Despite steadily increasing support for same-sex marriage equality, “the percentage of people who agree that wedding service providers should be required to serve same-sex couples has fallen to 38% from 52% in 2013,” a 14-point drop in two years, according to the 2015 State of the First Amendment study by the Newseum and USA Today.
Correspondingly, “Americans’ support for the First Amendment rebounded strongly over the past year,” specifically, three-quarters of Americans say the First Amendment, protecting freedom of speech, of the press, and of religion “does not go too far,” a jump from 57% last year.
This rise in support for expressive and religious liberty is occurring as LGBT activists gear up to switch from fighting for marriage equality to fighting to deny the right of religious dissent. This trend is exemplified by Evan Wolfson, founder and president of Freedom to Marry, who has come out strongly against religious exemptions for businesses in the proposed federal Employee Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA), a position he seems to be doubling down on after the marriage victory.
Even those with whom we strongly disagree about gay rights and equality have fundamental rights as Americans that must be protected, or else we will all suffer from the results when the state, backed by progressive activists, declares their freedoms denied.
More. In response to those who defend using the state to destroy small businesses that don’t toe the correct line, commenter Craig123 quotes Marx (facetiously, I think), who warned progressives that “The petite bourgeoisie is the most reactionary of classes” and thus must be pulled up by its roots. Given that other commenters have in prior posts charged this blog with “homocon idiocy” while themselves spouting the anti-capitalist anarcho-syndicalist ideas of Noam Chomsky (replacing corrupt private ownership with workers councils and all that), you get a sense of what some of them, in their fervid dreams, are really after—if only those outmoded individual rights can be put asunder.
Furthermore. Why I Support ‘No Gays Allowed’ (via the Huffington Post, and penned by C.J. Prince, executive director of North Jersey Pride, in case you thought it was by some self-loathing “homocon”). She writes that “As a strong supporter of freedom of speech and freedom of religion”:
I do not want to order a wedding cake from a bakery owned by a guy who thinks I’m going to hell. I have no desire to purchase bouquets from a florist who pickets Pride parades. …
If you don’t support my freedom to marry, have the guts to come out about it. Exercise your constitutional right to free speech, and I’ll support that. Then I’ll exercise my capitalist right to shop from your competitor—and to proudly put my money where my allies are.
48 Comments for “Support for Liberty Grows”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Again, without lengthy explanation because I’ve explained myself in depth over the last year or two, the focus on the fundamental rights of Americans who object to “gay rights and equality” in the context of same-sex marriage, while ignoring entirely the rights of Americans who object to other forms of objectionable marriage (inter-racial, inter-religious, inter-denominational, remarriage after divorce, and so on) , is a focus on permitting government sanction of special discrimination against gays and lesbians, and gays and lesbians alone, under the rubric of protecting “religious freedom”.
Perhaps that is acceptable to Stephen and his fellow “libertarians” oft cited, who never discuss the other cases. It is not acceptable to me for government to enact laws sanctioning targeted discrimination. Doing so is the antithesis of equal treatment under the law. And doing so under the rubric of protecting “religious freedom” is a mockery of the long, hard and continuing struggle to protect religious freedom that has been waged, and continues to be waged, in our county.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
You said: (via the Huffington Post, and penned by C.J. Prince, executive director of North Jersey Pride, in case you thought it was by some self-loathing “homocon”).
I am not sure how this proves or disapproves whether or not she is “self-loathing” or a “homocon”. I am frankly shocked that you seem to think that ti does or that the two terms have to go together.
—She writes that “As a strong supporter of freedom of speech and freedom of religion”:
Again, this statement also does not really address whether or not she is self-loathing or a homcon.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Stephen —
You take one small item out of a much larger (single) poll and conflate it into yet another missive about “expressive” and “religious liberty”.
You conveniently left out this paragraph:
(emphasis mine).
But nevermind how you continually harp on ADF talking points about marriage equality as an assault on “religious liberty” or that you keep focusing on an apparent wave of bakers, photographers & florists being persecuted (5 cases in total over the last 5 years — what an epidemic)… let me ask you directly, based on an actual same-sex wedding, where it’s acceptable to refuse service.
My brother just married his partner in Santa Fe, NM. Here are some of the many activities that were part of the wedding, please let me know where individuals or businesses (in a city & state with non-discrimination public accommodation laws that include sexual orientation) had the “religious liberty right” to refuse service.
1. Hotel rooms for wedding guests
2. Grooms’ Reception for the travelers at the hotel bar (with lite bites)
3. Rehearsal dinner at a nearby restaurant — with transportation provided
4. Wedding day breakfast buffet
5. Wedding ceremony (hotel chapel)
6. Flower arrangements — 5 vases with sunflowers & local wildflowers; boutonnieres for male wedding guests & posies for female guests
7. Reception in hotel – catering (food & drinks)
8. Wedding cake – sheet cake decorated with domino pattern (inside joke) & “Congratulations to Doug & Chris”
9. Photographer
10. Minister (wedding officiant) from the local Unitarian church*
*As of now, the ONLY person guaranteed the right of refusal on weddings due to church doctrine or personal beliefs.
