It depends on the service being rendered. If there is a compelling governmental interest, and the particular court agrees, religions are not allowed to have an exemption from the rules that the rest of society must follow.
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
NYT: Anticipating Nationwide Gay Marriage, States Weigh Religious Exemption Bills
- Thread starter ivysaur12
- Start date
- Status
It depends on the service being rendered. If there is a compelling governmental interest, and the particular court agrees, religions are not allowed to have an exemption from the rules that the rest of society must follow.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Yeah, but I want a super pro immigration focused libertarian party and I don't think the Democrats will give that to me
The Republicans are even further away obviously, but at least they have reason to change strategy to... hopefully not this horrible shit.
benjipwns
Banned
Is the Golden Rule not "do unto others as you'd have others do unto you"? Or something along those lines?
SlickShoesRUCrazy
Member
No. All the old republicans need to die off. Basically those over the age of 55-60 need to die.
benjipwns
Banned
What did LBJ getting that against Goldwater do to the Republican Party?
Yes, hence why I said altruistic.
In other words a they prevert what they're selling.
benjipwns
Banned
How so?
Aquamarine
Member
The perception of Democrats across Southern America is much different.
I'm not disagreeing with you necessarily, but many people (i.e. many Republicans) see the Democratic party as incredibly liberal, and growing more extreme every day.
So the Republican Party is seen as the imperfect "lesser of two evils" by many. I know, it seems contradictory, but that's the thought process.
speculawyer
Member
.
They do it by presenting it as human nature and therefore natural and ultimately good .
This really comes to the forefront with objectiveism where ethics and self-interest are interchangeable .
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
I have gay friends, but fuck 'em if they want to get married and have the same benefits as me, a STRAIGHT person would have.
>
"I have gay friends, but I hate them"
That's a problem of faulty perspective. Many of Obama's most prominent initiatives were either supported by prominent Republicans in the past or outright started as Republican ideas (One example: Heritage Foundation being a key cornerstone for the birth of the Romneycare; which was direct inspiration for Obamacare). One of Obama's key strategies to expose Republican hypocrisy these past two terms has been to prominently endorse a position Republicans had supported not even five years past, and then to question aloud what changes when he put it forward that suddenly made everyone come out against the policy.
The one successful things modern Republicans have been able to do is confuse the American public sufficiently enough that they don't realize they've moved the goal posts as far right as possible. They did this out of necessity, because when the parties transformed after the Civil Rights era the Republican party catered their message toward new groups - Evangelicals, Dog Whistle Southerners, etc - the people that they were tailoring their message toward were receptive to the further right ideals. I mean books have been written on the subject by the Republican strategists of the time, they knew what they were doing and were totally embracing the so-called Silent Majority partially by advocating a sort of neutered Southern Strategy.
And it worked.
Consider that Ronald Reagan raised taxes multiple times during his Presidency. Now, ask any modern Republican if they would ever do that, and it's as anathema as any subject can be. In fact, the constant railing against Obama for wanting to raise taxes against anyone - in his argument, the rich - is a common refrain from modern Republicans. It's proof of his endlessly spending ways.
Consider that Obama actually offered cuts to Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid, which is as conservative an ideal as could conceivably be pushed (liberals nearly exploded like volcanoes at the proposal) and yet not only did Republicans not take that "compromise" (and this is proof of how politically inept Republicans have become, turning down such a crazy offer. And Obama is a total idiot for offering it and demonstrably center right for doing so), but then they later tried to tar him for using a claimed $700 billion dollars cut from Medicare for other savings. Whether it was true or not is besides the point, because it revealed a crucial issue in the Republican party. They don't actually have ideological positions that they believe in, they just believe in stopping Obama by any means necessary.
Obama escalated the drone war, escalated the privacy invading programs of the NSA and contrary to promises on the campaign trail did not end the FISA warrantless wiretapping. All very conservative ideals. If it were not for his complete break on torture, the guy would have been a total failure from that perspective in my eyes - and even more further right than he's already demonstrated himself to be on so many issues.
He's progressive on LGBT rights and he's certainly progressive on a number of other subjects, but on balance he has operated as a center-right politician. And that's the great problem in this country... so many people not only don't realize that, but they've allowed themselves to believe that the alternative Republican party is somehow the less extreme of the two. You can imagine what it means when a country is led by the nose like that.
benjipwns
Banned
Are you saying that the Golden Rule is bad or something? I guess I don't understand where this perversion is supposedly happening.
Objectivism isn't libertarian.
I love this myth too. And the underlying assumptions in the argument it's supposed to support.
It's not a myth. There's like a book worth of previously supported Republican policies from ten to fifteen years ago that Obama himself has pushed. He makes it a thing whenever he does this, with a wink and a nod pointing out that Republicans themselves supported this or that policy in the past.
But if you have an alternative version of reality you'd like to paint, I'd hope you'd put more effort into demonstrating it then you have here.
Link
The Autumn Wind
Ugh, what are you doing? Time to unsubscribe from this thread. It's about to get unbearable.
Do we have to be fair? I dont wanna be fair.
