Because, despite the seeming absurdity of it, this is where LGBT progressives have decided the frontline of “the movement” should now be—eliminating the horrific scourge of religious conservatives who own small businesses and who would rather not participate in same-sex weddings.
This was one of the main drivers behind the shift by activists away from the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) toward support for the Equality Act, which also covers “public accommodations” with no religious exemption for private business owners.
In a new blog post, John Corvinio, professor and chair of philosophy at Wayne State University, delves further the matter. He writes:
Do I believe that we should force people to make cakes they don’t want to make? It depends. I support anti-discrimination laws, which do indeed restrict the range of acceptable reasons for turning away customers from a place of business. On the other hand, I generally don’t believe in picking fights just to make a point.
If you live in an area with lots of gay-friendly options, and you deliberately seek a same-sex-wedding cake from bakers known to oppose same-sex marriage, then you are not much better than someone who deliberately seeks a Bible-shaped “God hates gays” cake from bakers known to be gay-friendly.
This is one area where the moral rules are at least as important as the legal ones, and the relevant moral rule is clear: Don’t be a jerk. None of the paths discussed [earlier in his post] will eliminate jerks, but they may provide options for those seeking to minimize conflict while upholding the values of liberty and equality.
(Added: To reiterate, this is about suing or otherwise seeking government action against independent business providers; other posts have discussed the very different situation of government officials refusing to treat all citizens equally under the law, which, ludicrously, is where religious-conservative activists have decided to make their stand.)
And speaking of deeply misguided activism, conservative media is having a field day with a rash of fake hate crimes concocted by LGBT students and others who you’d think might know better. What are they thinking, you have to wonder, beyond glorifying their own victimhood and advancing the progressive narrative.
More. Yes, physical abuse and lesser forms of bullying are unfortunately still with us. I never said all such instances were hoaxes. But the problem of politically (as in “correct”) motivated fabrications is real as well and—although ignored by LGBT and mainstream media—it’s doing damage to those who actually want to confront real instances of abusive behavior.
It’s not just on the LGBT front, of course, Faked instances of misogyny or, even worse, rape, have the horrific effect of undermining reports of actual abuse and rape. So the question of why these students (and others) are motivated to serve the cause by creating false narratives that they no doubt think are useful in mobilizing the masses must be addressed.
A large part of the explanation for this behavior is the need to perpetuate a sense of victimhood, which takes us right back to those activist-minded couples who feel justified in compelling small business providers to service their weddings. Don’t want to work on my marriage celebration—it’s like Selma and we’re marching with Dr. King…or standing up to the police at Stonewall.
You say you have religious objections to accepting this gig and want to recommend the florist, caterer, photographer down the block? You’re Bull Connor and we will destroy you and your business, using the power of the state to punish. And then we’ll tell each other how very special we are.
32 Comments for “Yes, the Bakers Again”
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Corvino: If you live in an area with lots of gay-friendly options, and you deliberately seek a same-sex-wedding cake from bakers known to oppose same-sex marriage, then you are not much better than someone who deliberately seeks a Bible-shaped “God hates gays” cake from bakers known to be gay-friendly.
I’m wondering if Corvino knows of any such cases. As far as I know, none of the half dozen current cases involving hapless “bakers, florists and photographers” fits the description. The Klein case, which Corvino uses as his pivot, certainly doesn’t.
posted by Dale of the Desert on
“IF you live in an area with lots of gay-friendly options, and you DELIBERATELY seek a same-sex-wedding cake from bakers known to oppose same-sex marriage…..”
Stephen, do you take us for fools? Well, I guess you do. Corvino’s operative words were “IF” and “DELIBERATELY.” He clearly referred to a very narrowly defined scenario, one that says absolutely nothing about any sort of “frontline” agenda of LGBT progressives.
“rash of fake hate crimes….advancing the progressive narrative.”
Can you better quantify the “rash” of fake hate crimes, Stephen? Your link refers to 4 cases of false reports in 4 years, none of which had any relationship to any progressive agendas. Not one. I don’t call that a rash.