And FYI, the floral arrangements were donated and graciously accepted by the Sisters who run the Lorretto Chapel for their Sunday services.
As a legally married couple, they will be doing the following mundane things as well:
Purchasing a house
Celebrating their anniversary
Adding one to the other’s employer-provided insurance
Making medical decisions
And generally interacting with the larger community and economy.
Now, according to your line of thought, Stephen, they must (unlike straight counterparts) traverse each economic transaction with uncertainty — never knowing whether or not they can freely participate as buyers of goods & services because of “religious liberty”?
I just have an economics degree, but the inefficiencies that would be introduced by these blanket “religious liberty” “protections” seem to be not only contrary to American ideals but also libertarian principles.
What about not having my pocket picked by those asserting their “religious liberty” ? My time is valuable and I shouldn’t have to waste it on businesses that are ostensibly open to the public that in reality aren’t.
posted by Mike in Houston on
And crickets again… Not even an anti-Semitic Chomsky dog whistle from craig123.
Why don’t we get answers (further further mores)?
posted by Jimmy on
“This rise in support for expressive and religious liberty is occurring as LGBT activists gear up to switch from fighting for marriage equality to fighting to deny the right of religious dissent.”
As if there aren’t “activists” working for the right to special carve outs for discrimination.
For Christian bakers, florists, etc. who want to turn away the wedding business of gay people, I wonder if they have been turning away the previously wed straight people all this time.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
For Christian bakers, florists, etc. who want to turn away the wedding business of gay people, I wonder if they have been turning away the previously wed straight people all this time.
As far as I know, no Christian business owner has raised the issue, and neither Stephen nor the “libertarians” he frequently quotes have expressed any concern about protecting the “religious freedom” of business owners who might have religious scruples about it.
I think that the modern Christo-“libertarian” rule of thumb is, “If it ain’t gay, it don’t matter.”
posted by Houndentenor on
I also don’t remember any stories of county clerks refusing to file divorce papers because it violated their religious beliefs. This newly discovered religious “right” seems to only apply to discrimination against gay and trans people. Oh and paying for drugs which might vaguely be related to abortion.
posted by Lori Heine on
In their frantic rush to further the notion that all conservatives are united into one big, happy family, homocons take at face value that social cons really desire “religious freedom.”
At first I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt about this, but time and again the social right has demonstrated that this is not what they’re doing.
An insight from a person of faith who is gay, and who sees this conflict from the inside, is not totally irrelevant to grasping what’s really going on. LGBT people are gaining increasing acceptance in the churches themselves. My own denomination–the Episcopal Church–is an indication of the direction things are going.
Social cons hanker for a time when ALL churches condemned gays. They see that slipping away in reality. They want to hold onto it. Enacting “religious freedom” laws that place their own “liberty” in the driver’s seat is how they are attempting to counter that trend.
The “good old days” when all churches condemned gays, and no gays could be taken seriously as people of faith, has passed them by. They long for their return. It isn’t going to happen, but in the meantime, this crusade is the epicenter of their tantrum.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Social cons hanker for a time when ALL churches condemned gays. They see that slipping away in reality. They want to hold onto it. Enacting “religious freedom” laws that place their own “liberty” in the driver’s seat is how they are attempting to counter that trend.
The “good old days” when all churches condemned gays, and no gays could be taken seriously as people of faith, has passed them by. They long for their return. It isn’t going to happen, but in the meantime, this crusade is the epicenter of their tantrum.
Although I’m an outsider to the Christian faith, I agree with your analysis — the evidence is clear and convincing.
What puzzles me is why self-identified “libertarians” — Stephen, Boaz, and the others that Stephen quotes endlessly — fall for the conservative Christian ruse about “religious freedom”, particularly when sponsoring “religious freedom” as advocated by conservative Christians puts them at odds with equal treatment under the law, a mainstream principle of modern libertarian thought, both left-libertarian and right-libertarian.
Wouldn’t it be more intellectually honest — and true to libertarian principles — to come out in support of repealing non-discrimination laws (housing, public accommodations, employment) rather than pushing for de-facto repeal of such laws as the laws apply to gays and lesbians, but no others?
I don’t understand it. Is it just a continuation of the “political marriage” between right-leaning “libertarians” and social conservatives that has long fueled the Republican coalition, or am I missing something basic?
posted by Lori Heine on
A conflict is arising between the libertarian right and left over priorities. Left libertarians are generally people more aligned with the political left, so they’re more concerned with matters like equal protection under the law and less with yanking the rug out from under those marginalized by the majority. Right libertarians are busy cuddling up to conservatives, because they hope they’re going to win them over to more libertarian views. They see the Obama years as their big chance to accomplish this.
