Apple's Tim Cook Calls Out "Religious Freedom" Laws As Discriminatory 1168
An anonymous reader writes It will come as no surprise that Apple's CEO Tim Cook doesn't agree with so-called religious freedom laws. Cook says, "[they] rationalize injustice by pretending to defend something many of us hold dear," and has penned an op-ed piece for The Washington Post which reads in part: "A wave of legislation, introduced in more than two dozen states, would allow people to discriminate against their neighbors. Some, such as the bill enacted in Indiana last week that drew a national outcry and one passed in Arkansas, say individuals can cite their personal religious beliefs to refuse service to a customer or resist a state nondiscrimination law. Others are more transparent in their effort to discriminate. Legislation being considered in Texas would strip the salaries and pensions of clerks who issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples — even if the Supreme Court strikes down Texas' marriage ban later this year. In total, there are nearly 100 bills designed to enshrine discrimination in state law. These bills rationalize injustice by pretending to defend something many of us hold dear. They go against the very principles our nation was founded on, and they have the potential to undo decades of progress toward greater equality."
Christian Theocracy (Score:4, Interesting)
WWJD? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Bill Clinton Passed the original as did all the Democrats at the time
Re:WWJD? (Score:5, Insightful)
Couldn't that be said by BOTH sides of this issue? Wouldn't it be injustice to force a private citizen to enter a private business contract/engagement with another private citizen against their will and against their beliefs?
I believe It's discrimination to not hire/or fire based on sexual orientation. I do not believe that it is discrimination to refuse to take the money and provide services to someone who wants to you to make a cake for their same-sex wedding. Trust me -- the small business bakery market will weed out those who want to miss great business opportunities and/or sales just because they don't want both figures on a cake wearing pants.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
"I believe It's discrimination to not hire/or fire based on skin color. I do not believe that it is discrimination to refuse to take the money and provide services to N*** who wants you to make a cake for their mix-race wedding. Trust me -- the small business bakery market will weed out those who want to miss great business opportunities and/or sales just because they want both figures on a cake being same color."
Like those many business that gone bankrupt in the south during Jim Crow era, let see in this n
Re:WWJD? (Score:5, Insightful)
Trust me -- the small business bakery market will weed out those who want to miss great business opportunities
You could say the same thing about businesses that refused to sell to blacks ... except they didn't go bankrupt, and racist business practices continued for a century after the civil war, until they were finally outlawed. The "free market" did not, and does not, fix discrimination.
Re:WWJD? (Score:5, Insightful)
This act is clearly targeted at homosexuals. An economic group that has far less influence than the much larger minority, based on percentage, of blacks in Montgomery. Any boycott by homosexuals could certainly be ignored by the businesses of Indiana as they would have negligible impact on the cake industry. Do you suggest that because homosexuals don't have the same economic clout as blacks did on the bus industry in Montgomery that they do not deserve the right to be served like a human being in a public business?
I would also like to remind you of the LAWS that came about because of that bus boycott to preserve the rights and freedoms of those who engaged in civil disobedience to obtain them, as it is because of those laws that the benefits from the bus boycott still exist today. Namely the lack of "whites only" signs. I would rather not repeat those times with blacks replaced with "fags."
Re: (Score:3)
The federal bill at least had some motivation behind it that wasn't a specific attempt to trample on minority rights—in fact the opposite. It it intended to prevent the federal government from building on native american sacred lands, or otherwise restricting the access of those who follow indigenous religions to their sacred sites and practices. It applies only to carve out exemptions of federal law.
On the other hand, in Indiana, this bill explicitly allows private business to act as religious organi
Re:WWJD? (Score:5, Informative)
Jesus, the guy who would always do what you would do.
Despite an oppressive Roman occupation, Jesus never had much to say about the Romans. He outmaneuvered questions designed to embroil him in the local politics. He refused efforts to crown him as king. He refused to defend himself when he stood accused before them.
If I may be so bold as to guess, I would say no, Jesus would not vocally oppose this bill. Nor would he endorse it. Jesus did not see government as a means to achieve his objectives. He taught in the synagogues. He clashed with religious leaders. He went to the oppressed and ministered to them directly. He would not be interested in your politics (or mine). But he would be strongly interested in affecting the compassion, selflessness, humility, and general godliness of the people involved.
Not so. (Score:5, Informative)
I just finished Reza Aslan's "Jesus the Zealot," and much was said about the Roman occupation, and the Levite collaborators, even in the sanitized gospels that were whitewashed for a Roman audience.
"Give to Caesar that which is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's," is actually a direct challenge to throw the Romans out of Judea, a statement made within the Court of the Gentiles on the temple grounds. Tearing down and rebuilding the temple in three days, as a challenge to the high priest Caiaphas, also directly threatened the Roman order.
The Roman governors of Judea were alternately viciously efficient or incompetent, and a spirit of rebellion reached a crescendo after the crucifixion, when Judea was free from Roman rule for four years, then crushed by the armies of Vespasian and his son Titus, who utterly destroyed Jerusalem.
Re:WWJD? (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm quite amused by your post, as it can be read equally well as an argument for either side of the current debate - well done. Not everyone shares the same values, but everyone is convinced they're in the right, and anyone smart would agree with them. The whole point of a secular state is not to pick a particular group's values and enshrine them in law: that's a theocracy (even if the religion is "progressivism"). Instead, it is to make laws based on the smooth functioning of society, so that people with differing views can work together without violence.
The few religious leaders I respect want nothing to do with laws, as they also don't support theocracy. Instead, they work to change those deeply held beliefs (which may be a work of generations) so that the conflict vanishes.
It seems the progressives here want to force your system of values on others through the government's monopoly of force, instead of by winning in the marketplace of ideas (much as the religious right have done in generations past). The religious leaders I respect, from Jesus to the current Dalai Lama never cared for force, but were remarkably. good at presenting and defending their ideas, both to believers and to non-believers, without ever just asserting "I'm just right and to disagree with me is hate speech that should be banned".
