IGF sometimes guest blogger Walter Olson has penned a piece over at Richocet explaining why Oregon’s “cease and desist” order is “not a result liberals should applaud.” Excerpt:
Even more remarkably, the state agency had demanded damages from the Kleins over the very fact of media coverage sympathetic to their cause, which was said to have inflicted further trauma on their adversaries’ eggshell psyches. While [the Commissioner of the Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industries, Brad Avakian] declined to grant a separate award of damages under this heading, he still declared the Kleins’ statements in their own defense “unlawful.”
The implication is clear enough: if locked in a legal battle with Oregon authorities, you may not have a legal right to rally your supporters with statements like “This fight is not over” and “We will continue to stay strong.”
Some day the attempt to strip opponents of progressivism of their fundamental rights is going to come back and be used against progressives themselves, who will then deny they had ever advocated such a position.
More. This gay baker shows that authoritarian zealots don’t represent all LGBT people.
Furthermore. Eugene Volokh of The Volokh Conspiracy shows that Raw Story got it wrong by claiming that the bakers were fined for publishing the home address of the lesbian couple that brought the complaint. In a separate post, Volokh elaborates:
I think that Walter Olson (Ricochet), who is a supporter of same-sex marriage, and Ken White (Popehat) are right to criticize this part of the commissioner’s ruling [barring speech that shows an intent to discriminate]…. The bakers may rightly worry that, given the commissioner’s relatively broad understanding of what constitutes a statement of intent to discriminate, the commissioner (and the courts) will read his order equally broadly.
More from Walter Olson here on misreporting of fact by bloggers on the left and right, whose misstatements are then sent zooming around the internet.
33 Comments for “Illiberal Liberals Endanger Everyone’s Rights”
posted by Lori Heine on
Very frankly, I see no genuine respect, on this blog, for anyone’s religious convictions. This seems to be nothing more than a political game, played for the same stakes that are the aim of all such games: power.
The libertarian concept of freedom is that it is a seamless garment: indivisible, and equally the birthright of all. Commenters on this blog have asked very intelligent questions about what true religious liberty–or freedom of conscience for the non-religious–would look like. They have offered sound suggestions. Their input is ignored.
Bloggers, like most of the media, are largely ignorant of religious matters. At best they are indifferent, at worst they are downright hostile. I see that same cynical attitude on this blog. Anyone who questions whether other views on the Bible–even by those of us who believe in it–is ignored. Or slandered.
Religion is a volatile subject–and not only for social conservatives. They have sprayed a hornet’s nest with a fire hose. And now they cry about how victimized they are because people react vehemently. Surprise, surprise.
This is not merely a game for those who hold strong religious convictions. Even many gay conservatives are people of faith. IGF is making free and easy with the fire hose, and making irresponsible remarks about the hornets. For a while, social conservatives were making gains in public opinion polls because of their “religious freedom” crusade. Then people began asking deeper questions, as people of faith who hold other interpretations of Scripture began to make their voices heard. Now, those poll numbers for the social right are dropping.
I still oppose making public accommodations laws apply to ALL businesses and workers. I don’t even see, from a progressive standpoint, how that can be seen as a positive for workers’ rights. And as a freelancer and independent contractor, I don’t want to be forced by the government to work for someone who would make me say something I find abhorrent.
But how would “religious freedom” — as narrowly defined by those who have made it their mission, for decades, to destroy me — actually apply to me? I hoped to find an answer at IGF. All I hear are crickets. And slanders.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I still oppose making public accommodations laws apply to ALL businesses and workers. I don’t even see, from a progressive standpoint, how that can be seen as a positive for workers’ rights.
I do, too, in most cases. As I see things, a simple “threshold exemption” (exempting businesses under a certain size) would be a sensible solution. Federal non-discrimination laws (starting with the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and going forward), as well as state non-discrimination laws, often (if not always) have a minimum threshold below which the laws are not applicable. It seems to me that if public accommodations laws had a “threshold” exemption, the problem, in almost all cases, would be solved.