Look, Stephen, it’s as easy to find legitimate criticism of far left progressives as it is of far right uber-conservatives. You don’t have to make up totally false and reckless claims like these.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
With the glaring exeption of his blithe reduction about “picking fights just to make a point”, Corvino’s discussion of the three alternatives he poses — (1) Fashion anti-discrimination law in such a way as to exclude businesses or services of certain types or sizes; (2) Legally prohibit discrimination, grant religious (and perhaps other) exemptions, but require business owners who take advantage of such exemptions to post their position publicly, in order to give prior warning to same-sex couples; and (3) Legally prohibit discrimination, do not grant religious (and other) exemptions, but permit business owners who object to same-sex marriage to post their position publicly. — is reasonable nuanced and intelligent.
Nonetheless, the way in which Corvino frames his discussion exposes a flaw that goes to the heart of the deficiency of the discussion about exemptions (de minimus, religious or otherwise) to public accommodations laws — the unstated and unexamined idea that such exemptions need apply only to same-sex weddings and/or gays and lesbians.
In doing so — by not even mentioning the possibility that the problem may be larger or more general, or should be treated more generally — Corvino is acquiescing to the conservative Christian premise that gays and lesbians should be singled out for special, differential, discriminatory treatment under the law, yet again. The alternatives Corvino poses will, unless applied to public accommodations laws across the board, violate the principle of “equal means equal” and the realization of that principle in laws granting exemptions to public accommodations laws that are (1) religion-neutral, (2) issue-neutral and (3) class-neutral.
As I follow the national discussion, I am increasingly coming to believe that gays and lesbians of good will — those of us who are willing to consider reasonable accommodation for small business owners — are being led down the primrose path, tacitly conceding as we skip along that we are a special class of citizens, unlike any other, and that it is acceptable for the law to single us out, yet again, for special, differential and discriminatory treatment.
posted by Houndentenor on
Is there any precedent for allowing one particular group (in this case, fundamentalist Christians) against only one other (lbgt people)? I can’t think of any. And the broadening of the language to make it appear that this isn’t exactly what these “religious freedom” laws are about is opening up a wide range of problems. I’m going to laugh my ass off when Christians realize (like they did when funding for religious schools went to Muslims as well) that they might be on the receiving end of the discrimination. It really never occurs to them because entitlement.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
I’m going to laugh my ass off when Christians realize (like they did when funding for religious schools went to Muslims as well) that they might be on the receiving end of the discrimination. It really never occurs to them because entitlement.
Or perhaps, inability to play the tape to the end.
I laugh at the “need” for “school vouchers”, intended solely to fund Christian schools. If Protestant Christians hadn’t fallen all over themselves passing so-called “Blaine Amendments” in order to keep public money out of the hands of Catholic schools, the “voucher” ruse would not be necessary.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Is there any precedent for allowing one particular group (in this case, fundamentalist Christians) against only one other (lbgt people)? I can’t think of any.
As far as I know, all the the exemptions to existing public accommodations and non-discrimination laws are religion-neutral, issue-neutral and class-neutral.
But that won’t work for the so-called “religious freedom” laws being proposed, because the purpose of such laws is less to protect hapless “bakers, florists and photographers” than it is to make a statement of moral approbation about homosexuality.
Otherwise, why would it be so important to enact such exemptions in states that don’t protect sexual orientation in public accommodations laws?
posted by Houndentenor on
There are also countless fake claims of death threats and harassment from the right. At this point unless there’s a police report I assume such claims are either lies or highly exaggerated no matter who makes them. To call out one side and not the other is ridiculous but typical I suppose.
As for the bakers and other public accommodations, either advocate for the repeal of ALL such laws or admit that you think it’s okay to single out gay people for discrimination. Wanting it both ways or adding a carve-out so that religion allows you to break the law is absurd. Either these laws serve a public good or they do not. If you think they don’t make that case to the American people. Just let me know in advance so I can stock up on popcorn.
posted by Tom Jefferson on
Stephen seems to be under the impression that details are pesky things, which can be generally be sidestepped or ignored when it fails to suit his own narrative (i.e. “progressives are all a bunch of crazy liars who hate America, freedom and little puppies”)
It is possible to defend religious freedom and civil rights. Several people here have explained how to do so.
