This post was subsequently updated through April, 5, 2015
The Indiana Religious Freedom Restoration Act was originally slightly broader than the federal RFRA, which some circuits have limited to apply only to federal laws (Josh Blackman provided a legal analysis here; CNN also had a balanced overview).
Indiana’s measure would, apparently, have allowed bakers and photographers to assert in their defense, if they found themselves in court being sued, a right to religious conscience—although it was by no means an automatic “get out of baking a cake” card. Blackman concluded:
I should stress–and this point was totally lost in the Indiana debate–that RFRA does not provide immunity. It only allows a defendant to raise a defense, which a finder of fact must consider, like any other defense that can be raised under Title VII or the ADA. RFRA is *not* a blank check to discriminate.
According to CNN Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin, it’s likely that a refusal to serve a gay person wouldn’t have stood under the law, but a refusal to provide a service for a gay wedding could have.
In fact, Indiana was the 20th state to adopt a “religious freedom restoration” law, and they have not opened the floodgates to anti-LGBT discrimination.
Indiana doesn’t have a statewide LGBT nondiscrimination law, although some of its cities and counties do. So it was not the grand compromise we saw in Utah. It’s passage was, arguably, an overreaction to an overreaction (the idea that it advances the progressive cause to find small business providers with religious-based objections and force them to provide expressive services to same-sex weddings or face prosecution because now it’s our turn and serves ’em right). But hey, never let an opportunity for lucrative political hysteria go untapped.
More. Yes, you can be a supporter for LGBT rights, same-sex marriage, and religious freedom. What you can’t be is an authoritarian statist and a defender of liberty.
No over-reaction by progressives and LGBT activists? Via the Washington Post: 19 states that have ‘religious freedom’ laws like Indiana’s that no one is boycotting.
Furthermore. Via Instapundit Glenn Reynolds:
Here’s the deal: (1) Indiana has gone from a swing state to a red state, so it’s fair game; and (2) Dems need something to agitate the base so it doesn’t pay attention to Iranian nukes, trashed email servers, and an overall culture of corruption. Those who join in are willing enablers.
Sounds about right. I’d add that with the fight for the freedom to marry just about won (assuming the Supreme Court does the right thing), activists are in dire need of new targets for their fundraising machines, and turning the tables on religious traditionalists is just the ticket.
Cato Institute Senior Fellow Michael Tanner blogs:
So, as a strong supporter of marriage equality and someone opposed to bigotry in all its forms, but also as a supporter of property rights and the freedom to associate (or not associate), how do I feel about Indiana’s new religious freedom law? The truth, not surprisingly, is that I’m somewhat torn. …
In the end, I think much of the commentary around Indiana’s law has been overly hysterical. That said, I would have voted “no.”
And another interesting post from the blog Bleeding Heart Libertarians:
As to private-sector discrimination, I’m of the view that private businesses should be free to refuse customers, subject to two categories of exceptions: (a) if the firms are common carriers or (in the common law sense) public accommodations rather than ordinary private retailers and (b) in the United States, due to the constitutional and historical distinctiveness of Jim Crow and its melding of public and private discrimination, discrimination on the basis of race. I think the trend to treat bans on private-sector discrimination outside of public accommodations and common carriers as the rule, rather than a unique exception demanded by the unique shape of Jim Crow, has been a serious mistake.
I’m not endorsing all the ideas in any of these posts, but they are examples of level-headed commentary of the kind you get outside the lockstep authoritarians of left and right.
Also, I like this comment left at Instapundit: “If I read this correctly, it has the effect of making [same-sex] weddings slightly less complicated. A wedding means fifty things to do, half of which are surprises. It’s a lot of stress. Now, because it would be useless, it is no longer necessary to spend time and effort prospecting for the most devout Christian baker or florist in a hundred miles. Saves that, anyway.” Indeed, one less thing.
Finally, from our own comments, Jorge observes:
[The] argument that this law only applies to gays is not credible. Having established that, we all know that the motivation is really about gay marriage. And you know what? That’s fine. Look, whether people agree with this or not, there is a social problem in this country about gays filing lawsuits against people who don’t want to participate in their weddings. Solving this problem puts states in a catch-22. If you pass a law that only applies to gays, that’s illegal discrimination. So it becomes necessary to create a law that serves the public good in a way that’s not discriminatory. Now people are saying they don’t like that law either. That’s just too bad. There is going to be law that solves the problem.
Is this problem ubiquitous? No. But have a number of small business providers in various states been sued by local authorities at the bequest of angry LGBT authoritarians and found themselves deep in debt and driven out of business for the “crime” of turning down gigs to provide creative services for same-sex weddings, which they feel would violate their religious faith, while self-righteous progressives clap and cheer? Yes.
David Brooks also gets it absolutely right:
The opponents [of Indiana’s statute] seem to be saying there is no valid tension between religious pluralism and equality. Claims of religious liberty are covers for anti-gay bigotry.
This deviation seems unwise both as a matter of pragmatics and as a matter of principle. In the first place, if there is no attempt to balance religious liberty and civil rights, the cause of gay rights will be associated with coercion, not liberation. Some people have lost their jobs for expressing opposition to gay marriage. There are too many stories like the Oregon bakery that may have to pay a $150,000 fine because it preferred not to bake a wedding cake for a same-sex ceremony. A movement that stands for tolerance does not want to be on the side of a government that compels a photographer who is an evangelical Christian to shoot a same-sex wedding that he would rather avoid.
And yet that’s exactly what LGBT authoritarians want and envision, and they have no shame about it, either.
Let’s keep it going. Viewpoints on the right that are still worth considering (oh no, he’s linked to websites WE DON’T Like!!!): Kevin D. Williamson on corporate cowardice:
There are three problems with rewarding those who use accusations of bigotry as a political cudgel. First, those who seek to protect religious liberties are not bigots, and going along with false accusations that they are makes one a party to a lie. Second, it is an excellent way to lose political contests, since there is almost nothing — up to and including requiring algebra classes — that the Left will not denounce as bigotry. Third, and related, it encourages those who cynically deploy accusations of bigotry for their own political ends.
More than a little truth here. And related, George Will on Tim Cook’s hypocrisy, with this added observation:
There are two important principles at stake here. One is the government should rarely, and only at extreme difficulty, compel people to take actions contrary to their consciences. The other is that when you open your doors to commerce you open them to everybody. That’s a simple thing. It goes back to the ’64 Civil Rights act, public accommodations section which is surely a great moment in American history. So, you kind of work this out, but the indignation isn’t helping.
But for the fundraisers, party hacks and others with self-serving (or marketing) agendas, fueling polarization is the very point.
Actually, it’s way beyond simply stoking polarization; it’s about inciting mob violence now.
Conor Friedersdorf asks: Should Mom-and-Pops that Forgo Gay Weddings Be Destroyed? Well, we know what LGBT progressives would answer.
Friedersdorf writes:
I also believe that the position I’ll gladly serve any gay customers but I feel my faith compels me to refrain from catering a gay wedding is less hateful or intolerant than let’s go burn that family’s business to the ground.
(Check out the hateful comments when HuffPost Gay Voices ran its hatchet job on Memories Pizza.)
End Game: Capitulation to the mob. Small vendors in Indiana and elsewhere will be driven out of business unless they agree to provide creative services to same-sex weddings. What the authoritarians of the politically correct left won’t tell you is that ever constriction on liberty can come around and smack you in the face. First they came for the conservative Christians….
95 Comments for “An Overreaction to an Overreaction”
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
1. Religious freedom is perfectly fine, as long as people don’t confuse “liberty” with “just us”. The right of all people to worship as they please is not simply the right to worship as your neighbor does. I think that this confusion (justice with just us) is more often the case with these sort of bills.
2. It is a bit too early to determine whether or not these bills are leading to a rise in discrimination against LGBT people. The absence of civil rights protections might just make most LGBT people a tad bit leery of coming forward.
posted by Jorge on
It is, arguably, an overreaction to an overreaction
Most responses to overreactions are. However, the governor chose to sign the law. Unless he’s one of the ones running for President, I think we should at least be suspicious that his oath of office had meaning to him when he did so.
posted by Houndentenor on
…and right on cue with the quisling excuse for right wing bigotry.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Every step Republican politicians take in aligning the party with the anti-gay movement marginalizes the party further. I understand the dynamics of Republican primary politics, but this is not a good omen for the future of the party.
posted by Ricport on
. . . and cue the Dems pathetic defense of Ol’ Happy Pants, who got this ball rolling, and his “wifey,” Hildebeast. I swear, if the polls showed the majority of Americans supported rounding up gay people and putting them in concentration camps, those two would be cheering the boxcars on, all the while their lapdogs here and elsewhere would be defending them.
posted by Lori Heine on
That’s probably just what would happen. “Progressives” have demonstrated, time and again, that they care about little beyond power, power and more power. If they couldn’t keep scaring gays with horror stories about conservatives, they’d be recognized for the hollow frauds they really are.
The big-government-worshipping left does nothing but perpetuate the very evils it claims to assail. Which is why they can never admit when anything gets better. And why conservatives must be continually painted as bad guys.
