Whatever Happened to Religious Freedom?
This atheist wants to know.
This despite the fact that I see plenty of evidence for the existence of dog (she's sitting in my lap as I write this) and zero evidence for the existence of god, and find believing in god about as adult as believing in Santa.
In other words, no supporter of religion; big supporter of religious freedom and freedom of association.
Roger Pilon, VP for legal affairs at Cato and director of Cato's Center for Constitutional Studies writes in the WSJ about the Oregon cake bakers -- religious people fined for refusing to bake a cake for a gay wedding, and other such cases:
How did we get to this point? Freedom of association--the simple idea that people are free to associate, or not, as they wish--certainly isn't what it once was.We've never had that freedom in its purest form, but the main restraints were once limited and reasonable. Under common law, if you held a monopoly or were a common carrier like a stage line or railroad, you had to serve all comers. If you represented your business, an inn for instance, as "open to the public," you had to honor that, though you didn't have to serve unruly customers and could negotiate what services you offered.
These rules left ample room for freedom of association more broadly, albeit with serious exceptions like Jim Crow, the deplorable state-sanctioned discrimination enforced by the heavy hand of government.
Forced association of the kind at issue with the Kleins and Giffords is a product mainly of the civil-rights movement of the 1960s. Believing, probably correctly, that the only way to break institutional racism in the South was to prohibit public and private discrimination, Congress passed civil-rights laws that forbid discrimination in wide areas of life on several grounds--such as race, religion, sex or national origin. States have also passed such laws, including those that in many jurisdictions now prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
But uncertainty arose concerning the relation between those laws, plus others, and religious liberty. Could a state withhold unemployment benefits from a Native American who used peyote--an illegal drug--for religious purposes? Hoping to resolve such questions, a nearly unanimous Congress passed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in 1993. Twenty-two states have since passed similar laws, but the issue remains vexed. Witness the Supreme Court's decision a year ago upholding Hobby Lobby's challenge to ObamaCare's contraceptive mandate, and the uproar over Indiana's religious freedom restoration act a few months ago.
The question at hand, then, is whether and how modern antidiscrimination laws limit the constitutional and statutory right to the free exercise of religion. Even after Obergefell, there are clear cases--on statutory, to say nothing of constitutional grounds--in which religious liberty will trump antidiscrimination claims. Clergy opposed to same-sex marriage surely will not be forced to perform or open their facilities to such ceremonies, although some in the LGBT movement are already pressing for churches to lose their tax-exempt status if they do not.
Pilon points out that the bakers didn't deny service in their publicly open bakery to gays; they just denied them custom creative work on the grounds of their religious beliefs.
This will get very interesting when society gives 12 year old kids the "right" to not do as their parents require.
Losing tax-exempt status will be a political fight but might get interesting if the black churches really get involved. (Bet the 'solution' will be to exempt small churches.)
Bob in Texas at July 19, 2015 6:48 AM
The next phase is "disparate impact." Wherein you are guilty of discrimination if you simply haven't the correct statistical ratio of "protected classes" being served. We see this starting with housing. Neighborhoods without the correct statistical distribution of minorities will be forced to attract and provide housing for minorities.
Business licenses will be granted based on whether there is adequate representation of minorities. If there are too many christian bakers, but not enough minority bakers, christian bakers will simply be denied licenses to be bakers until adequate minority bakers have been granted licenses. Many government contracts are already awarded based on being a minority.
In short we are being turned into a society of tribes and the government will allocate resources based on tribes. Of course, tribes will be resentful of not receiving their "fair" share. We see throughout the world what happens.
Billie at July 19, 2015 7:24 AM
The question at hand, then, is whether and how modern antidiscrimination laws limit the constitutional and statutory right to the free exercise of religion. Even after Obergefell, there are clear cases--on statutory, to say nothing of constitutional grounds--in which religious liberty will trump antidiscrimination claims.
Religious conservatives scream about religious business owners being forced to cater to same-sex couples. They champion the religious beliefs, the religious liberty of Christian florists and Christian bakers.
Now, let's take another group of religious people: not Christian florists or bakers but Mormons who believe in plural marriage. Are these same religious conservatives in favor of that? Do they champion these religious beliefs, this expression of religious liberty? Of course not.
JD at July 19, 2015 8:55 AM
Now, let's take another group of religious people: not Christian florists or bakers but Mormons who believe in plural marriage. Are these same religious conservatives in favor of that? Do they champion these religious beliefs, this expression of religious liberty? Of course not.
Posted by: JD at July 19, 2015 8:55 AM
Why should all Christians be in favor of what Fundamentalist Mormons want?
Christianity is a big tent.
Are Christians now all hypocrites if they don't support Sharia law because Muslims believe in God?
The point here is government forcing individuals and businesses to accept and support a life style they disagree with.
If a Chrsitan bakery doesn't want to cater a same sex wedding, a Muslim wedding, or a fudamentalist Morman wedding, they should not be required to do so by force of law.
Isab at July 19, 2015 9:38 AM
Why didn't they pick a gay-owned bakery? this smells more and more like a test case set-up.
KateC at July 19, 2015 11:29 AM
I don't understand why we can't force Christians to wear a bloody cross on their clothes and deny them access to whatever we decide they don't deserve.
I mean, they HAVE the freedom to worship as they please, right? So what's the big deal if we isolate, humiliate, denigrate, segregate, and treat them differently from decent people?
They should just shut up and pay their taxes and receive a different level of protection under the law.
Gog_Magog_Carpet_Reclaimers at July 19, 2015 11:39 AM
Given the dog/god meme, I thought you'd enjoy this
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xfT5uoNuNMc
lujlp at July 19, 2015 11:52 AM
I'm w/Gog on this one and disagree w/SCOTUS giving a "business" a personal right as if it were a person.