Having a discussion. Please by all means remove yourself if that is painful. Be better than wasting a post and degrading the quality of topics with worthless commentary. You like a discussion, or you don't. Articulate why or move on. It's not complicated, it's not rocket science.
I don't believe it's bad or good. It depends on the interpretation within the contents the situation, but people in general use it as some paramount virtue which is why I used it.
Objectivism is where lots of libertarians get their philosophical tenets from.
benjipwns
Banned
Yes, it is a myth. The Heritage Foundation published one paper proposing an alternative to "Hillarycare" in which an insurance mandate was used. Nobody read this paper for twenty years. Heritage as a whole never supported the idea.
Never was it used as the "foundation" for Republican policy on health care. Nor was Romneycare. (And it wasn't used as a "cornerstone" for that either.)
Someone was nice enough to create this chart:
Yeah, okay Ayn Rand, you invented things that predate your birth.
Uh, you really don't think modern libertarians use that philosophy as inspiration? Seriously?
Yes, it is a myth. The Heritage Foundation published one paper proposing an alternative to "Hillarycare" in which an insurance mandate was used. Nobody read this paper for twenty years. Heritage as a whole never supported the idea.
Never was it used as the "foundation" for Republican policy on health care. Nor was Romneycare. (And it wasn't used as a "cornerstone" for that either.)
Someone was nice enough to create this chart:
You're modifying my language here.
I said the Heritage Foundation ideal was a key cornerstone for Romneycare, and the team who worked on creating the Romney health care initiative has been keen on giving Heritage direct credit for helping craft the law.
Link.
And then I said ROMNEYCARE was a direct inspiration for Obamacare, so much so that they shared some of the same architects amongst whom said:
Link
Now obviously, he's exaggerating how similar they are. They are not exact mirror versions of one another, they do have significant differences. But there's little doubt as to its historical connection to Romneycare and by extension the Heritage Foundation's original proposal. There's a direct line we can connect, that has been supported by the very people behind these laws.
So no, it's not a myth the way I was saying it. It's a myth the way you interpreted I was saying it.
In any event, we're off subject here, but my point is merely that Obama has been a center right politician on average, which exceptions generally in the social spectrum. And I give him partial credit for the environment being where it is now, with so much explosion toward moving finally to end LGBT discrimination.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Well...
On the other hand, this is a thread about how Democrats have turned their backs on robust protections for religious liberties, so I'm not sure anyone should be gloating about Republican support for the individual mandate and other mistakes of the early '90s.
EDIT:
Not sure we should be citing Gruber's past statements as evidence of anything. The man speaks like he tpyes.
benjipwns
Banned
"The Connector" is the exchange Massachusetts created. And those Heritage scholors helped create that in 2006. The Heritage proposal in 1993-ish had no exchanges. The similarities are the individual mandate. There's no connection between Heritage's 1993-ish proposal and Romneycare or Obamacare other than that.
Though it's not the entirety of the "Connector" I'd be really impressed if that guy who wrote the proposal for Heritage came up with an extensive internet marketplace in 1993.
The fact that Objectivism is a totalitarian philosophy doesn't help.
Though it's not the entirety of the "Connector" I'd be really impressed if that guy who wrote the proposal for Heritage came up with an extensive internet marketplace in 1993.
Depends on how you define the center and right I suppose.
Uh, not really. I don't know why they would have to when liberalism has a far longer history of influence, especially in the United States.
The fact that Objectivism is a totalitarian philosophy doesn't help.
Man, Milton sure had a fondness for terrible ideas that he later would regret didn't he.
Well then you just don't know what you're talking about and must have missed the last 50 years of libertarian evolution.
NobleXenon
Member
And Christians wonder why their religion is dying.
benjipwns
Banned
what evolution lol
Just a diversion from the point in the path of natural conversation, it happens.
Obama has at least been progressive on the subject of LGBT rights ever since Joe Biden came out ahead of him, and according to David Axelrod he always supported gay marriage from the start.
I'm just glad he is here now. I know in terms of substantive policy chages, his ending Don't Ask, Don't Tell is about the best we have on paper, but I don't think we can underestimate how much value it is for a sitting President to firmly come out in support of gay marriage nor how much the conversation has changed as a result. It has normalized it in a way. In any event, no matter how much we value Obama's place in this, I think we can all agree things are better now then they were before he became president on this subject.
Oh yeah you're right, the movement is completely static and has not changed one iota. lol
PlayALLtheGames
Banned
Lol, "opt out." Wow. And when the flying fuck did non-discrimination in business get the "opt out" option? I seem to have missed that change in law.
So many/most republicans are just stupid? Obama is a very moderate liberal who borders on being a republican. The fact that the average republican voter is to stupid/racist to understand this just makes them look like complete morons.
benjipwns
Banned
Or their spectral location is is the polar opposite of yours.
Metaphoreus
This is semantics, and nothing more
Is this about ghosts?
OneEightZero
aka ThreeOneFour
Is it going to take a Constitutional Amendment to permanently disarm the anti-LGBT legislation?
In this climate? A supermajority in both houses is impossible.
benjipwns
Banned
Why should I be forced to serve ghosts if I don't believe in them?
we'd be lucky to get a supermajority to say that this country is called the United States of America at this stage.