It took me a while to get my bearings in the libertarian movement and figure out exactly what is going on. For a while, I believed that conservatives could be won over. I have since come to realize that while some may, most won’t.
The SCOTUS ruling on SSM, and the social right’s big backlash, have been an eye-opener for me. I hear people I thought had better sense beating their breasts about those terrible gays who are attacking religious freedom. Whether the people saying this all believe what they’re saying, or whether they just think it’s necessary to agree with the conservatives they’re wooing, I don’t know.
It is apparent to me that an over-eagerness to win converts might result not in a gain for libertarianism, but in its corruption. A lot of more left-leaning libertarians recognize this, and it accounts, I think, for the growing rift between the libertarian left and right.
Can libertarianism remain a distinct, third point on the triangle? It will be interesting to see. The American political picture may end up in four quadrants instead.
posted by craig123 on
Yes, Lori, and the petite bourgeoisi is the most reactionary of classes (please quote us some more Noam Chomsky on this).
posted by Lori Heine on
Craig, if you don’t enjoy exchanging ideas with people who disagree with you, Gay Patriot would probably be more to your liking. You could hunker over there with them and tell each other, “We’re the good gays! We love ‘MURICA!” and not be bothered with all those evil people who disagree with you about even the least little thing.
Then you can call people’s deceased mothers whores and make sure everybody knows where they are so they can come and pay them a personal visit if they fail to conform.
Maybe eventually you’ll prove to yourself whatever the hell it is you’re trying so hard to prove. Nobody else probably gives a damn, but I suppose it’s cheaper than a therapist.
posted by Dale in the Desert on
So support for “wedding service providers” who object to same sex weddings is growing, eh? How about this situation? Whom do you support? The priest of my (Episcopal) church has announced that the church will marry all, with no distinction between straight and gay couples. However, the very talented church organist refuses to play for same sex weddings because of his personal religious beliefs (not Episcopalian). He was hired with that stipulation understood a year ago, when same sex marriages were not an option in this state. So when my religious freedom (to have the same form of religious wedding as straight couples) comes into direct conflict with the organist’s religious freedom, in a church that supports my right to marry, whose religious liberty prevails? Are his religious convictions better than my religious convictions? The first amendment has never allowed totally unfettered freedom of speech. One has the liberty to subscribe to whatever religious beliefs one chooses, but one does not have unfettered liberty in the public expression of those beliefs. The Constitution prohibits government from establishing, or favoring, any particular religion. To my lay mind, that does not allow your religion to trump my religion, nor does it allow your religion to trump my secular rights, when they come into conflict with each other.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Therein lies the rub that Stephen refuses to acknowledge… The proponents of these “license to discriminate” so-called “religious liberty” legislation & executive orders have had their anti-LGBT and other religious beliefs laid bare.
Stephen quotes breathlessly from Hot Air, the Alliance Defending Freedom, Tony Perkins, etc. – but won’t finish the sentence. Namely that any Christian sect that doesn’t tow the anti-slavery, oops, anti-gay line isn’t truly ‘Christian’ and therefore undeserving of ‘liberty’.
posted by Jorge on
So when my religious freedom (to have the same form of religious wedding as straight couples) comes into direct conflict with the organist’s religious freedom, in a church that supports my right to marry, whose religious liberty prevails?
That’s an easy one. Your church does whatever the hell it wants under the ministerial exception.
Hmm, probably not for an organist, eh?
Then the church is probably bound by the contract it made with its employee. Hire a temp.
posted by Mark F. on
“Wouldn’t it be more intellectually honest — and true to libertarian principles — to come out in support of repealing non-discrimination laws (housing, public accommodations, employment) rather than pushing for de-facto repeal of such laws as the laws apply to gays and lesbians, but no others? ”
Indeed, that is the correct libertarian position.
posted by Lori Heine on
But is that likely to happen soon? Again–priorities.
Libertarians believe that society should function very differently than it does. Nobody but a lunatic thinks that that will happen within even our great-great-grandchildrens’ lifetimes.
An example, on a different subject, of the differences between libertarian left and right. Those on the right would start by cutting food stamps, welfare, social security, etc. Those on the left would begin by slashing the defense budget, bringing the troops home and ending corporate welfare. Neither could be accomplished by next week. But if a libertarian agenda began to be enacted, there would be very different possibilities as to what its priorities would be.