If you want to be all exclusive and everything then be a private club/server. If you want the income potential from serving everyone then serve everyone.
If you want to live as you please you got have a very very low profile or totally control the area (and that will only last a few decades). (See Jeff Warrens)
Both sides of this cake stuff are being silly. It's a cake not a baptism.
Bob in Texas at July 19, 2015 12:36 PM
Blah, blah, blah...blah-blah-blah. Blah, blah-blah blah. Blah.
Either do away with all protected classes, or include sexual orientation in anti-discrimination laws. That is the only way I can see that the U.S. law can be consistent. None of this, "Let's protect blacks, women, Jews, etc. but let those icky gays defend for themselves."
I'm sick of all the whining about how the sky is falling. The Kleins make me sick to my stomach. "Oh, woe is us! We can't even have freedom of religion! Poor, poor us, Christian martyrs that we are!"
If you think being denied a certain tenant of your religion by U.S. law means that you can't have freedom of religion (an idea that is so fucking melodramatic and exaggerated, it's absolutely nauseating), then neither can Mormons or Muslims, who believe in polygamy. I don't care what they believe. They can't observe polygamy in the United States.
Neither can Rastafarians; marijuana is still illegal, whether you believe that it enhances your spirituality or whatever.
If your church teaches human or animal sacrifice, tough shit. You will still be prosecuted if you try to practice that in the U.S.
Join the fucking club.
Just stop the fucking whining already! Everybody acts like being compelled to perform a service in defiance of your religious beliefs is something that the gay rights movement invented.
If the Kleins cited religious beliefs in refusing to bake a cake for an interracial couple (and yes, people do cite religious beliefs in their opposition to interracial marriage), they would most likely be sued, and they will almost definitely lose if they are sued. And the laws that make it so have been in place for decades.
Now that gays make the imminently reasonable request that sexual orientation be included among protected classes, people act like this is something new and horrific. It's not new. It's been in place for decades.
Take your ignorant asses to the internet and research something about the civil rights movement. Because this newly found outrage over something that's been the law of the land for decades is just mind-blowing in its stupidity and ignorance.
I'm sick of the Kleins' and their transparent motive to cash in on their martyrdom. Ever since Memories Pizza got 800,000 dollars in a GoFundMe account designed to help them, everybody wants to cash in.
The Kleins can't stop sob hard enough in their efforts to make themselves over into the most persecuted Christians since the Apostle Paul. Jon Ritzheimer was brazen enough to ask for ten million dollars to reinforce the protections on his home and start a campaign to take Senator McCain's place. (Good luck getting your atheist ass elected in Arizona, Ritzheimer. I'd vote for an atheist, but not your worthless ass.)
Patrick at July 19, 2015 1:48 PM
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
-- Abraham Lincoln
Canvasback at July 19, 2015 1:51 PM
Bleah. I meant "eminently reasonable request." I know the difference, but I keep mixing them up. Like there, their and they're.
Patrick at July 19, 2015 1:55 PM
"America will never be destroyed from the outside. If we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
-- Abraham Lincoln
Ironic given Lincoln violated more civil liberties than any public official ever
lujlp at July 19, 2015 2:04 PM
Personally, the way I see it, a privately held business should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason.
Publicly held businesses should as well, but such policies would have to be voted on by share holders
Government, government granted monopolies such as utilities, government subsidized businesses, and medical services should not.
Let people be free to be bigots without fear of government sanctioned reprisals. They'll die out soon enough. And their kids wont see "proof" of persecution and wont feel compelled to defend their parents way of life to the point that they adopt it themselves
lujlp at July 19, 2015 2:11 PM
"do away with all protected classes"
Yup, yup and yup.
Dave B at July 19, 2015 2:39 PM
lujlp writes: Personally, the way I see it, a privately held business should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason.
And I'm absolutely fine with this. Let businesses discriminate as they wish, and let the free market show its support or lack of support as they wish.
But since sexual orientation is immutable and not a disorder, it should be included in discrimination laws or discrimination laws should be done away with.
I just find excluding sexual orientation to be inconsistent and there's no reason on earth we should put up with that.
Patrick at July 19, 2015 2:45 PM
Neither can Rastafarians; marijuana is still illegal
Not really. Courts have ruled in favor of practicing Rastafarians in religious freedom cases. The reason we have the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is because of an Oregon Indian's use of peyote in religious ceremonies according to the article above.
Also, the official mainstream Mormon stance on polygamy is excommunication, if I understand it correctly.
since sexual orientation is immutable
Since when?
What's really messed up about this Oregon baker deal is that the bakers can't publicly speak about their belief as part of a gag order, prior restraint thing.
Jason S. at July 19, 2015 3:41 PM
Isab: If a Chrsitan bakery doesn't want to cater a same sex wedding, a Muslim wedding, or a fudamentalist Morman wedding, they should not be required to do so by force of law.
And if a Mormon man wants to have two (or more) wives, he shouldn't be required to have only one by force of law. Religious freedom!
JD at July 19, 2015 4:03 PM
Bob in Texas: If you want to be all exclusive and everything then be a private club/server. If you want the income potential from serving everyone then serve everyone.
There's a fundamental difference in how people view a business that "serves the public."
Those, like libertarians, who think there shouldn't be any anti-discrimination laws, who think that business owners should be free to discriminate against whoever they want, for any reason, don't view engaging in business as having any public obligations (or at least the public obligation of serving everyone.)
On the other hand, people who favor anti-discrimination laws feel that engaging in business does carry with it public obligations, including the public obligation of serving everyone. Furthermore, they feel that "the people", via their elected representatives, can legitimately and morally require business owners to do that.
JD at July 19, 2015 4:21 PM
And if a Mormon man wants to have two (or more) wives, he shouldn't be required to have only one by force of law. Religious freedom!
Posted by: JD at July 19, 2015 4:03 PM
I am in absolute agreement there. Laws against polygamy are most likely unconstitutional after Obergefelt. .
However, some system needs to be in place so we don't have four widows or widowers riding social security survivor benefits.
And the people most likely to benefit from legalized polygamy are not fundamentalist Mormons, but Muslims.
Isab at July 19, 2015 4:22 PM
Jason S. Not really. Courts have ruled in favor of practicing Rastafarians in religious freedom cases. The reason we have the Religious Freedom Restoration Act is because of an Oregon Indian's use of peyote in religious ceremonies according to the article above.
Really? Name the cases in which the courts made exceptions for Rastafarians to use marijuana.
Jason S. since sexual orientation is immutable
Since when?
Since always. Since you don't know what you're talking about. It's pretty much common knowledge, but I guess you didn't get the memo.
The American Psychological Association says it is. But obviously, you're ever so much more knowledgeable about the subject than they could ever hope to be. I suggest you advise the APA to make no more conclusions about anything until they consult with you.
Patrick at July 19, 2015 4:32 PM
You are all missing the point, because you are missing a fundamental:
Government cannot discriminate due to the principle of equal protection under the law. Individuals MUST discriminate in order to associate with those whose company is to their benefit.
The best way to get government into everyone's business is to make everyone call on government, and to convince them to perform its duties.
Once "mission creep" has been allowed to cause a small business owner to act as if she is enforcing the US Constitution, fait accompli: socialism is delivered.
Radwaste at July 19, 2015 4:41 PM
Isab: I am in absolute agreement there. Laws against polygamy are most likely unconstitutional after Obergefelt. .
You are so ignorant about the topic of sexual orientation, you should be embarrassed to talk about it. I suspect, if you practice law, you'd lose a substantial client base if they knew the ignorance you spout.
First of all, no matter how often you stamp you widdle feet and insist it's a lifestyle, it will not make it so.
It's been explained to you what a lifestyle is. Homosexuality has nothing to do with job, income, affluence, contacts, hobbies, social circles, etc., all the things that make up a lifestyle.
It is an orientation. Like left-handedness. Like introversion.
And second of all, the idea that the arguments for gay marriage apply to polygamy is palpable nonsense.
Gay marriage is inclusive. It allows gay people to partake of the same protections and privileges extended to heterosexual couples. Mormons and Muslims do not believe in plural marriage; they believe in polygamy. One man, multiple wives, only. No one wife, multiple husbands. Polygamy is, by its very nature, exclusive.
Muslims have a limit of four wives. I don't know what the Mormon limit is, or even if they have one, but Brigham Young helped himself to 55 wives. (And Mitt Romney has the nerve to claim that he believes a marriage should be only between a man and a woman.)
Removing such numbers of potential mates out of the marriage pool would consign huge numbers of heterosexual men to single lives. They can either be celibate or have affairs with married women. Or discover the joys of fleshlights. Or inflatable sex dolls. Yes, perhaps they'll resign themselves to the joys of being married to Miss Polly Urethane, in all her inflatable glory.
Patrick at July 19, 2015 4:47 PM
"Pilon points out that the bakers didn't deny service in their publicly open bakery to gays; they just denied them custom creative work on the grounds of their religious beliefs."
Exactly. I think this is one of the key points being missed. Creative work. This isn't about some business turning away customers just because of personal beliefs which could be bigoted. (Many here, including our gracious host, will disagree with me on this - to me public access is public access no matter what your personal beliefs are. If you opened your doors to the public you cannot engage in discrimination, including sexual orientation. But, that is not the point of my commenting here now)
The way I see this case of the Oregon bakers is sort of like a Christian organization asking Amy who is by profession a writer, yet also an avowed atheist, to write an article professing the virtue of belief in God.
While Amy (just like the bakers) could certainly do a fine job, she likely wouldn't feel comfortable doing so (ok, Amy, correct me if I'm wrong on that) and would likely turn away such business. And, it should be perfectly legal for her to do so.
I don't see this as gay being or not being a protected class. They were never turned away from simply walking into the shop and buying anything already for sale to other people.
They were, however, not given the luxury of special, custom, creative work. Because the creators of that work felt uncomfortable doing so; and, they should have that right to not engage in it.
And, while the gay "activists" might win this one in court; they have lost "middle" America (including me, a gay man) at endorsing what they are trying to accomplish.
Bullying is bullying - no matter who is doing it.
charles at July 19, 2015 4:47 PM
"Jason S. since sexual orientation is immutable"
So being a pedophile is immutable? And deserving of Constitutional protections?
Somehow, I think you are going to want to make all sorts of exceptions in this case....based on nothing but the *ick* factor.
Constitutional protections for behavior is categorically different from those extended on the basis of race, and disability, but we have been down this road before.
Isab at July 19, 2015 4:52 PM
Patrick: I'm sick of all the whining about how the sky is falling. The Kleins make me sick to my stomach. "Oh, woe is us! We can't even have freedom of religion! Poor, poor us, Christian martyrs that we are!"
You may be sick of that whining, but, for conservative Christians, the sky is falling. Or, will soon be falling.
They point to the verse in Nohomos 15:37 which prophesizes:
JD at July 19, 2015 4:57 PM
Charles: The way I see this case of the Oregon bakers is sort of like a Christian organization asking Amy who is by profession a writer, yet also an avowed atheist, to write an article professing the virtue of belief in God.
I can't agree with your analogy, Charles. Amy is a freelance writer. She never opened her services to the general public.