As I’ve noted in the past, I think that it would be good public policy to couple the exemption with a requirement that a business below the threshold which elected not to offer goods and services to particular persons (“No Gays Allowed …”) or in particular circumstances (“We don’t bake cakes for same-sex weddings …”), that the business post notice of that fact to customers at the entrance to the business.
And as a freelancer and independent contractor, I don’t want to be forced by the government to work for someone who would make me say something I find abhorrent.
Lori, the risk of that happening are slim, for two reasons:
First, as a freelancer and independent contractor, you are not offering a service to the general public, as I understand it, holding yourself out for business with all and sundry, and you are not subject to public accommodations laws.
Second, even if you did somehow fall under the coverage of public accommodations laws in your working arrangements (for example, if you hired on as an independent contractor to provide messaging services for a business that was subject to public accommodations laws, and were therefore, in your work, subject to the public accommodations laws as an agent of the business that employed you), public accommodations laws have exempted “message” work – e.g. the Colorado baker case.
I realize that this “cold comfort” is not responsive to your broader point, but I make it — particularly the “messaging” observation — to point out that the conservative Christians and their “libertarian” allies who are arguing that public accommodations laws will force Jewish bakers to make kosher cakes for neo-Nazis proclaiming that “Jews are Swine”, and all such nonsense, are distorting reality, just as the conservatives who have been pounding away about a “gag order” in the Oregon case have been distorting reality.
Don’t fall for it.
posted by Jorge on
It seems to me that if public accommodations laws had a “threshold” exemption, the problem, in almost all cases, would be solved.
Seems like it.
Question.
Would you support such a minimum threshold for government agencies? Like the tiny little county office in the middle of nowhere staffed by one clerk who doesn’t want to facilitate same-sex marriages?
You can easily force a large government agency (or subdivision) to comply with a public accommodations law while still giving a reasonable religious accommodation to its employees. Other places there’s a cost.
I dismiss this argument often, but the “only place in the county” argument is worth something.
The endgame should be that the bakers must ensure the gay couple gets their cake. Whenever I suggest it would be fine if they provided a reference, people point out to me that is not always realistic.
Then that is where we should look. If and only if there are actual damages should the bakery be fined. The bakers will then be required to take steps to mitigate those damages.
A pre-existing mental health condition–and that includes obsessive stupidity disorder, by the way–should not qualify for damages. Damages should be based on what a reasonable person would foresee.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Question. Would you support such a minimum threshold for government agencies? Like the tiny little county office in the middle of nowhere staffed by one clerk who doesn’t want to facilitate same-sex marriages?
No. The government has a duty to provide services to all citizens on an equal basis. A public employee who is not willing (for whatever reason or reasons, religious or otherwise, good faith or not) to provide government services to particular citizens (e.g. an African-American) or provide government services in particular circumstances (e.g. issuing a marriage license to a previously divorced man or woman) should resign and find employment in the private sector.
posted by Jorge on
What does one employee’s religious objection matter, so long as the government can get the job done? I realize we’ve had that argument before, Tom. So let me ask: for what different reason do you think we should have a threshold exemption for private businesses? Give an exception to those businesses too small to switch out an employee? Why allow it for business but not for government?
Public services are more important than public accommodations? I think not. Federal public accommodation laws are constitutional because of the Constitution’s commerce clause. State public accommodation laws serve intrastate commerce as well. Fundamental to the functioning and survival of a sovereign state is the government’s authority to make sure the economy is serving the interests of the state and its people. Deny a public service, and the worst thing that can happen is the person you’re denying it to dies. Deny a public accommodation, and the worst thing that can happen is a rich person moves out, taking away hundreds or thousands of jobs, creating a ripple effect in which thousands more die. Ensuring the equal protection of the right to access public services is less essential in both a constitutional and an existential sense, and I believe in a moral sense as well.