It is also possible to pretend that anyone who claims to be doing ‘x’ in the name of religious freedom must be telling the gospel truth.
posted by Mike in Houston on
I am really glad that Stephen doesn’t live in Houston… he’d likely be working with the anti-gay crowd trying to keep HERO from winning in November.
If you would like to donate to Houston Unites — do it this weekend and your donation will be matched (up to $10K): https://houston-ffaa.cp.bsd.net/page/contribute/cohen
posted by Jorge on
(Deeply conflicted.)
I sat on my ass all day today and now the internet wants to tax me for it 🙁
Sure. I haven’t donated all year. I need to be more responsible. It doesn’t get much easier than that 🙂
How about I just read the text of the act to find out what I’m getting into 😐
For employers of 15 or more employees. It passes the Tom S test.
“That there exists a public emergency requiring that this ordinance be passed finally on the date of its introduction as requested in writing by the Mayor”–oh, please.
The city and its contractors “will not discriminate” versus public accommodations and private employers “will not intentionally discriminate”. The inspector general shall “affirmatively engage in conciliation of the complaint”. And no finding of an inspector general investigation will be admissible in licensing and regulatory matters.
A protection for sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity.
The definition of discriminate at its broadest is to “intentionally distinguish” to the advantage or disadvantage of any person based on a protected characteristic, except as required by a court order or federal or state law.
So this leads to the following conclusions on the “bathroom” and “changing room” question.
All this talk of “intentional, intentional, intentional” means that the more you talk about it, the more likely the law’s going to require you to do something different.
The law is first going to notify you you must do something different before punishing you for not doing it. You must do what the city tells you to do. This isn’t obey the law, it’s obey the city’s command.
The problem alleged in the bathroom and changing room situations has to be a real disadvantage, and the solution has to successfully level the playing field.
Well, if Houston’s so concerned about intentionality and wants to affirmatively have conciliations with people who are charged with enforcing and obeying the law, who am I to judge with a second-guessing standard?
$Ca-ching!$
posted by Jorge on
“Yes, the Bakers Again”
Hooray!
Um, er, I mean, that and Supreme Court season is here!
Because, despite the seeming absurdity of it, this is where LGBT progressives have decided the frontline of “the movement” should now be—eliminating the horrific scourge of religious conservatives who own small businesses and who would rather not participate in same-sex weddings.
Well, the Kim Davis front is a pretty stable draw. Yeah, got some mopping up operations here and there (and you know my views on Dictator Cuomo) but the rules are becoming pretty clear.
“On the other hand, I generally don’t believe in picking fights just to make a point.”
Neither do I, but I think God is against me on that one.
“This is one area where the moral rules are at least as important as the legal ones, and the relevant moral rule is clear: Don’t be a jerk.”
There are many situations in which the path of evil has served to do glory to the cause of good by reminding people of greater evils, by showing people the cost that is being paid for earlier sins. And it serves as a part of individual growth and stability for those who have suffered harm but carry scars.
It is difficult to tell someone to engage in socially kind behavior when they have, outside of your presence, not received the same in return. That in your presence, the social order demands that those of an oppressive clan should be engaged with civility. What has been the consequence of the original injury? What is more perverse is that, certainly in the case of the LGBT community, the very instruments of healing and support have all too often been used to harm. About the only way I know of to counteract that is an open display of responsible power: to take matters into your own hands, change relatively little, and pass the baton. And that kind of thing is not a magic bullet.
posted by Jorge on
“Investigators are so certain that Gisvold’s story is false that they have asked the county prosecutor to file a criminal charge of providing false information to police against Gisvold.
…
The county prosecutor has indicated that he will not pursue any charges against the hoaxer.”
*Shrug. The police have been known to be wrong, and they’ve been known to be biased. It’s hard to discount 150 witnesses, but I’ll stick with the photo-shopping tales.
Nonetheless, the way in which Corvino frames his discussion exposes a flaw that goes to the heart of the deficiency of the discussion about exemptions (de minimus, religious or otherwise) to public accommodations laws — the unstated and unexamined idea that such exemptions need apply only to same-sex weddings and/or gays and lesbians.
(If only such discussion could reach Congress without breaking down.)
Hmm.
