Discrimination and the New Inclusive America: Bake me a cake or go to Jail!

[emilynghiem]

I think this article clarifies the issues at stake in plain language, without getting political or religious:

Discrimination and the New Inclusive America - Reason.com

Excerpt from JOHN STOSSEL:

"American lawyers talk about special protection for religious freedom, and in the Hobby Lobby case the Supreme Court said you could escape onerous parts of Obamacare by paying lawyers a fortune and convincing judges that you are a closely-held corporation with religious objections. But why must you be religious to practice what you believe? This should be about individual freedom.

Of course, government must not discriminate. The worst of American racism and homophobia—slavery, segregation enforced by Jim Crow laws, bans on interracial marriage, anti-sodomy laws, etc.—was government-enforced discrimination. That was wrong, and it was right for the federal government to intervene.

But private actions are different. If I start a business with my own money, I ought to be allowed to serve only libertarians, people who wear blue shirts, whatever. It's my business!

My customers have choices. If I am racist or anti-gay, the free market will punish me. Enough people would boycott my business that I would probably lose money quickly.

It would actually be useful to see which businesses refuse to serve one group or another. Tolerance is revealed by how people behave when they are free. American law fosters the illusion that everyone is unbiased, while their real feelings remain hidden, making them harder to boycott, shame or debate.

Punishment from the market is enough. The heavy hand of law is not needed here.

However, given America's history, I accept that there are a few exceptions. In the South, people banned from a lunch counter had few other choices. The Civil Rights Act's intrusion into private behavior was probably necessary to counter the damage done by Jim Crow laws.

But today such coercion is no longer needed. Even in the difficult days of Reconstruction, after the Civil War, business began to bring together whites and blacks who might not always have liked each other but who wanted the best deals. It took several years for racists to get Jim Crow passed so they could put a stop to that erosion of the old racist ways. Government helped keep racism going for several more decades.

Individuals should be allowed to discriminate. I discriminate all the time. I favor people over others when I choose my friends, jobs, hobbies, clubs, religion, etc. So do you."

 

[Conservative65]

I think this article clarifies the issues at stake in plain language, without getting political or religious:

Discrimination and the New Inclusive America - Reason.com

Excerpt from JOHN STOSSEL:

"American lawyers talk about special protection for religious freedom, and in the Hobby Lobby case the Supreme Court said you could escape onerous parts of Obamacare by paying lawyers a fortune and convincing judges that you are a closely-held corporation with religious objections. But why must you be religious to practice what you believe? This should be about individual freedom.

Of course, government must not discriminate. The worst of American racism and homophobia—slavery, segregation enforced by Jim Crow laws, bans on interracial marriage, anti-sodomy laws, etc.—was government-enforced discrimination. That was wrong, and it was right for the federal government to intervene.

But private actions are different. If I start a business with my own money, I ought to be allowed to serve only libertarians, people who wear blue shirts, whatever. It's my business!

My customers have choices. If I am racist or anti-gay, the free market will punish me. Enough people would boycott my business that I would probably lose money quickly.

It would actually be useful to see which businesses refuse to serve one group or another. Tolerance is revealed by how people behave when they are free. American law fosters the illusion that everyone is unbiased, while their real feelings remain hidden, making them harder to boycott, shame or debate.

Punishment from the market is enough. The heavy hand of law is not needed here.

However, given America's history, I accept that there are a few exceptions. In the South, people banned from a lunch counter had few other choices. The Civil Rights Act's intrusion into private behavior was probably necessary to counter the damage done by Jim Crow laws.

But today such coercion is no longer needed. Even in the difficult days of Reconstruction, after the Civil War, business began to bring together whites and blacks who might not always have liked each other but who wanted the best deals. It took several years for racists to get Jim Crow passed so they could put a stop to that erosion of the old racist ways. Government helped keep racism going for several more decades.

Individuals should be allowed to discriminate. I discriminate all the time. I favor people over others when I choose my friends, jobs, hobbies, clubs, religion, etc. So do you."

You go to jail or get fined unless you're a homo that doesn't want to bake one for someone opposed to same sex marriage. Then, those that applaud the Christian being fined applaud the homo.

 

[Moonglow]

I would like to si,pathize with you, but, the courts are giving the bakers the benfit of the doubt, since it seems the customers are plants and are asking for extreme decorating...
What's really annoying is the misuse of the English language...It is not the act of baking the cake they are crying over, it is the decorations upon the cake which is causing controversy...

 

[JakeStarkey]

Emily is going with her feelings, not the law.

 

[chikenwing]

Emily is going with her feelings, not the law.

That was basically the point capt obvious.

 

[BlindBoo]

Stossel lives in fantasy land. Reconstruction ended after 12 years and the former slaves went back into virtual slavery called Share-Cropping for another half century or more. Open your business to the public and......

 

[koshergrl]

If you're a Christian..commit sacrilege and renounce your faith..or go to jail.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Emily is going with her feelings, not the law.

That was basically the point capt obvious.