So it seems to me that there should be fewer exceptions, not more, on whether a business that is providing commerce on behalf of the sovereign state and its people can act contrary to the state and public good. I am sure none of you marriage equality celebrants (certainly not the homocons) would agree.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
So let me ask: for what different reason do you think we should have a threshold exemption for private businesses?
The reason is to allow bigots to be bigots, assholes to be assholes, jerks to be jerks, without having to explain themselves, so long at the businesses they run are too small to make a difference. Threshold exemptions do not require that the owner have a reason — reasonable or not, logical or not, fair or not, rational or not, good motive or bad, it makes no difference. If the business falls below the threshold requirements, the business can discriminate against anyone for any reason or no reason.
posted by Mike in Houston on
Jeremy Hooper (Good As You) wrote a very cogent piece about what must drive the anti-gay activists (and by extension certain bloggers) crazy…
http://www.goodasyou.org/good_as_you/2015/07/what-must-drive-the-anti-gay-activists-crazy.html
No matter how much Stephen harps on this, there just isn’t enough anger left in the outrage tank to propel this religious freedom nonsense much further.
So if you’ll pardon me, this “regional zealot” has to get back to work — one of our local nuts just turned in a petition to strip trans people the right to use a public restroom that matches their gender, because, you know, Jesus.
posted by Jorge on
because, you know, Jesus.
I think “because, Jesus, Mary, Joseph” would probably be more accurate.
posted by dalea on
And don’t forget Frosty the Snowman, a standard character in Yule creche displays.
posted by Jorge on
I think you misunderstood the reference. “Jesus, Mary, Joseph!” is an exclamation of astonishment or frustration. It occurs to me that the concept of invoking the names of Mary and Joseph as an oath is probably unique to Catholics. Most protestants would stick with Jesus.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
I don’t know how the ‘Religious Freedom’ tact will fare over the next few months, or longer (shorter?).
It seems to me that the issue gets seriously muddled, and less attractive to any but the social conservative, when:
– our Federal government provides NO non-discrim protection for lgbt (outside of the E.O. for federal contractors),
– 29 states provide ZERO non-discrim protections for lgbt citizens – while they do (via the Feds, if nothing else) offer non-discrim protection for religion, etc…
– and currently the social con’s “religious freedom” actions center on government employees who want to be able to deny (only) lgbt citizens’ rights because of the employee’s religious conviction.
I’m not as frequent a contributor as Tom, Lori, etc… But I’d like to echo their comments re: Stephen’s constant trumping of this ‘religious freedom’ issue.
I’ve found myself losing interest in this charade by Stephen. Either he comes “out” and admits his opposition to all public accommodations laws. And to non-discrims in general.
Or he should offer some justification as to why these public accommodations laws (applicable to the lgbt community in only a minority number of states) should not apply to lgbt citizens, but apply to every other protected group.
When religious folk are placing “no gays allowed” signs in their places of business (pick a southern state) – it’s hard to believe there’s a significant threat to whatever their religious values are.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
It is VERY INTERESTING how Stephen refuses to address any of the serious (and reasonable) points made by here as to how to protect religious freedom AND civil rights.
posted by Houndentenor on
Or even to acknowledge the many calls from Republicans for a constitutional amendment to revoke the Obergefell decision. No, the amendment isn’t going to be ratified, but it means that they are not backing out (not that anyone who actually knows any Teavangelicals thought they would).
I’m happy to reach a compromise on the baker nonsense. But not while the same folks are still calling for gay people not to have equal rights under the law. Until then, not interested.
posted by AG on
It’s even more interesting why Democratic Party apparatchiks and some (granted) moderate gay progressives continue to post here. It’s been obvious for many years that Stephen is just not into you. Are you at least paid by MediaMatters?
posted by Lori Heine on
Maybe, AG, some of us simply don’t want to stay stuck in a bubble all the time, hearing the same things from the same people. We like to think, and to exchange ideas.
posted by JohnInCA on
Honestly, I find the comments more interesting and illuminating then the posts in most cases. It’s like having a monstrously hideous coffee table. Everyone comes over, kvetches about the table, and the conversation goes on from there.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
It is VERY INTERESTING how Stephen refuses to address any of the serious (and reasonable) points made by here as to how to protect religious freedom AND civil rights.