Poltergust
Member
That should not be necessary. Once LGBT people become a protected class, none of these things should crop up anymore.
No, it would take a forceful overthrow at this point.
benjipwns
Banned
Not a new one, we already have the 14th.
Right now, I think there's a majority on SCOTUS that would allow public accommodation laws to stand. Not sure if it's 6-3 or 5-4.. depends on where Roberts and Kennedy would fall on those cases.
If we get a few more Scalias on the court to replace a few from that majority, I could easily see these laws surviving judicial review.
The alarmism and self-righteousness in some of these comments is... alarming. I'm sure the legislation is likely a mixed bag, some good protections of religious liberty and some pandering, but the idea is correct that we need to establish a solid ground for proper hearing of disputes between religious belief and civic actions when these genuinely conflict.
It is an enormous leap and frankly absurd to suggest that courts -- who would, under this kind of legislation, still hold the last rule of interpreting whether a genuine and established religious conviction is at stake -- would allow for something like business owners rampantly refusing to serve gay customers in any capacity. What is obviously the aim is to protect cases like the recent high-profile incidents of Christian bakers. And there is a tremendous amount of difference between turning away a customer in general and turning them away from a narrow case of a creative service rendered to celebrate an event that has a long and broad history of being directly contrary to religious faiths, even seen as a kind of parody of a beloved sacrament to many people.
Look at the case of florist Barronelle Stutzman, who is known to have: (1) employed LGBT persons; (2) faithfully served this particular gay customer in question for years fully knowing his orientation; (3) only refused service for the single case of creating elements for his wedding ceremony; yet who know stands to lose everything for a single polite refusal. The idea that there should be a carefully established protection for cases like this is absolutely evident. It should not astonish anyone that beliefs about the use of sexuality are something central to nearly all faiths; it is only the enormously strong, recent, and generally elite Western ideology of consumerist freedom which contends that sexual practices can never, under any circumstances, be debated legitimately in the moral realm.
It is an enormous leap and frankly absurd to suggest that courts -- who would, under this kind of legislation, still hold the last rule of interpreting whether a genuine and established religious conviction is at stake -- would allow for something like business owners rampantly refusing to serve gay customers in any capacity. What is obviously the aim is to protect cases like the recent high-profile incidents of Christian bakers. And there is a tremendous amount of difference between turning away a customer in general and turning them away from a narrow case of a creative service rendered to celebrate an event that has a long and broad history of being directly contrary to religious faiths, even seen as a kind of parody of a beloved sacrament to many people.
Look at the case of florist Barronelle Stutzman, who is known to have: (1) employed LGBT persons; (2) faithfully served this particular gay customer in question for years fully knowing his orientation; (3) only refused service for the single case of creating elements for his wedding ceremony; yet who know stands to lose everything for a single polite refusal. The idea that there should be a carefully established protection for cases like this is absolutely evident. It should not astonish anyone that beliefs about the use of sexuality are something central to nearly all faiths; it is only the enormously strong, recent, and generally elite Western ideology of consumerist freedom which contends that sexual practices can never, under any circumstances, be debated legitimately in the moral realm.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
Capitalism is blame for gay people being accepted?
Capitalism +1 (though this still keeps the score at infinity).
benjipwns
Banned
One reason Jim Crow laws came about is that black people's money was just as good as whites.
Now gays are another thing since you can probably catch it by touching something they've touched. (It's how they reproduce outside of prison.)
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
This one has caught on, time to return back to the gay spaceship to come up with a plan to deal with this benji.
I have absolutely no problems with the judgement against Ms. Stutzman. It was just when it was decided. Her case is very clear cut -- the state that she resides in has public accommodations laws that include sexual orientation. She refused to provide flowers for a wedding on the sole basis that it was a wedding between two men, due to their sexual orientation. If you'd like to parse out that this was discriminating against the act of gay marriage instead of ones sexual orientation, I don't see that holding water. It would still be a race based discrimination claim if the same action was taken towards an interracial couple, not discrimination against the act of interracial marriage.
There is no way to qualify what she did as a "polite refusal" and to argue as much is a slap in the face to gay person who experience discrimination on the basis of their sexual orientation. I also see no reason to explicitly protect wedding vendors from refusing to offer services to gay couples, the same way we would be in an uproar (on GAF, at least) if a restaurant told a gay couple they had to leave. In fact, I'd like to see sexual orientation covered in the exact same way that other immutable characteristics (and religion) are covered by public accommodation laws. Religious belief, no matter how sincerely held, should not a shield to refuse service that would be provide to all others.
If you find this thread alarming, I find your post distressing as hell.
No, and your inability to distinguish at all between a person being accepted and everything or anything they choose to do being fundamentally and unilaterally excluded from all moral debate is precisely the problem to which I was pointing; so thanks for underscoring it, whether or not your self-parody was intentional.
ItWasMeantToBe19
Banned
You are the best poster on GAF since empty vessel, please end up on the Daily Show.
And yeah, fuck your imaginary God, I don't fucking care about It
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked