Texan Bigotry

[giblets]

It nukes your carefully crafted distinction between 'private and public'.

No it doesn't. Just because it's bad for privately owned businesses to discriminate against blacks, jews or homosexuals doesn't mean it's the same as discrimination carried out by a government that blacks, jews and homosexuals are forced to pay taxes to.

[rah]

Big difference between a club and a place of business. And for the record, I don't think clubs should be allowed to refuse black people either.
And no Freedom of association does not protect business owners here. What have the courts said on this?

[DinoDoc]

And again, Ben's logic says they should be allowed to not serve Blacks. No bigots here.

What would be bigoted about arguing for Heart of Atlanta Motel Inc. v. United States and the massive overreach of the Commerce Clause it represents to be overturned?

[Ben Kenobi]

Big difference between a club and a place of business. And for the record, I don't think clubs should be allowed to refuse black people either.
And no Freedom of association does not protect business owners here. What have the courts said on this?

I don't see the difference. The constitution is explicit, people have freedom of association. A club is legally allowed to exclude people, and if you don't think there aren't 'black only' clubs too, I see them all the time. There's a few in my neighbourhood here.

Does it bother me? No, not at all. Because that's what the business owner wants. It's freedom. I can go to another club. If a business owner is willing to restrict his profits in such a matter, than what should the state have to say about it? That it's wrong to have a 'blacks only club'?

[rah]

I'll let the Bigot field that one.

Actually I was waiting for Ben to cite cases that supported his opinion.

[Sava]

Christian workers at any store that sells clothing should refuse to sell anything with mixed fibers.

Thou shalt not wear a garment of divers sorts, as of woollen and linen together.

[Sava]

Also, Christian home builders should refuse to build homes that don't have railings on the roof:

When thou buildest a new house, then thou shalt make a battlement for thy roof, that thou bring not blood upon thine house, if any man fall from thence.

[DinoDoc]

It's relevant because they are happening for the exact same reason.

You've clouded the issue. The issue before you changed it was if Texas or any other state were under any obligation at all to follow the directive of the Pentagon. (No State was and Sava's hysterical rant about it was ridiculous). You bringing the issue of the bakery and their "persecution" has allowed people to skate away from arguing for an unjustified increase in Federal power to bleating about protected classes and accusing opponents of wearing white sheets.

[Nikolai]

Should that baker refuse to serve Adulterers? Or those that Envy their neighbors?

It's certainly within his rights as a businessman. Perhaps not good for business, but it's his right if he choses to?

[Ben Kenobi]

You've clouded the issue. The issue before you changed it was if Texas or any other state were under any obligation at all to follow the directive of the Pentagon. (No State was and Sava's hysterical rant about it was ridiculous). You bringing the issue of the bakery and their "persecution" has allowed people to skate away from arguing for an unjustified increase in Federal power to bleating about protected classes and accusing opponents of wearing white sheets.

Again - this is where we differ. Reynolds vs the United States explicitly states that preservation of the definition of marriage is a federal domain. That marriage is one man and one woman is compared with Habeaus Corpus and Trial by jury - that for an individual state to reject marriage as one man and one woman (fr'nstance to support polygamy), is no different then if they were to abrogate Habeaus Corpus or Trial by jury.

I just don't see how you affirm 'state right' to marriage and declaim things like Utah supporting polygamy. I don't see how you get there.

[Nikolai]

Those laws are not relevant Sava, and if you knew your theology/Bible you'd know why. In short: Jesus fullfilled the law and only those he upheld and was instituted by him and his apostles are valid for Christians.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Those laws are not relevant Sava, and if you knew your theology/Bible you'd know why. In short: Jesus fullfilled the law and only those he upheld and was instituted by him and his apostles are valid for Christians.

Um... Sava is mocking those who hold to Levitical laws against homosexuality (the Romans text that some anti-homosexuals use is far more troublesome to their cause than the more straightforward Leviticus texts).

[Nikolai]

Yes. And what does Paul say? The judgement is for God. But it is upheld as sin. Anyhow, a Christian, baker doctor, must be allowed to do as his/her conviction in the matter says. Not selling a cake is okay. Not doing abortions are okay. It's when violence, jail or such things come into play that he has gone way too far.

[snoopy369]

It's actually an interesting political question if you remove the Benisms and even the religion.