…I am increasingly coming to believe that gays and lesbians of good will. . . are being led down the primrose path, tacitly conceding as we skip along that we are a special class of citizens, unlike any other, and that it is acceptable for the law to single us out, yet again, for special, differential and discriminatory treatment.
That’s a religious problem >_>
It shows that there is a difficulty separating a serious discussion of gay rights from the tenets of religion. That a discussion on the secular topic of religious liberty will be corrupted by religious notions on the inferiority of GLBTs, even when the speaker is LGBT.
The “antidote” is goo-goo liberalism…? I’m thinking like the Black Lives Matter movement or those campy folk who keep disrupting the president’s events with gay rights slogans. There’s a need for more loudmouths. Eh, I’ll step back again.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Don’t want to work on my marriage celebration—it’s like Selma and we’re marching with Dr. King…or standing up to the police at Stonewall.
You say you have religious objections to accepting this gig and want to recommend the florist, caterer, photographer down the block? You’re Bull Connor and we will destroy you and your business, using the power of the state to punish. And then we’ll tell each other how very special we are.
Stephen, this is an exceptional rant, both for its intensity and its wild misplacement. You don’t develop this level of anger toward women or others who file complaints under non-discrimination laws and ordinance. Just the half dozen gays and lesbians who have filed complaints to date. What is going on?
posted by JohnInCA on
Correct me if I’m wrong, but wasn’t explicit postings of “Irish need not apply” and “Whites Only” and other such rot part of the reason we *got* the Civil Rights Act in the first place?
Somehow I imagine if Corvino’s “out” for discrimination laws, that the proprietor just has to give notice, wouldn’t have helped. Being that’s exactly what people were already doing.
And all of that said… much like in the Utah case, while such exceptions wouldn’t be acceptable in places that can pass more traditional non-discrimination laws, in places that can’t (like Utah, Georgia, Texas, etc.) they would probably be acceptted. But most of those places won’t try.
posted by Lori Heine on
There have, indeed, been only about a half dozen same-sex couples who have filed complaints. Do I believe that self-employed, independent contractors and freelancers should be forced to express opinions they find reprehensible? Certainly not. But this whole issue is largely political theater.
If zillions of same-sex couples start descending upon small businesspeople in torch-bearing hordes, demanding service, I will definitely worry. But half a dozen is hardly a zillion.
Libertarians are skeptics. We’re cynical, even. We usually point and laugh at political theater. Those who are really going nuts over this issue were probably nuts to begin with. They’re the Bob Barr type “libertarians” who think they’ve joined the movement because they care about their own freedom and dislike the current regime. As soon as another Bush is in power, they’ll be grovelling toadies and authoritarians once again.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
[E]liminating the horrific scourge of religious conservatives who own small businesses and who would rather not participate in same-sex weddings … was one of the main drivers behind the shift by activists away from the Employment Non-Discrimination Act (ENDA) toward support for the Equality Act, which also covers “public accommodations” with no religious exemption for private business owners.
Hyperbole flies high, but the facts are much closer to the ground.
The Equality Act of 2015 is a bill that would amend the Civil Rights Act of 1964 to include protections that ban discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, gender identity, and sex in the areas of employment, housing, public accommodations, public education, federal funding, credit, and the jury system. The Equality Act adds classes (sexual orientation, gender and gender identity) to the existing law, but otherwise adds or subtracts nothing from the provisions of existing law.
The reason that the Equality Act incorporates no “religious exemption for private business owners” is because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not. The reason that the Equality Act incorporates a “de minimus” exemption for small businesses in many cases is because the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does.
It is really that simple. Nothing else is a afoot.
I think that an additional observation might be in order: The Civil Rights Act of 1964 was enacted at a time when many religious denominations supported segregation in public accommodations, based on scriptural texts about the separation of races. Conservative Christian businessmen, then as now, had religious objection, no doubt deeply held and sincere, to treating Americans on an equal footing. Notwithstanding that fact, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 did not include a “religious exemption”.
