Fake Gay Marriage Website and SCOTUS Ruling

[laughing dog]

Why would that make "traditional" a red herring?

Because
1) there is no consensus on what traditional means in an operative sense, and
2) it denies the legal validity of newly or “ nontraditional” religious beliefs that are sincerely held.

 

[Gospel]

Yea know, the Christian's Bible emphasizes the values of consideration, kindness, and respect towards others to avoid causing unnecessary harm or offense. While it's true that it also contains support for contentious events such as wars, servitude, and the largest abortion ever performed (see Noah), those aspects aren't relevant to the current discussion.

 

[Copernicus]

For those who embrace the exploration of revisionist history with an open heart and keen curiosity, we delve into a synopsis of the American colonists' sentiments on religion. These are the individuals who laid the foundations of what would become the United States of America, their beliefs deeply intertwined with the nation's roots. This historical journey uncovers their intricate views on spirituality and faith, shining a fresh light on the past that shaped the present.

1. Established Church: The Church of England (Anglican Church) was the established church in England, meaning it was supported by the state and had a privileged status in society. Many colonists, particularly those from Nonconformist or Dissenter backgrounds, objected to this religious establishment.
2. Religious Persecution: Some colonists were descendants of or were themselves individuals who had fled religious persecution in England and other parts of Europe. This included Puritans, Quakers, Catholics, and other religious minorities who often faced restrictions on their worship and political rights.
3. Lack of Religious Freedom: Tied to the point above, there was a lack of religious freedom in Britain. The state religion was imposed on the populace, with non-Anglicans often facing legal and social disadvantages. This was a stark contrast to the religious freedom many colonists sought in the New World, where they wanted to practice their beliefs freely.
4. Religious Uniformity: The Church of England enforced a high degree of religious uniformity, particularly in its liturgy and church governance. Many dissenting groups, like the Puritans, sought a more simplified, "pure" form of worship, free from what they perceived as the corrupting influences of ceremony and hierarchy.
5. Autonomy in Governance: Many religious groups in the American colonies wanted to have the right to self-govern their local congregations, as opposed to being dictated by a centralized religious authority across the Atlantic.

So again, Emily, before drawing metaphorical sword and shield to challenge what you perceive as the dragon that is my character, could we examine how the Constitution, which explicitly prohibits any laws favoring or disfavoring religion, also supports the idea of religion as a protected class? I'm keen to understand your perspective on this nuanced issue.

I think that you missed mentioning that the head of the Church of England was the British monarch, and many Americans were members of that church. So there was a question of divided loyalties in a country that had rebelled against the authority of the British king. (The Episcopalian church was essentially the CoE, but without recognizing the authority of the British monarch, so it represented an acceptable alternative.) Also, under the Articles of Confederation, some states distributed tax monies to religious institutions, which set up controversies and rivalries over forcing people to support religious establishments they did not belong to. It was feared that the federal government could become embroiled in thorny questions about subsidies for religion. I think that the current SCOTUS would actually favor subsidizing more established religions, if they could find a way. Right now, the best they can do is to loosen laws that prevent religious institutions from interfering in politics and endorse laws that favor public displays of support for religion.

 

[Gospel]

To my understanding, there existed a time in early American history, before the Declaration of Independence was signed, when several states had established state churches, reflecting traditions inherited from England by the initial settlers. However, my main argument, particularly relating to the Supreme Court rulings favoring religion, is that the essence of the First Amendment leans heavily in favor of a government that refrains from interfering in religious matters.

Edit: In other words, the web designer is free to practice religion even if it means not offering a service to the public where same-sex marriage is legal.

 

[TomC]

So there was a question of divided loyalties in a country that had rebelled against the authority of the British king.

I honestly believe that had the Declaration of Independence and the War of Secession(from England) been put to a referendum they'd have been soundly defeated.

But, as they say "History is written by the Victors!"
Tom

 

[Gospel]

So there was a question of divided loyalties in a country that had rebelled against the authority of the British king.

I honestly believe that had the Declaration of Independence and the War of Secession(from England) been put to a referendum they'd have been soundly defeated.

But, as they say "History is written by the Victors!"
Tom

Don't forget the part where both you and I would sound like bilby when we talk.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

While support for revolution may not have been unanimous, I'd say the victors did a pretty good job in maintaining the original goal and established the first large scale representative democracy and then the first successful large scale representative democracy.

 

[TomC]

Don't forget the part where both you and I would sound like bilby when we talk.

Why do you think that? My ancestors were forced out of Ireland around the turn of the century.
Tom

 

[Gospel]

Don't forget the part where both you and I would sound like bilby when we talk.

Why do you think that? My ancestors were forced out of Ireland around the turn of the century.
Tom

I'm not quite sure, mate. I was just having a bit of a laugh, really.

 

[TomC]

While support for revolution may not have been unanimous, I'd say the victors did a pretty good job in maintaining the original goal and established the first large scale representative democracy and then the first successful large scale representative democracy.

You might want to poll the indigenous people about that. Or perhaps Harriet Tubman. Google "The Trail of Tears".
Tom

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I googled "The Trail of Tears" and it didn't say anything about the atrocity meaning the Founding Fathers didn't establish the first and then first successful large scale representative democracy. Harriet Tubman neither.

While imperfect and heavily compromising at the time, as America needed the south's ability to grow stuff like food and cotton, the governments developed at the time, were highly radical ideas.

 

[Toni]

While support for revolution may not have been unanimous, I'd say the victors did a pretty good job in maintaining the original goal and established the first large scale representative democracy and then the first successful large scale representative democracy.

You might want to poll the indigenous people about that. Or perhaps Harriet Tubman. Google "The Trail of Tears".
Tom

Indigenous peoples were considered not to be citizens and enslaved people were not considered to be autonomous people, either but rather were counted as part of a person for census purposes and otherwise treated as livestock. Of course, married women were chattel and unmarried women had few rights.

The Constitution was a product of its day--extremely idealistic and far reaching and yet, falling far short of what we consider to be fair, just, humane today. Hence, amendments and interpretation of the Constitution by modern day judges.

 

[Gospel]

Yup, a living and evolving document (ya know, that whole capable of being amended thing).

 

[Gospel]

It appears that religious beliefs occasionally pose challenges to the harmonious coexistence of other protected classes. Other groups, protected under law, go about their lives only to unexpectedly encounter a religious individual who suddenly announces, "My faith condemns your lifestyle!" Then all hell brakes lose.

 

[Copernicus]

While support for revolution may not have been unanimous, I'd say the victors did a pretty good job in maintaining the original goal and established the first large scale representative democracy and then the first successful large scale representative democracy.

You might want to poll the indigenous people about that. Or perhaps Harriet Tubman. Google "The Trail of Tears".
Tom

You are right about the lack of rights for everyone, but democracy had never been about everyone in society having equal rights in a democracy. The Athenians had a direct democracy, but they limited the electorate to adult male citizens. And they had thousands of slaves. The original idea of representative democracy in the US was similarly limited and there are still plenty of exceptions to the idea that everyone should have the right to vote and that their vote should be counted equally even today. Nevertheless, we do have a representative democracy, even with all its flaws and exceptions to the ideal of fairness.

 

[Gospel]

Indeed, while it may not represent a perfect democracy, it is certainly far from being a theocracy. At least, that was the case previously.

 

[bilby]

To my understanding, there existed a time in early American history, before the Declaration of Independence was signed, when several states had established state churches, reflecting traditions inherited from England by the initial settlers.

Well, kinda.

These established churches weren't so much a reflection of English traditions, as they were a rejection of English religious tolerance. The English established church was far less dominant in England than the colonial established churches were in their respective colonies.

In particular, the puritans fled England in order to find a place where they would be allowed to impose puritanism on everyone, something that they were unable to do in England.

The North American colonies prior to the American Revolutionary War were in many cases considerably less free, and considerably less tolerant, than England, on questions of religious observance.

There was also less personal liberty. Slavery was obviously a central part of colonial life, in a way that it hadn't been in England since the Romans left; but even for "free" settlers, the individual colonies typically had much stricter rules about how to behave than were found in England at the time, and less room for those who would not comply to get away with their attempts to avoid or subvert the rules.

Like sea captains, the leaders of the various colonies typically had almost absolute authority to do as they wished, other than in matters of broad policy. They were hypothetically answerable to the government in London, but as communications with that authority were slow, infrequent, and completely under the control of the colonial governors (or more often, lieutenant governors, as the governors rarely set foot in the colonies they were nominally in charge of), they were de facto absolute dictators, answerable to no one, at least in regards to the daily lives of their citizens. As long as the tobacco and cotton and revenues and taxes kept flowing.

It would be tempting to think that the overthrowing of these dictatorial (lieutenant) governors was a central factor in the Revolution itself; But the sad fact is that these are mostly the same people who were the leaders on both sides when war eventually broke out.

Freedom (religious and otherwise) was a side effect of the American Revolution; The autocratic leaders of the colonies were forced into it as a compromise to prevent the fracturing of their stand against English authority. They had to hang together, or they would all be hanged separately; And that meant they had to drop many of their existing strictures, such as established religions, lest the conflicts between them became insurmountable.

Freedom was (and remains) a direct consequence of diversity. When everyone agrees, they can more effectively be represented by a single dictator than by a committee; But when there is diversity of opinions, the factions can only be represented by compromises amongst a diverse parliament of rulers, and in the areas in which disagreements are intense, the only way to avoid conflict is by giving all sides the liberty to do as they desire, without fear of being imposed upon by the others.

 

[bilby]

So there was a question of divided loyalties in a country that had rebelled against the authority of the British king.

I honestly believe that had the Declaration of Independence and the War of Secession(from England) been put to a referendum they'd have been soundly defeated.

But, as they say "History is written by the Victors!"
Tom

Don't forget the part where both you and I would sound like bilby when we talk.

How do you know what I sound like?

My accent is a weird blend of Yorkshire, Australian, and BBC English. I don't think many people anywhere sound like me when they talk.

 

[bilby]

While support for revolution may not have been unanimous, I'd say the victors did a pretty good job in maintaining the original goal and established the first large scale representative democracy and then the first successful large scale representative democracy.

That seems unlikely; But rather depends on what you imagine "the original goal" actually was, which itself depends on there having been an original goal at all.

Like most historical events, the American Revolution wasn't really planned; It just happened. The various parties all had different goals, and the victors got together later to declare that what had happened was what they had wanted all along.

Representative democracy was an unintended consequence of the need to present a united front against a powerful enemy.

 

[Emily Lake]

I see this case as a conflict between two rights guaranteed under the US Constitution: First Amendment rights guaranteeing freedom of speech and religion and the 14th Amendment along with Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Let's ponder this for a moment. The First Amendment begins unequivocally with:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."

The term "no" leaves no room for ambiguity. Thus, any law respecting an establishment of religion would violate the Constitution. This implies that the classification of religion as a protected class could be deemed unconstitutional.

The first amendment prohibits the government from establishing a state religion. That's what that first clause means. And that isn't something being discussed here at all.

But that same sentence goes on to say "or prohibiting its free exercise".

Is creating wedding websites and baking cakes a religious exercise?

To the extent that weddings are religious observances for most people, yes, I think there is an argument to be made.

A poor one. The baker and the website designer will not be attending. They have no part in the religious aspect of the marriage.

Then they should also have no obligation to participate in the religious aspects of the wedding by being required to provide a cake or a website for it.