Politics

[Domina Nostra]

Really? How about a strongly religious person who doesn't want to hire a gay person due to religious reasons? Or doesn't want to sell their services to a gay couple? The problem with that is that where do you draw the line?

This, my friend, is exactly the problem!

But it cuts both ways, and libertarianism is a short-term solution that assumes a lot of common assumptions, behaviors, and institutions.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

Really? How about a strongly religious person who doesn't want to hire a gay person due to religious reasons? Or doesn't want to sell their services to a gay couple? The problem with that is that where do you draw the line?

I don't believe corporations should be able to have discriminatory hiring practices against anyone.

The second question I don't have an answer for because I'm torn but it's for a deeper reason than, "I don't want to serve gays" which I find wholly repugnant.

It has more to do with my views of sacramental marriage but I haven't really given that any serious thought.

 

[GoIrish41]

Disagree with 100% of what you just posted for reasons that have been discussed now ad nauseam.

There is no such thing as faceless corporations. We carry with us our moral obligations through all phases of life and allow those morals to inform us how to proceed in matters of importance. If I become a business owner and employ 5 people, I do not want to be forced to be morally complicit in the use of abortifacient drugs.

Just as employees have the right not to work for a company, Employers have the right not to incorporate, thereby protecting themselves from things that can affect an individual who owns a business. If the employees chooses to work for the company despite any objections to policy, then they are accepting the policy, IMO. Why does the same not to apply to these new class of people known as corporations. They are personally protected as individuals from lawsuits, for example, against their company. They have chosen to comply with the laws that affect corporations. If they don't want to comply with said laws, they should not incorporate. I have much less an issue with you owning a business that employs five individuals, so long as they are not incorporated and protected from individual financial harm, in deciding employment benefit packages based on their beliefs (I don't like it, but I could more readily accept this in that instance).

 

[GoIrish41]

I think you are making a good distinction between the act and the intention, which is why I brought up the pill--a doctor could prescribe it for something that is not birth control. However, I am not sure if the act and intention can be separated for a ED drug, where there is no legitimate use of the thing for a young, single man (at least that I know of).

I am not sure if I think of companies and employment in such a way that an employer's denying to buy you birth control is somehow forcing thier morality. Can't it just as easily be said that the employees are forcing their morality on the ownership/management?

As far as what I am proposing, I think that is way overly-simplistic to pretend that every person (natural or corporate) can have a religious/conscience exemption to every law. (The Hobby Lobby case was obviously much more narrow). That is completely untenable in a country where everyone believes whatever they want. I also think it is horribly naive and totalitarian to pretend that science and/or health are neutral subjects that can provide guidance independent of morality.

What you need is some kind of moral consensus. Personally, I think that we are in for a real crazy ride because the country is splitting over basic moral issues, and as much as we like to pretend that everyone can co-exist, they can't. We used to get along because we shared more common assumptions. As we lose those, decisions are going to be made and one side is going to lose.

yes. great point.

 

[Domina Nostra]

The second question I don't have an answer for because I'm torn but it's for a deeper reason than, "I don't want to serve gays" which I find wholly repugnant.

Gay activists going after wedding cake bakers and photographers was intended to exploit the tension between our societal repugnance towards discrimination and our religious inclination not to participate in other people's immoral behvior in an ultra-benign and sympathetic setting.

In most situations, the person's sexual paractices are completely insignificant (car wash, dinner, tailoring). I think it would be very hard to find someone who would not already serve a gay person, and nearly everyone (there is always an outlier) would agree that they should be served. Those situations serve no purpose, in terms of changing the culture.

But the person's sexual practices are implicated in a very narrow category of services, like wedding stuff, because now you are (in a very small way) celebrating their union. This is why they were chosen.

let's be honest, I am pretty darn sure that there are tons of bakers and phographers that would have loved to have the business. This was not a live-and-let-live approach. Quite a bold strategy!

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

Just as employees have the right not to work for a company, Employers have the right not to incorporate, thereby protecting themselves from things that can affect an individual who owns a business. If the employees chooses to work for the company despite any objections to policy, then they are accepting the policy, IMO. Why does the same not to apply to these new class of people known as corporations. They are personally protected as individuals from lawsuits, for example, against their company. They have chosen to comply with the laws that affect corporations. If they don't want to comply with said laws, they should not incorporate. I have much less an issue with you owning a business that employs five individuals, so long as they are not incorporated and protected from individual financial harm, in deciding employment benefit packages based on their beliefs (I don't like it, but I could more readily accept this in that instance).

So either change your morality or don't incorporate? That's more acceptable than asking the new law to be changed?

So, in effect, it's okay to be moral or religious but the penalty is that you are not afforded the same level of protection as those who are either disinterested in morality or have a morality that doesn't conflict with government's current laws?

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

Gay activists going after wedding cake bakers and photographers was intended to exploit the tension between our societal repugnance towards discrimination and our religious inclination not to participate in other people's immoral behvior in an ultra-benign and sympathetic setting.

In most situations, the person's sexual paractices are completely insignificant (car wash, dinner, tailoring). I think it would be very hard to find someone who would not already serve a gay person, and nearly everyone (there is always an outlier) would agree that they should be served. Those situations serve no purpose, in terms of changing the culture.

But the person's sexual practices are implicated in a very narrow category of services, like wedding stuff, because now you are (in a very small way) celebrating their union. This is why they were chosen.

let's be honest, I am pretty darn sure that there are tons of bakers and phographers that would have loved to have the business. This was not a live-and-let-live approach. Quite a bold strategy!

Agreed and reps. Hadn't thought it out to that level but well stated.