(BTW, of course there was a Jesus, don't be silly. How important he was in his time, vs ideas attributed to him later is hard to say, but Christianity never could have started rolling in the first place without some sort of charismatic leader.)
Re:WWJD? (Score:5, Interesting)
but Christianity never could have started rolling in the first place without some sort of charismatic leader.
At least one popular theory is that said charismatic leader is Paul, and Jesus was just a figure that he appropriated for his purposes (elevating him to godhood status in the process).
Re: (Score:3)
You touch on something I was just thinking - you replace "homosexual" with "Jew" and you get pretty close to the Nuremberg Laws of 1935.
Yeah, yeah, Godwin and all that - but it's remarkably similar in nature, and should be recognized for the abhorrent concept that it is.
Re:WWJD? (Score:4, Insightful)
I disagree that this is about hatred; in fact, I think you have to be calling many people blatant liars to make it about hatred. Granted, on either side there are likely some who are driven by hatred, but that's always going to be the case. It seems that many (and probably the vast majority) of people on both sides are pretty normal people who genuinely feel the way they say they do. Trying to vilify people on one side or the other doesn't help and is disingenuous.
Personally I can see merit in both sides and I bet if you give each argument and fair chance you would too. And that's why the issue is such a difficult one. It's only through setting up absurd strawman arguments that you can really dismiss the whole debate.
On the one side, it looks like we're dealing with discrimination all over again. As with racial discrimination, it seems wrong to avoid doing business with people just because of their sexual orientation. Separate but equal never worked and simply wasn't right.
On the other side, it seems like you have the government forcing people not just to tolerate - but to actively celebrate - something that is deeply abhorrent to them. They would otherwise be inclined to let people live their own lives how they want but when forced to be involved they honestly feel wrong, deeply wrong, about being forced to tacitly condone things like same sex marriage.
Both sides sincerely feel like the other side is taking away their rights and feel the others' suggested way to deal with it is unfair. Hatred isn't necessarily a part of the equation at all.
Re:WWJD? (Score:4, Insightful)
On the other side, it seems like you have the government forcing people not just to tolerate - but to actively celebrate something that is deeply abhorrent to them.
No, you don't, which is why that side of the argument loses. Nobody is saying you have to celebrate same-sex marriage, just that the sexual preferences of the people involved in a business transactions shouldn't matter. How in the hell are you supposed to determine that anyway? If you own a cake shop do you make all your customers sign an affidavit that they're straight? Force them to reveal the gender of their spouse?
Re:WWJD? (Score:5, Insightful)
Thanks, that brings up some really interesting questions and points.
FWIW my whole point in jumping into the discussion was in reaction to someone's comment that this was driven by hate. I really don't think that's the case, for the most part. Also, a lot of people here are quick to paint the "other" side's arguments as outlandish, backward, and bigoted. Again, I don't think that's the case.
Anyone who is truly interested in coming up with a solution should be able to see at least some merit in the concerns of both sides. Even if we ultimately decide in favor of LGBT and against those with religious objections, we should be able to see that the religious viewpoint has some valid points. I can understand where both sides are coming from, at least to a degree, and that's why there's not a trivial, obvious, winner-takes-all solution.
The idea of not requiring someone to participate in the actual event is an intriguing possibility. That would still leave some cases that allow for apparent discrimination, but it also seems to address a lot of the "guilt by association" type of concerns - maybe it could work. It reminds me of a local story here - the police department was invited to participate in the Gay Pride parade. In addition to providing security for the event, they were also in the parade itself - you know, riding around on the motorcycles in some choreographed formation like they often do in parades.
One of the officers felt that being in the parade as a performer was taking it too far, so he asked around to see if someone would swap assignments with him. He was open to taking an assignment to provide security or in a traffic assignment or whatever (which he had also done at a prior year's Gay Pride parade), he just didn't feel right about being a performer in the parade. Anyway, just for asking to see if anyone would swap assignments with him, he was suspended and an Internal Affairs investigation was launched and the department issued a statement that an officer was put on leave for refusing his Gay Pride assignment. The officer ultimately resigned before the investigation completed, but it always rubbed me the wrong way that the reaction was so extreme. He wasn't trying to shut down the event, he offered to participate in a more typical police officer capacity, but because he didn't feel good about being an actual performer it basically derailed his career. There has to be a more balanced and tolerant want to deal with that type of scenario.
Re:WWJD? (Score:4, Insightful)
Honestly? Jesus would probably ignore this law, and simply expect people to do unto others.... Effectively attempting to get Jesus to talk about politics is what the Pharisees tried to get him to do, and he wasn't having it.
Which is to say, he'd expect the people who had the right to treat other people poorly to not use their legal right. You can cast stones, which is your right under the law, but you know why you shouldn't. You can close your doors to people you consider sinners, but you know why you should not.
Still, if he really did believe that homosexuality was a sin, he would not have minced words about it. There are no direct quotes on that, so we don't know his actual opinion. It may have differed, or it may have been the same as conventional views of that time.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Jesus may have said nothing, but the old testament has a pretty clear lesson on it:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S... [wikipedia.org]
I personally have very little issue with homosexuals. I have a serious problem with gay marriage, as marriage is a religious ceremony, so the state should stay out of it. Civil union is the state sponsored joining, and should be the proper avenue for the state to allow something that religion indicates is wrong. If someone feels that a homosexual couple should share in the benefits a hetero
Re:WWJD? (Score:5, Insightful)
If you think marriage is a religious ceremony, then you have a very poor grasp of human history.
Every culture has marriage ceremonies, because every culture benefits when 2 people come together and raise their children as a family. Some southern African countries allowed lesbian marriage, some south American countries allowed male homosexual marriage, some south Asian cultures allowed atheist marriage... The only thing all marriages have in common is the bonding of 2 or more people for the sake of bonding their families. Sometimes this is done to provide offspring, sometimes to make peace between warring tribes, and sometimes simply out of love.