Of course some conservatives are bad guys. Some are even downright terrible. But we can rest assured that the whipcrack lefty commenters here at IGF will warn us all about them.
posted by Francis on
The ball was rolling well before “Ol’ Happy Pants” signed those acts into law. Try around the time Pat Buchanan and his ilk were demonising AIDS victims. But then I guess facts don’t matter when you’re a libertarian ideologue with delusions of wisdom and maturity.
posted by Lori Heine on
Well, n’yah…and you’re one, too!
Try growing up. Just try.
Pat Buchanan’s behavior justifies Bill Clinton’s in kindergarten, perhaps. But where facts actually do matter, one person’s crappy behavior in no way justifies another.
If you haven’t learned that by now, it’s probably too late to expect that you ever will.
posted by Wilberforce on
Are you referring to Bill Clinton, the former President of the United States, and his wife and former senator, Hillary Clinton? Of course they also happen to be brilliant policy experts and two of the greatest statesmen of our generation.
Maybe you’d like a return of the Bush years, with a preventable attack on the homeland, disastrous war, and financial collapse. Good choice.
posted by Lori Heine on
“…two of the greatest statesmen of our generation.”
Thanks, I needed a good laugh on a Hump Day.
What the Clintons helped to do (didn’t begin, but certainly accelerated) was rot what remained of the “Progressive” movement.
They kept the standard for “progressivism” as low as possible. Because they let the other side set it. All the mainstream left had to do was raise theirs a little bit over that of the right–and that was considered enough.
Again, five-year-olds reason like that. And groveling little toadies and sheeple.
Two of the greatest statesmen. I’m glad I hadn’t just taken a big draw of coffee before reading that. It’s a gem. Dude, you ought to be on late night.
posted by Ricport on
Lori, get me my smelling salts – quick! All I can say is “wow.” I can’t believe anyone like Wilberforce actually believes that tripe he/she is spouting.
Yes, Wil, let’s look at these “brilliant policy experts.” While the Dems love to say that Bush had eight months to deal with Bin Laden, OHP had EIGHT YEARS during which the Sudanese offered him on a silver platter, and OHP summarily turned down. He also signed DADT, DOMA, and the RFRA, pretty much selling out their gay lapdogs after taking their $$ and support time and time again. And I won’t even get into how he masterminded the most blatant prostitution of the presidency since Teapot Dome.
And Hildebeast? Well, as she really hasn’t accomplished much beyond living off the reflected glory of the man she married; in being a carpetbagging back bencher in the Senate; and in being the most worthless and inept SoS in history (Benghazi, anyone?), there ends up not much being there to criticize her for.
This is all in addition to their very recent and miraculous conversion to supporting gay rights after the polls showed the public tide was turning that way. But hey . . . she’s a woman! She’s a Dem! She’s a rock star! Who cares about genuine qualifications, right? Who cares if these “brilliant policy experts” (gag) have a solid track record of stepping over basically anyone to get more power?
As far left as Warren is, at least she has some substance and smarts (not cunning and manipulation like Hildebeast) and a few genuine good points backing her up. Hildebeast’s real list of accomplishments could be written on the back of a cocktail napkin with room to spare.
Oh, and last point – Buchanan was not elected to anything. Ol’ Happy Pants was (not that I’m defending what Buchanan says). It’s interesting that this forum is the INDEPENDENT Gay Forum, yet it’s overrun with lost souls from the MSNBC hallelujah chorus.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Indiana doesn’t have a statewide LGBT rights law, although some of its cities do. So it’s not the grand compromise we saw in Utah.
Yup. Republican lawmakers in a number of states have the honesty not to smear lipstick on the pig — they come right out and make a frontal assault on local non-discrimination laws — banning them outright — rather than dressing it up in Jesus.
Speaking of honesty, I congratulate Stephen on citing the CNN article as “balanced”. CNN CNN Legal Analyst Jeffrey Toobin wipes the lipstick right off the pig: “The only reason these laws have passed is because of same sex marriage. Everybody knows that.“
posted by Doug on
Saying you support LGBT ‘rights’ while allowing anyone to discriminate against us based on some misguided religious exemption is an oxymoron.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Yes, you can be a supporter for LGBT rights, same-sex marriage, and religious freedom. What you can’t be is an authoritarian statist and a defender of liberty.
I love the “libertarian” buzzwords …
No over-reaction by progressives and LGBT activists? Via the Washington Post: 19 states that have ‘religious freedom’ laws like Indiana’s that no one is boycotting.
… almost as much as I love the complete lack of analysis.
You post an article by Josh Blackman that indicates that the Indiana statute differs from the federal version of RFRA, then a CNN article that lays bare the fact that Indiana’s RFRA Act was born of tainted seed — antipathy to SSM — and you point out yourself that Indiana’s RFRA has no effect on state non-discrimination law but instead will operate to invalidate local non-discrimination ordinances, and now you point to “similar” statutes in other states without so much as even cursory analysis of the similarities and differences, the reasons why the other states enacted the laws, or the motivation (that is, legislative history) behind the other states’ laws.
Freedom of conscience — including but not limited to religious freedom — is too critical to liberty to be toyed with by politicians with bad motives.
You need to get your act together, do a bit of elemental homework, and think.
posted by Jorge on
….What you can’t be is an authoritarian statist and a defender of liberty.
Bull.
As much as I love the story of the minutemen who defended Lexington and Concord, they’re not the ones who got Osama bin Laden–and protected the President until we got him.
Fascinating politics going on at the basketball front. According to the headlines and links over at Yahoo! News, former NBA player and now sports analyst Charles Barkley wants the final four removed from Indiana. The NBA and the Indiana Pacers have delivered a statement saying all fans are welcome at their games. The story I read the latter news on said that’s a smart proactive move for saying they won’t have be involved in any discrimination. My first thought was that it was needless fluffery. But now I think it’s a defensive move to end the conversation quickly so as to prevent the NBA from being mired in a political issue.
posted by Mike in Houston on
I’m not going to get into the usual debunking of Stephen here… That was all laid bare in Georgia where the bill was pulled once explicit lgbt protections were included. I’m sure we’ll all be entertained by a whole slew of ‘furthermore’ apologia for the anti-gay RFRA contingent.
I will note something that Governor Pence obviously didn’t heed from his own local resource – IUPUI (Indiana University / Perdue University Indianapolis) study:
“For every anti gay legislative event in a state, there is a measurable loss of 963 firms in the first year out; 2104 firms the second year; and more than 3000 firms by three and four.”
“Statistically significant evidence that each anti-gay event leads to a negative impact on firms and the economy, often at the 99.9% confidence level, and at the cost of thousands of firms per anti-gay event per state.”
http://www.nuvo.net/indianapolis/questioning-the-economic-impact-of-hjr-3/Content?oid=2761099#.UwLYChZNw0o
Once your state or city brand is tarnished, it literally takes decades to recover… as Indiana is finding out.
posted by Stuart on
The Bloomington Dolce and Gabbana wholesale outlet is doing well, though.
posted by Mike in Houston on
From Lambda Legal:
Governor Pence continues to deceive the public about this deeply flawed law. Let’s clarify a few things.
Gov. Pence myth: SB 101 is just like Illinois law that then-State Senator Obama voted to support.
Truth: Gov. Pence fails to point out that Illinois has robust nondiscrimination clauses in its state Human Rights Act that specifically protect LGBT people. Indiana does not. This matters because those seeking to discriminate in Indiana may claim that the lack of a statewide law barring sexual orientation and gender identity discrimination means that there is no compelling state interest in enforcing local ordinances providing such protections.
Gov. Pence myth: This law only reinforces established law in Indiana.
Truth: The language in SB 101 is so broadly written that someone can sue even without their religious beliefs having actually been burdened simply by claiming that is ‘likely’ to happen.
Gov. Pence myth: SB101 is just like federal law that President Clinton signed 20 years ago.
Truth: SB 101 is substantially broader than the federal law. The federal RFRA can only be invoked against government action. SB 101 goes much further, inviting discrimination by allowing religious beliefs to be raised as a defense in lawsuits and administrative proceedings brought by workers, tenants and customers who have suffered discrimination. In addition, SB 101 makes it easier to claim a burden on religious freedom than the federal RFRA by defining the ‘exercise of religion’ as ‘any exercise of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a system of religious belief.’
“If Governor Pence meant it when he said that SB101 isn’t intended to allow discrimination against LGBT people, then why were amendments designed to make that explicit repeatedly rejected during the legislative process? If he truly means what he says, then he and the legislature should work together to add this language: ‘This chapter does not establish or eliminate a defense to a claim under any federal, state or local law protecting civil rights or preventing discrimination.’ And the Indiana government should include gay and transgender people within Indiana’s protections from discrimination.”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Governor Pence is desperately trying to cover his ass after a firestorm erupted.
An op-ed in the Chicago Tribune the other day made this observation about Indiana’s RFRA:
To this I would add another: If you have to introduce legislation to “clarify” a law the week after you sign it, and then cannot explain yourself under questioning on reputable news/opinion shows, it might be a bad law.