However, if she were a staff writer on a Christian magazine (or even just a secular periodical), she could be compelled, under threat of losing her job, to write just such an article as you describe. Of course, I couldn't conceive of Amy, no matter how desperate things get, applying for work at a Christian magazine. Or why a newspaper would want anyone on their staff to write an article extolling the virtues of religion, least of all, why they would ask an avowed atheist on their staff to write such a thing. But it could happen.
The bakers are not freelancers. They run their own business and offer their services to the general public. And most bakers have a catalog available that shows what cakes they make and for which occasions. There's no comparison between offering a service to the general public, then deciding not to do it if the couple in question has matching genitals, and a freelance writer being asked to write about a particular topic that they would find abhorrent.
She's freelance. She can write what she wants. It's up to the newspapers/publishers if they want to pay for it. But she offers no service to the general public.
The bakers do offer their services to the general public.
And while the gay activists have lost your sympathy, it's the Kleins that have lost mine. They're playing the martyr to embarrassing levels. They're being ridiculous. Not because of their refusal to bake a stupid cake, a decorative confection with absolutely no nutritional value as a food (you'd be hard-pressed to find something more valueless that is still considered edible), but because they cannot "woe is us!" loud enough.
But as I said, I don't see this as gay activists bullying anyone. I think the question, since homosexuality has been established as an immutable characteristic and not a pathology and because homosexuals have faced (and still face) considerable prejudice, it is a fair question. If we're going to have anti-discrimination laws, should sexual orientation be included?
I can't think of any reason why it shouldn't. The only reasonable alternative is to do away with all protected classes, which is an idea I could get behind. I think it's time to get rid of anti-discrimination laws. Let the small business owners turn away they like, and let the free market decide how it feels about it.
Patrick at July 19, 2015 5:07 PM
Isab (who never tires of exposing her idiocy for all the world to see, and hates, hates, hates gays with all the fervency she can muster): So being a pedophile is immutable? And deserving of Constitutional protections?
Does the APA consider pedophilia a sexual orientation? I know the answer, but I'll let you look it up for yourself. Branch out a little bit. Don't restrict yourself to law. Learn a smidgen of psychology. Trust me, you need the help. I wouldn't expect you to write a dissertation, but a lawyer should know enough to keep from making a fool of herself. (And obviously, you don't.)
But since I don't want to give away the answer to the question I suggested you look up, I'll have to couch my next question in vague terms.
The question: do pedophiles have a right to be pedophiles? Think before you answer. I'm not asking if pedophiles have the right to engage in pedophilia. I'm asking if they have the right to be pedophiles.
And while you're at it, you might want to look up the difference between pedophilia and ephebophilia.
One more suggestion: since your rampant hatred of homosexuals creates a fascinating resistance to actually learning anything on the subject, I would suggest you confine your discussion of the topic to internet forums only.
You start comparing homosexuals to pedophiles in your face-to-face interactions, you're eventually going to meet with a real-time punch in the mouth.
Patrick at July 19, 2015 5:18 PM
Patrick: If we're going to have anti-discrimination laws, should sexual orientation be included?
I can't think of any reason why it shouldn't. The only reasonable alternative is to do away with all protected classes, which is an idea I could get behind. I think it's time to get rid of anti-discrimination laws. Let the small business owners turn away they like, and let the free market decide how it feels about it.
To answer your first question, absolutely. (The one protected class that is really out of step with all the others is religion. That's the one class that is clearly a choice.) You can be opposed to all anti-discrimination laws in principle but if you don't feel that way, if you see value in anti-discrimination laws - and feel they are moral and just, a legitimate expression of the will of the people -- then it's ludicrous to not include sexual orientation...especially if you're adding it to an existing law that already protects religion.
I'd love to see a movement to abolish anti-discrimination laws. I'd love to see what kind of support it gets and what kind of opposition it engenders. Who knows, it might get a lot of support. Can you imagine, for example, all the business owners who'd be glad they could refuse service to Muslims (or Muslim-looking people) because they might be terrorists?
JD at July 19, 2015 5:39 PM
Isab: Somehow, I think you are going to want to make all sorts of exceptions in this case....based on nothing but the *ick* factor.
Really? That's all? The "ick" factor? Are you sure you're a JD? How does a JD, regardless of their specialty, not know that that sexual interaction is considered a legal contract, and that the reason sex with a minor is illegal is because minors cannot enter contracts.
By the way, before you drag out bestiality, the fact that marriage and sex are contracts also invalidates the comparison of homosexuality to bestiality.
I have debated the gay issue for a long time. And frankly, I'm sick of the comparisons of homosexuality to bestiality and pedophilia. It's insulting. One the catch phrases that has been thrown around for as long as I can remember when discussing any sexual relationship is "consenting adults." I've heard that phrase for as long as I knew what the words meant.
But somehow, when we're dealing with alarmists who think we're going to legalize marriage with children and animals next, the whole "consenting adults" phrase -- which has been used to justify everything to open relationships, adultery, sex before marriage, etc. -- gets lost when we discuss homosexuality, and the accompanying claims that it's going to lead to us to legalizing bestiality and pedophilia.
I find it amazing and fascinating at the same time, though God knows why I should stand aghast at what is obviously homophobia. Who on this board has never heard the phrase "consenting adults" and doesn't know how it's usually applied?
I also support the whole "consenting adults" concept. That means "no bestiality," "no pedophilia," but gay relationships a-okay.
The fact that I have to explain this concept to a JD is embarrassing.
I also support inclusiveness in the marital contract. Let everyone who wants to marry be able to with a mate that will have them. And this means one-to-one marriages only. No snapping up all the available mates like Pac-Man snaps up the dots.
