The Trump Admin: Religious Liberty vs. LGBTQ Rights

[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.

Oh, good, she'll honor the freedoms of any American living by her standards, rather than their own.

Where are you getting that? She does not appear to be selling the service of honoring freedoms. She appears to be selling the service of honoring submission to her imagined god's imagined laws.

So, how about if we'll honor her religious freedom as long as she calls god by the name we pick? 'Allah', maybe?

Yeah, that kind of goes with the whole free speech thingie -- we all get to honor whatever we choose. So if you want to honor Muslims' religious freedom and not Christians', please yourself.

(Of course, if by "honor" you mean "not violate", then you should probably not violate her religious freedom regardless of which name she calls her god. Why do you ask? Is there somebody whose freedom she violated?)

That'd be fair?

No, why do you ask? Did you imagine you saw fairness claims being made? TGGM and I are having a legal argument.

 

[laughing dog]

I guess I must be really stupid, because I don't see how photographing a wedding for pay is a form of speech.

 

[Keith&Co.]

Oh, good, she'll honor the freedoms of any American living by her standards, rather than their own.

Where are you getting that? She does not appear to be selling the service of honoring freedoms. She appears to be selling the service of honoring submission to her imagined god's imagined laws.

she wants a the freedom to discriminate in the conduct of her secular business. But exercising that would limit a couple's freedom to conduct their legal ceremony.
And the comment about supporting a gay person getting married to a partner they're uninterested in is not helping.

So, how about if we'll honor her religious freedom as long as she calls god by the name we pick? 'Allah', maybe?

Yeah, that kind of goes with the whole free speech thingie -- we all get to honor whatever we choose. So if you want to honor Muslims' religious freedom and not Christians', please yourself.

no. Actually i was thinking of Saudi Christains. They pray to God, but the Saudi word they use is Allah, strangely enough.
But rhat seems fair, if she gets to decide who other people marry, i should get to decide how she worships.

(Of course, if by "honor" you mean "not violate", then you should probably not violate her religious freedom regardless of which name she calls her god.

not bviolating her religious freedom. Just how she is allowed to express it in my presence.

 

[Metaphor]

she wants a the freedom to discriminate in the conduct of her secular business. But exercising that would limit a couple's freedom to conduct their legal ceremony.

...really? People can't get gay married because a photographer doesn't want to photograph the ceremony?

Is photography a superpower?

But rhat seems fair, if she gets to decide who other people marry,

...she doesn't get to decide who other people marry? Is she going to this wedding and bulldozing the church (or pergola if you're having a hellbound 'secular' wedding)? Is she kidnapping the priest (or 'celebrant' if you're having a hellbound 'secular' wedding)? Has she put maggots into the alternate-drop nobody ever wants what they are dropped anyway dinner course?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

This issue is still in the public domain simply because the proper case has not yet appeared, religiously speaking. At some time in the future there will be a case whereby someone alleges that it is a matter of religious belief that they cannot accept the union of two persons, one black and one white, because it is against their religious beliefs. SCOTUS will decline to hear the case, or if it decides to hear, will rule that religious beliefs based on race are not protected under the constitution. That will be that.

 

[Bomb#20]

I guess I must be really stupid, because I don't see how photographing a wedding for pay is a form of speech.

"The wedding videos are a form of speech entitled to First Amendment protection, as they involve editorial judgment and control by the makers, and constituted a media for the communication of ideas." - Telescope Media Group v. Lucero

 

[Bomb#20]

she wants a the freedom to discriminate in the conduct of her secular business.

Yes. It appears that the law of the land protects that freedom.

But exercising that would limit a couple's freedom to conduct their legal ceremony.

You appear to not quite grasp the whole "freedom" concept.

And the comment about supporting a gay person getting married to a partner they're uninterested in is not helping.

I'm sorry it didn't help you; but then you were not the person I intended to help. My comment evidently helped TGGM figure out he needed to change his legal analogy from "If I refuse to bake you a cake because you're a [racial slur]" to "they cannot accept the union of two persons, one black and one white, because it is against their religious beliefs".

no. Actually i was thinking of Saudi Christains. They pray to God, but the Saudi word they use is Allah, strangely enough.

Okay. Not sure what's strange about that. Saudi Christians are typically Arabs, and that's the word for "God" in Arabic, which is a Semitic language just like Hebrew is, and "Allah" is a cognate of the Hebrew word for "God", which is "El".

But rhat seems fair, if she gets to decide who other people marry, i should get to decide how she worships.

And if the moon is made of cheese then you should get to jump over it. She doesn't get to decide who other people marry.

