right. The truly liberal philosophy here is to allow private individuals, who are separate from a governing body, the right of refusal of service.

To flip your argument, should all stores be forced to serve any customer? Should the shirtless, shoeless bum be served against the owner's will? Must the swank country club allow xtratabasco into their membership? How do you negotiate your argument that citizens must treat each other equally (what a crock) any time a community or group is involved? There always will come a point where the dividing line of us/them, i/they arises.

Now i can see your argument applied to essential services like medical treatment, i.e. one can't be refused emergency treatment. Frankly it's difficult to marry that into business rights.

-TG