The Trump Admin: Religious Liberty vs. LGBTQ Rights

[lpetrich]

CAP Faith on Twitter: "A powerful summary of the action the Trump administration has taken to attack LGBTQ rights in the false name of "religious liberty" from @RepRaskin. https://t.co/UBhAyDJQpd" / Twitter

Rashida Tlaib on Twitter: ".@RepMaloney chairing @OversightDems hearing on LGBTQ+ rights. She came dressed to represent. https://t.co/AnHqOzIZke" / Twitter - showing a picture of her wearing a rainbow-striped dress.

In other news,
Rashida Tlaib on Twitter: "Historic day! The @OversightHouse room named after Chairman Elijah Cummings. This is the first time that a room has been dedicated to African American. Long overdue, but so happy it's our forever Congressman. https://t.co/ntyVQkBHkd" / Twitter

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

So, the point of this is to force homophobes to provide services to people they hate?

The point of this is to have services available to the general public be available to the general public without undue discrimination.

What is the positive from that? If I hire a photographer who hates same-sex marriages, wouldn't it be better that I know that and he tell me that, so that I can not hire him?

It would be better that photographers don't discriminate while taking pride in providing quality service. Personal feelings about clients shouldn't bleed into the service you provide. Maybe it would be preferable if the photographer said, "By the way, I'm shit at separating personal feelings about clients from my ability to uphold professional standards; I'd suggest the following photographers who are able to deliver," but that's pretty tangential.

 

[Derec]

One of my friends used to work at a Hilton Hotel and he worked with a Muslim guy who was the cook there and refused to touch the pork. Someone else had to cook the pork instead. He wasn't fired.

I think he should be. If you are hired to do a job, DO THE FUCKING JOB. Same goes for Muslim cabbies in Minneapolis who refuse to take people carrying alcohol.

 

[laughing dog]

One of my friends used to work at a Hilton Hotel and he worked with a Muslim guy who was the cook there and refused to touch the pork. Someone else had to cook the pork instead. He wasn't fired.

I think he should be. If you are hired to do a job, DO THE FUCKING JOB. Same goes for Muslim cabbies in Minneapolis who refuse to take people carrying alcohol.

You do realize that Muslim cabbies lost their appeal in 2008 and face penalties for refusing to take people who have alcohol or who have dogs of any kind.

 

[marc]

Why the FUCK would you want to force a person who doesn't believe in your union to be the photographer for that union?

I seriously cannot understand this mindset. It's like the fucking wedding cakes. Why would you want to pay money to somebody who hates you? Is it just plain spite?

What if you live in a very rural area, where there are only two photographers within reasonable distance. If they are both bigots then you are stuck with no options. Or maybe one is not a bigot, but the community around them is highly bigoted and they will lose a lot of business if people find out they accept jobs from the 'wrong' kind of people. That was the situation years ago when towns had sunset laws: no black people allowed after sunset. It is why it was necessary to produce the Green Book. A book for black travelers to know what areas to avoid, where they could find hotels and restaurants that would serve black people. If you start allowing one business to discriminate, just because there are other options nearby, it can be used as justification for businesses to discriminate in areas where there are no options.

 

[lpetrich]

I found this in my Twitter feed: Rep. Katie Porter on Twitter: "Folks like my constituent David and his husband often face roadblocks in adoption, erected by people who demean his family and call it "non-traditional." As a single mom, I reject labels like "traditional" or "non-traditional" because the only family that matters is a loving one. https://t.co/KcUVE3JpkI" / Twitter

 

[lpetrich]

AOC's statement in that hearing is getting a lot of publicity. Like in Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez: Jesus Would Be Maligned As ‘Radical’ By Today’s Congress | HuffPost
The Trump Admin responded

The White House, in a response to HuffPost, accused Raskin and Ocasio-Cortez of “deliberately distorting the president’s record” and refusing to “credit any action he’s taken to protect and promote LGBTQ Americans.”

“The president believes in human dignity for all and that no one should be discriminated against, including religious organizations and the LGBTQ community,” a White House spokesperson said in an email. “Since taking office, President Trump has taken actions that build on his longstanding commitment to responsibly safeguard the fundamental right to religious freedom by eliminating unfair and unequal treatment by the federal government.”

She linked to a full clip in this tweet:
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez on Twitter: "There’s a long history in the US of abusing scripture to advance the causes of bigotry & discrimination.
Slaveholders did it.
Segregationists did it.
White supremacists do it.
And it continues.
Yet if Christ repeated himself today, they’d likely denounce him as a radical, too. https://t.co/y19PBDw5co" / Twitter
linking to
NowThis on Twitter: "'The only time religious freedom is invoked is in the name of bigotry and discrimination. I'm tired of it' — @AOC just flipped the entire ‘religious freedom’ argument on its head https://t.co/yS57LNnpBb" / Twitter

 

[Half-Life]

testing (having a problem with posting)

It works. Sorry, carry on

 

[laughing dog]

Why the FUCK would you want to force a person who doesn't believe in your union to be the photographer for that union?