Thinking back to the testimony at the Congressional hearings of the time, the reason appears to have been that there was a societal expectation that when a conservative Christian owned and operated a public business, the conservative Christian should set aside his or her (mostly his, given the culture) religious qualms and serve the public, all of the public, on an equal footing. Although efforts are being made to change that societal expectation, the Equality Act takes the conservative course and maintains the societal expectation.
I think that we can discuss the proposed change to our societal expectation, but if we have that discussion, the discussion should apply to all classes protected by the Civil Rights Act of 1964, not just gays and lesbians. Debate over the Equality Act will provide the opportunity to have that discussion in a religion-neutral, issue-neutral and class-neutral context.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
But the problem of politically (as in “correct”) motivated fabrications is real as well and …
I wonder how many of the fabrications are “politically (as in “correct”) motivated”. Most all, it would seem to me, are the result of attention-seeking, emotional instability and other less-than-rational motivations.
… although ignored by LGBT and mainstream media …
I suspect that the reason that the LGBT and mainstream media are not reporting on the “rash of fake hate crimes concocted by LGBT students and others who you’d think might know better” is that there is no “rash”. As Dale of the Desert pointed out, despite the hysteria on the right about an epidemic of false reports, the actual incidence appears to be quite low.
… it’s doing damage to those who actually want to confront real instances of abusive behavior.
I doubt it. But if true, it points to a problem outside the LGBT community, not within it.
Some years ago, I read an essay about what was termed “soft-core anti-semitism” — the hidden anti-semitism that lay under the persistent criticism of Jews (and, by extension) Isreal, for failing to live up to a moral ideal. It made no difference that Jews as a group were no different than human beings in general — some smart, some dumb, some moral, some immoral, some decent, some jerks — all Jews were tainted by the bad behavior of a few. Similarly, Israel was held to a higher standard as a nation-state than other nation-states, including the United States, and every lapse provoked righteous outrage.
Similarly, I think back to the days when baseball was becoming integrated, and specifically to the Milwaukee Braves (now Atlanta Braves) during the 1950’s. Hank Aaron (as was Jackie Robinson before him on another team) was held to a much different standard of moral behavior than other players on the team — Red Schoendienst, Eddie Matthews, Joe Adcock and Warren Spahn, to name a few. The white players could lapse from the standards of behavior in one way or another without comment, but any lapse by Hank Aaron would have been fatal to his career.
I wonder if something like this isn’t behind the homocon arguments that gays and lesbians should be model citizens.
I think we see this in the discussion about public accommodations laws. Homocons don’t complain when women, one-armed Lithuanians and whomever enforce non-discrimination laws and ordinances, but let a half dozen gays and lesbians do so and it sets off a national storm of righteous outrage about “poor winners”, Robspierre and the (supposed) Reign of Terror that is at hand, and so on.
I think that we see a wiff of the same in the idea that a few fabricated reports will do significant damage to straight perceptions about the reality and incidence rate of discrimination against, and attacks upon, gays and lesbians.
I keep wondering why homocons are so insistent that gays and lesbians must be hyper-model citizens, and I wonder if one answer is that homocons, who go to great lengths to seek acceptance among social conservatives, fear that they will be tainted by bad behavior by other gays and lesbians, whether the bad behavior be open resistance to social conservative efforts to prolong government-sanctioned discrimination or a smattering of fabrications about hate crimes.
It may be that they (and we) will be tainted. We have no control over what straight people think and/or do. However, if we are tainted, it will be because straights hold gays and lesbians to a higher moral, ethical and behaviorial standard than the standard to which they hold themselves. It is no different than gentiles holding Jews to a higher standard than the standard to which they hold themselves, or whites holding blacks to a higher standard than the standard to which they hold themselves.
And, I might not, if that is what is going on, the term “soft-core homophobia” might be as good as any.
posted by Mike in Houston on
There Stephen — fixed that for you.
posted by Jorge on
If zillions of same-sex couples start descending upon small businesspeople in torch-bearing hordes, demanding service, I will definitely worry. But half a dozen is hardly a zillion.
Then why is the country listening to those half-dozen? Your comment reminds me of the joke that posits that the asshole is the most important part of the body.
As Dale of the Desert pointed out, despite the hysteria on the right about an epidemic of false reports, the actual incidence appears to be quite low.
Oh, never mind.
So the question of why these students (and others) are motivated to serve the cause by creating false narratives that they no doubt think are useful in mobilizing the masses must be addressed.
No it doesn’t. You sound like a bleeding heart. There is no cure, no prevention, no accommodation to being a jerk, and if they’re mental there’s no polite way to get them into treatment . Just prosecute them.
posted by Lori Heine on
“Then why is the country listening to those half-dozen?”
Because the conservative Christian campaign for martyrdom has trumpeted it to the skies. It’s colorful and entertaining, which the media loves. So it can never report on it often enough.
Though actually, I’m somewhat encouraged that the public is getting bored with it at last. It keeps going down like a lead balloon. Then the loons in the outrage machine grind out some new horror and the media shoots it back up there.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
Then why is the country listening to those half-dozen?
Despite the vigorous “religious freedom” campaign being run by conservative Christians and their allies in the Republican Party, It isn’t all that clear to me that the country is listening, if you are using “listening” in the sense of “taking seriously” and “agreeing”.
Although Stephen frequently trumpets an older poll that shows a different result, most polls taken in the last six months suggest that only a distinct minority (30-40%) think that businesses should have the right to refuse services to gays and lesbians on religious grounds. I haven’t seen any polls since the Kim Davis debacle, but I’ll bet that shifting the battleground from hapless “bakers, florists and photographers” to nutcase public officials has hurt the “religious freedom” movement.
Americans tend to come down in favor of fairness and equal treatment over time, despite the uproars of the moment. I think that the “religious freedom” battle is all but over, if majority support from Americans is what is needed to keep it off life support.
posted by Jorge on
Despite the vigorous “religious freedom” campaign being run by conservative Christians and their allies in the Republican Party, It isn’t all that clear to me that the country is listening, if you are using “listening” in the sense of “taking seriously” and “agreeing”.
With. Drawn.
posted by Tom Jefferson 3rd on
As far as the handful of confirmed false accusations from students, the fact that they are students probably explains a lot. As opposed to their sexual orientation or gender identity or political party membership.
You sometimes get students who want to “make some noise” or do crazy or stupid things in an attempt to impress another student..
Young people sometimes do stupid things or believe that they have all the answers. If you think that it’s limited to LGBT students or Democrats, you are either a fool or a liar.
posted by Kosh III on
The absurdity of “religious freedom”
http://americablog.com/2015/10/dc-church-claims-bike-lane-violates-their-religious-freedom.html
posted by Jorge on
The lane, which would go down their street, would make it harder for their congregants to park, which they contend is a violation of their “rights to religious freedom.”
I’m not sure about absurd. I will say this is what I like to call at work a feeble objection. On its own, it’s absolutely sincere and true. I will make them quite often. In context, it gets rebutted or satisfied rather easily.
In this case the counterargument is to posit the bike lane impacting traffic somewhere else, “infringing” upon the church’s right to expand or move. It really only changes the business environment
Which is to say that the church’s argument only has merit if the bike lane can put it out of commission outright, not if it simply makes it more difficult to operate. But because that argument might succeed in some circumstances, it is worth making to draw the rebuttal, to force the validation of the conditions necessary to function.
posted by Houndentenor on
As to the addenda, filing false police reports is a serious crime and should be prosecuted no matter who did it or why. Among other things it’s a waste of limited resources. Police should be investigating real crimes, not fake ones. I know there have been liberals who made false claims. There have been conservatives who have done so as well. It’s just as wrong no matter who did it.
Also, if there are four florists in a row and three will provide what you want, there’s not much of a problem. That’s not really the issue, however. Not everyone has so many options. All gay people don’t live in the friendly urban or suburban oasis of multiple options for all services. You know that already, though, and have been reminded of it countless times. I agree that it does not come off well to troll for such problems, but it is aggravating to have patronized a business for years only to discover that you have been handing over your hard-earned money to bigots. Personally I’d just notify all my friends and never go to their business any more but not everyone has such options (and not everyone can up and move to a more gay-friendly region).