If I were the Libertarian Empress of America, I would not be worried about non-discrimination laws. My concern would be with the wastefulness of our military budget, and tax-funded giveaways and special favors to big business. Left-libertarians would throw me parades. Libertarians who lean to the right would want my head on a pike.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Tom: “Wouldn’t it be more intellectually honest — and true to libertarian principles — to come out in support of repealing non-discrimination laws (housing, public accommodations, employment) rather than pushing for de-facto repeal of such laws as the laws apply to gays and lesbians, but no others? ”
Mark F: Indeed, that is the correct libertarian position.
I think so, too, and I think that the country could have am reasoned discussion about the issue.
The problem is that a reasoned discussion about the wisdom of non-discrimination laws may be what libertarians want, but it is not what social conservatives want. Social conservatives want the discussion to focus solely on how gays and lesbians are determined to destroy Christianity and crush Christians underfoot like bugs, and destructive to God and Country.
Hence the hysteria about “bakers, florists and photographers” being forced into a form of slave labor at the behest of gays and lesbians, the hysteria about churches being closed, pastors being jailed and so on. The rhetoric is as heated as it is for a reason — the point of the exercise is not to advance religious freedom, but to amp up fear and loathing about gays and lesbians and to marginalize gays and lesbians in our culture, yet again.
The “libertarians” who align with social conservatives in this quest are embarked on a fool’s errand.
posted by Dale of the Desert on
Oh by the way, Stephen, those occupations you want to shelter from anti-discrimination standards are not “wedding service providers.”. They are people who bake cakes or take photographs or video or cater food or play music, all for LGBT people in the same way they do for anyone else.
posted by Zendo Deb on
The religious exemption clause is going to open a can of worms. I’m not saying it shouldn’t be opened, just that you should be aware…
Some folks are probably going to go back to the “no Jews allowed” signs of the 40s and 50s. You can probably add “no Muslims” signs to that as well. And then the folks with religious objections to mixed race marriages… or what have you.
We had that discussion in the 60s. And one side won the debate, and by-and-large people are happy with the outcome (per-gay-marriage, at any rate). So if you want to open up that discussion again, that’s fine. Just be aware that is what you are doing. Or were you thinking that the only religious exemption would be around gay-marriage?
posted by Houndentenor on
Yes, the discussion around “religious freedom” is really intended only to allow certain kinds of Christian(ist)s to discriminate against one particular minority. Of course they can’t word a law in that way because it would never hold up in court (animus and all that). So they are wording these laws more broadly. I’m waiting for the Catholic court clerk to refuse to file someone Newt Gingrich or Rush Limbaugh or Donald Trump’s next divorce papers. If any of us can refuse to obey any law based on religion, that opens up a huge can of worms that I don’t think the people advocating for these laws have (surprise, surprise) not thought through.
Yes, $135,000 penalty is ridiculous (although I suspect they’ll raise far more than that from the bigots). There should be some reasonable compromise, but this isn’t about a compromise. This is the issue the religious right has chosen to bash gay people with. I’d be happy to work something out that would be fair to everyone but I don’t know a single opponent of marriage equality who has any intention of anything being fair for gay people so what would be the point in such a conversation?
posted by Jorge on
but I don’t know a single opponent of marriage equality who has any intention of anything being fair for gay people so what would be the point in such a conversation?
Did you miss most of the Republicans running for president?
posted by Lori Heine on
On what planet, Jorge, are they running? Surely you can’t be talking about the ones here on earth.
posted by Jorge on
You’re a little nearsighted, Lori. Maybe you should come down from your perch on Mars.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
In response to those who defend using the state to destroy small businesses that don’t toe the correct line …
The “small business” issue can be easily and sensibly resolved by exempting businesses under a certain size from non-discrimination laws. The small business exemption deployed since the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and is used in many federal/state non-discrimination laws.
While I understand why conservative Christians do not support small business exemptions (a small business exemption wouldn’t make the point that they are so determined to make), I do not understand why right-leaning “libertarians” will not even discuss the issue of a small business exemption as an alternative to a “religious freedom” laws that put the government in the role of holding up some religious beliefs as worthy of protection and others as not.
Does it really make sense to tell a devout Catholic that the government deems his/her belief that marriage is “between one man and one woman” (hence a refusal to bake a cake for a gay wedding) worthy of government protection, but that his/her belief that marriage is “for life” (hence a refusal to bake a cake for a wedding of a divorced man or woman) is not?
The “libertarians” who are pushing the “religious freedom” exemptions targeted specifically at same-sex weddings seem to think so.
But I don’t understand it. What libertarian principle leads to that result? What libertarian principle supports setting up the government as the proper artibrar of the value of religious belief?
posted by Jorge on
I’m not a big fan of saber-rattling while waiting to make the next move, and this post gives that sense.
The one below it, however…
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Furthermore. Why I Support ‘No Gays Allowed’ (via the Huffington Post, and penned by C.J. Prince, executive director of North Jersey Pride, in case you thought it was by some self-loathing “homocon”). She writes that “As a strong supporter of freedom of speech and freedom of religion”:
I think that you are missing the point of the article, Stephen.