As to your further implication that adopted children are inferior to your own genetic seed, that's pretty much rejected by everyone and you won't find it useful in pushing through any laws. Adoption by homosexuals is hardly something today's foster children fear, rather for many it is their best hope.
Re:WWJD? (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is, the state can't recognize marraige without defining it. If you agree that the religious ceremony has no legal significance (that is, married couples also need to get a civil union if they want the state to respect their union), then fine; but if you want your marriage ot mean anything to the state itself, the state can't avoid deciding what it considers a valid marriage - and then carrying the moral and legal responsibility for that decision, if it would happen to put citizens into different categories based on religious beliefs. Indeed, it would be forced to recognize an official religion that gets to choose.
So, the only way to get the state out of marriage is to go pure civil union route and ignore whatever religious or other ceremony anyone feels fit to add on their own time.
Re: (Score:3)
Yep, especially since he was probably bisexual or just gay. The bible even says so, describing how he hung out with naked young men and lived with his BF for a while. I wish someone could invent a time machine just so we could get pictures of Jesus kissing another guy and force all the extremists to confront it.
Re: Christian Theocracy (Score:3, Informative)
You mean like the 19 other states that already have similar laws? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/03/27/19-states-that-have-religious-freedom-laws-like-indianas-that-no-one-is-boycotting/
Or maybe you're referring to the lead theocratic, Bill Clinton, who signed a federal RFRA law back in 1993?
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Go look how many times this claim has been made, how many times it has been refuted (including a good refutation in the VERY STORY you post here), and then tell me that the pro-RFRA folks are being intellectual honest.
Never mind, by even parroting this claim you have proven you have not trouble with lying at all.
Re: Christian Theocracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Go look how many times this claim has been made, how many times it has been refuted (including a good refutation in the VERY STORY you post here), and then tell me that the pro-RFRA folks are being intellectual honest.
Never mind, by even parroting this claim you have proven you have not trouble with lying at all.
No. The Pro-RFRA people, including Gov. Pence, are the ones who are being dishonest.
The IRFRA differs from the Federal RFRA [joshblackman.com] on several key points. This is where the "there" is.
The Indiana Law is NOT "The same as what Obama Signed". Not even close. For one thing, the Federal RFRA had Bipartisan support. The Indiana RFRA was voted STRICTLY on Party Lines (guess which Party?). But the pro-RFRA crowd never mentions THAT, do they? they just keep talking about a Law that isn't THIS law.
Just like Mike Pence going on This Week yesterday and lying his ASS off REPEATEDLY by stating that this was ONLY restricting actions by the GOVERNMENT. That is only true if you count COURT ORDERS as an "Action by the Government". If you read the analysis of the Federal RFRA and Indiana RFRA linked above, you'll see that I am correct.
Re: (Score:3)
The AHA didn't have bipartisan support, but now we're supposed to accept it as the law of the land and not attempt to modify it.
Re: Christian Theocracy (Score:5, Informative)
You mean like the 19 other states that already have similar laws? http://www.washingtonpost.com/... [washingtonpost.com]
Or maybe you're referring to the lead theocratic, Bill Clinton, who signed a federal RFRA law back in 1993?
Ya know; it's time this particular rubric is laid to rest.
The Indiana RFRA (IRIFRA) is NOT, as Gov. Pence would have you believe, simply a Copypasta of the Federal RFRA; and as usual, the Devil's in the Details [joshblackman.com]. Here's a couple of differences:
1. The Federal RFRA Restricts its application to suits involving the Government or its employees and agents. The IRFRA specifically states that the Government does NOT have to be a Party to the Action; and furthermore, that the Government may INTERVENE in any action on the RFRA issues.
2. The Federal RFRA does NOT preclude lawsuits regarding RFRA issues; the IRFRA specifically states that the RFRA can be used as an "Affirmative Defense" in lawsuits. An "Affirmative Defense" is just one step from immunitization. For example, a Statute of Limitations is an Affirmative Defense. It does NOT hinge on the Merits of the case; but rather what amounts to a Jurisdictional issue.
Those two things alone make the IRFRA nothing like the Federal RFRA.
And as proof of the fact that this is nothing more, and nothing less, than an end-run against the LGBT community, you need look no farther than the picture of Gov. Pence at the PRIVATE (that is, by INVITATION-ONLY) signing of the IRFRA Bill into Law. The people who are standing CLOSEST to Pence [thenewcivi...vement.com] (again, no accident) for the Photo-Op, just HAPPEN to be the same 3 or 4 people who have been the MOST vocal opponents to Gay Marriage in the State. By the way, the Press (let alone the Public) wasn't invited.
BTW, I live in Indiana, where a LOT more information regarding this has been presented than leaks out into the National/International news.
Re: Christian Theocracy (Score:4, Informative)
"For example, a Statute of Limitations is an Affirmative Defense."
Bullshit. A statute of limitations is just that ... it is a LIMIT, not an affirmative defense. An affirmative defense is a JUSTIFICATION OR EXCUSE.
Bzzt! WRONG!
From the Indiana Rules of Trial Procedure [in.gov], Rule 8(C):
"(C) Affirmative defenses. A responsive pleading shall set forth affirmatively and carry the burden of proving: accord and satisfaction, arbitration and award, discharge in bankruptcy, duress, estoppel, failure of consideration, fraud, illegality, injury by fellow servant, laches, license, payment, release, res judicata, statute of frauds, statute of limitations, waiver, lack of jurisdiction over the subject-matter, lack of jurisdiction over the person, improper venue, insufficiency of process or service of process, the same action pending in another state court of this state, and any other matter constituting an avoidance, matter of abatement, or affirmative defense. A party required to affirmatively plead any matters, including matters formerly required to be pleaded affirmatively by reply, shall have the burden of proving such matters. The burden of proof imposed by this or any other provision of these rules is subject to the rules of evidence or any statute fixing a different rule. If the pleading mistakenly designates a defense as a counterclaim or a counterclaim as a defense, the court shall treat the pleading as if there had been a proper designation." [Ind.Trial.Rule 8(C), emphasis added].
Here's another definition [thefreedictionary.com] of "Affirmative Defense, specifically referencing "Statute of Limitations".
"Affirmative Defense" is a "Term of Art", idiot. Learn what those words mean (all of them).
Re: (Score:3)
How does one explain the Civil Rights Act of 1968, then?
Re: Christian Theocracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Civil rights laws that try and force a private business to serve all customers should be considered unconstitutional.
I don't think its right to deny someone based on race,color,creed, sexual orientation etc, but as strongly as I feel that is wrong, so do I feel about forcing someone to act against their will or conviction.
Our economy is large enough that minority groups who face discrimination probably can find another employer or another shop who will treat them fairly.
When people are proponents of laws like these I just hope they simply haven't thought about their opinion thoroughly enough. But here is someone who fully knows the ramifications of this opinion and is actually proud of it. I don't meet people like this often, and it is very chilling.
I simply couldn't imagine someone walking into a store with a "Whites Only" sign on the door and hear him say "Good for them for sticking up for their convictions." But it is clear that DarkOx is such a person. I guess I just have to take solace in the hope that most people don't think like him/her. I'm an upper middle class white male living in a wealthy liberal area, so it is quite likely I am in a bubble where I simply don't see how dark parts of this country still are.
Re:Christian Theocracy (Score:5, Insightful)
actually, the laws and bills have not gone far enough.
some kind of visual indication should be included, so you know who the enemy is. maybe an armband. it could be phrased as a 'fashion statement'.
what could possibly go wrong with that? sounds pretty christian to me!
Re:Christian Theocracy (Score:5, Insightful)
These laws won't last long after one brave business in each of these states puts up a simple sign: "No Christians."
Re:Christian Theocracy (Score:5, Insightful)
One brave and short-lived business. That's the problem with these laws; essentially they allow the majority to persecute the minority, under the cover of "religious freedoms". It strikes me as being no different than the same disingenuous arguments used to justify Segregation.
Re:Christian Theocracy (Score:5, Informative)
If a business excludes gays, or atheists, or muslims, they lose some business and maybe get a bit of outrage if it gets enough attention, but chances are the effect on their bottom line will be minimal.
If a business excludes Christians, they go out of business.
So while in theory it is religion neutral, in practice, some types of exclusion can be practiced with minimal negative consequences while others are simply not an option for reasons outside the actual words of the law.
Re:Christian Theocracy (Score:4, Insightful)
But you know what? Every article, every boycott and every protest is pushing them back. Similar bills are stalling or failing. The outrage at actions like these are causing more and more Americans to leave their religion in disgust. The more we drag this bullshit into the light, the more the theocrats feel the heat.
Fair enough, but what scares me is how many extremists are already in power, in Congress and in the Senate. And on the road to the White House. We as a society really do need to take a close look at what is known as the "christian dominionist movement". This movement seeks to establish an American theocracy with the rule of law given by the bible. We should think about what these people are actually proposing: the death penalty for abortion, both for doctor and mother. The death penalty for homosexuality. Here is an article [publiceye.org] to give you an idea of what I am talking about. A very good read on this subject is American Fascists [goodreads.com].
It is easy to dismiss these people as being a crazy fringe. Indeed every society has its own lunatics. What is concerning is how this extreme form of christianity has infiltrated the main stream of christianity and what we commonly know as the christian right. What is extremely concerning is how many mainstream politicians share similar modes of thought to this movement. When I hear about laws such as what Tim Cook is writing about, I hear the clicking of a ratchet, bringing us a small step towards an American version of the taliban government.
Those of us with a sense of what is actually going on must work towards steering our society away from this cliff. Above all, we should promote the idea that although we live in a tolerant nation, we should never tolerate intolerance. The bastards who bring in laws like this should be run out of town.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
The "Religion of State" is just as much a religion as those you are maligning. It requires faith, has a common belief structure, and has a god. Bills like this fight against theocracy. You are pushing for it.
That is complete nonsense. Faith is believing in something without evidence. These laws are pushing one religion's beliefs onto others - it is religious fascism just like the nuts in the Middle East. With these Christians forcing their stone age ignorant beliefs on other are creating a theocracy.
Legislation being considered in Texas would strip the salaries and pensions of clerks who issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples
- looky there! That is the STATE forcing religion on other people.
And contrary to the delusions of most christians, they are the majority in this country and the only ones doing any persecuting are them.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Christian Theocracy (Score:4, Funny)
Apparently the closest chapter is in Pyongyang.
Re:Christian Theocracy (Score:5, Insightful)
"In no way should a Christian business owner be forced to do something that violates his conscience....Civil rights in no way trump religious rights"
Do you believe that business owner should have the legal ability to refuse service to a black/hispanic/asian person, or a woman?
If not, what is it about homosexuality (an immutable characteristic) that is different than race or gender?
If so, why are you an bigot?
Re:Christian Theocracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes indeed. But (some) people are able to evaluate the consequences of having sex, such that they would like to modify their behavior so that they can enjoy the act, without the consequences. By attempting to remove the means to do this, religion seeks to leverage people's actions through their concern for consequences (pregnancy and so on, if you are having trouble following.)
Inasmuch as religion has no relevance to my life, I have no interest in what they would like me to do, and I utterly reject anything that they would force me to do. Now, if you want to restrict your access to contraception, sex education and abortion along the lines of some set of religious dictates, that's perfectly ok. Just keep your superstitious claptrap away from my personal choices and you'll be fine. Otherwise, we have a problem.
