The Trump Admin: Religious Liberty vs. LGBTQ Rights

[Bomb#20]

Actually it is the same source. Here is the conclusion.:

<snip> Rather than disturb bedrock principles of law, I would
affirm the district court’s order in full.

The ruling was handed down by a three judge panel of the 8th Circuit. Judge Stras and Judge Shepherd favored the plaintiffs; Judge Kelly favored the defendants. What you quoted isn't the conclusion. It's Kelly's dissenting opinion.

The conclusion of the ruling is on page 20:

"Consistent with the Supreme Court’s instruction that antidiscrimination laws
“do not, as a general matter, violate the First . . . Amendment[],” Hurley, 515 U.S.
at 572, our holding leaves intact other applications of the MHRA that do not regulate
speech based on its content or otherwise compel an individual to speak. But when,
as here, Minnesota seeks to regulate speech itself as a public accommodation, it has
gone too far under Hurley and its interest must give way to the demands of the First
Amendment."​

 

[Bomb#20]

Separate but equal was constitutional for a long time. Religious supremacists will always think they're more equal than others. Religious preference really is a form of racism and discrimination because it inherently makes one person better than another person simply because of religion.

But racism is a bad thing. So you appear to be expressing the view that being without religious preference makes a person better than a person with a religious preference, simply because of religion. Going by your inference rule, that would appear to make you a racist.

 

[Bomb#20]

...when one of these days one of these gay wedding cases reaches the SCOTUS, it will probably hold that the government has no constitutional authority to order artists to create pro-gay-marriage art.

Of course, there's an awful lot of anti-gay religious doctrine in the Bible but, AFAIK, no anti-race-mixing religious doctrine in the Bible...

That's the point. It shouldn't matter what a person believes religiously when it comes to discrimination, whether their "sacred writings" address the issue or not.

As of now it doesn't -- the 8th Circuit ruled on freedom of speech grounds, not freedom of religion. I was simply laying out possibilities for how some future SCOTUS might change the legal landscape.

Civil liberties should always overrule religious freedom. 'My right to swing my religious fist ends where your nose begins' - something like that.

Um, so in this analogy, the photographer sitting on her ass doing nothing would be the "swinging fist", and the hypothetical gay couple asking Minnesota to threaten her with violence if she photographs any more straight weddings would be the "nose"?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

These are the same arguments that were used to support Jim Crow. It is disgusting that some people actually have no trouble using them.

A photographer is now as powerful as the government?

Good god I want this superpower!

Seems like you have no idea what you are talking about regarding Jim Crow and US history.

 

[Bomb#20]

I remember at my cousin’s wedding, the first thing I thought when I saw the cake was “Gosh, that bakery must really endorse this marriage!”

I also think it illogical to claim that making a video of a same sex marriage means that one condones or approves of same sex marriage and that it means it rebuts the view that only opposite sex marriages are appropriate.

I keep seeing variations on that argument. It's a puzzling argument -- its theory appears to be that the thing about compelled speech that makes it bad is that somebody hearing it might think you agree with what you're being made to say.

When I was a little kid I lived in a country with no First Amendment. The government there made me learn and recite this weird piece of literature that started out "Our Father, Who art in Heaven...", and meandered around until it finished up with "... forever and ever, Amen". It sounds like, according to you guys' concept of free speech, that this would have been a perfectly reasonable thing for the government there to make me do, if only I'd been allowed to stand in front and cross my fingers behind my back where everybody could see it while I was reciting that government's propaganda for it.

 

[Metaphor]

These are the same arguments that were used to support Jim Crow. It is disgusting that some people actually have no trouble using them.

A photographer is now as powerful as the government?

Good god I want this superpower!

Seems like you have no idea what you are talking about regarding Jim Crow and US history.

Individual photographers are not the government and they cannot compel you to do anything.

 

[Rhea]

I keep seeing variations on that argument. It's a puzzling argument -- its theory appears to be that the thing about compelled speech that makes it bad is that somebody hearing it might think you agree with what you're being made to say.

When I was a little kid I lived in a country with no First Amendment. The government there made me learn and recite this weird piece of literature that started out "Our Father, Who art in Heaven...", and meandered around until it finished up with "... forever and ever, Amen". It sounds like, according to you guys' concept of free speech, that this would have been a perfectly reasonable thing for the government there to make me do, if only I'd been allowed to stand in front and cross my fingers behind my back where everybody could see it while I was reciting that government's propaganda for it.

That conflates the idea of a government making you get gay married with a government making you sell your product to gay marriages.

Similar to a lunch counter, right? We can’t force a lunch counter to serve gay people because we’d be forcing them to cross their fingers behind their backs while people gay eat.