There. See? That wasn't so hard, was it? We can support same-sex unions without supporting bestiality, polygamy and pedophilia. And we didn't even have to rely on the "ick-factor." We just used the same rationale that heterosexuals have used for at least as long as I can remember: "consenting adults."
Patrick at July 19, 2015 5:44 PM
"Does the APA consider pedophilia a sexual orientation? I know
the answer, but I'll let you look it up for yourself. Branch out a little bit. Don't restrict yourself to law. Learn a smidgen of psychology. Trust me, you need the help. I wouldn't expect you to write a dissertation, but a lawyer should know enough to keep from making a fool of herself. (And obviously, you don't.)"
Patrick, you just said that sexuality is hardwired and immutable.
Please explain how a sexual attraction to children is an exception to that characterization.
And should we not have compassion for those whose sexual desires are not socially acceptable, even when they don't act on those desires?
I have studied quite a bit of psychology. And I know a political organization when I see one. Nothing scientific about the APA which, by the way still consideres transsexualism to be a form of body dismorphic disorder. (Watch that change with political pressure)
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Body_dysmorphic_disorder
I have profound compassion for the mentally ill, but that doesn't extend to trying to pretend that their illness should be embraced as normal.
I don't hate anyone based on their sexual orientation. I just find building your identity and life style around scratching your sexual itches, to be counter to the best interests of western civilization.
Marriage isn't about sex, and a lot of same sex couples are in for some hard lessons, after that delicious Christian baked cake is gone....
Please don't mistake my general contempt for you, and your skewed logic, for a general anathema to gay people.
I am a freedom loving libertarian who wants to retain my right to disapprove of trashy, low iq, socially destructive lifestyles whether they be hetro, homo or polygamous.
Isab at July 19, 2015 5:47 PM
JD:
Just to clarify, I think once upon a time the anti-discrimination laws had a purpose. But no more.
I think, for example, if a business today wanted to put a sign on the door that said, "No Niggers Allowed" or some such, I think there's enough people in this country that would boycott such a place so as to eventually drive the owners out of business. And even if they didn't, so what? They would probably realize that rampant racism isn't good for business in most cases. Unless it's a very selective business, chances are good that there's another business that would be happy to help the rebuffed potential customers out.
And in this day and age of social media and flying across the country in a matter of hours, you could publicize the fact that this business discriminated against you on the basis of race (or gender, or religion or sexual orientation, or whatever), and you'd probably get an outpouring of offers to help you with whatever you need. Some people, in their charitableness and out of sympathy, would offer it for free. Some would create a GoFundMe to help you out.
Yes, back in the days when being rejected by the only game in town meant you were out of luck and there was no way to get what you needed, then anti-discrimination laws made sense. But now? Air travel and social media has made us a much smaller country. One business rejects you, someone is going to step up.
God bless America.
Patrick at July 19, 2015 5:57 PM
Isab: So being a pedophile is immutable? And deserving of Constitutional protections?
Yes. Because, as you have explained, all things that are innate are of equal value. So if a man is born with the desire to rape women (or torture animals), he is of equal value to the man who is born with the desire to have sex with other men and, therefore, being gay and wanting to rape women and wanting to torture animals are all deserving of Constitutional protections.
JD at July 19, 2015 5:59 PM
Isab: Patrick, you just said that sexuality is hardwired and immutable.
No, I said sexual orientation is immutable.
And the APA, since you don't want to look it up, doesn't consider pedophilia to be a sexual orientation.
In this press release, they called it mental disorder.
The DSM-V calls it a paraphilia. It is not a sexual orientation.
I would link you the page, but posting two links would send my post to Amy's spam folder.
Google "DSM-V paraphilia pedophilia," and you'll find it.
As for your studying psychology, I'll believe that when you start showing a little knowledge on the subject.
Patrick at July 19, 2015 6:07 PM
Isab: I just find building your identity and life style around scratching your sexual itches, to be counter to the best interests of western civilization.
But can you blame those NFL players? Hell, if I made that kind of money and had that kind of fame (and was back in my twenties), I'd be scratching my sexual itches constantly.
JD at July 19, 2015 6:10 PM
Patrick: Yes, back in the days when being rejected by the only game in town meant you were out of luck and there was no way to get what you needed, then anti-discrimination laws made sense. But now? Air travel and social media has made us a much smaller country. One business rejects you, someone is going to step up.
Air travel and social media haven't created another movie theater in a small town that has only one. Air travel and social media haven't eliminated road trips where, in some areas, there might only be one gas station or motel for many miles. Sure, if you live in Brooklyn or Atlanta or Austin or Seattle you have a lot of choices. But everyone doesn't live in big cities.
That being said, that's not the only reason I'm opposed to repealing anti-discrimination laws. I'm one of those people who, as I noted above, feels that engaging in business carries with it public obligations, including the public obligation of serving everyone. Furthermore, I feel that "the people", via their elected representatives, can legitimately and morally require business owners to do that.
JD at July 19, 2015 6:26 PM
But can you blame those NFL players? Hell, if I made that kind of money and had that kind of fame (and was back in my twenties), I'd be scratching my sexual itches constantly.
Posted by: JD at July 19, 2015 6:10 PM
Exactly, it is a free country. I have as little respect for most NFL players as I do for Bill Clinton, ( a serial rapist).
And Patrick wants to split hairs on definitions that have been tortured into a configuration resembling a gerrymandered political district in order to separate out some sexual behavior as socially approved, and other behaviors as criminal.
Pedophilia is not only innate, (ask any psychobiolgist why men are attracted to 13 year old girls) it is also legal in many places in the world (such as Japan).