Had to dumb it down for you, glad you finally got it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Serving a gay is not sacrilege and not deserting your faith.

 

[Mac1958]

.

A reasonable person would not force another to to provide a service that is clearly against their will.

No doubt doing so provides some perverse pleasure for some, but it really isn't necessary.

.

 

[Pedro de San Patricio]

I think this article clarifies the issues at stake in plain language, without getting political or religious:

Discrimination and the New Inclusive America - Reason.com

Excerpt from JOHN STOSSEL:

"American lawyers talk about special protection for religious freedom, and in the Hobby Lobby case the Supreme Court said you could escape onerous parts of Obamacare by paying lawyers a fortune and convincing judges that you are a closely-held corporation with religious objections. But why must you be religious to practice what you believe? This should be about individual freedom.

Of course, government must not discriminate. The worst of American racism and homophobia—slavery, segregation enforced by Jim Crow laws, bans on interracial marriage, anti-sodomy laws, etc.—was government-enforced discrimination. That was wrong, and it was right for the federal government to intervene.

But private actions are different. If I start a business with my own money, I ought to be allowed to serve only libertarians, people who wear blue shirts, whatever. It's my business!

My customers have choices. If I am racist or anti-gay, the free market will punish me. Enough people would boycott my business that I would probably lose money quickly.

It would actually be useful to see which businesses refuse to serve one group or another. Tolerance is revealed by how people behave when they are free. American law fosters the illusion that everyone is unbiased, while their real feelings remain hidden, making them harder to boycott, shame or debate.

Punishment from the market is enough. The heavy hand of law is not needed here.

However, given America's history, I accept that there are a few exceptions. In the South, people banned from a lunch counter had few other choices. The Civil Rights Act's intrusion into private behavior was probably necessary to counter the damage done by Jim Crow laws.

But today such coercion is no longer needed. Even in the difficult days of Reconstruction, after the Civil War, business began to bring together whites and blacks who might not always have liked each other but who wanted the best deals. It took several years for racists to get Jim Crow passed so they could put a stop to that erosion of the old racist ways. Government helped keep racism going for several more decades.

Individuals should be allowed to discriminate. I discriminate all the time. I favor people over others when I choose my friends, jobs, hobbies, clubs, religion, etc. So do you."

This. Holy shit. All of this. This is the single best thing I've read on the subject so far.

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily is going with her feelings, not the law.

????

Dear JakeStarkey can you explain why INCLUDING both sides of religious debates EQUALLY
when making a law that affects BOTH their beliefs is NOT OBJECTIVE?

I don't get what you are saying!

I'm about the only person I have found willing to Include and respect BOTH SIDES of belief issues:
* prochoice and prolife to have a consensus on laws or else agree how to separate policies and funding
* for and against the death penalty
* for gun rights or for gun control
* for voting rights or for voter ID
* for or against gay marriage, traditional marriage, etc.
* for or against the choice of healing therapy
* for or against the choice of free market, insurance, or govt health care, spiritual health care, charity
or medical schools or businesses providing health care

I have even admitted that I personally PREFER drugs not to be fully legalized,
but to require some kind of screening for abuse or addiction; however, I remain
open to CONSENSUS on laws of decriminalization or legalization because spiritual
healing of drug abuse and addiction is faith based and cannot be mandated by law, it must be freely chosen.

So given that on any issue of religious, political or secular beliefs,
I defend the right of consent and dissent of any person of any view or belief,
and do not believe govt has the right to impose or regulate ANYONE'S beliefs,

How is this not being equally neutral and objective, JakeStarkey?

What are you referring to?

That I care about people on all sides of all issues, so that compassion and
commitment to equality is a human emotion? What is wrong with caring for Equal Justice for All People
regardless of Creed?

Are you saying equal inclusion is wrong?
Because I am including people that YOU wouldn't?

????

 

[TemplarKormac]

Stossel lives in fantasy land. Reconstruction ended after 12 years and the former slaves went back into virtual slavery called Share-Cropping for another half century or more. Open your business to the public and......

 

[emilynghiem]

Serving a gay is not sacrilege and not deserting your faith.

JakeStarkey let me try this again
Isn't it more objective to propose a rule
that both customers and businesses with conflicting beliefs
be prohibiting or discouraged from doing business together
in order to avoid legal hassles, actions or costs, including to the public for lawsuits.

That has no emotions attached to either side.
It is saying that the CONFLICT between beliefs is the reason to avoid conducting business.

How is that emotionally biased when it is treating them the SAME?

The three solutions I propose
1. either states ban parties with conflicting beliefs from doing business together
if doing so will lead to lawsuits incurring costs to either or both parties and to the public.
Conflicts in beliefs must be settled by mediation and consensus respecting all parties,
or else such parties should refrain from conducting business.
2. encourage customers and businesses to voluntarily sign waivers agreeing to mediate disputes by consensus,
and if they cannot agree to avoid legal actions or expenses, then the parties agree not to do business together.
3. set up vendor referral networks per city or region, where businesses can subcontract any work they cannot do, for whatever reason, to other contractors willing to do that work.