I seriously cannot understand this mindset. It's like the fucking wedding cakes. Why would you want to pay money to somebody who hates you? Is it just plain spite?

What if you live in a very rural area, where there are only two photographers within reasonable distance. If they are both bigots then you are stuck with no options. Or maybe one is not a bigot, but the community around them is highly bigoted and they will lose a lot of business if people find out they accept jobs from the 'wrong' kind of people. That was the situation years ago when towns had sunset laws: no black people allowed after sunset. It is why it was necessary to produce the Green Book. A book for black travelers to know what areas to avoid, where they could find hotels and restaurants that would serve black people. If you start allowing one business to discriminate, just because there are other options nearby, it can be used as justification for businesses to discriminate in areas where there are no options.

Or it can be the case that the competitors are busy in the area and cannot accommodate you.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Why the FUCK would you want to force a person who doesn't believe in your union to be the photographer for that union?

I seriously cannot understand this mindset. It's like the fucking wedding cakes. Why would you want to pay money to somebody who hates you? Is it just plain spite?

It's the same as if I walk into a grocery store and when I get to the checkout the cashier tells me "we don't service niggers here." You're asking why someone would want to spend their money in a store that doesn't like niggers. Legally the issue is discrimination. There are deeper questions and discussions to be had but discrimination is simply not legal. Some people want it to be legal, just as some people wished to maintain the institution of slavery and then Jim Crow. It's the same legal issue, discrimination.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Typically, they don't. They're just seeking a photographer or baker or whatever without knowing the provider discriminates.



Varies. Outcomes are likely to be punitive measures or compensation for violating anti-discrimination statutes. Why people want this or the impact they hope it will ultimately have is going to vary.



Which is what happens in the cases I've read about. But it isn't mutually exclusive with filing a complaint.

So, the point of this is to force homophobes to provide services to people they hate?

What is the positive from that? If I hire a photographer who hates same-sex marriages, wouldn't it be better that I know that and he tell me that, so that I can not hire him?

Corporations are not people.

 

[Bomb#20]

So, the point of this is to force homophobes to provide services to people they hate?

What is the positive from that? If I hire a photographer who hates same-sex marriages, wouldn't it be better that I know that and he tell me that, so that I can not hire him?

Corporations are not people.

Chelsey Nelson is not a corporation.

 

[Bomb#20]

It's the same as if I walk into a grocery store ... Legally the issue is discrimination. There are deeper questions and discussions to be had but discrimination is simply not legal. Some people want it to be legal, just as some people wished to maintain the institution of slavery and then Jim Crow. It's the same legal issue, discrimination.

It's not the same legal issue. A grocer does not have to say anything in order to sell you groceries, so a law requiring him to sell you groceries doesn't conflict with the First Amendment.

"The Supreme Court has made plain that the government cannot “compel individuals to mouth support for views they find objectionable.” ... “When a public accommodations law ‘has the effect of declaring . . . speech itself to be the public accommodation,’ the First Amendment applies with full force”) - Hurley v. Irish American GLIB Association

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1252601/download

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's the same as if I walk into a grocery store ... Legally the issue is discrimination. There are deeper questions and discussions to be had but discrimination is simply not legal. Some people want it to be legal, just as some people wished to maintain the institution of slavery and then Jim Crow. It's the same legal issue, discrimination.

It's not the same legal issue. A grocer does not have to say anything in order to sell you groceries, so a law requiring him to sell you groceries doesn't conflict with the First Amendment.

"The Supreme Court has made plain that the government cannot “compel individuals to mouth support for views they find objectionable.” ... “When a public accommodations law ‘has the effect of declaring . . . speech itself to be the public accommodation,’ the First Amendment applies with full force”) - Hurley v. Irish American GLIB Association

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1252601/download

I keep forgetting that baking and photoshop are speech. You want to do business, it comes with strings attached. And that includes non-discriminatory practice of business. This is nothing but trying to create a detour for LGBT Jim Crow accommodations.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

It's the same as if I walk into a grocery store ... Legally the issue is discrimination. There are deeper questions and discussions to be had but discrimination is simply not legal. Some people want it to be legal, just as some people wished to maintain the institution of slavery and then Jim Crow. It's the same legal issue, discrimination.

It's not the same legal issue. A grocer does not have to say anything in order to sell you groceries, so a law requiring him to sell you groceries doesn't conflict with the First Amendment.