Isab at July 19, 2015 6:35 PM
Gay people come in as many lifestyles as heterosexuals. We come from all lifestyles.
Regarding your claim that I said sexuality was hard-wired, I'll confirm or deny that I believe sexuality is "hard-wired" when I know what you mean by hard-wired.
If by "hard-wired," you mean "genetic," I absolutely deny that homosexuality is hard-wired.
However, if you mean "born that way," then yes, I believe homosexuality is hard-wired.
I often have to explain this to certain lackwits on this board, so I'll go over it again. Every time I say "born that way" or "from birth," some people think I mean "genetic." No, that's not correct. "From birth" does not imply "genetic." It can mean genetic, but doesn't have to.
Things might happen "in utero" to give a newborn immutable characteristics, but that's not genetic. If a pregnant mother habitually takes crack, for instance, she will give birth to a crack baby, a child addicted to crack from birth. It's not genetic; the cause was in utero.
There is a theory that I've discussed on this board before, called the "older brother theory." No one has confirmed exactly how it works, but we do know it's predicted the number of homosexuals with surprising accuracy.
Basically, the theory goes that the more older brothers a male child has, the more likely he is to be homosexual. That much is confirmed. It turns out that the more older brothers a male child has, he is more likely to be gay. What is not confirmed is how this happens.
The most commonly proposed explanation is that a mother's female body regards the male fetus growing inside her as a foreign object. She releases hormones and antigens that work to "feminize" the fetus. The more male children she bears, the more adept her female body becomes at this process. Thus increasing the likelihood of her male child becoming homosexual.
If this theory proves to be correct, you would have a child who might be considered "born" homosexual. However, the cause of his homosexuality happened in utero. That is not genetic.
Patrick at July 19, 2015 6:38 PM
My wife and I just watched the tape of our wedding 11 years ago with our kids. The vocalist and pianist were very nice gay gentleman, and they did a superb job. Yes, it was a church wedding. Yes, they agreed to perform for us.
Had they politely (or rudely for that matter) declined in accordance with their beliefs, religious or otherwise, even being able to sue them, let alone succeeding, would have been preposterous.
Gay rights activists need to tread this issue carefully. It could be argued every bit as intolerant for them to decline association as anyone else.
Trust at July 19, 2015 6:45 PM
Isab, you're ridiculous. I quoted the APA and the DSM-V. But you wish to "fiddle-dee-dee" it all away. "You're just splitting hairs." Tell the APA they're splitting hairs. I'm sure they'll welcome your vast expertise on the subject of human sexuality, which so obviously outstrips any of theirs. And tell the other APA that from now on, you'll be writing the DSM-V for them.
You really can't see how much your personal prejudices are blinding you right now.
I'd feel sorry for you, but I can't sympathize with a bigot.
No doubt that when Amy posts something else which even tangentially involves homosexuality, you will drag the exact same arguments, over and over again. Basically, I regard you as Crid in drag.
You'll still Chicken-Little away that we're now on the slippery slope to legalizing pedophile marriages, bestial marriages and polygamy.
And again, I'll bring up "consenting adults," a concept that has existed even before homosexuality was removed from the DSM as a mental illness. And a concept which precludes pedophilic marriages and bestial marriages. And I will still bring up the concept of inclusiveness, which is all the gay rights advocates ever wanted, and how polygamy actually precludes inclusiveness by consuming all available mates for a small number of heterosexual men, thus keeping a large number of heterosexual men as able to get mates.
Lather, rinse, repeat. Same tired, refuted arguments. Same rebuttals. Same unwillingness to let go of your prejudices. Only the reintroduce the same tired, refuted arguments again.
As for the incest argument, I'll leave that for the Abrahamic religions (Islam, Judaism and Christianity) to worry about. Abraham and Sarah were half-siblings and supposedly we're all descended from them. Incest is your problem. You can worry about the arguments against that.
Patrick at July 19, 2015 6:52 PM
Patrick, regarding Rastafarianism, from an article at Vox:
Here's another:
http://volokh.com/2013/09/23/15-year-old-rastafarian-religious-freedom-right-possess-drug-paraphernelia/
The American Psychological Association says it is.
The link says homosexuality is immutable, not sexual orientation.
Jason S. at July 19, 2015 6:54 PM
Jason S: The link says homosexuality is immutable, not sexual orientation.
Okay, another lackwit who can't think logically. Fine. I'll deal with it.
If homosexuality is immutable, then it logically follows that sexual orientation (and paraphilias are not sexual orientations, neither of the two APAs call pedophilia a sexual orientation, but a paraphilia and a mental disorder) are also immutable. Otherwise heterosexuals would might mutate into homosexuality and be stuck there, since homosexuality is immutable.
Come bother me when you know what you're talking about. Or better yet, turn gay for me right now. Since it's your contention that heterosexuality is mutable. Go for it. Let me know when you start decorating your home faaaabulously.
Patrick at July 19, 2015 7:16 PM
After looking over your link, no statement attributed to the court upheld his right to smoke marijuana. It upheld his right to smoke, yes, but without reference to what he would be smoking.
And also, this case was not about his right to possess or smoke pot, but his right to possess the paraphernalia. Splitting hairs? Blame the court, that's what they said, not me.
Thus far, you've not proven that Rastafarians have religious exemption from the anti-drug laws.
The court only ruled that he had the right to possess the pipe. Not smoke weed. And said that his possession of the pipe could only be for an illegal purpose was "not supported by the record."
Patrick at July 19, 2015 7:26 PM
Isab: And Patrick wants to split hairs on definitions that have been tortured into a configuration resembling a gerrymandered political district in order to separate out some sexual behavior as socially approved, and other behaviors as criminal.