The author is objecting to the change in signage from “No Gays Allowed” to “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone who would violate our rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion.“, saying:
The author is not talking about whether public accommodations laws should exist or be enforced. She is talking about obfuscation and sleight of hand, meaning/doing one thing but calling it something else to make it more palatable.
As the author points out, “No gays allowed.” is clear, as plain as a goat’s ass. Anyone reading the sign knows what it means. “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone who would violate our rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion.” is obfuscation. It could refer to anyone or anything.
The so-called push for “religious freedom” laws is also sleight of hand. The laws provide government sanction for discrimination against gays and lesbians, and gays and lesbians alone (“No gays allowed.“) but mask it under the rubric of protecting religion from the godless gay hoard (“We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone who would violate our rights of freedom of speech and freedom of religion.“).
So, Stephen, since you cited Ms. Prince’s article with approval, why don’t you follow her advice, and get honest? If you oppose public accommodations laws, say so. Don’t hide under the rubric of “religious freedom”. If you support public accommodations laws but oppose including sexual orientation as a protected class, say so. Don’t hide under the rubric of “religious freedom”. If you don’t care one way or the other about public accommodations laws, but do care about appeasing the conservative Christian tail that wags the Republican dog in order to position the party for 2016, then say that. Don’t hide under the rubric of “religious freedom”.
You’ve been all over the map in this discussion, which has now gone on for about a year and a half. Sometimes you are protecting “expressive freedom”. Sometimes you are protecting “religious freedom”. Sometimes you are talking about the right of businesses to do whatever they want, unfettered by government regulation. Sometimes you are talking about “small businesses”, sometimes about all businesses. Sometimes you are talking about government-enforced slavery. Sometimes you are just talking.
Why not do what many of us have done — think about the issues and decide where you stand. And when you’ve done that, say what you mean, whatever that is, and stand up for what you believe, whatever that is, instead of hiding your light under the bushel, so to speak.
And, speaking of obfuscation and sleight of hand, you (no doubt unintentionally) quoted Ms. Prince’s “As a strong supporter of freedom of speech and freedom of religion …” out of context, in a way that suggests that she sides with the “libertarians” engaging in the “religious freedom” ruse.
That’s not the case. Ms. Prince made the statement in a context, the context of objecting to the revised sign’s obfuscation and sleight of hand, as follows:
I agree with Ms. Prince, for the most part. I believe in plain talk and plain meaning, core Midwestern values.
The “religious freedom” rubric being deployed by conservative Christians (supported by their “libertarian” allies in the Republican Party) is a sham and a fraud, every bit as much a sham and a fraud as the supposedly religion-neutral “public policy” arguments that were made by conservative Christians in support of keeping gays and lesbians from serving in the military and marrying.
It took a while, but the American public saw through that sham, that fraud. It won’t take too long for the American public to see through this one, too.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
I’m curious as to whether Stephen would be upset that a business in Oregon was fined by the Bureau of Labor and Industries (the same agency that fined the Oregon cake-bakers) for discrimination against an employee – who was a Christian. The fine was for religious discrimination and harassment.
The Christian employee was awarded $325,000 by BOLI. (About 2 1/2 times as much as the lesbian couple was awarded from the cake-bakers.)
And, yes, I understand that this particular religious discrimination case is a matter of employment. If you favor allowing businesses to discriminate against customers, wouldn’t you favor allowing businesses to discriminate against employees, as well?
http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/7_2_15%20BOLI%20rules%20on%20Sweet%20Cakes%20discrimination%20case.pdf
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
From the Oregon agency’s Final Order re: the cake bakers:
“This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage. It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.
Within Oregon’s public accommodations law is the basic principle of human decency that every person, regardless of their sexual orientation, has the freedom to fully participate in society. The ability to enter public places, to shop, to dine, to move about unfettered by bigotry.”
posted by Jorge on
Your example more immediately suggests that gays trump Christians in politically correct America.
Or perhaps, an employee can be a persecuted class, but a business cannot, especially if they’re being persecuted by the government.
You know, and I realize I’m going off topic here, it’s funny. Whenever the government is doing something harmful to gays or blacks, it’s because of bigots who are pulling things behind the strings. Whenever it’s doing something harmful to Christians, it’s the bigots who need to “obey the law.” The double standard may be invisible, but it stinks like skunk.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
“Your example more immediately suggests that gays trump Christians in politically correct America.” – Jorge.
How does the same agency (BOLI) fining a business $325,000 for discrimination against a Christian employee – while then fining another business $135,000 for discrimination against a same sex couple – “more immediately suggests that gays trump Christians”?
Do you not understand, Jorge, that the Oregon non-discrim laws include religion, race, gender, etc…, AND sexual orientation.