Stephen, in the dozen or so years I’ve been reading IGF, has never responded to or engaged with any of the comments made on IGF. Occasionally he quotes from comments by sympatico conservatives to double down on a point he’s made (e.g. the “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 …” add-on in the previous post), but he doesn’t otherwise respond. IGF is his blog, and it is just the way he does things. No harm, no foul.
posted by Aubrey Haltom on
I understand that this is Stephen’s blog. My frustration is with the fact that the issue of “religious freedom” – as Stephen is currently framing it – has exhausted its discussion.
It’s a shame on Stephen’s part, and a missed opportunity to further the discussion, to merely engage in repetitive right wing buzz words.
(And Lori – I agree with you re: Stephen and the christianists. I don’t see Stephen as being a ‘true believer’, at least of that variety.)
AG, I gather from your comments (not just the one above) that you only visit those blogs that mirror your own viewpoint. And are somehow bothered that others might read and engage in a discussion of a topic.
First, I do come here to see what Stephen’s going to say. It’s going to be basic homocon 101, usually. When Sully was around, you could expect to see both of them echoing similar arguments, if not expressions. But it’s almost always done in a fairly civil tone. Some snark. But generally just the expression of a viewpoint.
And truthfully, the major reason I come to this site is to read the comments. There are some really intelligent, thoughtful discussions here.
AG, if you don’t appreciate the level of discourse here – whether you agree with the commenters or not – then I think you’re probably at the wrong place.
When I started visiting IGF several years ago, there were several bloggers, and even more commenters. A majority were probably on the liberal side, or leaning leftward, if nothing else.
But there was an active number of conservative commenters. Ranging from informed and thoughtful, to the ‘mostly-aggravating’ gish galloping of a suburb called north dallas.
The blog has changed. But even though the commenters are fewer in quantity, the quality of the conversation hasn’t changed. It is usually much more informed and involved than what I generally find elsewhere in the lgbt blogsphere.
And the conversation would be able to develop and expand if Stephen would do more than just repeat himself, endlessly. Take the issue of religious freedom. What’s the endgame? Repealing all non-discrims? Creating ‘lgbt-only’ discrimination to appease the social conservatives?
And, obviously, this reticence on Stephen’s part is not limited to religious freedom. It’s a tact he uses oftentimes in his catalogue of conservative commentary. And, as with the current issue, I think there are missed opportunities to take the discussions further than a constant sloganeering.
But I keep coming back. And will, as long as I can read what people like Tom, Lori, Houndentenor, Mike in Houston, etc… have to say.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I began reading IGF in 2000 or so, and began regularly reading and commenting in 2003-2004.
Back then, and for many years thereafter, IGF was a vibrant discussion forum oriented toward right-leaning libertarian thinking.
Although Stephen wrote most of the posts, a half dozen or so serious writers (Carpenter, Corvino, Kirkchick, Olson, Rauch, Varnell) were frequent contributors, supplemented by occasional contributions from a relatively deep bench. IGF was much less political than it is now — Stephen, for example, wrote about all sorts of things, and wasn’t so obsessively focused on “progressives are evil” as he seems to be now. A lot of Stephen’s posts were interesting and thought-provoking, instead of the same-old-same-old about the same-old topics. As Aubrey points out, the number of folks commenting on the posts was larger, more varied in political orientation, and, for the most part, quite thoughtful, even if a few real bottom-jerkers (NDT, Deborah and a handful of others) would sidetrack thoughtful discussions a lot more than should have happened.
So, back when, IGF was a good place for vibrant, thoughtful discussion. I learned a lot from the writers and the comments, and IGF helped shape my thinking about “equal means equal”.
I stay because IGF remains, for the most part, a forum for thoughtful, intelligent discussion, largely, I think, because the commenters are thoughtful and serious about discussion, and (as Lori points out) prone “go off on tangents that are strange but sometimes wonderful”. I enjoy the discussion, and the folks who comment, and that’s why I stay.