That last one’s particularly true when the legislative history of the law lays bare the tainted motivations behind the law with crystal clarity, and when your state’s largest newspaper asks if the “clarification” might include extending non-discrimination laws to include gays and lesbians, you respond “That’s not on my agenda, and that’s not been an objective of the people of the state of Indiana.” I don’t know about whether non-discrimination against gays and lesbians is an “objective of the people of the state of Indiana” or not, but it is clearly not an objective of Republicans in the state legislature. Amendments offered to add “sexual orientation” to the state’s non-discrimination laws were repeatedly rejected by the legislature, along party-line votes.
In any event, if anyone needs proof of Jeffrey Toobin’s assertion (in the CNN article cited by Stephen) that “The only reason these laws have passed is because of same sex marriage. Everybody knows that.“, look no further than Governor Pence’s “not on my agenda” statement.
As part of the cover-my-ass effort, Governor Pence has been waxing on about the Illinois RFRA of 1998 being “the same law”, pointing out the then-Senator Obama voted for the Illinois law in 1998. I think that statement, which seems to be much-repeated in conservative circles as an example of the President’s hypocrisy and the power of the “homosexual lobby”, bears closer examination.
The Illinois RFRA, effective December 2, 1998 (almost two decades ago), reads, in relevant part:
The Illinois law protects the religious freedom of people — human beings. Unlike the Indiana law, the Illinois law does not protect business corporations, trusts, partnerships, limited liability companies or other entities. In fact, the Illinois law does not protect religious entities, which are protected by other laws and by court cases. It protects personal religious conscience, not discriminatory business practices.
The legislative history of the two bills is also illuminating. The legislative history of the Illinois law reflects a concern about erosion of religious conscience protect stemming from a series of federal cases that seemed to be backing off from then-eixsting case law, and creates a Yoder standard for the state. Religious objection to public accommodations laws, as far as I can discover from the legislative history, played no part, and neither did concern about LGBT rights granted by state law. The Indiana legislative history, on the other hand, is all about same-sex marriage and the plight of conservative Christian businesses that don’t want to provide goods and services to same-sex weddings, and seems to be motivated by objection to public accommodations ordinances in municipalities that include sexual orientation as a protected class.
And, of course, Illinois has a robust statewide non-discrimination law protecting gays and lesbians. Indiana does not.
Looking at this all together, it adds up. In short, Illinois law is about protecting the religious conscience of people; the Indiana law is about protecting the right of businesses to discriminate against same-sex marriage on “religious” grounds.
Looking beyond Governor Pence for a moment, as Stephen noted in his post, “Yes, you can be a supporter for LGBT rights, same-sex marriage, and religious freedom.”
President Obama, who voted for the Illinois RFRA in 1998 but had harsh words for the Indiana RFRA in 2015, is a good example of Stephen’s principle at work. President Obama is “a supporter of LGBT rights, same-sex marriage and religious freedom”. However, the President is also someone who can tell the difference between a law actually protecting religious freedom and a law protecting discrimination by dressed up as “religious freedom”.
So can many/most Americans. While I imagine that we will see quite a number of discrimination-motivated “religious freedom” laws enacted by Republican-controlled legislatures in the coming months, I suspect that the rush to protect the world from man-on-man wedding cakes will run out of steam as business and public support for non-discriminatory business practice becomes more evident.
Having said all that, let me also note that the current round of “religious freedom” laws (unlike earlier iterations, which were more directly aimed at same-sex marriage), although born of bad motive, meet two of the three “equal means equal” tests. The laws are of broad application, covering all laws of the state, meeting the “issue-neutral” test. The laws are indifferent to protected class, allowing religion-based discrimination against anyone and everyone, meeting the “class-neutral” test.
The laws fail the “religion-neutral” test, however, protecting only religious conscience. While I recognize that the current spate of laws play to an audience that denies that non-religious citizens can form and exercise moral conscience that is not based in religious threats of eternal damnation, my view is that religious conscience is but a subset of personal conscience, and that personal conscience, religion-based or not, is what we should be seeking to protect.
Americans value fairness, in business practice and otherwise, and it won’t take them long to come to the conclusion that “The only reason these laws have passed is because of same sex marriage.” When that realization hits the radar screen, I suspect that it will become clear that Republicans are busy digging themselves yet another hole.
Bull piled upon bull is what we are seeing out of Republican politicians and their apologists, for the most part.
posted by Jorge on
“I have a few basic rules when it comes to laws…”
Well stated, but I think that says more about the politician than the law. One person’s “bad law” can be strenuously and forthrightly defended by someone who thinks it’s a good law. It’s just that politicians are afraid of being held accountable for being wrong.
posted by Stuart on
I am a Catholic. Like most Christians, I think that God made us male and female, and that we can tell which one we are by looking at our midsection. We can also tell by the number of chromosomes. I would therefore ask anyone coming into my store to use the restroom which matches their genitals. I would probably get sued. Therefore, I am grateful as a cisgender gay man, that I can put male and female symbols on my bathroom doors and not lose my business if I ask that people comply based on their birth gender.
It is my right as a cisgender Catholic gay man to not acknowledge transgender as a real category. And you don’t have to use my bathroom. But if you sue me, I’m going to fight back.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Is this a parody post?
Or are you really that transphobic?
posted by Stuart on
Transphobic? No–I can’t be afraid of something I don’t think exists.
I consider transgender to be on the order of satanic ritual abuse, multiple personality disorder, and memories of alien abduction. Yes, the people who experience these things firmly believe they’re true–but they’re not. Good psychology would help people move away from these beliefs, not reinforce them.
The Catholic Church thinks homosexuality exists. It teaches that transgender does not exist and the gender theory which underlies it is false. I am a gay Catholic man who agrees with my Church teachings and wants to be free to follow my faith.
It is a crazy world where you can get sued if you ask people to use the bathroom which matches their genitals. And be called “transphobic” in the bargain.
Why should I be afraid of trans? Do they dress like clowns?
posted by Dale of the Desert on
“Transphobic? No–I can’t be afraid of something I don’t think exists.” – Stuart
Yes you can. Transphobia, like homophobia, is antipathy toward either those people you don’t believe exist, or toward yourself (a presumably chaste person, adhering as you do to the official teachings of your church, even if not its prevailing practices). The “phobia” part of the words is rooted in the old psychoanalytic concept that antipathy or hatred is rooted in underlying unconscious fear….and that often, even if not always, is the case.
Whether you do or don’t believe in transexualism doesn’t mean the orientation doesn’t exist, and the overwhelming scientific consensus is that it does exist.
And your beliefs don’t answer the question of where people can or should pee in the public arena. And in most places I’ve pee’d, the most common practice has been to provide a measure of privacy.
Unisex bathrooms seem to provide a workable solution, and then Stuart wouldn’t have to worry or think about what type of genitals are peeing behind the door or the stall or room, nor whether those genitals were anatomically original or revised. He might still worry about whether the public toilet seat upon which he sits had been previously contaminated by satanic genitals, but, well, he’ll just have to get over that.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Galileo redux. Or as my grandfather (Lutheran) would have said, “I’m a protestant so I don’t have to listen to fairy tales and papist mummery.”
But seriously, what about the intersex folks out there?
So… going to be the bathroom police are you? Everyone have to do a DNA swab before peeing? Going to check under the dress of everyone woman or ask every man to drop trou and prove they’re in the “right place”?
posted by Jorge on
Like most Christians, I think that God made us male and female, and that we can tell which one we are by looking at our midsection
Are you calling me fat?
I don’t have a problem with you asking someone to use the bathroom that corresponds to whether their fat is on the belly or their booty, as that is a matter of their gender expression and not their biological sex. But I must object to you putting words into the Catholic Church’s doctrines. The Church believes that the spiritual dichotomy of the sexes is mirrored in biology and society. I am not aware of any demand it makes that you engage in discrimination against transgender people. Rather, the Church demands that you avoid “all unjust discrimination” in regard to gays. There is no reason for you to believe the same demand does not apply to transgender people.