(Of course, if by "honor" you mean "not violate", then you should probably not violate her religious freedom regardless of which name she calls her god.

not bviolating her religious freedom. Just how she is allowed to express it in my presence.

If she expresses her religious freedom in a way you don't like, you're free to walk away, and thereby cause her not to be expressing it that way in your presence.

 

[Bomb#20]

This issue is still in the public domain simply because the proper case has not yet appeared, religiously speaking. At some time in the future there will be a case whereby someone alleges that it is a matter of religious belief that they cannot accept the union of two persons, one black and one white, because it is against their religious beliefs. SCOTUS will decline to hear the case, or if it decides to hear, will rule that religious beliefs based on race are not protected under the constitution. That will be that.

That's one way it might go down; but it strikes me as unlikely. Given the current state of American culture in and out of the courts, a case about forced participation in a gay wedding ceremony is a lot more likely to make it as far as the SCOTUS before a case about forced participation in an interracial wedding ceremony does, than vice versa. And judging by current appellate precedents, 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. Anti-race-mixing sentiment is just derived from cultural inertia; it's dying out. So maybe nobody will ever push a case all the way to the SCOTUS whereby someone alleges that it is a matter of religious belief that they cannot accept the union of two persons, one black and one white. But supposing someone does that, the SCOTUS might rely on precedent and rule that the government has no constitutional authority to order artists to create pro-interracial-marriage art either. Or the SCOTUS might overturn precedent and rule that the government has constitutional authority to order artists to create pro-gay-marriage art after all. Or the SCOTUS might draw some hair-splitting distinction between the two sorts of compelled speech. Or the SCOTUS might point at the Bible and draw the non-hair-splitting distinction that anti-gay sentiment really is religious and anti-miscegenation sentiment really isn't. Or the Constitution might have been amended by then and the legal considerations will be entirely different from what we can foresee.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

I guess I must be really stupid, because I don't see how photographing a wedding for pay is a form of speech.

Yeah, the expression would be the people in the pics, not the person taking them.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

she wants a the freedom to discriminate in the conduct of her secular business. But exercising that would limit a couple's freedom to conduct their legal ceremony.

...really? People can't get gay married because a photographer doesn't want to photograph the ceremony?

Is photography a superpower?

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

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

she wants a the freedom to discriminate in the conduct of her secular business. But exercising that would limit a couple's freedom to conduct their legal ceremony.

...really? People can't get gay married because a photographer doesn't want to photograph the ceremony?

Is photography a superpower?

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

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. It is not behavior that should be constitutionally protected.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

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

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

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

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!”

 

[Metaphor]

she wants a the freedom to discriminate in the conduct of her secular business. But exercising that would limit a couple's freedom to conduct their legal ceremony.

...really? People can't get gay married because a photographer doesn't want to photograph the ceremony?

Is photography a superpower?

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!

 

[Politesse]

Discrimination in goods and services is unlawful. In a society which relies on capitalism, it's important that all members of the public have equal opportunity to access goods and services offered to the general public absent any bona fide reason for being denied.

This doesn't answer my question. Why would you want to have somebody who is opposed to the work they are doing capture what is going to be a very important day in your life?

Typically, people don't know they will be discriminated against prior to seeking out services. Filing a complaint or suit isn't necessarily about forcing the service provider to provide the service. That wouldn't make sense in some cases given timelines. If someone won't bake a cake for your wedding, it may very well take more time to settle the case than remains prior to the wedding. The complaint or suit often seeks redress for an act of discrimination which has already occurred.

What kind of redress do people want, and why?

If you go into a shop that makes wedding cakes, and you say you want it for your same-sex wedding, and the individual responsible for making the cake says "I don't believe in same-sex unions and I think what you are engaging in is a mockery of marriage" (or whatever), why the fuck would you want to force this person to provide that service?

My response would be "oh, fuck you then, and I'm going to take my money to somebody who does want to do it".

Same for a wedding photographer. What the fuck kind of person wants somebody homophobic to take all the official pictures of their same-sex wedding? Do you think a homophobic person is going to do their best work working against their will, documenting a celebration they oppose? Wedding photographers work intimately with brides and grooms, taking photos before, during and after the wedding. They are close to the wedding couple all day.

What a fucked up thing to want and a fucked up memory to have. "Oh yeah, this wedding photographer hated the idea of same sex unions, but we forced him to photograph us. He was visibly disgusted whenever we kissed but that made our celebration all the sweeter. I don't know if he suggested the best poses for us because he clearly could not stand us, but the satisfaction of paying homophobes to provide a service to us is greater than the satisfaction of being surrounded by people who love and support us".