I miss, though, the days when more conservatives, and in particular more right-leaning libertarians who were not sock-puppets for the Republican party line de jour, commented more often. I’d like to see more serious discussion from the conservatives, but IGF remains a good forum for discussion, and that’s why I stay.
posted by Jorge on
The implication is clear enough: if locked in a legal battle with Oregon authorities, you may not have a legal right to rally your supporters with statements like “This fight is not over” and “We will continue to stay strong.”
This is a personality issue. There are some people who have a rather… stable and serene sense of propriety, one that is often offended by conflict. Not conflict per se, but the mundane things that occur in any serious conflict or dispute. So they advance unrealistic expectations about how one should conduct oneself in any kind of adversarial relationship or communication. The expectations are so unrealistic, that they in effect ban adversarial undertakings. Unfortunately this personality is common enough that such people are going to get a receptive audience with some regularity.
This is an issue I have come across at work. It comes across to me as highly manipulative, even sociopathic. There are things to be done. When I am in a dispute with someone, I have certain rights and responsibilities to carry out certain actions so that I might prevail. I take extremely strong exception to any attempt to bar me from taking those actions I am entitled or required to take by policy and law. The other person will have their say, and ultimately a decision will be done on the merits. We have rules to prevent emotions from escalating out of control. I am not impressed by people bucking the system and slandering my name for following it.
Whoo! But it is none of those things. Those of us in power have a responsibility to both treat everyone fairly and to reassure people that we are treating them fairly.
This was not done here.
posted by Lori Heine on
Another aspect of what this blog is doing has occurred to me. It is a far better place to exchange ideas than, for example, Gay Patriot. It enables us the ability to gather and argue or agree–and to go off on tangents that are strange but sometimes wonderful. Nobody insults our dead relatives or threatens us with bodily harm.
But it does share, with Gay Patriot, the attitude of “I’m all right, and you are too if you’re just like me. But your rights only matter if you’re just like me.”
The bloggers clearly are not people of religious faith. If they are, they hide it well. Their disdain for LGBT people of faith comes through loud and clear. Gay conservatives are their peeps–as long as those gay conservatives think of religion as a strictly-utilitarian matter, or as the pawn in the power game.
Again, social conservatives have sprayed a hornet’s nest with a fire hose. All sorts of people of faith are responding very vehemently to the notion that only anti-gay “Christians” are deserving of religious freedom. This has taken the bloggers so totally by surprise that they can respond, it seems, only by slandering LGBT people of faith.
I believe that my faith is being slandered by the anti-gay “religious freedom” crusaders. I think they’re damaging Christianity. As I am a Christian myself, I don’t understand why Stephen & Co have such a difficult time understanding that there are those of us who believe this. People, especially the young, are leaving the churches in droves–and the nastiness of the social conservatives is being cited, by them, as a major reason why. So if my views are bizarre, they are nonetheless widely shared by other Christians who are concerned about this trend.
But by all means, Stephen will slander me by misrepresenting what I said about Noam Chomsky. He doesn’t want to deal with where I’m really coming from, or what ought to be obvious–given so many of the comments I’ve made here over the years–about what really drives me.
Religious faith is all hooey to him, and to people like him, anyway. So let the anti-gay straights have it and dominate it. Let them take out a copyright. Who cares?!
posted by Tom Scharbach on
More. This gay baker shows that authoritarian zealots don’t represent all LGBT people.
And we are supposed to be surprised that gays and lesbians have a variety of views on this issue, or what?
Jesse Bartholomew has a point of view. He’s entitled to his opinion, as all of us on IGF are entitled to our different views. I realize that because he’s gay, and a baker, you think that he has an important and profound insight on this issue, but I wonder.
He posted a new video yesterday which amplifies and explains his position, and it is definitely worth listening to — you get a real feel for him from the video. He’s kind of cute, and, by homocon standards, very articulate and reasoned.