It is up to the people, with the guidance of the priesthood, to determine what is and is not just. The priest helps to apply the universal rules to the situations and customs of the day, so that the will to do good bears fruit in the unique soil of the land. Do not take doctrine as a blank check to do evil. Doctrine is a guide toward morality and wisdom, not toward law and order itself.
posted by clayton on
So, Stuart, do you plan to require people to drop their pldrawers on your presence before they enter the restroom? Will you require on the spot DNA tests? Or will you settle for inspecting their birth certificates? Because, I can promise you, the birth gender is not always readily apparent.
posted by Rob Tisinai on
Not be pedantic (oh, all right, I’ll be pedantic) but you can’t distinguish men and women “by the number of chromosomes.” Generally, both genders have 46.
posted by Stuart on
Whether or not trans exist, it is still not a gay issue. Gender and orientation aren’t the same thing. I can be concerned about issues related to my orientation and indifferent to issues related to another’s gender. In the same way, I am more concerned about issues related to my religion than to my race. So, I’m only interested in the GLB. Well, actually, just the GL. Come to think of it, just the G. And that’s my right.
posted by JohnInCA on
You can champion whatever rights for whoever you want. That still won’t change that you claim a group of people don’t exist in direct contradiction to the fields of modern medicine and psychology.
posted by Francis on
The question is are there matters besides the gender identity issue on which Stu has taken the path of the crank?
posted by Houndentenor on
Some of us are capable of empathy for the rights of others and not just for ourselves. I’m not sure why so many Americans seem incapable of or unwilling to show compassion for others, but I find it appalling. Sometimes people need to pee. It makes so sense for transgendered men to enter the women’s restroom when they very much look like men. It’s nonsense. So much so that I originally assumed that your over the top posts were a failed attempt at parody.
posted by Dale of the Desert on
Gayness and transexualism certainly are not the same entities, although I have met transexuals who were both, i.e., their affectional attractions were toward people of the same gender as their own gender identification. I personally do not understand transexualism and feel no great urge to understand it. But I do feel a great urge to stand up for the equal rights of transexuals as well as my own as a gay man. But Stuart is welcome to look out for his own self interests and no one else’s. As long as he doesn’t try to oppose equal rights for others, I don’t need him on my team, even though I’m supporting his equal rights too.
posted by Stuart on
I oppose having my right to set up my company bathrooms the way I see fit as a business owner. I want people who come into my store to use the bathroom that matches their God-given genitalia. I don’t want to be sued by someone dressed as Taylor Swift with a beard if I refuse to let that person use the women’s bathroom. If I am taken to court, I want the freedom to express my religious objections, as a Catholic gay man, to being forced to do something against my beliefs.
posted by Doug on
Here’s a newsflash, Stuart, the Catholic Church doesn’t approve of you either. You can choose to believe anything you wish, but that does not change reality.
posted by Stuart on
Tell that to Oscar Wilde, Tennessee Williams, Gerard Manley Hopkins, Andy Warhol, and Andrew Sullivan. See you at Most Holy Redeemer Church in San Francisco!
You might want to check out the Dignity website.
I don’t see why you want to place additional pressure on small businesses who want to have men’s and women’s bathrooms and want people to use them based on their birth sex without getting sued. If I say I think I’m a cat, do they have to provide a litter box?
posted by Dale of the Desert on
I would think that, as a small business owner, Stuart would be more concerned with having bathrooms that will meet his customers’ needs, rather than ones that meet “the way (he) sees fit.” I can’t recall anything in the Bible or the Catechism of the Catholic Church that concerns itself with which genitalia should generate urine into which kinds of bathroom. I do recall Most Holy Redeemeer banning drag queens 3 years ago, but I think that issue was a question of good taste rather than religious doctrine or bathroom options, and of course that had nothing to do with transexuals.
posted by Lori Heine on
I have been a member of Dignity Arizona for 18 years. My transgender friend was one of the founding members of the chapter. Stuart needs to get out more.
As for violations of privacy in public bathrooms, exactly whose privacy is being violated by whom? A transgender person using the facility, or whoever is peeping at his or her genitalia to make sure the right facility is being used?
People are absolutely losing their minds over this issue. I think it’s an excuse for anti-trans gays to dump on somebody else. And I’m glad that a lot of folks in our community do understand that trans people are part of it, too.
posted by Stuart on
My point about Dignity was to show that there are parts of Catholicism which welcome gays. For the reason you stated, I am not a member of Dignity. Or Courage.
Just to get this out, I would like to find a community of cisgender gay men who don’t think sex is an inevitable part of a romantic relationship, or at least until after 3 or 4 dates. But this community, if it exists, is rendered invisible by all the other groups who currently claim power in the gay community. Trans-privilege or slut-privilege marginalizes those of us who don’t fit in those categories.
The fact that I have difficulty expressing my opinions here, on a relatively conservative site, suggests that the gay community has no letters for what I am. And being a sexual minority without a letter to show my pride is a sad, sad place to be.
And, incidentally, if I’m nervously peeping over a urinal, I want to see a penis!!!
posted by Jorge on
The fact that I have difficulty expressing my opinions here, on a relatively conservative site, suggests that the gay community has no letters for what I am.
I must admit I’ve never heard of a gay conservative identifying himself as cisgender. That’s a word I do not use.
You’ve walked your point back enough. I will spare you the liberal puppy dog lecture-satrie on why the gay rights movement rightfully includes lesbians, bisexuals, transgender persons, and those others who need a place to belong; and why the cannibalism between each (which I have had my share in) is on the rise.
If everyone works alone to advance their own best interests, the result should be the same as everyone working together. Therefore, you should allow yourself to enter combat with your chosen opposition, risk your life for the cause you believe in.
Just to get this out, I would like to find a community of cisgender gay men who don’t think sex is an inevitable part of a romantic relationship, or at least until after 3 or 4 dates.
If that’s what you want, it’s much more worthwhile to date a straight man. There are more of them. That’s called bromance. (Warning: make sure you have an agreement on the amount of gay panic they will engage in. Everything gay men do is so dangerous yet unfilfilling. Also, don’t pull a McGreevey.)
posted by Stuart on
I agree that marginalized groups need to work together, even if their situations are different. I’m concerned about immigrants, the elderly, the fat, and the unborn. But there doesn’t seem to be a GIEFU group.
Trans do have the advantage of being fun and attractive, which is why they’re easier to include in the rainbow, even though they are not gay nor claim to be. Lord knows, Gs aren’t going to join causes with the old, fat, poor, or unborn.
posted by Jorge on
Lord knows, Gs aren’t going to join causes with the old, fat, poor, or unborn.
(Only a gay person would have a stereotype of a young rich person.)
*Ahem!* No.
I’m concerned about immigrants, the elderly, the fat, and the unborn.
(I hope you don’t take this the wrong way, Jorge, but you Catholics are weird.)
posted by Jim Michaud on
Dude, sounds like you have some issues that need tending to. This site can’t assist you in that regard.
posted by Stuart on
I’m planning to get into reverse reparative therapy to make me into a better gay.
posted by Lori Heine on
I don’t think you’d have much of a chance of seeing anything else. Nobody who isn’t equipped to use a urinal would be likely to try.
And as far as lumping Dignity and Courage together the way you have, what can be said? The former encourages us to live complete lives, while the latter tries to neuter us and keep us in a cloister. If you think those two necessarily belong together simply because they’re both Catholic and both LGBT, then you must not know much about them.
As to who or what you care about, if you don’t care about any initial in the soup except the “G,” then you’re going to find the Catholic Church a very lonely place to be. The people in the pews will be very accepting, but you don’t seem to like much of anybody.
You may need your own planet.
posted by Lori Heine on
I don’t understand why these comments get placed where they do in the overall order. The above was not addressed to Jim Michaud, who said nothing about urinals, Dignity or Courage. Sorry for any confusion.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Via Instapundit Glenn Reynolds:
Sounds about right.
Sounds dead wrong.
The problem with the Indiana law is that it falls outside the commonly accepted RFRA laws adopted in other states.
For example, comparing it to the Illinois RFRA, enacted in 1998, and which Governor Pence describes as “just like our law”, a number of significant differences quickly emerge:
(1) The Illinois RFRA, (which reads, in relevant part “Government may not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion, even if the burden results from a rule of general applicability, unless it demonstrates that application of the burden to the person (i) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and (ii) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental interest.“, protects the religious conscience of human beings. The Indiana RFRA protects for-profit business corporations, trusts, partnerships, limited liability companies or other business entities. The state doesn’t (typical of state RFRA’s that
(2) The legislative history in the two states demonstrates a different motivation for the two laws. The legislative history of the Illinois law reflects a concern about erosion of religious conscience protect stemming from a series of federal cases that seemed to be backing off from then-existing case law, and creates a Yoder standard for the state. Religious objection to public accommodations laws, as far as I can discover from the legislative history, played no part, and neither did concern about LGBT rights granted by state law. The Indiana legislative history, on the other hand, is all about same-sex marriage and the plight of conservative Christian businesses that don’t want to provide goods and services to same-sex weddings, and seems to be motivated by objection to public accommodations ordinances in municipalities that include sexual orientation as a protected class.
Looking at other state RFRA laws, only one state RFRA law (North Carolina) includes for-profit businesses in the protected class. Two (Louisiana and Pennsylvania) explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from RFRA protection. The balance of the existing RFRA laws either limit protection to human beings, as does Illinois, or to human beings and religiously-affiliated not-for-profit corporations, trusts, partnerships, limited liability companies or other entities.
The Indiana RFRA, in contrast to every other existing RFRA, does not require direct governmental involvement. The Indiana RFRA allows private individuals and businesses to claim a religious exemption in court “regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.” That creates an enormous difference in scope between Indiana’s RFRA and the other existing RFRA’s.
Indiana’s RFRA is not under attack because it is a red state, or because the Obama administration is orchestrating a “Wag the Dog” scenario.
It is under attack because it is an extreme law, in comparison to the other RFRA laws around the country, and is a transparent attempt to protect the right of businesses to discriminate against same-sex marriage on “religious” grounds.
Stephen, you can put all the lipstick you want on the pig, but it is still a pig.
posted by AG on
As long as Indiana’s RFRA protects photographers from being forced to provide services at the events that go against their moral principals, I’m in favor of the RFRA. Strongly in favor. People holding unpopular beliefs deserve more protection, not less. Indiana’s RFRA seems to differ very minimally from the statues passed in other states, but where it differs it’s in the areas that strengthen freedom of association.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Okay, then can we also require them to post signs stating clearly who can and cannot use their services?
If not, why not?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Resistance to allowing businesses to discriminate if (but only if) the businesses give notice of the fact is inconsistent with “the market will take care of it” meme, it seems to me.
The market will “take care of it” only if the public knows which businesses discriminate, and against whom.
Word of mouth may be sufficient in rural areas like the one in which I live (we have a relatively small number of businesses, and people generally know who’s who among the business owners), but it pretty clearly isn’t sufficient in more populated areas. The market, in an informational sense, is likely to be so inefficient in that environment as to be useless.
I understand why conservative Christian business owners who want to discriminate don’t want an efficient market; an efficient market would put them out of business in most areas of the country, relatively quickly, as Lori often points out. Such businesses depend on discriminating in the dark. In Mississippi (and now, it appears, in Indiana as well), conservative Christians are up in arms about businesses who don’t discriminate posting a “We serve everyone …” notice voluntarily. Not to make a bad joke, but it seems that conservative Christians want to have their cake and eat it, too. I get that.
But I don’t understand why the so-called “libertarian” Republicans, who are quick to argue that “the market will take care of it”, resist an obvious method of ensuring that the market will work. To my mind, it is one more bit of evidence the “market” position is a sham, and this is all about keeping the Republican coalition intact.
posted by Lori Heine on
That’s so crazy wrong it’s difficult to believe you wrote it.
Have you even visited a large city since, say, 1990?
Here’s what happens when an establishment in even a fair-sized community discriminates against gays. Thanks to the miracle of the Internet, the news goes viral–usually within hours, and certainly within a couple of days.
Something else will be starting to happen soon, if it hasn’t already. Competitors will start spreading rumors (not even actual news of true events, but RUMORS) that their rivals have discriminated against LGBT patrons. One of the myriad of unintended consequences of legislation to protect discrimination will be that it will provide a cold, hard slap of reality to any who might consider using the “protections” it offers.
The real world’s a lot more fun than the mental gulag in which you people confine yourselves. You really ought to visit sometime.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Here’s what happens when an establishment in even a fair-sized community discriminates against gays. Thanks to the miracle of the Internet, the news goes viral–usually within hours, and certainly within a couple of days.
What is your level of confidence that all (or almost all) incidents are reported via social media? What is your level of confidence that you can accurately predict, based on your knowledge from social media, which of the thousands of business in Phoenix is more likely than not to discriminate in the future? What is your level of confidence that the information is widely distributed to customers who might or are more likely than not to take their business elsewhere?
I gather that your level of confidence is high, or at least high enough that you think that having businesses put customers on notice if they wish to discriminate is ludicrous. Why, then, did you endorse the idea? Or do I have it wrong, and you didn’t/don’t?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Cato Institute Senior Fellow Michael Tanner: But, speaking of making a point, that’s what Indiana’s law is all about. It is Indiana lawmakers expressing their disapproval of gay marriage. The state had tried to ban gay marriage, but the federal courts rightly overturned that law. Now, lawmakers are more or less throwing a hissy fit.
Yup, and if there is any question at all about what this law is all about after looking at the legislative history and listening to Governor Pence, consider this: Federal non-discrimination laws cover all of the common protected classes, absent gays and lesbians. Federal non-discrimination laws trump state laws permitting discrimination.
As a result, although the Indiana law looks to be “class-neutral” on its face (permitting discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion and so on), the only class to which it can apply are gays and lesbians, because federal law prohibits discrimination against the other classes.
posted by Jorge on
and (2) Dems need something to agitate the base so it doesn’t pay attention to Iranian nukes, trashed email servers, and an overall culture of corruption.
Doubly true if my man with the rad grey combover Lindsey Graham runs for president.
If, in the end, you think the Indiana RFRA is a bad idea, check that map and see if your state has RFRA (or a RFRA-like state constitutional provision) and push for repeal in your state.
I know my state doesn’t. (Nope, doesn’t.) My governor’s a jerk and he gets away with it.
As a result, although the Indiana law looks to be “class-neutral” on its face (permitting discrimination on the basis of race, ethnicity, gender, religion and so on), the only class to which it can apply are gays and lesbians, because federal law prohibits discrimination against the other classes.
Not really.
Federal legislation only prohibits age discrimination for persons over 40.
The federal law covering the rights of homeless students (McKinney-Vento) and the educational needs of students with disabilities (IDEA) oftentimes only go so far as to mandate a process. They do not mandate what that process is. Some states are more aggressive with attention to detail and financial resources than others, giving even greater rights.
Federal case law permits, indeed must allow, discrimination against single pregnant women who work in Catholic schools. It permits, indeed must allow, discrimination against gays by private organizations that do not engage in commerce. And in some circumstances it permits discrimination against white college applicants.
I go to the trouble of mentioning these exceptions and circumstances to point out that the states have considerable maneuverability to cover up lapses and holes in federal law, but no federal court can make them do so. Your statement that the federal government already has everything else right is almost hubris.
So your argument that this law only applies to gays is not credible. Having established that, we all know that the motivation is really about gay marriage. And you know what? That’s fine. Look, whether people agree with this or not, there is a social problem in this country about gays filing lawsuits against people who don’t want to participate in their weddings. Solving this problem puts states in a catch-22. If you pass a law that only applies to gays, that’s illegal discrimination. So it becomes necessary to create a law that serves the public good in a way that’s not discriminatory. Now people are saying they don’t like that law either. That’s just too bad. There is going to be law that solves the problem.
People don’t like it, sue, but I don’t particularly want to hear people complaining about society trying to solve a problem that they did nothing to stop.
posted by JohnInCA on
“there is a social problem in this country about gays filing lawsuits against people who don’t want to participate in their weddings.”
There’s been what, a handful of cases over a decade? There was the photographer, like one or two bakers, a florist, and a wedding venue.
Yeah, real crisis you have there.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I go to the trouble of mentioning these exceptions and circumstances to point out that the states have considerable maneuverability to cover up lapses and holes in federal law, but no federal court can make them do so. Your statement that the federal government already has everything else right is almost hubris.
I said nothing of the sort, Jorge. I said that “[f]ederal non-discrimination laws cover all of the common protected classes, absent gays and lesbians” and that (as a result) the “the only class to which it can apply are gays and lesbians“. That’s an accurate statement.
The federal scheme is not, obviously, all-inclusive, and state legislation can (and sometimes does) “fill holes” (as you put it) in the federal scheme by adding additional protections (e.g. banning age-based job discrimination outright rather than banning it only for older workers). But what state law cannot do is undo the non-discrimination protection afforded by federal law.
I’ve seen quite a number of “defenses” of the Indiana law that argue that Indiana’s law protects religious freedom by ensuring that for-profit business have “a right to refuse to provide services to anyone they want, for whatever religion-based reason”, using that statement as a basis to argue that the intent, purpose and operation of the law is not aimed at gays and lesbians, and that is not true.
posted by Jorge on
From John in CA: There’s been what, a handful of cases over a decade?
A decade?
Yeah, real crisis you have there.
Okay, so you don’t agree. Make way for those who do, because they passed the law fair and square through the democratic process.
(And through the democratic process they shall “modify” it. Matters not that the reason is because of an inter-state economic boycott. In a democracy the government is accountable even to the forces of tyranny, so long as they vote or engage in legal commerce.)
Bother.
From Tom: …But what state law cannot do is undo the non-discrimination protection afforded by federal law.
I’ve seen quite a number of “defenses” of the Indiana law that argue that Indiana’s law protects religious freedom by ensuring that for-profit business have “a right to refuse to provide services to anyone they want, for whatever religion-based reason”, using that statement as a basis to argue that the intent, purpose and operation of the law is not aimed at gays and lesbians, and that is not true.
I must respectfully disagree with your emphasis and conclusion, Tom. I think the fact that there are even minor differences between state and federal law in other categories is enough to say this is not an anti-gay law. I strongly disagree with your conclusion that this law is aimed at gays and lesbians. Frankly I don’t think most people who support the law give a **** about us, they just want want to give protection to those whose religious views do. Do not confuse the issue. The moderates are not obligated to agree with the liberals that disagreeing with the so-called gay lifestyle is discriminatory and bigoted. The liberals think that way and that is their right, but everyone else has a say in defining the matter, too, and I consider the attempt to define the issue through mass rallies and media outrage to be a little unethical.
Just a couple of weeks or months ago members of the Obama administration and various parties in the media and academia were half-heartedly advocating that there should be “a national conversation on race.” And that was not without reasonable cause, as they were responding to issues that became a matter of death for people whose communities would have liked to see them live. The need here is less urgent, but still significant, as we are dealing with issues that are a matter of people’s livelihoods and their relationship with divine morality. I would like to see there be an actual national conversation on gay marriage–what are the rights and responsibilities of those who believe in it and those who believe against it in a free country that respects the right to privacy and the right to religious freedom. The liberals are not asking for a national conversation. They are asking for a national war on religious faith. That is not acceptable to me.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I am going to go on a fool’s errand and make a prediction:
(1) The promised Indiana “clarification” will provide (in some way) that the RFRA does not trump Indiana’s non-discrimination laws.
Rather than quiet the storm, the “clarification” will intensify the storm because the “clarification” will serve primarily to highlight the absense of non-discrimination laws protecting gays and lesbians .
The state will then head into a prolonged, ugly and bitter battle over adding “sexual orientation” to the state’s public accommodations and other non-discrimination laws.
The battle will keep the issue on the hot burner for several years, and intensify the partisan divide over LGBT rights in Indiana, further cementing the perception that the Republican party is the “anti-gay party”.
(2) The battle will spill over into other states, where similar laws and similar battles over adding non-discrimination protection to gays and lesbians will ensue.
The battles will be sufficiently intense to become fodder in the 2016 Republican primaries, and will effectively destroy the “establishment formula” (“I support traditional marriage. I have a long record to prove it. I believe that marriage is a matter for the states and the people to decide, not unelected judges. However, the Supreme Court has spoken, and homosexuals can marry. I believe that we should respect the rule of law, as well as the religious beliefs of those who, like me, support traditional marriage.“) as a politically viable “compromise”.
I might be right; I might be wrong. If I am right, though, the Republican presidential candidates would be well-served to come up with a new “formula”.
posted by Jorge on
The battles will be sufficiently intense to become fodder in the 2016 Republican primaries, and will effectively destroy the “establishment formula
Yaaaaaaay! Republicans forced to talk about gay ethics again. Maybe this time more of them will talk about it without being asked.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
—1) Indiana has gone from a swing state to a red state, so it’s fair game;
Attack people’s rights is “fair game”? WTF.
–(2) Dems need something to agitate the base so it doesn’t pay attention to Iranian nukes.
I very much doubt that the “base” is opposed to what the Obama Administration was attempting to do with Iran, before a few politicians decided to commit treason and refuse to take and responsibility for what they did.
–trashed email servers,
So, its very important that we get the government to find out what sort of wedding cake someone planned on getting, but its very wrong for the government to otherwise be involved in anything to do with wedding cakes….. (rolls eyes)
—and an overall culture of corruption.
Politics ain’t any more or less corrupt under Republicans versus Democrats versus Greens versus Libertarians.
posted by Doug on
Watching Governor Pence get pummeled on the talk shows this weekend was truly a spectator sport. This morning in his news conference he said they were going to fix the law but that’s going to be difficult since everyone, including Pence, knows that the only purpose of the law is to discriminate against LGBT folks.
I’m with Governor Malloy, “When you see a bigot, you have to call them out on it” Apparently Jeb Bush is a bigot too since he supports Pence signing the legislation. I think Jeb Bush just shot himself in the foot on this one.
This whole episode is just turning off the moderate voters the GOP must have if they want to win national elections. The fact that the Indiana GOP is ‘stunned’ by this reaction shows just how clueless they really are especially after the Arizona/Jan Brewer mess.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Via Chuck Todd…
The Indiana law has produced a split between two major parts of today’s Republican Party — social conservatives and big business. Well, we know which side the GOP candidates are on. They’re with social conservatives.
Jeb Bush: “I think once the facts are established, people aren’t going to see this as discriminatory at all,” he told conservative radio host Hugh Hewitt, per NBC’s Perry Bacon.
Ted Cruz: “Indiana is giving voice to millions of courageous conservatives across this country who are deeply concerned about the ongoing attacks upon our personal liberties. I’m proud to stand with [Indiana Gov. Mike Pence], and I urge Americans to do the same.”
Marco Rubio: “The issue were talking about here is should someone who provides a professional service be punished by the law because they refused to provide that professional service to a ceremony that they believe is in violation of their faith? I think people have a right to live out their religious faith in their own lives,” he said on Fox News, according to NBC’s Emily Gold.
Scott Walker: “As a matter of principle, Gov. Walker believes in broad religious freedom and the right for Americans to exercise their religion and act on their conscience,” per a spokeswoman.
Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY) said he doesn’t buy into the concept of gay rights because they are defined by a gay person’s lifestyle, BuzzFeed reports. Said Paul: “I don’t think I’ve ever used the word gay rights, because I don’t really believe in rights based on your behavior.”
Will there ever be a Sister Souljah moment for the GOP and the religious right? Not anytime soon it appears.
posted by Jorge on
1) Humph! Rubio told the controversy like it is. I am not surprised.
2) When Arizona passed SB 1070, it had the legs cut out from under it when syndicated columnist Linda Chavez wrote a critique saying, “I read the bill, and it explicitly allows discrimination by the government on the basis of race”. I don’t have proof of a causal connection, but the law got revised very shortly afterward. Two things happened: the law was attacked from the right (I don’t just mean that Chavez is fairly conservative, I mean she made a fairly conservative argument), and there was proof that the criticism was based on an accurate reading of the law.
We have people giving very incisive and well-informed critiques of this law. What I do not believe we have are people citing conservative principles to attack it. No, big business concerns do not count, that’s more than negated by the small business narrative that’s driving the backlash.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Stephen, quoting some dork from Instapundit, with approval: “Now, because it would be useless, it is no longer necessary to spend time and effort prospecting for the most devout Christian baker or florist in a hundred miles.”
It is precisely this kind of snarky shinola that makes social conservatives masquerading as “libertarians” sound so foolish and irrelevant.
If you look at the handful of cases that have become a cause celebre among that crowd, you will notice two things:
Facts are hard things, easily ignored in the service of championing Republican politics.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Are you ff-ing kidding me?
The way Stephen describes things, hordes of pitchfork waving LGBT people are roaming about the country looking to stomp on poor Christian florist, bakers and photographers. Nothing can be further from the truth…
Stop regurgitating talking points from the ADF, FRC, NOM, etc.
posted by Lori Heine on
“I gather that your level of confidence is high, or at least high enough that you think that having businesses put customers on notice if they wish to discriminate is ludicrous.”
And you would “gather” that exactly why, Tom? Considering the fact that I have–several times in past commentary threads on this very website–clearly stated that I think there ought to be a clause stating that businesses who’d discriminate should be required to post that?
Other than sloppiness or dishonesty, you’d have no cause to “gather” it. You know better than that. You ARE better than that. Don’t try it with me again.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Considering the fact that I have–several times in past commentary threads on this very website–clearly stated that I think there ought to be a clause stating that businesses who’d discriminate should be required to post that?
Okay. I thought I remembered you saying that in earlier posts. So, since all I did was comment that public were important to an efficient market (probably more so in an urban market than in a rural market), what was all the bitch-slapping (“That’s so crazy wrong it’s difficult to believe you wrote it. … Have you even visited a large city since, say, 1990? … The real world’s a lot more fun than the mental gulag in which you people confine yourselves. You really ought to visit sometime.“) about, anyway?
Other than sloppiness or dishonesty, you’d have no cause to “gather” it. You know better than that. You ARE better than that. Don’t try it with me again.
Don’t worry about it, Lori. I won’t. You can work out your bile on others.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
… public were important to an efficient market …
Should read “… public notices were important to an efficient market”.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
David Brooks: “A movement that stands for tolerance does not want to be on the side of a government that compels a photographer who is an evangelical Christian to shoot a same-sex wedding that he would rather avoid.”
Brooks articulates what I have come to believe is a difference in means/goal between pro-equality advocates on the right and on the left.
Pro-equality advocates on the right tend to articulate our struggle in terms of “tolerance”, with the underlying assumption, often articulated by Stephen on IGF over the years in a variety of ways, that our path to equal treatment under the law is dependent on the straight majority, and in particular the conservative constituency within that straight majority, “tolerating” gays and lesbians. Pro-equality advocates on the left, on the other hand, articulate our struggle in terms of legal equilty, and seem to be much less concerned about straight “tolerance” than the sense of fair play that runs to the core of the American imagination.
We see the difference, I think, in the respective responses to polls that consistently show that signficantly more Americans (60-65% now) support marriage equality than think that homosexuality is “morally acceptable” (still under 50%). Pro-equality conservatives, seem to fret over the difference, chiding gays and lesbians about displaying too much flamboyancy at pride parades and the like, lest we antagonize social conservatives. Pro-equality liberals, on the other hand, seem unconcerned.
We see the difference, I think, in the ways in which the two constituencies have approached their parties. Pro-equality conservatives seem to be seeking “a place at the table”, a sense of respectability within the Republican Party, and have (as yet, anyway) been unwilling to start a brawl, preferring to wait until social conservatives come around a bit. Pro-equality liberals, on the other hand, had no compunctions at all about brawling within the Democratic Party, and have been pushing, shoving and kicking for thirty years.
And we also see the difference, I think, in the way that pro-equality advocates in the two camps respond to the handful of conservative Christian businesses who have run afoul of public accommodations laws. Pro-equality liberals tend to stress “equal means equal”, objecting strongly to the idea that gays and lesbians should be treated any differently than African-Americans, Hispanics, women, and so on when it comes to employment and public accommodations, tend to argue “If you want to be in business, play by the rules by which everyone else plays. Don’t be looking for a special right to discriminate against us, and us alone.” Pro-equality conservatives, on the other hand, seem determined to carve out special zones of discrimination in the name of “religious freedom”, something that the courts have so far been unwilling to do.
I’m not sure that I’m right about this — I’m just beginning to think about it in this way — but I am beginning to suspect that the means/goals of the two LGBT constituencies might be fundamentally different.
Stephen: “And yet that’s exactly what LGBT authoritarians want and envision, and they have no shame about it, either.”
I think that’s probably right. I don’t know why I should be ashamed to insist that gays and lesbians be treated like every other American under the law, without special carve-outs permitting discrimination against gays and lesbians. Equal does mean equal, no more, no less.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Is it too much to ask that Brooks (et al) get the story right about the fine facing this poor woman? She was offered $1000 fine + $1 in court costs — and the max fine for these violations is nowhere near $150K. At the urging of her lawyers at the Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF), she has declined the offer.
If I were her, however, I would be suing the ADF for legal malpractice. They have NEVER won a court case involving public accommodation laws. Not one. Not at the local level, not at the state level and have been rebuffed by the Supreme Court. Why? Because they have no legal argument that stands up to scrutiny.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I’d add that with the fight for the freedom to marry just about won (assuming the Supreme Court does the right thing), activists are in dire need of new targets for their fundraising machines, and turning the tables on religious traditionalists is just the ticket.
Well, maybe you are right about that — the conservative Christian fundraising machine is certainly turning its focus on evil authoritarian homosexual activists working tirelessly to enslave Christians in the cause of depravity — but I don’t think that pro-equality groups will follow the conservative Christians down that path, for two reasons:
(1) gays and lesbians have a lot of unresolved issues to address (non-discrimination in employment, adding “sexual orientation” to public accommodations laws, working to allieviate school bullying, reducing the shamefully high rate of suicide among gay teenagers, and so on) and seem to be turning their attention in those directions; and
(2) if you look closely at what has been happening in Arkansas and Indiana, as well as in other states during the last year, I think that you’ll see that opposition to special discrimination carve outs being put forward under the guise of “religious freedom” is primarily coming from the business community, not gay activists groups. Americans are coming to understand the game that is being played in the name of “religious freedom” — recent legislative efforts in Arkansas, Georgia and Indiana have pulled the curtain off the Wizard of Oz — and opposition to the “religious freedom” scam has gone mainstream.
posted by Jim Michaud on
I find it interesting that municipal level officials are on the same page with this. The mayors of both Indianapolis and Little Rock have spoken out against these laws. Both cities are their state capitals as well as their largest cities by a wide margin. They’re both in the geographic center of their states. My guess is that both locales are havens for GLBT folk from smaller towns. So the mayors deal with diverse populations on a daily basis.
posted by Tom Jefferson 3rd on
You don’t lay the foundation for a civil dialogue when you asert that having some reasonable objections to ‘religious freedom’ laws means you are an ‘authoritarian statist’
Most weddings and funerals that I have a attended had far more then fifty items to plan and generally have a fairly firm time table.
Sometimes you don’t exactly have lot’s of options and sometimes people develop religious objections after they have already been paid.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Sometimes you don’t exactly have lot’s of options and sometimes people develop religious objections after they have already been paid.”
That’s an important point, because when it’s done to people, it’s really only a lame excuse for a theft. I don’t know why more advocates of marriage equality don’t bring it up more often. Though I have no hard data, I have certainly heard of instances where this has happened to same-sex couples in the planning stages of their weddings.
Does “religious freedom” give one a license to defraud, cheat and steal? I haven’t heard very many people even ask that question.
It was implied once, on a commentary thread of this blog, that I am somehow anti-Semitic because I stated that since Christians primarily caused this problem, they need to be faced down by other Christians. But my assertion stands, because it’s the best way that the hollowness and stupidity of the people pushing these laws–and what really motivates them–can be effectively brought to light. It’s the only way to shut up the “we’re-being-persecuted” campaign.
posted by Houndentenor on
Most Christians are not Evangelicals (and not even all Evangelicals are right-wingers) so why then do the rest of American Christians continue to allow Evangelicals talk as if they speak for all Christians? All I hear are excuses.
You are right, it’s going to take the non-fundamentalist Christians (which is most Christians) to stand up on this and so many other issues. I wonder if that will ever happen.
posted by Francis on
There is one blog that has been doing so for about 5 years now. Knowing the bile spewer you are replying to, she’d only try to troll them for not doing things according to her ideology. Probably enlist the aid of her merkin in that regard.
posted by Lori Heine on
Or it’s very possible that the “bile spewer” may have even written for them. Depending on which blog it is to which you are referring.
Not that, never having bothered to read what actual LGBT Christians have to say, you would be in any position to know what you’re actually talking about.
As to my “merkin,” what the hell, Francis, really is your problem? You do sound exactly like a child, and not a particularly bright one at that. This is not middle school. If you are, at 24, still incapable of adult conversation, then go back to mommy and let the adults speak.
Ricport has as much right to express his opinions here as anyone else. Without slander. This is a libertarian-conservative blog, which means that libertarians and conservatives–surprise, surprise!–are actually going to occasionally have the audacity to make a comment.
Get over it. Or go back to your leftist blogs. And by the way, when you comment about other blogs, you might want to make at least some slender effort to know what you’re talking about.
posted by Francis on
Don’t piss in my pocket and tell me it’s raining, Fraulein Heine. The Christian Left are essentially the “Progressive ‘authoritarians'” you’re given to bitching about every other fucking post. They even support Senator Sanders. And I do know what I’m talking about, unlike you, who apparently mistakes an admirer of Andrew Sullivan for a leftist. Try breaking out of your mental concentration camp once in a while. See what the real world REALLY looks like.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Can someone provide a listing of all the cases of Christian businesses closing because of public accommodation laws?
Stephen keeps harping on a single baker, a single photographer and a single florist… other than those three, where is this huge group of aggrieved business owners?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I don’t know about whether the businesses are closing, but as far as I know, the number of businesses that have run afoul of public accommodations laws as a result of a gay/lesbian wedding are:
Arlene’s Flowers (owners Barronelle Stutzman), Washington
Sweet Cakes by Melissa (owners Aaron and Melissa Klein), Oregon
Elane Photography (owners Jonathan and Elaine Huguenin), New Mexico
Liberty Ridge Farms (owners Robert and Cynthia Gifford), New York
Wildflower Inn (owners Jim and Mary O’Reilly), Vermont
Of those, Arlene’s Flowers, Sweet Cakes by Melissa, and Elane Photography have become much cited by conservative Christians and “libertarian” Republicans. The other two (Liberty Ridge Farms and Wildflower Inn) settled out-of-court, and have received little notice.
I’m also aware of a Kentucky t-shirt shop (Hands On Originals, owner Blaine Adamson) that got itself into trouble for refusing to print t-shirts of a LGBT organization, and settled out-of-court.
I imagine that there are other cases, but I haven’t heard about them. All in all, I doubt that there are more than a couple of handful of cases.
The absurd thing about all of this is that none of these cases would have been an issue if public accommodations laws were subject to a general exception for small, family-owned businesses, applying across the board. However, I have yet to find a single Republican politician with the sense to endorse such an obvious solution. instead, the politicians are doing what politicians do best — play to the mob (or in this case, the base).
posted by tom Jefferson 3rd on
1. If the fashion, beauty, and film industries decided to exercise their religious freedom and discriminate against “conservative Christians”, does anyone seriously believe that the excluded demographic would happily allow such freedom to go unchallenged?
2. Having a across the board public accomodation exemption for small time/family owned businesses (non essential services) is worth discussing like mature adults.
3. It interesting how their is no serious talk about a statewide civil rights bill that covers LGBT people as well as protects religious freedom.
posted by JohnInCA on
The reason you don’t hear much serious talk about (2) or (3) is that there just aren’t places where such a compromise can move people anymore. It’s a similar problem to civil unions. The only places they’d still help are places that *won’t* help.
posted by Jorge on
I can’t believe Mr. Miller cited a post in which I went on a big government tirade.
Viewpoints on the right that are still worth considering (oh no, he’s linked to websites WE DON’T Like!!!)
Okay, fine.
From Mr. Brooks’s article: “If the opponents of that law were arguing that the Indiana statute tightens the federal standards a notch too far, that would be compelling. But that’s not the argument the opponents are making…”
Hmm? I think the author is overlooking the fact that both arguments are being made. (Can’t blame him, he wants to effect a change.) The left is not so united on this issue, except for convenience; the left is not policing itself. I think sometimes center-left positions only come into vogue after far-left positions go down in flames.
From Mr. Williamson’s article
“An excellent illustration of this dynamic is on display in the recent pronouncements of columnist and gay-rights activist Dan Savage,”
Oh, no, not him again. I wish Dan Savage would retire to a convent and stay there.
Um, I mean monastery. In the sense that women used to be sent to convents when they were implicated in sordid scandals and people didn’t want to hear from them anymore.
posted by Jorge on
…Considering the fact that I have–several times in past commentary threads on this very website–clearly stated that I think there ought to be a clause stating that businesses who’d discriminate…
You know, theoretically it’s possible to figure out a way to do that without causing a social ruckus. Have some kind of code for it that everyone understands even if they grumble about it. Or even less, something at the level of the practice of people displaying the Confederate Flag for motivations that genuinely ignore race. “We belong to the Order of Traditional Christian Businesses.”