No one was “trumped” here. The state found 2 separate businesses discriminating against protected classes of people. And both businesses were fined. The Christian actually received an award that was 2 1/2 times greater than the same sex couple.
How you can read the link, or simply my short post, and come away with an idea that “gays trump Christians” reveals more about you than it does about “politically correct America.”
posted by Jorge on
How does the same agency (BOLI) fining a business $325,000 for discrimination against a Christian employee – while then fining another business $135,000 for discrimination against a same sex couple – “more immediately suggests that gays trump Christians”?
The relative dollar amounts mean much to you. To me they’re both rather ginormous.
So assuming for the sake of your question that the dollar amounts are both rather ginormous, I would draw your attention to the conflict. Both people labeled as Christians and people labeled as gays can prevail in adversarial situations, but when its gays vs. Christians I predict you will not find an adversarial situation under this agency in which someone labeled as Christian prevails.
How you can read the link, or simply my short post, and come away with an idea that “gays trump Christians” reveals more about you than it does about “politically correct America.”
This is correct. I have a lot of confidence in my ability to identify trends and patterns before they’re proven.
I don’t mind telling you I’m making a lot of assumptions about the politically correct environment of this country and that I don’t particularly trust the objectivity of people appointed to anti-discrimination boards. But I’m not closed-minded about this. I’ll change my suspicion when I see “Christian” prevail against “gay”. Even if it’s only in a small minority of such cases (let’s say two more on your terms), that would show there’s some basic fairness. The amount of time it takes for those cases to appear, and what they’re about, will be very revealing.
posted by Jorge on
So, Stephen, since you cited Ms. Prince’s article with approval, why don’t you follow her advice, and get honest? If you oppose public accommodations laws, say so. Don’t hide under the rubric of “religious freedom”. If you support public accommodations laws but oppose including sexual orientation as a protected class, say so.
Now, now, Tom, those libertarians can’t all be masters of disaster like Ron Paul.
Especially once they figure out they can take his positions, without his politics-forged happy dancing, er, I mean intellectualism, with impunity. Like Hillary Clinton on gay marriage, Ron Paul actually opposed of public accommodations laws when he was in politics, but somehow was able to avoid sounding anti-black.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Stephen is nothing if not consistent in carefully culling quotes to suit his purpose.
Glad others have put up additional information on the Oregon case… in particular that the damages (not fines or penalties) were in keeping with other similar judgements (e.g., a Christian employee $325,000 in damages for physical, mental and emotion suffering due to religious discrimination and harassment.)
Also not mentioned by Stephen, Breitbart, Hot Air and his sock-puppet Craig123, no “gag order” was put in place that prohibits the Kleins from publicizing or talking about their case; however, the Kleins have been ordered to cease proclaiming or offering any public suggestion that they intended to refuse service to same-sex couples in the future.
The 60 page ruling described incidents wherein the Kleins’ promotion of their plight resulted in negative attention and threats to the Bowman-Cryers, including Klein’s publication of court documents to Facebook that included the couple’s home address. (So much for the meme about gay villagers with pitchforks — crickets on the attempts to intimidate the injured party here.)
Repeating the link that Aubrey provided: http://www.oregon.gov/boli/SiteAssets/pages/press/Sweet%20Cakes%20FO.pdf
posted by Josh on
Really, I don’t see that Stephen’s excerpts from Ms. Prince’s article is in any way dishonest. Ms. Prince does describe herself as a strong support of the freedom of speech and religion, and then later in her piece does say she supports the right to advertise you won’t serve gay customers, as well as her own right to take her business elsewhere. It’s pretty clear she is saying this is preferable to suing or government action.
To proclaim that the fact that statements were in separate parts of the article, as if you’ve discovered a big conspiracy to mangle Ms. Prince’s meaning, is rather a stretch.
The prior post has included an addendum that makes the very point about the cease and desist order being about advertising, not about discussing the case, and I don’t see how anything in this post claims otherwise. Ms. Prince is clearly not in favor of these kinds of orders (yes, you see, she is a strong supporter of the freedoms of speech and religion, even though she says that earlier in the piece — are you still with me?)
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Ms. Price does not mention, or suggest in any way, that she does not support public accommodations laws. Ms. Price does not mention, or suggest in any way, that she supports the so-called “religious freedom” exemptions to public accommodations laws. Indeed, it would be surprising if she did so, since (1) the state in which she lives and works, New Jersey, includes both sexual orientation and gender identity in non-discrimination laws covering employment, housing, public accommodations and credit/lending, and (2) the organization which she heads, North Jersey Pride, supports New Jersey non-discrimination laws.
Although she makes a point of supporting the right to free speech, the blunter the better, Ms. Price does not suggest at any point that she supports discrimination in fair business practice. The only thing that Ms. Price discusses in the article is honesty — “If you don’t support my freedom to marry, have the guts to come out about it.” — instead of hiding behind a smokescreen of “religious freedom” rubric.