Fuck so-called religious "freedom" (Score:5, Insightful)
"Religious freedom" in all its guises empowers and gives "freedom" to religious assholes and oppressors to take away the freedom of others.
Religion is a Trojan Horse for other backwards notions, like giving superstitious and ignorant people the right to silence speech they deem "offensive". The most fucked-up countries are the ones where somebody can use take arbitrary "offence", and use that office to attack somebody. E.g. the offence of "insulting a Muslim" in most Islamic countries.
Anybody propagating the idea that it should be illegal to "give offence" should be stabbed in the head, imnsho.
Re:Fuck so-called religious "freedom" (Score:5, Interesting)
Unfortunately, it's not just the right that wants to silence "offensive" speech; the left wants to as well: the SCOTUS refused to hear a case [theweek.com] about high school students who wore t-shirts with the American flag to school on Cinco de Mayo and got in trouble because the school said this could "incite violence" among Hispanic students who apparently are offended by the US flag. This case was even supported by the students who had worn black armbands back in the 60s to protest the Vietnam war, and won the SCOTUS case, the decision of which said that free speech rights do not end at the schoolhouse door (these former students supported the flag-wearing teenagers' right to free speech).
It's weird how some on the left are so eager to push "diversity" that they'll compromise our own liberal western values in the process of pandering to people who do not share these values. These values are under assault from both sides: the wacky Christian religionists on the right, and the leftists who denounce right-wing Christians (for good reason) and then back up people with the same or worse values just because they're non-Western.
How is bigotry a good thing? (Score:3)
It's weird how some on the left are so eager to push "diversity" that they'll compromise our own liberal western values in the process of pandering to people who do not share these values.
Fair enough. Explain to us then the rational opposing position then. Explain to us the pro-discrimination position whereby we should be permitted to discrimination on the basis of race, gender, age, or even sexual orientation when none of those things should matter. Explain how these laws trying to push laws purporting to support "religious freedom" are actually anything other than an attempt by bigoted people to discriminate against others.
It sounds to me like you have an ideological issue with "some of
Re: (Score:3)
50 years ago those laws were called Jim Crow laws. This is just a later day version of separate but equal.
I've been thinking these new laws should be called Jim Queer laws, whaddaya think?
Re:Fuck so-called religious "freedom" (Score:5, Insightful)
Don't confuse actual religious freedom with the idiocy that politicians in Indiana are pushing. Real religious freedom is important. Real religious freedom states that nobody should force you to violate your religious beliefs (or lack thereof) because that other person has a different religious view. Without religious freedom, the Christian majority could vote and decide that all Jews, Muslims, Atheists, etc were required to worship Jesus.
The key, though, is that real religious freedom has its limits and the people pushing these laws aren't respecting those limits. I have the freedom to not eat pork since I'm Jewish. Someone who is Christian can't make eating pork a condition of citizenship. However, I also can't use my religious beliefs to ban all pork products. Like all other rights, my rights end when others' begin. Sadly, the people pushing these laws think their religious views should trump all other rights. Of course, if someone denied them services because they worshiped Jesus instead of being Muslim/Atheist/etc, they would cry foul.
I completely agree with the "no right to be free of offense", though. If someone wants to criticize my religious beliefs, they can go right ahead. It's their right. It won't change my beliefs (especially if they are jerks about it) and I might try to offer counter-arguments, but I won't demand that they be silenced for criticizing what I believe in*.
* If their "criticism" calls for hurting/killing people who believe X, though, all bets are off. Threats do not equal discussion.
Re:Fuck so-called religious "freedom" (Score:5, Insightful)
The bill isn't banning "all products". It's saying you can't be compelled to do something you don't personally agree with.
If I walked into a bakery and legally compelled them to bake a cake depicting a same-sex couple that they don't want to bake... aren't I the one imposing my values?
Re: (Score:3)
How about equality in iPhone sweatshops? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:How about equality in iPhone sweatshops? (Score:5, Insightful)
I just don't buy iPhones because I don't agree with the poor working conditions in Apple factories.
Very principled of you, AC! So which brand of phone do you buy then?
Re: (Score:3)
So I have a question. If I wanted to buy a smartphone that wasn't made by teenagers handling dangerous chemicals on 16 hour shifts for pennies an hour, what brand phone would I buy, and how much could I expect to pay for it?
Does there even exist such a smartphone?
Re: (Score:3)
Even if I'm not into your imaginary buddy up on the cloud you may still stuff his idiocy down my throat.
Given that the Christian god is often portrayed as being male does this mean that you shoving his stuff down my through mean the christian god is ok with homosexual acts?
Re: (Score:3)
Which do you think is a bigger #, dollars spent improving working conditions in China or dollars spent advertising about improving working conditions in China?
I'm pretty sure Jesus said not to do this (Score:4, Insightful)
Either that, or "Treat others like you would like to be treated."
Honestly, the self-righteousness of the "religious" is getting to be annoying.
Re: (Score:3)
A better question. Why would you want someone photographing your wedding that hated you?
I'd prefer to spend my money on someone else.
Paraphrasing Ben Franklin. 'Why would you want to shut-up your opponents. Let them talk, encourage them to talk. That way everybody knows they are idiots.'
The world is a large place, gays will find photographers and bakers. Holy rollers will lose money. It's not 1950, assets are not so closely held and there are plenty of heathens, even in the bible belt.
Re: (Score:3)
So call him a bigot and give him a bad Yelp review, then find a photographer who is a better person.
Gay photographer refuses to take pictures at a straight wedding at Westboro Baptist Church.
Jewish photographer refuses to take pictures at a Nazi-themed wedding.
Black photographer refuses to take pictures at a KKK wedding.
Devout Christian photographer refuses to take pictures at a wedding at Westboro Baptist Church because they think that WBC's teachings are not very Christian?