But like the idea of “give them something, just don’t call it marriage,” it may not happen. The idea may only have a limited shelf life before the time to safely adopt it will expire.
Brooks articulates what I have come to believe is a difference in means/goal between pro-equality advocates on the right and on the left…
Mostly apt, Tom.
I’m not sure that I’m right about this — I’m just beginning to think about it in this way — but I am beginning to suspect that the means/goals of the two LGBT constituencies might be fundamentally different.
Even if that is true, do not make too much of the differences between conservative Americans and liberal Americans.
……
Seriously. This country has a set of values that does much to unify people. Each side emphasizes and contributes to some more than others. That does not mean they repudiate the others. Some do, but I believe most don’t.
As I often say, I believe the gay rights movement will ever be progressive one–right now it’s a center-left one. There are good reasons for this and I am very content with it, though I am not a progressive.
I once read about group dynamics that there is always a vocal challenger to the authority or the group; it’s almost necessary to group functioning. If the person currently in that role is removed, another person from the group will assume it. When it comes to the gay rights movement, that some people align with the right or the left does not mean they do not act out of an interest in the broader functioning of the movement. In countries and communities where homosexuality is less accepted, there are still some public hints of this diversity, of different gays (and straight allies) assuming different roles of radical and reactionary in the social power struggle.
Sometimes you don’t exactly have lot’s of options and sometimes people develop religious objections after they have already been paid.
That’s breach of contract, not failure to provide public accommodations.
Stephen keeps harping on a single baker, a single photographer and a single florist… other than those three, where is this huge group of aggrieved business owners?
Hate crime law proponents argue that when a hate crime is committed against one person of a particular community, it has a chilling effect on the conduct and security of the entire community, sending a message that you could be next. I have heard that after one pizzaria owner explained her position, she had to close down her business because of all the threats she received. I reject your question as irrelevant.
The absurd thing about all of this is that none of these cases would have been an issue if public accommodations laws were subject to a general exception for small, family-owned businesses, applying across the board. However, I have yet to find a single Republican politician with the sense to endorse such an obvious solution.
May I ask a puckish question?
Wasn’t that really settled with Hobby Lobby?
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Tom: The absurd thing about all of this is that none of these cases would have been an issue if public accommodations laws were subject to a general exception for small, family-owned businesses, applying across the board. However, I have yet to find a single Republican politician with the sense to endorse such an obvious solution.
Jorge: May I ask a puckish question? Wasn’t that really settled with Hobby Lobby?
In a sense, perhaps, but Hobby Lobby did not address the question of public accommodations laws. The Supreme Court recently refused to grant cert in the Elaine Photography, so at present, I think that the existing court rulings — and there are quite a few — that public accommodations laws don’t substantially burden religious exercise still stand intact.
What bothers me about the current situation is that the religious right and their Republican allies are trying to change the rules of the game.
The federal RFRA was enacted, in response to Smith v. Employment Division and similar court cases, to protect minority religions from government overreach. RFRA was originally thought to apply to the states, but the Supreme Court held that it did not, and a number of states enacted state-level RFRA laws to fill the gap. The state laws, like the federal law, applied to individuals and religiously-affiliated organizations. The Hobby Lobby decision extended federal RFRA protection to closely-held family businesses, a extension, although controversial, make sense. But neither the federal RFRA or the state RFRA’s were intended to apply where exercise of religion harmed third parties, a result confirmed by the many court cases holding that RFRA laws do not override non-discrimination laws.
The current spate of “religious freedom” laws — including, specifically, the laws walked back in Indiana and Arkansas this week — were a transparent attempt to change the rules, in my opinion, motivated by bad intentions not even remotely related to religious freedom. In light of the near-hysterical uproar that ensured among social conservatives as a result of the walk-back, I don’t think that there is any doubt that the intent of the bills was to sanction discrimination against gays and lesbians. The bills went far beyond the original RFRA laws by expanding the reach of the bills so that government action was no longer the focus, and government involvement was no longer required. The bills went beyond Hobby Lobby by extending “religious freedom” to all business entities, not just closely-held family businesses.
I think that there is a place for a “family-owned, small business” exception to public accommodations laws. The 1960’s style civil rights laws contain such exceptions, and many other laws do, too. It is not necessary to drag Jesus — “religious freedom” and all that noise — into the mix in order to get to a workable accommodation that everyone understands and can live with. The current “religious freedom” laws are about making a point, not about protecting religious freedom.
posted by Lori Heine on
Yes, the “religious freedom” brouhaha is an attempt, by the social right, to distract from a genuinely religious debate. Which they don’t want, but are getting, anyway.
What they are doing, now, is really all they can do. They can shout and scream and go into meltdown-mode about “religious freedom” because in an arena of real religious freedom, they cannot compete.
That is the reason for the big (and deceptive) “point” they are now so loudly and busily engaged in making.
posted by Jorge on
Yes, the “religious freedom” brouhaha is an attempt, by the social right, to distract from a genuinely religious debate.
Off-topic, but I read an article on Wikipedia on the topic of “mortal sin” and learned that the Catholic Church’s theological position is much more moderate than the forbidding authoritarianism of certain priests and priest-wannabes. Wikipedia, so take it with a grain of salt.
posted by Lori Heine on
Actually, that’s probably on topic. There’s very fertile ground out there for debate. And it’s going to happen. LGBT people of faith are going to make sure of that.
When you speak to people about your faith, you can have a powerful effect.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
End Game: Capitulation to the mob. Small vendors in Indiana and elsewhere will be driven out of business unless they agree to provide creative services to same-sex weddings. What the authoritarians of the politically correct left won’t tell you is that ever constriction on liberty can come around and smack you in the face. First they came for the conservative Christians …
Speaking of “the near-hysterical uproar …”
By the way, alluding to Dietrich Bonhoeffer (““First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Socialists and the Trade Unionists, but I was neither, so I did not speak out. Then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew so I did not speak out. And when they came for me, there was no one left to speak out for me.”“) is both misplaced and offensive. No holocaust (or Robspierre-like reign of terror, for that matter) is at hand, Tony Perkins and Mike Huckabee’s drum pounding notwithstanding. The “Nazi card” is usually the end of rational discussion, and I think that you’ve reached it.
posted by Mike in Houston on
But apparently reality doesn’t figure into Stephen’s calculus. I dare him and the other homocons to a public debate outside if his protected confines. I’ll set the stage and pay for the hall.
posted by Lori Heine on
Well, Little Frankie, you’re so incoherent that I can’t tell for sure what you’re trying to say. As I’ve been very closely associated with the Christian Left for the better part of two decades, there’s certainly nothing I need to learn about it from a 24-year-old. Especially not one with the mental age of a 24-month-old.
You lack the maturity to exchange ideas online with anyone who fails to march in lockstep with you on absolutely every issue. You’ve certainly demonstrated that. Since you obviously think coming here and mangling the German language is more fun than playing with your dollies and your little blocks, I’m sure we can look forward to more.
posted by Francis on
Bullshit. The bloggers at The Christian Left have done at least one article that described libertarianism as childish. And what you perceive as childishness on my part is merely an impatience with people who know neither what they say nor whereof they give assertion. I could explain to you exactly where your insane rants depart from reality, but that would be like explaining Beethoven to a goldfish.
posted by Lori Heine on
Wow, you really are a nasty little brat. At least one article! Describing libertarianism as childish!
All anyone needs to see, to know what childishness looks like, is one comment of yours.
There’s no telling why you bother to come to this website at all. Unlike most of the commenters here, even those who disagree with the blog’s viewpoint, you are so ill-informed you haven’t a clue what’s going on. You don’t know who’s who, or what’s what. Beethoven or a goldfish? You couldn’t tell one from the other.
Stay in cyberspace, child. Spindly little dorks who can’t get boyfriends and take out their frustrations on other commenters need a hobby, I know. As long as you don’t venture forth into real life, you’ll be safe.
posted by Francis on
I am by no means spindly. And to answer your blindingly idiotic assertion that I am ill-informed, I have actually gone to the trouble of reading some of K. Scott Schafer’s work and I promise you, nothing that has ever come from your keyboard (save the low opinion of the anti-gay crowd) is compatible with the goals of The Christian Left blog. I’d say “A gentleman allows a lady to maintain her fictions”, but I never claimed to be a gentleman (at least not all the time) and you are certainly no lady.
posted by Lori Heine on
A belated parry!
I don’t care, one way or the other.
Okay, you’ve got it. You’re our official spiteful little troll.
The J-Man of IGF! Your M.O. is so similar, you could almost be the same person.
So what’s next? Calling people’s mothers whores? Accusing them of soliciting them? Veiled threats to fly out to Phoenix and beat me up or murder me? I can’t wait.
No, I’m sure you’ve never claimed to be a gentleman. And whether you think I’m a lady is a matter of absolute indifference to me.
Go ahead. Keep demonstrating what you are.