Isab, do you personally disapprove of two adult men or two adult women having consensual sex with each other? Do you think that there should be social disapproval of two adult men or two adult women having consensual sex with each other?
Also, if you were making the rules, what would you set as the age of consent for males and females?
JD at July 19, 2015 8:01 PM
Patrick The court only ruled that he had the right to possess the pipe. Not smoke weed
The court suggested the person had the right to use marijuana, but did not rule on it.
But other rulings allow use of marijuana for religious purposes, if you can believe the Vox article:
http://www.vox.com/2015/4/2/8334599/indiana-first-church-cannabis
Jason S. at July 19, 2015 8:14 PM
Isab: I am a freedom loving libertarian who wants to retain my right to disapprove of trashy, low iq, socially destructive lifestyles whether they be hetro, homo or polygamous.
What are some of these trashy, low iq, socially destructive lifestyles that you disapprove of?
JD at July 19, 2015 8:21 PM
However, some system needs to be in place so we don't have four widows or widowers riding social security survivor benefits.
Simple, no benefits to anyone ever who has a single cent to their name.
You want welfare, come on down show us you have no money, or family to move in with, sign over all your possessions for the government to sell and we'll put you in a studio apartment in the camped and smelly government towers inc
lujlp at July 19, 2015 9:23 PM
Otherwise heterosexuals would might mutate into homosexuality and be stuck there, since homosexuality is immutable.
Seems ridiculous to me.
The comedian, sports commentator Jay Mohr has a funny podcast. One episode he had Colin Quinn as guest and told him about how he and his friend used to give each other blow jobs when they were growing up. You have to listen to it because me explaining it wouldn't capture the humor.
He's married to a woman now. I don't know how that fits into sexual orientation is immutable deal.
Jason S. at July 19, 2015 9:27 PM
If you want to be all exclusive and everything then be a private club/server.
Problem is most of those clubs no longer exist after being sued for discrimination in their membership practices.
lujlp at July 19, 2015 9:37 PM
are some of these trashy, low iq, socially destructive lifestyles that you disapprove of?
Posted by: JD at July 19, 2015 8:21 PM
I disapprove of hookup culture, and promiscuity in general. It was sold as liberating for women, and the women who bought into it, have found it anything but.
There is no such thing as *safe* sex and you should know someone pretty well before you start intimate relationships.
I disapprove of loud trashy soap opera party weddings followed by loud trashy acrimonious divorces, and kids either shuttled between two warring bio parents or raised by a single mother.
Girl children raised in this culture are inclined to be man hating narcissists, and the boys raised by single mothers never learn how to be a man.
I disapprove of the government giving people middle class lifestyles through social programs, hoping they develop middle class values.
It doesn't work that way, wealthy and middle class people become well off mostly through valuing delayed gratification, and a having a work ethic.
I see the emphasis on the marriage *cermony* rings, and cakes, and dresses and tuxes as reflecting the most shallow and ephemeral aspect of marriage.
It has the hollow emptiness of someone absolutely desperate to prove something to someone.
I thought most educated gays had more important things to do than to ape both the marriage customs and the lifestyle of white Baptist trailer park trash.
It isn't about the party, or the ceremony folks, and five years from now, no one cares what flavor the freakin cake was...
Don't show me that you have a piece of paper. Show me, you have a long term stable relationship supporting, and taking care of each other, then I'll be impressed.
Isab at July 19, 2015 9:55 PM
" Isab, do you personally disapprove of two adult men or two adult women having consensual sex with each other? Do you think that there should be social disapproval of two adult men or two adult women having consensual sex with each other?"
Absolutely not. I think it is fine. The problem comes in with how we define both *adult* and *consent*
And I also think the suspect legal reasoning in Obergefelt will open the door to government recognition of Polygamy, which may ultimately lead to Muslims becoming the dominant ethnic religious group in this country.
They are the ones reproducing after all, and that's how you win the culture wars,
Isab at July 19, 2015 10:06 PM
Fascinating plethora of stereotypes you have there, Isab. But after reading your rather insulting list of what you think gay people are or aren't interested in, I've come to realize I'm wasting my time with you. Basically your mind is made up and you are not interested in edification.
"Show me, you have a long term stable relationship supporting, and taking care of each other, then I'll be impressed."
No, you wouldn't.
My uncle and his same sex lover were in a committed, monogamous relations for 52 years before his lover died from complications brought on by diabetes. Will your relationship last that long? Doubtful. Most peoples' won't.
You are not in the least impressed by this. I can practically hear the contemptuous snort, even as your inner monologue runs through a gamut of reasons as why this might happen since obviously gays could never in a million years form a committed, monogamous relationship based on love and mutual respect and all the other things that homosexuals are utterly incapable of.
Jason S, the operative expression in your story about Colin Quinn is "when they were growing up." I think there's a world of information you are lacking when it comes to human sexuality. And you don't seem to know much about the maturation process of children either. Suffice to say, what kids experiment with is not indicative of what their leanings will be when adults.
No longer interested in carrying on a discussion with either you or Isab. For whatever reason, expunging the two of you of your idiotic notions just isn't a big concern of mine.
I encourage you both to cling to your wrong-headed beliefs with a fanatic's fervor. I must get back to bed. I have a busy day tomorrow. I've decided to take my mutable homosexuality and exchange it for a sexual attraction for iguanas. Next week I'm going for a sexual attraction for fresh produce. I saw a rather cute artichoke at the grocery store today, and I think I could enter something meaningful once I switch my sexuality to vego-philia.
Patrick at July 20, 2015 1:06 AM
That's ok Patrick. She wasted her time on you too. On this topic your mind is always made up and your questions are false. You never really read or respond to what others write.
And the prefered vego-philia is watermelon. Artichokes just get no love.