JakeStarkey do you see anything wrong, unfair or "emotionally biased" about any of these three solutions?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Our law system is adversarial.

If you want a shari'a type contract and consensus WITHIN the law, work on your legislators.

A medicaid or ACA law is based on the population pool, not individuals.

The reason we have this system is that my GOP would not compromise with your Democratic Party.

All SCOTUS will do if it finds the mandate wrong is to suggest to Congress how to fix, not nix, it.

 

[JakeStarkey]

And for libertarians, taxation is moral and not theft in a republican style country. That is never going to change in the next several lifetimes.

 

[emilynghiem]

Our law system is adversarial.

If you want a shari'a type contract and consensus WITHIN the law, work on your legislators.

A medicaid or ACA law is based on the population pool, not individuals.

The reason we have this system is that my GOP would not compromise with your Democratic Party.

All SCOTUS will do if it finds the mandate wrong is to suggest to Congress how to fix, not nix, it.

JakeStarkey
1. There is nothing wrong with being adversarial over things we AGREE to put up for a vote to decide,
such as whether to change terms from 2 years to 4 or 6. etc.
2. But under NO CIRCUMSTANCE are Congress and Courts supposed to be RULING on issues of
spirituality, religion, faith based issues that are personal choice, and/or to be discriminating by CREED.

You CANNOT vote by adversarial majority rule to make Hindu or Muslim policies the law of the land
against the beliefs of others who disagree with any such mandates.

There is a LIMIT to what Govt is and is not allowed to do.
And deciding religious conflicts when there is a dispute is one area.

Baptists and Catholics can disagree if one is teaching faith over works, works over faith, or both or neither,
and GOVT CANNOT pass a law settling that conflict for them.

Why isn't this respected for beliefs about marriage?
Why aren't more people standing up and saying that's a spiritual matter and should not be decided by the state???

 

[emilynghiem]

And for libertarians, taxation is moral and not theft in a republican style country. That is never going to change in the next several lifetimes.

IF they consent to the tax policies.

I don't agree to tax policies that would make prolife believers pay for abortions
or make people pay for executions if they believe in paying for rehab and restitution programs.
If Atheists don't want their taxes going to some faith-based school curricula,
then let people separate that funding and set up their own programs they DO support.

What is missing is setting up means for people to SEPARATE funding.
So why not set that up and quit fighting?

Churches from Hindus to Muslim, Catholics and Baptists can fund their own school programs and
teach principles their way without forcing anyone else to pay for that. Why can't we organize
and do the same for other issues of political or religious beliefs where not all people agree?

Why not pick the ones that people ARE WILLING to separate out, and set up means to organize separately?

 

[JakeStarkey]

Of course legislatures and courts weigh in "on issues of
spirituality, religion, faith based issues that are personal choice, and/or to be discriminating by CREED." That is exactly why we have the Constitution.

Association private and public are clearly enunciated in the Constitution, statute, and case law. Folks cannot discriminate IAW PA laws, and the legislatures cannot pass RFRA without public demand resulting in their rejection and or massaging to meet Constitutional requirement.

You clearly do not recognize that private association protection cannot bleed into public association when it comes to commerce and certain other public activities.

 

[emilynghiem]

Of course legislatures and courts weigh in "on issues of
spirituality, religion, faith based issues that are personal choice, and/or to be discriminating by CREED." That is exactly why we have the Constitution.

Association private and public are clearly enunciated in the Constitution, statute, and case law. Folks cannot discriminate IAW PA laws, and the legislatures cannot pass RFRA without public demand resulting in their rejection and or massaging to meet Constitutional requirement.

You clearly do not recognize that private association protection cannot bleed into public association when it comes to commerce and certain other public activities.

You missed what I meant.
I mean that govt laws cannot discriminate by creed.
And ACA mandates do that because of people's Constitutional beliefs that are violated by it.

Govt is not supposed to be abused to establish religion, especially where it penalizes
citizens of certain creeds, while exempting others. That's what I meant by NOT discriminating by creed.

Note: I understand you don't see this as violating anyone's beliefs.
So do many Christians not see how (1) prolife policies are imposing any kind of religion or
(2) how banning gay marriage is not imposing a religion. To those of these beliefs,
it's "just natural" to be prolife or to have traditional male/female marriage.

so JakeStarkey just because you don't see it as a religious imposition
doesn't mean it isn't imposing UNCONSTITUTIONALLY on someone of different beliefs.

Don't worry, I have to explain to prolife Christians all the time how "life beginning at conception arguments"
are faith based, and by the Constitution that can't be established by govt by force of law.
It can be established by INFORMED CONSENT if the public AGREES and CHOOSES to change the laws.
But govt cannot impose laws by faith-based biases.

And similar is true with both sides of the marriage debate
and with the "right to health care through govt" which is a political belief, as is socialism.
If you want to call Constitutionalism a political belief, that's fair, since many people DON'T share the same
beliefs or interpretation. So these do count, we're just not all recognizing that yet, that these count as creeds.