Being discriminated against before the wedding isn't much fun either. I have no doubt that they did in fact find someone else to shoot the wedding, but that doesn't mean the first party should get off scot-free for breaking the law in advance of it. What ever happened to goddamned professionalism in this country? You do your job, you get your paycheck, you go home. There's no need for your fucking emotions, and if you can't separate the two, you don't belong in a service industry job to begin with.

 

[ZiprHead]

I guess I must be really stupid, because I don't see how photographing a wedding for pay is a form of speech.

"The wedding videos are a form of speech entitled to First Amendment protection, as they involve editorial judgment and control by the makers, and constituted a media for the communication of ideas." - Telescope Media Group v. Lucero

That's the plaintiffs argument, not the conclusion. The plaintiffs lost.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

I see that Miss Staten Island was banned from marching in the local parade because she supports gay rights. Organizers were afraid for her safety.

 

[Bomb#20]

I guess I must be really stupid, because I don't see how photographing a wedding for pay is a form of speech.

"The wedding videos are a form of speech entitled to First Amendment protection, as they involve editorial judgment and control by the makers, and constituted a media for the communication of ideas." - Telescope Media Group v. Lucero

That's the plaintiffs argument, not the conclusion. The plaintiffs lost.

What's your source? Mine is

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/19/08/173352P.pdf

The plaintiffs won in that ruling,dated Aug. 23, 2019. Is your source more recent?

(If you're relying on the same source, but just skipped to the end to see how it came out, then you were reading a dissenting opinion.)

 

[laughing dog]

That's the plaintiffs argument, not the conclusion. The plaintiffs lost.

What's your source? Mine is

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/19/08/173352P.pdf

The plaintiffs won in that ruling,dated Aug. 23, 2019. Is your source more recent?

(If you're relying on the same source, but just skipped to the end to see how it came out, then you were reading a dissenting opinion.)

Regardless, I think the idea that making a video of a wedding for pay is necessarily a form of free speech is stupid because I would think it would depend on the instructions given to the video taker. 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.

 

[ZiprHead]

That's the plaintiffs argument, not the conclusion. The plaintiffs lost.

What's your source? Mine is

https://ecf.ca8.uscourts.gov/opndir/19/08/173352P.pdf

The plaintiffs won in that ruling,dated Aug. 23, 2019. Is your source more recent?

(If you're relying on the same source, but just skipped to the end to see how it came out, then you were reading a dissenting opinion.)

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

The Larsens’ free exercise claim fares no better than their free speech claim.
The First Amendment, as applied to the states through the Fourteenth, prevents states
from passing laws that prohibit the free exercise of religion. Cantwell v.
Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303–04 (1940). “The free exercise of religion means,
first and foremost, the right to believe and profess whatever religious doctrine one
desires.” Emp’t Div., Dep’t of Human Res. of Or. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 877
(1990). Accordingly, neither the federal government nor the states may dictate
religious beliefs. Id.
But although the “freedom to believe” is absolute, the “freedom to act” is not.
Cantwell, 310 U.S. at 303–04. “Conduct remains subject to regulation for the
protection of society.” Id. at 304. “[T]he right of free exercise does not relieve an
individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general
applicability.” Smith, 494 U.S. at 879 (cleaned up). “f prohibiting the exercise
of religion . . . is not the object of the [law] but merely the incidental effect of a
generally applicable and otherwise valid provision, the First Amendment has not
been offended.” Id. at 878. “When followers of a particular sect enter into commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory
schemes which are binding on others in that activity.” United States v. Lee, 455
U.S. 252, 261 (1982).

It is unremarkable that the Constitution and the laws of the various states “can,
and in some instances must,” protect same-sex couples in the exercise of their civil
rights. Masterpiece Cakeshop, 138 S. Ct. at 1727. Minnesota has chosen to do so
through the MHRA’s Public Accommodations and Business Discrimination
Provisions. Like all antidiscrimination laws, the MHRA targets conduct, not speech
or ideas. The Supreme Court has already held that the MHRA is constitutional, in
the process rejecting many of the same arguments that the court adopts today. Just
recently, it reaffirmed that, although “religious and philosophical objections [to
same-sex marriage] are protected, it is a general rule that such objections do not
allow business owners and other actors in the economy and in society to deny
protected persons equal access to goods and services under a neutral and generally
applicable public accommodations law.” Id. The Supreme Court is free to revise or
overturn its precedents; we are not. See MKB Mgmt. Corp. v. Stenehjem, 795 F.3d
768, 772 (8th Cir. 2015). Rather than disturb bedrock principles of law, I would
affirm the district court’s order in full.