Different sides of the same coin
Freedom to discriminate == no protection ... (Score:5, Insightful)
If you and your religion wish to be able to discriminate against someone on the basis of your religion, then you and your religion should correspondingly lose the legal protection of being discriminated against.
If you are such a whiny idiot that you think it should be OK to say "we don't serve your kind here", then you should have no legal or moral basis to claim that someone shouldn't be able to do the same to you.
This is giving religion an extra special place in law ... protected from being discriminated against, while getting a special exemption to discriminate against someone else.
So either shut up, and accept that you have no other ways you're legally allowed to discriminate against someone ... or accept that it should also be someone else's right to refuse you because of your religion.
There is no in between, and any claims your religion is so precious as to require you receive rights nobody else has is complete crap.
Sorry, but the Taliban, Al Qaeda, and ISIL want to have a society based on religious exceptionalism.
Which makes people who want to have religion be a special thing in law are full of shit, self entitled people, and are actually the enemies of a free and open society.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
These laws don't give you the right to say "We don't serve your kind here." at a public accommodation. That would be a violation of the law. You are not exempt from complying with laws where the government has a compelling interest.
What is somewhat amusing is that when the Federal law that provides the same protection as these State laws was passed under Clinton, it was to allow the use of ceremonial drugs in Native American rituals and the Amish to avoid some building codes.
Re: (Score:3)
These laws don't give you the right to say "We don't serve your kind here." at a public accommodation. That would be a violation of the law. You are not exempt from complying with laws where the government has a compelling interest.
Actually, this one does. And it keeps you from suing (successfully) against it. And it allows the State Government to step in (Intervene) (at Taxpayer Expense!) to enforce your "right" to Discriminate.
Even when there is an express local ordinance forbidding it.
Read. [joshblackman.com]
Re:Freedom to discriminate == no protection ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Freedom to discriminate == no protection ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
"we don't serve your kind here"
"Huh?"
"Your druids. They'll have to wait outside."
Re: (Score:3)
(after they leave, one clerk says to the other):
"funny! they don't look druish!"
(oblig)
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, I just *hate* haters, don't you? /irony.
You might want to review http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-... [cracked.com]
Re: (Score:3)
If you are such a whiny idiot that you think it should be OK to say "we don't serve your kind here", then you should have no legal or moral basis to claim that someone shouldn't be able to do the same to you.
Yes, I agree. People should be able to refuse to do business with someone for any reason whatsoever, and vice versa. Religious conviction shouldn't have any special status in law above any other type of preference or desire.
So either shut up, and accept that you have no other ways you're legally allowed to discriminate against someone ... or accept that it should also be someone else's right to refuse you because of your religion.
I agree and accept this.
Blow back (Score:4, Insightful)
For those wanting a 'free market' solution.. (Score:5, Interesting)
A free market solution never worked in the Jim Crow south and it wont work now. Sure if you live in a big city or town, if one shop refuses to serve you, you can go to another, but what happens to a person who is in the minority who lives or visits a small town that is predominantly made up of religious bigots? There may be one gas station, one food market, one diner? Should the minority have to leave town to protect the rights of the bigoted religious majority?
Also, will the religious rights head explode when Muslims try to use their faith in the same way the Christians are trying too?
Re:For those wanting a 'free market' solution.. (Score:4, Interesting)
Already happened. Awhile back, some state legislature passed a law allowing discussion of religion in public schools as a means of promoting Christianity (though they didn't come out and say that). They then were shocked, SHOCKED that this law was used to allow discussion of Islam. HOW HORRIBLE!!!!
Re: (Score:3)
Oh bullshit. There was general social consensus in the Jim Crow states that blacks needed to be segregated, that contact between the races should be minimized as much as possible. The governments of these states were doing precisely what the majority in these states wanted.
I discriminate all of the time. (Score:5, Insightful)
I choose who I do business with or have over my home all of the time. It's not based on religion I just don't do business with people I think are jerks.
a question (Score:4, Insightful)
if the government can compel companies to do business with people they don't want to, how long will it be before the people are compelled to do business with companies they don't want to?
Re:a question (Score:4, Interesting)
You mean like Comcast in many areas?
Nonsense (Score:3, Insightful)
This is all just a distraction and pandering to a political base. No business that likes money and wants to continue making money will be discriminating against anyone. Big corporations surely don't care who or what you sleep with in bed at night if you want to give them money. Small businesses can't afford to lose a sale. And if a small business decides to put their own religious beliefs in front of making money, then so be it if they go under.
This is another "look over here; be outraged!" political move by the establishment to make sure no one is looking at any of the important issues facing us on the world stage while at the same time furthering the "left/right" political divide and causing more animosity amongst the LGBT community that the "straights" are trying to oppress them (even though no one, straight, republican, or otherwise actually supports legalized discrimination).
These are real laws that can do real harm (Score:5, Insightful)
This is all just a distraction and pandering to a political base.
No it is not. It is an attempt to enshrine bigoted ideology into law against a group of people who have done them no harm. Just because it is pandering does not mean it will not do real harm.
No business that likes money and wants to continue making money will be discriminating against anyone.
BULLSHIT. Plenty of racist homophobes actually support this nonsense. This is legislation that specifically targets minority groups that by definition do not have the population to fight back directly. "Ohh, 1% of our customer base is angry with us, whatever will we do..."
Big corporations surely don't care who or what you sleep with in bed at night if you want to give them money.
Do you seriously think that the owners of Chick-Fil-A or Hobby Lobby wouldn't force their religion on others if given the chance? Companies are guided by people and people have biases. It's not even remotely difficult to find examples of companies discriminating against entire classes of people including women, blacks, hispanics, asians etc even when doing so is explicitly against the law. Ask women how that equal pay thing is going these day.
And if a small business decides to put their own religious beliefs in front of making money, then so be it if they go under.