Nikolai, for one, you come from a perspective that is inaccurate, being from Norway. The US is a completely secular country; you are free to practice religion of your choosing, but the laws do not generally consider religious beliefs relevant, except in a few cases where it's not unreasonable to make accommodations (such as conscientious objector for the draft). If it is held that sexual orientation is a protected class under Federal (not yet) or State (in some cases) laws, religions beliefs are not relevant: you may not refuse to serve a protected class. Your held religious beliefs do not affect that obligation. (I'd also note that there is nothing in the bible that says, "Thou shalt not bake a cake for a homosexual couple holding a (civil or other-religion) marriage ceremony."; but that's beside the point.)

The reason for that is simple, and complex. The simple part is that refusal to serve a class of people is one way to marginalize that group of people. Nicer restaurants refusing to serve black people back in the 50s was one way to keep black people as second class citizens. Full participation in society is an important element in integration and recognition of a group. It would be easy to say, "Okay, go somewhere else"; and if it were one business, that wouldn't really be a big deal. But when it's many of them, it becomes a social issue: and in some cases it might even be the majority (either in a state, or in a town/region of a state) attempting to reject a minority from their society.

We do not protect every minority, however. We protect specific groups because they a) have been historically discriminated against, b) the exclusion of that group has a significant impact on society and that group, and c) the characteristics of that group are effectively intrinsic from a social point of view. (For example, religion is not truly intrinsic, but it's generally something that does not change - from a social perspective, that is intrinsic. Compare that to sports affiliation, which is not a protected class; Chicago bars can refuse to serve Packers fans, since it's not something particularly intrinsic to the nature of the individual.) Oregon has determined that sexual orientation meets these criteria. Clearly it meets a), most people agree it meets c) [if not truly intrinsic, at least as much so as religion], and Oregon believes the impact is significant enough to justify overriding the rights of business owners to conduct their business how they see fit - which is a very high bar. (Again, religion is not relevant here - the reason for the business owner's wish to not serve someone is a black box. There is no protection for their religion in terms of how they run their business. Wishing to not serve people of other races because Satan told you not to serve black people, or you think Indians are smelly, is not any better or worse from the perspective of the law.)

I personally don't know that I feel sexual orientation meets the second criteria. Not because I am anti-homosexual (I'm not), and not because I don't think they're an important element of our society (I do). I just don't think the impact to society is significant at this point - both because I think homosexuality is very nearly mainstream nowadays, and because I don't think the few areas that this is happening in (wedding cakes) are very important or hard to replace. This isn't at the level of blacks in the 1960s, or anything like that. I would allow society to work things out, because I think it clearly is - forcing it by law is how you end up with issues like this or abortion, where you make people take sides rather than letting them come to realize it doesn't ****ing matter if some gay people get married. The few businesses that do have a problem will learn relatively quickly that they either get over it, or they go out of business - and your problem is solved.

[Ben Kenobi]

Again, religion is not relevant here - the reason for the business owner's wish to not serve someone is a black box. There is no protection for their religion in terms of how they run their business

This is wrong. There are protections for pharmacists and for nurses, doctors, etc as part of the package of conscience protection. You state, "America has no protections for religion". This is false. What America does have is no 'established religion' per in Norway with the Lutheran church there.

The US does protect the right of religious people to practice their faith, and has, on occasion defended the rights of people to practice their religion. This is one example of this, by extension, that freedom of conscience, religion and association, all protects the right of a Christian to work as a baker, and to refuse work which is contrary to their own conscience.

As for 'protection of religious minorities', Catholicism is a religious minority that has historically been persecuted in the United States. Thus, if, by your argument, 'the US has a desire to protect minorities from discrimination', this would, by default include Catholicism and provisions against gay marriage, abortion, contraception, etc. So - either way - you don't get to where you want to go from where you're starting.

The rights of a gay person do not abrogate the right of a religious person to practice their faith. The same works the other way. If a gay person doesn't want to do work of a Christian nature - the gay person has the right to refuse the work.

Arguing that 'white people, christian people' are 'acceptable targets' because they are 'in no need of help', is false. It may be that people want the law to work this way, but that's not how it works. You can't go and say, "it's ok to do x to white people because they are white' and at the same time turn around and say, black, not ok. We seem to be moving to enshrine bigotry where actions against white people and white folks are ok, but the same action against anyone who isn't white is not. This is wrong. The same law applies to everyone. White or black.