And finally, NO, it’s not just locally-owned small businesses that right-wingers have rallied around. Davis has copycats now and there are even candidates running for similar offices promising to be the new Davis. You have to know this.
posted by Houndentenor on
Meanwhile, I received a mailer from my Teavangelical Republican state senator on Friday announcing (among other things) that he will be introducing a bill in the state legislature to make it illegal for a gay couple to “force” a minister to marry them, as if there is any precedent for forcing a pastor or minister or priest or rabbi to do anything of the sort. Has anyone ever successfully sued to force a catholic priest to marry a couple in which one or both has been previously married and divorced? Of course not. It’s complete nonsense but this is the tactic by Stephen’s GOP to get out the vote of low-information bigoted idiots. How are any gay people still in the Republican Party?
posted by Kosh III on
Same here in TN. Proposals to allow clerics to not wed someone. Plus legislation to void the Supreme Ct decision because it’s not 1) constitutional 2) it’s just an opinion not a law 3) gays are gross 4) fill in the blank
Pandering GOP/conservative idiots.
Jill Stein for President 2016!
posted by tom jefferson 3rd on
Also, ENDA only dealt with employment law. Rather than some big, leftwing gay plot against freedom…(as Stephen seems to imply), it possible people were hoping not to get fired, evicted or denied a loan, because they got married.
posted by Tom Scharbach on
To reiterate, this is about suing or otherwise seeking government action against independent business providers; other posts have discussed the very different situation of government officials refusing to treat all citizens equally under the law, which, ludicrously, is where religious-conservative activists have decided to make their stand.)
“Ludicrous” is a good word. Such is the power of “religious-conservative activists” within the Republican Party, though, that a significant number of the Republican presidential field have expressed limited or full support for Kim Davis.
Here’s the scorecard, as best as I understand it (with candidates above 5% support in today’s RCP Average identified in italics) at this point:
Support Davis: Ben Carson, Ted Cruz, Mike Huckabee, Bobby Jindal, Rand Paul, Rick Santorum
Compromise/Waffling/Unclear (support of some kind for a “religious freedom” exemption for public officials, without committing to full-throat support for Davis):
Jeb Bush (“There should be some accommodation for her conscience, just as there should be for florists that don’t want to participate in weddings or bakers. A great country like us should find a way to have accommodations for people so that we can solve this problem in the right way. This should be solved at the local level.”) and Marco Rubio (“We should seek a balance between government’s responsibility to abide by the laws of our republic and allowing people to stand by their religious convictions. While the clerk’s office has a governmental duty to carry out the law,there should be a way to protect the religious freedom and conscience rights of individuals working in the office.”)
Do not support Davis: Chris Christie, Carly Fiorina, Lindsey Graham, John Kasich, George Pataki, Donald Trump
That is a 6-2-6 split. Among those with 5% or better in the RCP Average, the split is 2-2-2.
What that means for the future depends the identity of the actual nominee, but the fact that a government official can do what Davis has done and get significant support from candidates running for President suggests how far the “religious-conservative activists” have moved the ball toward the right in this election cycle.
posted by JohnInCA on
Oh hey, HB 401 from Florida was brought to my attention (http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=55321) (Sorry, don’t know how to do nice links)
Not only does it give pretty free reign for businesses and adoption agencies to discriminate willy-nilly, it gives that same priviledge to *healthcare providers*. Sure, it has the “except in cases of imminent harm” caveat, but yeah. i guess whether or not the EMT can walk off after realizing you’re gay depends on how “imminent” your harm is.
So now conservatives are fighting for the right of small businesses, large businesses, government employees, and health care providers to refuse us services. But remember: we’re the bad guys for expecting the same treatment as our straight brothers and sisters.
posted by Lori Heine on
Because of the increasingly-widespread adoption of the Kim Davis strategy, any exemption from public accommodations laws is probably soon to become a thing of the past. The Supreme Court is simply not going to allow this, and cases will definitely be brought forward to fight it.
These people have brought this on themselves. I still think small businesses should be exempt, but ultimately they won’t be. IGF can go on bemoaning that, but I’m just moving on. Again, social conservatives are overreaching now, showing that they have not one smidgen of genuine principle, and they’re going to get exactly what they deserve.
They’ll cry about it, that’s for sure. But everybody else is so tired of them that nobody’s listening anymore. At this point, I’m not, either.