If it were a fair world I would agree with you but reality frequently doesn't work that way.
Different conceptions of harm? (Score:4, Insightful)
I think something irreligious non-libertarians miss in these discussions is the notion of harm.
I'm guessing that they see clear harm to a gay person in having a business refuse to perform a particular service for them.
But they see no harm in forcing a religious person to choose between being faithful to God and making their living.
In reality, gay people can usually find another place to get a cake decorated, and religious people can actually write the requested message on a cake. But irreligious people are making the value judgment that the former is less tolerable than the latter.
As far as I can tell, that prioritization is itself a religious judgment. It's saying that it's more wrong to refuse to blaspheme, than to blaspheme. That strikes me as very much an Enlightenment era notion of morality.
Re: (Score:3)
I think you're perhaps missing part of my point.
I agree entirely that there are downsides to allowing business owners to make such distinctions. The point about black Americans is very valid.
But my point was that your dismissing a certain notion of harm, as perceived by religious persons. They consider themselves to be held accountable to God for their choices.
You're correctly arguing that gay
Re: (Score:3)
I think you're perhaps missing part of my point.
I agree entirely that there are downsides to allowing business owners to make such distinctions. The point about black Americans is very valid.
But my point was that your dismissing a certain notion of harm, as perceived by religious persons. They consider themselves to be held accountable to God for their choices.
You're correctly arguing that gay people suffer a certain kind of harm by a business refusing to do a certain kind of business on their behalf. I'm saying that you're dismissing the harm done to religious persons by demanding them to violate their consciences and/or their obedience to God (on their view).
Hmmm. Which part of the bible would serving a gay person violate? The part that says love your neighbor as yourself, love the sinner but hate the sin, do unto others as you would have them do unto you, or the judge not lest you be judged part?
Re:Tangible harm trumps imagined harm (Score:5, Insightful)
If you assume that their religious view is false (which is a judgment the government is not supposed to make), then I'd say the religious person is being harmed in precisely the same manner as that of a gay person who can't get his/her cake decorated with a certain message: it's simply a matter of hurt feelings.
If a religious person's view is true, then you're forcing them to have an alienated relationship with God (the Christian view), or by apostate (I think a Muslim view, but I could be wrong), and at a heightened risk of eternal damnation.
A religious person could argue that an atheist's imaginary world view should not be his problem either. My point in saying that I can't see how to have a clear separation of church and state in cases like this. Secularists win and religious persons lose, or vice versa, as far as I can tell.
So doe sthis mean I can... (Score:5, Insightful)
So does this mean that as an anti-theist I can refuse service to those who practice religion?
As a Pastafarian can I refuse to serve noodles to those not wearing a colander?
As a Dude-ist can I refuse service to those that don't abide?
Seriously, I am curious to know how much these wingnuts have thought about the possibility that non-Christians might use this crap against them. Imagine the uproar is a Halal butcher turned away some Catholics, or a Jewish deli turned away some Baptists on religious grounds. Faux News would have an outrage-gasm.
Re:So doe sthis mean I can... (Score:5, Insightful)
I would say go ahead. Refuse to service whoever you want for whatever reason you want, it's your right and should remain your right whether you run a business or not.
Jesus fucking Christ. What backwoods school did you go to that didn't teach American History [wikipedia.org]? The rules you're protesting have been the law of the land for 51 years now and somehow we've persevered. Your opinion is wrong. We took a vote and decided, almost half a century ago. You lost.
Yes, I'm angry. I'm having a hard time believing the among of ignorant bigotry I've seen pouring into Slashdot very recently. Where the hell did you guys come from? Were you here all along, and just recently felt brave enough to come out of your hateful little closet?
Read The Bill (Score:5, Informative)
This does NOT mean that teh gheys will be denied service at restaurants.
It DOES mean that I may be spared legal consequences if I decline to build a gay porn website for somebody and am sued for discrimination.
Is My Religious Liberty Being Threatened? (Score:5, Insightful)
How to Determine if Your Religious Liberty Is Being Threatened in Just 10 Quick Questions.
Just pick "A" or "B" for each question.
My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am not allowed to go to a religious service of my own choosing.
B) Others are allowed to go to religious services of their own choosing.
2. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am not allowed to marry the person I love legally, even though my religious community blesses my marriage.
B) Some states refuse to enforce my own particular religious beliefs on marriage on those two guys in line down at the courthouse.
3. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am being forced to use birth control.
B) I am unable to force others to not use birth control.
4. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am not allowed to pray privately.
B) I am not allowed to force others to pray the prayers of my faith publicly.
5. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) Being a member of my faith means that I can be bullied without legal recourse.
B) I am no longer allowed to use my faith to bully gay kids with impunity.
6. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am not allowed to purchase, read or possess religious books or material.
B) Others are allowed to have access books, movies and websites that I do not like.
7. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) My religious group is not allowed equal protection under the establishment clause.
B) My religious group is not allowed to use public funds, buildings and resources as we would like, for whatever purposes we might like.
8. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) Another religious group has been declared the official faith of my country.
B) My own religious group is not given status as the official faith of my country.
9. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) My religious community is not allowed to build a house of worship in my community.
B) A religious community I do not like wants to build a house of worship in my community.
10. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am not allowed to teach my children the creation stories of our faith at home.
B) Public school science classes are teaching science.
If you answered "A" to any question, then perhaps your religious liberty is indeed at stake. You and your faith group have every right to now advocate for equal protection under the law.
If you answered "B" to any question, then not only is your religious liberty not at stake, but there is a strong chance that you are oppressing the religious liberties of others.
Businesses Have A Right to be Jerks (Score:3, Interesting)
Will never again donate to LGBT causes... (Score:5, Insightful)
...after what happened to Mozilla CEO. I wholeheartedly support same sex marriage and plural marriage. I especially support alternative lifestyles entered by choice rather than because you were "born this way", because this country is about freedom of choice. I personally enjoy my choices and would hate to deny this to others. If an adult gay man wants to try conversion therapy to marry a woman he is not attracted to, it's no more our business than a woman who marries a rich guy she is not attracted to.
What I can not support is this notion that the only way you can be free is if nobody else is free. Brendan Eich was bullied out of his job just because he, as a private citizen, made a legal donation to a political campaign that most CA residents supported at the time. This is as reprehensible is a female CEO getting sacked because she had an abortion, and yet not a single gay rights organization came out against this. So despite donating money to oppose Prop 8, I will never again financially support these causes. I just can not be sure than my contributions will be used to promote equality rather than discrimination.
So I see how folks in Indiana would feel they need the law to make sure all personal beliefs are equally respected, not only most politically correct ones of the day. If I run a family IT shop and a bunch of Republicans show up wanting help with their campaign website, I don't want to serve them. How can I deny the same freedoms to a florist next door who doesn't want to participate in a same sex wedding?
Church of Light and Dark (Score:3)
I will start a new religion, where upon "dark" and "light" days will alternate. As a member, you will be obliged only to serve somebody of darker skin or lighter skin, depending on the day, all others will be turned away.
For example, If Tuesday is a "dark" day, you only are allowed to do business with or assist people with darker skin. The next day, you will only do business with those of a lighter skin shade.
Those without skin, or matching your own skin color are not to be dealt with, ever, as it is sinful.
Religious freedom!
The meaning of "Religious Freedom" (Score:5, Insightful)
Religious Freedom, or Freedom of Conscience, originally meant that the government wouldn't try to impose a particular brand of religion on the people.
The concept has been abused and mutilated until now it's interpreted as "My religion gives me freedom to trample all over your civil rights".
Why not let people ban blacks and fat people? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actual religious freedom (Score:4, Insightful)
In funny a way it's a good thing the society has reached a point where people have completely, absolutely, totally forgotten what religious freedom fundamentally means and why it's important.
Three or four hundred years ago, expressing your personal religious belief in the privacy of your own home could lead to soldiers dragging you off to prison and all of your wealth being confiscated by the state.
Religious freedom is the absence of that happening.
Re:Does this law protect puppies? (Score:5, Informative)
Bestiality is illegal. Homosexuality is not.
Re: Does this law protect puppies? (Score:5, Insightful)
You are ignoring that homosexuality is between consenting adults (the type that is legal anyway - homosexual rape isn't legal for example). Whereas bestiality and pedophilia are not. Which is a pretty significant difference making your "only difference" claim absurd.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Does this law protect puppies? (Score:5, Insightful)
I wonder if a cinema owner should be forced to sell tickets to black men.
Oh wait, I don't wonder that at all, because I'm not a bigoted idiot.
Re:Does this law protect puppies? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Does this law protect puppies? (Score:5, Funny)
How many Eddie Murphy movies should the owner be forced by law to screen?
Torture is also illegal
Re:Does this law protect puppies? (Score:5, Insightful)
Your analogy is completely wrong. Of course a pet store owner would be within their right to refuse the sale of an animal to a person that's going to abuse it.
A better example would be a shop worker refusing serve a gay man because the shop worker's religion says that homosexuality is a sin.
Religious Freedom is about the freedom to practice your religion, not to use it as an excuse to be an asshole to people.
Unfortunately, that's exactly what religion is about these days.
Re:Tim Cook is a Pro Discrimination Faggot (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is most of the people do not like a group of people, and such business are allowed to refuse services, we can create a situation where the outcast group cannot use the goods and services they need to function/survive in society.
We need business to offer goods and services for us to function, otherwise we will spending all of our time on our own survival. Having businesses refuse business based on aspects people cannot control means your are forcing people from the society.
Re:Tim Cook is a Pro Discrimination Faggot (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Feeding the troll [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Having trouble finding it? Here is a link to the constitution [wikisource.org] I'm still waiting for where "separation of church and state" in the constitution. When you find it let me know how that is more clear than "Shall Not Be Infringed" in the second. Oh you think its in the Bill of Rights [wikisource.org] well go look and let me know where. Show me the quote.
Conversely you can let me know how respecting t
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah, you could go without sex. Let's take a look at the Catholic Priests and see just how well that works.
Re: (Score:3)
"If we extend unlimited tolerance even to those who are intolerant, if we are not prepared to defend a tolerant society against the onslaught of the intolerant, then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them." - Sir Karl Popper
Not all discrimination is OK (Score:4, Insightful)
Everyone discriminates. You choose physical / personality traits that you require in someone to date / marry / have sex with. You choose your hobbies, bands, etc. You say "I love McDonald's" or "I hate White Castle". EVERYONE DISCRIMINATES.
Not one of those forms of discrimination causes societal harm. Whom you chose to date does NOT cause the same problems as denying someone basic civil rights because they are a woman or a minority. There are some forms of discrimination that are plainly harmful to society so we protect classes of people against discrimination. No it is NOT ok to pass over someone for a job or pay them less because they have a vagina. No it is NOT ok to refuse service to a well behaved patron in a restaurant because of their skin color. Do not confuse basic consumer choices with civil rights.
Then with the Civil Rights movement, they decided that for blacks to have equal rights, business owners had to lose their rights (yeah, I don't get the logic either).
Say what now? You think it is ok for a business owner to refuse service on the basis of skin color? Business owners merely were required to actually follow the constitution (not to mention basic decency) which they could have been doing all along but didn't. "Don't get the logic"? Are you seriously that daft?
The only reason that people currently are opposed to the "religious freedom" law is because they don't like THAT religious view.
100% wrong. These "religious freedom" laws are simply sneaky attempts to enshrine and protect bigotry. Someone's religion should NEVER form a basis to refuse economic transactions because economic transactions are the domain of the state. That is a plain violation of the separation of church and state.