Think of any product or service that any business gives or does anywhere. And is your argument that they can say, “yeah, but not to gays.”
The garbage collector who has to collect from gay people living together.
The carpenter who has to build a house for gay people to live in.
The day care center that has to care for gay-parented children.
The teacher at a school who has to watch gay students dance together.
The clerk who has to sign a license for gay marriage.
The Real Property clerk who has to file a gay marriage jointly owned property.
The landlord to has to know his tenants are gay.
The pizza maker who has to serve two gay people eating together.


Somehow, the claim is that if you are doing your regular business, something you would do anyway for any other customer, that it is the same as being forced to do something you would not ever do without the force.


Remember this is about doing your regular business, something you would do anyway for any other customer,

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Seems like you have no idea what you are talking about regarding Jim Crow and US history.

Individual photographers are not the government and they cannot compel you to do anything.

And if photographers within 50 miles all refuse to serve gay marriages? At what point does lack of accommodation become a problem?

 

[marc]

Seems like you have no idea what you are talking about regarding Jim Crow and US history.

Individual photographers are not the government and they cannot compel you to do anything.

And if photographers within 50 miles all refuse to serve gay marriages? At what point does lack of accommodation become a problem?

Another consideration. If one type of business, like photographer, is allowed to discriminate because some feel you can live without it, how long until other types of businesses start to complain about being singled out? About not getting the same right to discriminate as the other businesses? Lawsuits start flying, and BS arguments about fair and equal treatment to allow discrimination until they find some federal judge to rule it is ok to discriminate. Then even necessities may not be available in areas.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Seems like you have no idea what you are talking about regarding Jim Crow and US history.

Individual photographers are not the government and they cannot compel you to do anything.

And if photographers within 50 miles all refuse to serve gay marriages? At what point does lack of accommodation become a problem?

That's the point I'm trying to make, and that Bomb#20 doesn't seem to grasp. There is no difference between a cashier at a grocery store refusing to check me out with my purchases because I'm a nigger, and a photographer refusing to do my wedding pics because I'm gay. There is absolutely no difference. If photographers are licensed they should lose their license to do business. If a grocery is licensed it should lose it's license to do business.

Presently discrimination is not to the degree where Jimmy Higgins hypothetical scenario is real but that should not matter legally. All it does is temporarily provide the courts with wiggle room to accommodate the racists and the bigots and the xenophobes, and keep a little bit of Jim Crow alive.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Separate but equal was constitutional for a long time. Religious supremacists will always think they're more equal than others. Religious preference really is a form of racism and discrimination because it inherently makes one person better than another person simply because of religion.

But racism is a bad thing. So you appear to be expressing the view that being without religious preference makes a person better than a person with a religious preference, simply because of religion. Going by your inference rule, that would appear to make you a racist.

I'm quite free to believe I'm the greatest and most gifted human being ever to grace this planet and that everyone and everything should bow to my wishes. What exactly does that have to do with the discussion?

 

[Metaphor]

Seems like you have no idea what you are talking about regarding Jim Crow and US history.

Individual photographers are not the government and they cannot compel you to do anything.

And if photographers within 50 miles all refuse to serve gay marriages? At what point does lack of accommodation become a problem?

Let me ask you a question:

Imagine you are a gay man, and every photographer within 50 miles hates gay marriage. Under the law, however, let's say they are compelled to photograph weddings.

Would you pay money to a business and an individual who hates gay marriage to photograph your wedding?

 

[laughing dog]

And if photographers within 50 miles all refuse to serve gay marriages? At what point does lack of accommodation become a problem?

Let me ask you a question:

Imagine you are a gay man, and every photographer within 50 miles hates gay marriage. Under the law, however, let's say they are compelled to photograph weddings.

Would you pay money to a business and an individual who hates gay marriage to photograph your wedding?

It is a choice that should be open to an individual. Why not let the market decide?

 

[Metaphor]

And if photographers within 50 miles all refuse to serve gay marriages? At what point does lack of accommodation become a problem?

Let me ask you a question:

Imagine you are a gay man, and every photographer within 50 miles hates gay marriage. Under the law, however, let's say they are compelled to photograph weddings.

Would you pay money to a business and an individual who hates gay marriage to photograph your wedding?

It is a choice that should be open to an individual. Why not let the market decide?

Is compelling businesses and individuals to provide services, "the market"?

 

[krypton iodine sulfur]

It is a choice that should be open to an individual. Why not let the market decide?

Is compelling businesses and individuals to provide services, "the market"?

That isn't what is happening. They chose to offer the service or product. They are compelled only to do so in a non-discriminatory way. Unless maybe they can convince the right person that their service or product is, in itself, protected speech like custom wedding cakes are. I mean, look at the endorsements these cheeky buggers are making:

 

[Metaphor]

That isn't what is happening. They chose to offer the service or product. They are compelled only to do so in a non-discriminatory way.