I suppose that we can all read into (or not, as the case may be) what we want to concerning Stephen’s use of the article in the context of this post. My view — and I think that I’m right — is that Ms. Price’s article — unlike Stephen’s post — does not indicate or suggest support for a “religious freedom” exemption to public accommodations laws. My guess is that Stephen didn’t read Ms. Price’s article with enough care to understand that, and that, in running with the “headline” out of context, Stephen misrepresented her position.
posted by Jorge on
The 60 page ruling described incidents wherein the Kleins’ promotion of their plight resulted in negative attention and threats to the Bowman-Cryers, including Klein’s publication of court documents to Facebook that included the couple’s home address. (So much for the meme about gay villagers with pitchforks — crickets on the attempts to intimidate the injured party here.)
My side lost the battle to keep donor information of SSM law opponents private. The price of my acquiescence was an understanding the same rules would apply to everybody, and that nothing but the spilled blood of the political marketplace would serve to police behavior.
How could the complaintents know that their behavior was so deplorable–or alternately, that they were such a vulnerable victimized party–that they should have kept their names and address confidential in their filings? Too bad. My side has already fought that battle and lost. To the victors belong the spoils.
This is turnabout, and it’s fair play. The First Amendment protects the right for people to discuss forthrightly their grievances on matters of public concern and to express themselves in action in accordance with their views.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Let me try and use small enough words for you to understand.
Petitions are open public records showing how a portion of the eligible populace want to legislate. The courts (including the Supremes) have repeatedly ruled that this type of engagement is open to the public.
No one is arguing that the court proceedings in this case should be shielded – the complaining couple & commission noted that the Kleins used the open proceedings to make the complaining couple vulnerable to threats and potential loss of custody by posting their names, addresses & home phone #’s… and because they weren’t “legal”, this was a real threat.
Also good to note that you don’t think that LGBT couples aren’t entitled to equal rights… at least until you take your meds and post another hot mess non-sequitir.
posted by Jorge on
Let me use a post small enough for you to understand. If you don’t like it when I call you out for your snark, don’t engage in it in the first place.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
—1. Hotel rooms for wedding guests
I think that it would probably depend on the size of the hotel (how many rooms)
2. Grooms’ Reception for the travelers at the hotel bar (with lite bites)
I would think that if the hotel itself has the minimum of rooms, then the hotel bar would have to likewise follow the non-discrimination policy.
3. Rehearsal dinner at a nearby restaurant — with transportation provided
— How many employees at the restaurant?
4. Wedding day breakfast buffet
— Unclear where this breakfast buffet is taking place (hopefully, the guests did not have this problem, because people can get REALLY cranky at a wedding ceremony when they not regularly fed and given drink)
If it was part of the hotel, then it would go back to how big the hotel is. If it was part of the eatery, then it would go back to how many employees it had.
5. Wedding ceremony (hotel chapel)
— If part of the hotel, then it would go back to how big the hotel is.
6. Flower arrangements — 5 vases with sunflowers & local wildflowers; boutonnieres for male wedding guests & posies for female guests
— If it was a store separate from the hotel, then it would probably involve how many employees does the flower shop have.
7. Reception in hotel – catering (food & drinks)
–So, a part of the hotel….
8. Wedding cake – sheet cake decorated with domino pattern (inside joke) & “Congratulations to Doug & Chris”
Again, was the baker a part of the hotel or a separate business?
9. Photographer
Again, was the photography a part of the hotel or a separate business?
10. Minister (wedding officiant) from the local Unitarian church*
As you noted, the minister would be able to “opt out” — depending on the faith or the denomination they may be required to opt out or opt in in accordance with their boss.
Since the Unitarian-Univeralist creed includes a non-discrimination policy, if the minister refused, he or she may get into trouble with whomever makes UU ethical or moral policy decisions. If a Catholic priest agreed to officiate, the Catholic Church could ‘defrock’ him or something similar.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
This sort of reminds me of campaign finance cases. People who celebrate the idea that a corporation is a person and entitled to support a candidate or cause (with almost no rules or oversight) will talk about it as a freedom issue.
Often these same people will sing a different tune when the election law issue is voting rights or the rights of minor political parties. Suddenly, all that flowery talk of freedom evaporates when talking about actual people.
posted by Lori Heine on
“How does the same agency (BOLI) fining a business $325,000 for discrimination against a Christian employee – while then fining another business $135,000 for discrimination against a same sex couple – ‘more immediately suggests that gays trump Christians’?”
Ah, FACTS! Jorge doesn’t seem to do well with those. Neither does IGF, when those facts don’t fit the homocon narrative.
And what about the harassment to which the sainted Kleins have subjected the couple against whom they discriminated?
Principles are principles, and I believe that they matter. But facts matter, too.
posted by Lori Heine on
Speaking of principles, I think I’ve figured out why so many homocons are getting so caught up on this issue.
In a democracy, where large numbers of people must be convinced (or fooled) to be influenced, principles are often shanghaied to serve nefarious purposes. Even Hitler did this. Manipulators don’t merely reel off one whopper after another–they interweave them with recognizably good principles. This makes lies more palatable, or for those who choose not to detect them, harder to pick out of the mix.
Religious freedom is an inarguably fine principle. And conservatives will never win another election, or get any sort of nationwide legislation passed, without broad libertarian support. Thus have they hit upon the strategy of interweaving their lies with a trumpeted crusade for “religious freedom.” That is what is happening here.
In the libertarian media, there are still plenty of people who totally see this as a “liberty” issue. But an increasing number are also beginning to see through the ruse. I still support liberty–religious and otherwise–as much as ever. But as the facts come to light about the cases in question, they are revealed as having darker components.
I can’t blame the commenters here for being suspicious when people who mere weeks ago were willing to use government to crush our freedom now suddenly portray themselves as shining beacons of it.
posted by Lori Heine on
Just noticed the new snipe here:
“Given that other commenters have in prior posts charged this blog with ‘homocon idiocy’ while themselves spouting the anti-capitalist anarcho-syndicalist ideas of Noam Chomsky (replacing corrupt private ownership with workers councils and all that), you get a sense of what some of them, in their fervid dreams, are really after—if only those outmoded individual rights can be put asunder.”
I have indeed pointed out that Noam Chomsky has some valid ideas. I have also criticized some of his ideas. I challenge the blogger to find anywhere where–on this blog or elsewhere–I ever advocated “replacing private ownership with workers’ councils.”
Go ahead, I’ll wait. I will be waiting a long time.
I do, indeed, think that it is homocon idiocy to fall for every ruse the social right uses. They are hijacking and abusing a valid concept–religious liberty. That does the genuine article no favors whatsoever.
Tom S. has articulated very well how religious liberty that passes the smell-test would be defined. I’ve seen no attempt made to even deal with what he’s said.
This “issue” started to smell bad some time ago. By now, it stinks to high heaven. Abusing the concept of liberty–twisting it like a pretzel to serve one particular subgroup, rather than using it as a basis for the liberty of all–will end up making anyone who invokes the very concept suspect.
That’s a dangerous game to play. If IGF is at all serious about being a libertarian blog, it may want to reconsider being suckered into it.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
Noam Chomsky is part of the Libertarian Left, which is distinct (in many ways) from the Libertarian Right.
The Libertarian Right has FAR more resources, and often attempts to assert that it is the only version of libertarianism that exists. Think the Libertarian Party, Cato Institute, Advocates For Self Government, International Society For Individual Liberty, etc.
Ayn Rand created her own philosophy called, Objectivism. Politically, the application of the Objectivist philosophy would (with few exceptions) mirror the political policy goals of the Libertarian Right.
The libertarians that tend to get elected to federal office, so so by pandering to the paleo-conservatives, State’s rights conservatives, religious and cultural conservatives and those on libertarian right who welcome the attention of celebrities.
posted by Lori Heine on
TJIII, all that is pretty much true. But libertarian progressivism (even though they don’t ordinarily use that word for it) is still, to me, preferable to the statist variety. It still means nonviolence and peaceful persuasion, rather than “hit them over the head and take their stuff.”
The workers’ council remark, in the post, was especially ridiculous. At least, if Stephen intended to apply it to someone who mentioned Chomsky (me) instead of, perhaps, Chomsky himself. The closest I could possibly be seen to come to advocating anything like that would be my support of freelancers, independent contractors and entrepreneurs in general who are self-employed. Free enterprise unfettered by government-run “capitalism” would give us greater opportunity to work for ourselves.
Letting employees have more ownership interest in large companies would also be a great idea. If Stephen sees that as having “workers councils” that replace private ownership, then he’s considerably less intelligent than I think he is.
Partnering with conservatives has proved, for libertarians, to be welcoming the embrace of a devil. They have been devious with us, and they are defrauding the public by claiming that the weird hybrid that has developed between libertarians and conservatives has any real relation to actual libertarianism. They want to keep big government’s sugar titty readily available to big corporations–at taxpayers’ expense.
The obsession with Carl DeMaio–which I simply thought odd and tedious at the time–makes more sense when you realize that this blog is cheerleading for the Republican Party.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
—The obsession with Carl DeMaio
I know, right?! I thought that he was becoming an obsession with him (DeMaio) as well.
posted by Doretta Ceglinski on
Let’s discuss this to get a moment, starting using the parent role, how
do we notice Doretta Ceglinski a regular car salesman is merely on the dealership
to generate a sale today.