Ben at July 20, 2015 5:33 AM
"You are not in the least impressed by this. I can practically hear the contemptuous snort, even as your inner monologue runs through a gamut of reasons as why this might happen since obviously gays could never in a million years form a committed, monogamous relationship based on love and mutual respect and all the other things that homosexuals are utterly incapable of"
Patrick, I have gay relatives and friends. One of them, my brother in laws partner is an Episopal priest.
He isn't out suing some fundamentalist Christians for refusing to bake them a cake... Because he is a gracious loving person with no axe to grind...something I suspect you are totally unfamiliar with.
Isab at July 20, 2015 6:43 AM
Ben: That's ok Patrick. She wasted her time on you too. On this topic your mind is always made up and your questions are false. You never really read or respond to what others write.
Ah, so I should listen when presumably straight people tell me what gay relationships are about. I mean, I certainly wouldn't know. Being gay myself. I should listen when straight people tell me I'm all about sex. Nothing else in a relationship.
And the APA. Since it doesn't agree with her own inflexible beliefs, obviously, everything they say on the subject of homosexuality is entirely politically motivated, and couldn't possibly be based in - you know - facts?
And I should listen when a person who claims to have studied psychology demonstrates a profound ignorance on the topic. I don't have to prove that Isab is an ignorant bigot; she does just fine on her own.
Isab: Please don't mistake my general contempt for you, and your skewed logic, for a general anathema to gay people.
You're in no position to be contemptuous of anyone. You are nowhere but on the receiving end of contempt. But keep trying to convince yourself.
You having contempt for me is like some trailer park redneck missing sixty percent of his teeth passing judgment on Anderson Cooper "'cause at least I ain't one of them thar faggits!"
Anderson Cooper is more successful, has more money, more respect, probably in a healthier relationship, takes care of himself better with regular workouts and oral hygiene, pays more in taxes in one year than the redneck will soak up in welfare his entire life. But the redneck still thinks he's better "'cause I ain't one of them thar faggits!"
Isab: I have profound compassion for the mentally ill, but that doesn't extend to trying to pretend that their illness should be embraced as normal.
I don't hate anyone based on their sexual orientation. I just find building your identity and life style around scratching your sexual itches, to be counter to the best interests of western civilization.
And there we see Isab's problem. She seems to think that being gay is merely about "scratching about sexual itches." She even implies it's a mental illness.
No intimacy, love or closeness, no mutual respect, nurturing or caring for one another. Gay people are about sex. Nothing else. Just mental illness.
Still wondering what her reaction is going to be to my uncle and his same-sex lover in a committed monogamous relationship for 52 years. I suspect a freakout is in our future. Didn't happen, she'll say. Patrick's lying. He made it up. Gays don't do that. They're all about sex. Nothing else.
To say nothing of the number of gay couples who raise children with at least as much success as their heterosexual counterparts.
Like I said, she's Crid in drag.
And somehow, I'm a purveyor of skewed logic. I cite mental health organizations, DSM-V, even a court case. And Isab cites...nothing? Oh, wait. She did cite Wikipedia. (Insert eyeroll here.)
And without a shred of evidence to support her contentions, she simply fiddle-dee-dees away the APA. "I know a political organization when I see one."
That's close-mindedness to the nth degree. No evidence whatsoever to support her contentions. Just preconceived ideas and a emotional imperative to pooh-pooh away the experts on the subject.
Patrick at July 20, 2015 7:32 AM
Isab: One of them, my brother in laws partner is an Episopal priest.
Excuse me, what? Your brother-in-law's partner is an Episcopal priest?
How do you have a brother-in-law with a same-sex partner, unless your brother is the gay Episcopal priest?
If you're going to make shit up, at least try to be less obvious.
Patrick at July 20, 2015 7:36 AM
This is absurd and pointless.
Jason S. at July 20, 2015 7:58 AM
Isab: One of them, my brother in laws partner is an Episopal priest.
Excuse me, what? Your brother-in-law's partner is an Episcopal priest?
How do you have a brother-in-law with a same-sex partner, unless your brother is the gay Episcopal priest?
If you're going to make shit up, at least try to be less obvious.
Posted by: Patrick at July 20, 2015 7:36 AM
My husband has two brothers. Last I checked, that makes them both my brother's in law.
You think differently?
Patrick, your pedantic nit picking and idiocy knows no bounds.
Isab at July 20, 2015 8:55 AM
This is absurd and pointless.
Posted by: Jason S. at July 20, 2015 7:58 AM
Absolutely, but giving Patrick a stroke, is a worthy goal, in and of itself.
Isab at July 20, 2015 9:03 AM
Isab: Patrick, your pedantic nit picking and idiocy knows no bounds.
I'm not the imbecile who fiddle-dee-dees away the opinions of experts but has no experts of my own to counter these experts, but instead relies on my own preconceived ideas and calls them fact.
I'm not the jackass who insulted all gays by comparing them to pedophiles.
I'm not the idiot who has never heard of "consenting adults," and thinks we're on the slippery slope to acceptance of pedophilia, bestiality, and polygamy.
"Don't bother me with facts. My mind's made up." That's your motto.
Patrick at July 20, 2015 9:06 AM
Isab: Absolutely, but giving Patrick a stroke, is a worthy goal, in and of itself.
Add "petty" and "infantile" to your already considerable list of shortcomings.
Patrick at July 20, 2015 9:08 AM
Jason S: This is absurd and pointless.
How's your conversion to homosexuality going? If you can convert to homosexuality, have a sexually active gay affair for an entire week, then change back to heterosexuality, I'll believe that heterosexuality is mutable.
Patrick at July 20, 2015 9:25 AM
Leave a comment