Is compelling businesses to provide services in a non-discriminatory way "the market"?

Customers are not compelled to patronize businesses in a non-discriminatory way. Indeed, some people take great delight in advertising the particular discriminatory way they are going to avoid businesses (don't spend money with any business owned by white people for a week, boycott restaurants where the ethnicity of the chef does not match the cultural background of the food they serve, etc). Do you think these people should be compelled to offer their patronage in a non-discriminatory way?

I suspect you don't. But while I accept that "buying a product or service" is different to "selling a product or service", the difference does not seem to me enough to compel somebody to do so in one case but not the other.

But, if the difference is enough to compel people in one case but not the other, is that really "testing the market"?

If a photographer didn't want to photograph gay weddings, it seems to me the rainbow army will waste no time in naming and shaming and telling their friends to avoid said business. And for each market gap created by a photographer who doesn't want to photograph gay weddings, photographers who specialize in 'rainbow' weddings will emerge and who will market themselves and be dedicated to being the go-to person.

Wouldn't the above scenario be far closer to "testing the market" than compelling people to provide services in a non-discriminatory manner?

 

[laughing dog]

It is a choice that should be open to an individual. Why not let the market decide?

Is compelling businesses and individuals to provide services, "the market"?

It is rude to answer a question with a question. And as Krypton pointed out, the business and individuals are already providing the service.

Why do you feel the nerd to protect bigots and deny people access to the market?

 

[Metaphor]

It is a choice that should be open to an individual. Why not let the market decide?

Is compelling businesses and individuals to provide services, "the market"?

It is rude to answer a question with a question. And as Krypton pointed out, the business and individuals are already providing the service.

Why do you feel the nerd to protect bigots and deny people access to the market?

So, you can't answer the question? Is compelling businesses to provide services in a non-discriminatory manner "letting the market decide"?

In what way is offering a service selectively "denying people access to the market?" Does a photographer who does not want to photograph gay weddings compel other photographers to also not photograph gay weddings? Do photographers conspire with each other to discriminate against gay weddings?

In a very limited sense, an established photographer in a sparsely-populated rural area could conceivably 'crowd out' the possibility of a less-discriminatory photographer. But wouldn't a photographer who was less discriminatory arise to take advantage of the market opportunity provided by the lack of gay wedding photography services? And wouldn't the person who offered the services in a non-discriminatory manner then have a market advantage over the other?

When you say "why do I want to protect bigots", I think you might mean "why do I want to let individuals associate with whom they want and spend their money where they want and sell to whom they want"?

Because while I think people deliberately boycotting restaurants where the ethnicity of the owners/chef does not match the 'cultural background' of the food they are preparing is upper-ionosphere level brain-deadening deranged fucked up misguided ludicrous parody-level white savior imbecile racist bigotry, I think people should be free to spend their own money where and how they want. Same goes for photographers. They should be able to offer their services where and how they want.

 

[laughing dog]

It is rude to answer a question with a question. And as Krypton pointed out, the business and individuals are already providing the service.

Why do you feel the nerd to protect bigots and deny people access to the market?

So, you can't answer the question? [

Ii have the ability. But I see no reason to answer your question when you pointedly refuse to answer my prior question.

In what way is offering a service selectively "denying people access to the market?"....

If thst service is offered on the market, it clearly restricts acces to the market.

If the photographer is a local monopoly, then they are denying access to the market. Duh

Relying on the notion of ease of entry and the profijt motive to end market discrimination is a libertarian’s wet dream has little basis in reality.
.

When you say "why do I want to protect bigots", I think you might mean "why do I want to let individuals associate with whom they want and spend their money where they want and sell to whom they want"?.....

No, I meant what I wrote.
At least have the self respect to be honest indtead of hiding behind pathetic rationalizations and nonsequiturs.

 

[Metaphor]

I see you've cut out most of my response in your response.

You evidently do not have the cognitive werewithall to see that my response of "Is compelling businesses and individuals to provide services, "the market"?" is my answer to your question "why not let the market decide". The answer is "forcing people to provide services is not "letting the market decide"". In fact, it seems nearly the opposite of what is usually meant by "letting the market decide". "Letting the market decide" usually means "customers will decide whether a certain business or product will survive and the government will stay out of it".

What's pathetic, laughing dog, is that in cutting out most of my post in your 'reply', you are signaling to me you can't actually respond to it.

But, I will lay it out for you plainly: I stand up for the right of people to buy and sell services and goods to whom they want.

You support bigotry too, but only selectively. You support the right of people to boycott restaurants based on the chef's or owner's ethnicity.