But he may not be the best spokesman for “Let them eat cake – NOT!”
If his Facebook page is any indication, he’s anti-Muslim (“Amiar Said of Sheffield Ohio, the Muslim that tried to burn down an elementary school and behead 4 non muslims was radicalized at the same mosque in Parma Ohio that Obama visited TWICE. I’m so tired of all the political correctness with Islam. It is not peaceful and these muslims need to leave and take their sorry ass president with them.“), anti-Semitic (“[The Jews] have turned their backs on history, God, and their own people. Same with ALL americans who voted for Obama. Hitler was also elected and well liked by media, celebrities, and professors at universities too.“), and a racial agitator (“I was murdered by two black boys and stuffed in a trash can for my bicycle. How long did you hear about me and did anyone riot?“).
In other words, a more-or-less stereotypical right-winger.
posted by Jorge on
But it does share, with Gay Patriot, the attitude of “I’m all right, and you are too if you’re just like me. But your rights only matter if you’re just like me.”
Hmm. I agree. The Gay Patriot bloggers dump on more people, and they’re more entertaining as they do it, but they also have less of a leash than I would like. But it doesn’t take viciousness to have a blind spot.
He posted a new video yesterday which amplifies and explains his position, and it is definitely worth listening to — you get a real feel for him from the video.
“That cake is taken in your mouth and you eat it in your stomach.”
(Uhhhh, so, Lori, how about gay people of superstition?)
That’s basically saying, “I don’t want someone spiritually farting their angry karma on my wedding cake!” Which I respect. Certainly I’d expect a gay person who believes in marriage might have exactly that moderate level of faith. Others would think that the only thing that goes into a cake is the skill of the professional. Nobody we do business with likes us all equally–but we trust that they know it enough to give us their best.
In other words, a more-or-less stereotypical right-winger.
That would make him a good spokesman. There’s a certain class of wingman in this country that drives change. Liberal excesses aren’t going to be exposed by the left. Every example you pick shows an extreme reaction to actual travesty that was not appreciated by the country at large, in large part because of liberal political correctness. I include the election of Barack Obama in that category. A lot of people sell their souls when they are faced with great wrongs. Such are the times we live in.
posted by Lori Heine on
“I don’t want someone spiritually farting their angry karma on my wedding cake!”
I can’t help it; that is funny. I hope you won’t sue me for plagiarism, because I’m going to have to use that somewhere!
posted by Jorge on
Thank you.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
1. The apparent purpose of this blog is to help forge a gay mainstream. I do not see why that precludes anyone from being a part of a conversation when they do not agree with Stephen or some other “homocon”.
2. I am not sure that a “homocon” who posts his racist and anti-Semitic views (and a few oddball conspiracy theories) on face book is the most credible person to be talking about the importance of protecting religious freedom and civil rights.
3. Personally, I would not want to involve business people in my wedding who could not — at least — fake professionalism and respect for money. Sooo many things can go wrong in a wedding — I have attended a few in my life — that you do not need bad karma. I also doubt that anyone’s cake is really worth thousands of dollars.
However, the proponents of religious freedom have largely shown little interest in religious freedom — maybe I expect to much — and have been hostile to civil rights protections in general (as opposed to talking about reasonable excemptions).
posted by Lori Heine on
I think what we’re seeing here is the clash between team players and everyone else. Everyone else being what used to be recognized as real people.
Stephen’s on a team. So are the people who come in here, from time to time, to snipe at the dissenters. If we dissent, we are portrayed as dangerous commies who hate America. We aren’t simply recognized as more in line with most reasonable people who do not choose to simply join Team A or Team B.
I’m a libertarian, and on that spectrum (which is a bit different from the mainstream) I’d say I’m left-of-center, but center-left. That hardly makes me a dangerous commie in the book of anybody who isn’t absolutely determined to see me that way. I’m what the political analysts call a “swing voter.” Most voters these days are, so it seems kind of stupid, to me, for people like Stephen to dismiss us so mindlessly.
For a while, I wrote for a blog called Purple Elephant. It was when I was (briefly) attempting to listen to my libertarian friends’ counsel to join forces with conservatives. It didn’t take long for me to realize that this is a lost cause. And I couldn’t stand being a Republican for more than a few months.
But the folks at Purple Elephant are very up-front and honest. They are Republicans, for the most part, and they have a Republican blog. They don’t claim to be “forging a mainstream,” or to be “independent.” We parted ways very amicably when I left the Republican Party. But I continue to respect them and the work they do.
We maverick commenters are trying to hold IGF to what it claims about itself. That doesn’t make us dangerous commies; it means we look an awful lot like most of America.
posted by Lori Heine on
More of the story of the “persecuted” bakers is coming out now. It changes the picture substantially.
http://www.addictinginfo.org/2015/07/10/persecuted-anti-gay-bakers-lied-forced-to-pay-135000-for-sharing-lesbian-couples-address/
Not, I suppose, that we will see any acknowledgement on this blog of the facts that Fox “News” won’t cover.
I’m increasingly unable to understand why libertarians would have anything to do with this sort of propaganda. Posting people’s personal contact information publicly, so they can be harassed and threatened, passes muster as “Christian” behavior in what universe?
I’ve dropped out of the line to curry favor with conservatives. This is disgusting. How, exactly, I’m supposed to believe that they are sincerely interested in liberty, when they pull stuff like this, is beyond me.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Furthermore. Eugene Volokh shows that Raw Story got it wrong and, in a separate post, explains why he agrees with Walter Olson that the cease and desist order is overly broad.
My own view is the the fine is excessive and the cease and desist order is too broad. I assume, without knowing, that the administrative decision can and will be challenged in a court of law, and I expect that if it is, the fine and/or order will be rationalized. In my view, it would be both prudent and salutary for all and sundry to stop peeing their pants about the matter until legal review has run its course.
posted by Lori Heine on
Given what the Kleins have done, I now believe the government probably coddled them. They published personal contact information for this couple–a couple who will have children in their home–for the obvious sole purpose of getting them threatened and possibly killed. They should probably face prison time for that.
For “conservatives” to continue behaving as if this is religious persecution, against people who would stoop to something like this, destroys their credibility.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Eugene Volokh of The Volokh Conspiracy shows that Raw Story got it wrong by claiming that the bakers were fined for publishing the home address of the lesbian couple that brought the complaint.”
If that is true, and also this blog’s assertion that authoritarian zealots do not represent all gay people, then why does this blog continue cooperating with the social right’s attempt to blow what a few people have done into a huge movement?
Even among the commenters on this blog, opinion is divided over whether baker and photographers should be forced, by law, to serve same-sex couples. Why is this ignored by the bloggers?
I know, Tom, they simply won’t answer us. Nor will they explain the way they apparently equate a call to broaden the discussion of what religious freedom should mean (on the one hand) with attempts to shut religious freedom down (on the other).
Team A or Team B. They are Republican Party shills. They simply don’t want to deal with people who might complicate their (deceptively) simple narrative.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Not that is relevant to the wisdom of the Oregon ruling, but Aaron and Melissa Klein seem to be doing well enough financially. In addition to the $100,000 + raised on GoFundMe before the order was issued, the Kleins have raised $535,000 through a Continue to Give campaign. We don’t know how much the Kleins will recover from speaker’s and appearance fees, and royalties from the inevitable book coming soon to the Christian bookstore near you.
posted by Tom Jefferson III on
The fines that the same Oregon board issued against some business for discriminating against a Christian were much higher.
Oregon is (in my experience) a state where cultural war politics tend to be very theatrical and polarizing. Much of the back and forth from supporters and opponents of gay rights is not based on any sort of consistent principle as much as it is based on the political culture of the State.
Again, I would welcome a serious discussion on how we can protect religious freedom and civil rights. I do not see much interest in having this discussion. I doubt that Kleins want to be a part of that discussion. I also doubt that their cake is good enough to warrant thousands of dollars in fines or gifts.