"The Supreme Court has made plain that the government cannot “compel individuals to mouth support for views they find objectionable.” ... “When a public accommodations law ‘has the effect of declaring . . . speech itself to be the public accommodation,’ the First Amendment applies with full force”) - Hurley v. Irish American GLIB Association

https://www.justice.gov/opa/press-release/file/1252601/download

I should have been more clear in stating that in my example the cashier refused service based on race, told the person "we don't service niggers here." Clearly that is not legal. If I refuse to bake you a cake because you're a nigger it is the same thing. That was the question I addressed from Metaphor.

If I'm a baker and I refuse to bake a cake for a nigger wedding it is the same thing as refusing you service at a grocery store. That was my point. I understand the argument in your link.

 

[Bomb#20]

I keep forgetting that baking and photoshop are speech.

If you want a cake that isn't artistic you can get one a lot cheaper at Safeway.

You want to do business, it comes with strings attached. And that includes non-discriminatory practice of business.

Not when the business is speech.

This is nothing but trying to create a detour for LGBT Jim Crow accommodations.

And I could equally well charge that your view that people in the speaking business aren't allowed to discriminate about what they say is nothing but trying to create a detour for doing away with free speech. That makes us even. But the rule against discrimination is in statutory law. The rule against abridging freedom of speech is in the Constitution. That makes you lose. Why on earth would you imagine you can trump the Constitution with statutory law?

 

[Bomb#20]

I should have been more clear in stating that in my example the cashier refused service based on race... Clearly that is not legal. If I refuse to bake you a cake because you're a [racial slur] it is the same thing. That was the question I addressed from Metaphor.

Ms. Nelson isn't refusing to photograph anyone's wedding because he's a gay. She was quite clear that she'd willingly celebrate a gay's marriage to a person of the opposite sex.

 

[Keith&Co.]

I should have been more clear in stating that in my example the cashier refused service based on race... Clearly that is not legal. If I refuse to bake you a cake because you're a [racial slur] it is the same thing. That was the question I addressed from Metaphor.

Ms. Nelson isn't refusing to photograph anyone's wedding because he's a gay. She was quite clear that she'd willingly celebrate a gay's marriage to a person of the opposite sex.

Oh, good, she'll honor the freedoms of any American living by her standards, rather than their own.
So, how about if we'll honor her religious freedom as long as she calls god by the name we pick? 'Allah', maybe? That'd be fair?

 

[lpetrich]

Here is something related to this.

The First Amendment of the United States Constitution:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Opinion | The Supreme Court Nears the Moment of Truth on Religion - The New York Times

It started with the case of some believers in "Christian Identity" who wanted their own separate religious services in a prison. They did so because their religion demands "white separatism" and because "the Jewish faith denies Jesus Christ." When prison officials moved to deny their request, they sued under a Federal law, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act. Some Federal judges then overturned that decision.

The startling fact of the matter is that Judges Griffin, Stranch and Donald were applying the law as they found it — as the Supreme Court has handed it to them in a series of decisions instructing judges to accept almost any religious claim, no matter how preposterous, at face value and to put the government to an extremely tough test to justify any infringement on a “sincere” religious belief. In the Hobby Lobby case six years ago, the court gave dispositive legal weight to the claim by owners of two for-profit businesses that the legal requirement to include contraception coverage in their employee health plans would make them complicit in the sin of birth control.

“It is not for us to say that their religious beliefs are mistaken or insubstantial,” Justice Samuel Alito wrote for the majority.

...
Now that the country’s justices and its religious politics are aligned, the question is how far the court will go, and with what consequences. A moment of truth is approaching. If we don’t want hate groups to have a seat in the prison chapel, the time to start drawing lines is now.

Religion overriding everything else is what the Religious Right very clearly wants, and it is something that more secular right-wingers seem willing to go along with.

 

[lpetrich]

But will right wingers like it when they are the ones being bitten?

Hawaiian Punch: School Prayer Isn't So Great When It's Someone Else's Prayer | Americans United for Separation of Church and State

A certain Gary Christenot was stationed in an Air Force base on the Hawaiian island of Oahu, when he had this experience:

Christenot wrote about attending a high school football game there. The Baptist family was dismayed when a Buddhist priest was called upon to offer the invocation "to god-head figures that our tradition held to be pagan."

Wrote Chistenot, "We were frozen in shock and incredulity! What to do? To continue to stand and observe this prayer would represent a betrayal of our own faith and imply the honoring of a pagan deity that was anathema to our beliefs. To sit would be an act of extreme rudeness and disrespect in the eyes of our Japanese hosts and neighbors, who value above all other things deference and respect in their social interactions."

He tried to find out if other clergy were ever invited. But he discovered that the people of the area were mostly Japanese or Chinese, and that they always had Buddhist and Shinto priests doing the prayers. He stated about it that he now recognizes the value of church-state separation.