 

[condoms SUCk]

What ever happened to personal responsibility?
If you want to go and "do the dirty" that's your business, but don't expect me or other people to pick up the tab if you are careless.

 

[Polish Leppy 22]

And every female hobby lobby employee who wants to use some legal forms of birth control has just taken a pay cut.

Lol are you off your meds?

 

[GoIrish41]

So either change your morality or don't incorporate? That's more acceptable than asking the new law to be changed?

So, in effect, it's okay to be moral or religious but the penalty is that you are not afforded the same level of protection as those who are either disinterested in morality or have a morality that doesn't conflict with government's current laws?

Could not the same argument be made on behalf of employees who work for corps that art excepted from the law.

 

[wizards8507]

The Supreme Court did not make a ruling on what was moral or immoral. They made a ruling stating that "closely held corporations," (nebulous and undefined) under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act could not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion.’’

"Closely held corporation" is NOT nebulous and undefined. It's quite clearly defined. If a definition exists on the internet, but GoIrish41 is too lazy to Google it, is it nebulous and undefined?

Entities

A closely held corporation: Has more than 50% of the value of its outstanding stock owned (directly or indirectly) by 5 or fewer individuals at any time during the last half of the tax year; and is not a personal service corporation.

Be honest, did you really think they passed a supreme court ruling based on an undefined legal structure, or are you just spinning?

"Closely held corporations," as I understand their logic, employ about half of the employees in the country.

Please don't define things based on "how you understand their logic" when you clearly do NOT understand their logic (see above).

To me, this is an extension of the absurd idea that corporations are people.

I wish I kept track of all the posts in this thread that stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of Citizens United. No, a corporation is not a person. HOWEVER, a corporation IS people. See above re: closely held corporation. If Lax, Whiskey, Bogs, and Koon start Brocorp, nobody is saying that Brocorp is a person. However, Brocorp consists of Lax, Whiskey, Bogs, and Koon, who are people. Restricting what Brocorp can do with their money is a de facto restriction on what Lax, Whiskey, Bogs, and Koon can do with their money.

If "the Notre Dame football team" were in a room, are you going to tell me that the room is not full of people just because "Notre Dame football team" is not a person?

 

[IrishJayhawk]

Lol are you off your meds?

Hey, I admitted it wasn't my best argument.

 

[irishog77]

The Supreme Court did not make a ruling on what was moral or immoral. They made a ruling stating that "closely held corporations," (nebulous and undefined) under the Religious Freedom Restoration Act could not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion.’’ To me, this is an extension of the absurd idea that corporations are people. "Closely held corporations," as I understand their logic, employ about half of the employees in the country. Does this ruling allow all of those employers to opt out of the law on religious grounds? I think that it does. So, by extension, the law could apply to half of the population and not the other half. What sense does that make? This has nothing to do with morality ... this is about defining corporations as people, which is good for nobody except those who wish to allow corporations to have more and more control over the lives of average Joes.

And feel free to direct your ire towards the department of health and human services, not the Supreme Court for its ruling, since hhs admitted a nonprofit corporation can be a "person." In this case, the HHS' position was that a nonprofit corporation could exercise religion, but that a for-profit corporation couldn't. That was the crux of the case.

Your congressman should feel your anger as well-- tell him about it. Congress themselves refer to corporations as "people" in the U.S. Code, which they write and/or approve:

In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, unless the context indicates otherwise—
words importing the singular include and apply to several persons, parties, or things;
words importing the plural include the singular;
words importing the masculine gender include the feminine as well;
words used in the present tense include the future as well as the present;
the words “insane” and “insane person” shall include every idiot, insane person, and person non compos mentis;
the words “person” and “whoever” include corporations, companies, associations, firms, partnerships, societies, and joint stock companies, as well as individuals;
“officer” includes any person authorized by law to perform the duties of the office;
“signature” or “subscription” includes a mark when the person making the same intended it as such;
“oath” includes affirmation, and “sworn” includes affirmed;
“writing” includes printing and typewriting and reproductions of visual symbols by photographing, multigraphing, mimeographing, manifolding, or otherwise.

 

[pkt77242]

"Closely held corporation" is NOT nebulous and undefined. It's quite clearly defined. If a definition exists on the internet, but GoIrish41 is too lazy to Google it, is it nebulous and undefined?

Entities

A closely held corporation: Has more than 50% of the value of its outstanding stock owned (directly or indirectly) by 5 or fewer individuals at any time during the last half of the tax year; and is not a personal service corporation.

Be honest, did you really think they passed a supreme court ruling based on an undefined legal structure, or are you just spinning?


Please don't define things based on "how you understand their logic" when you clearly do NOT understand their logic (see above).


I wish I kept track of all the posts in this thread that stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of Citizens United. No, a corporation is not a person. HOWEVER, a corporation IS people. See above re: closely held corporation. If Lax, Whiskey, Bogs, and Koon start Brocorp, nobody is saying that Brocorp is a person. However, Brocorp consists of Lax, Whiskey, Bogs, and Koon, who are people. Restricting what Brocorp can do with their money is a de facto restriction on what Lax, Whiskey, Bogs, and Koon can do with their money.

If "the Notre Dame football team" were in a room, are you going to tell me that the room is not full of people just because "Notre Dame football team" is not a person?

I think that we all agree that they owners of the corporation are people, but it is their spending of corporate money which is different, if it was their own personal money it wouldn't cause a problem. Now they can do donations both at a personal level and from their business as well and thus donate more than an individual could, thus letting the owners of the business have more "voice" than an individual. I think that is the worrisome part, especially when you look at the proliferation of super PACs on both sides due to a different Supreme Court decision.

I would say that the ruling in and of itself wasn't the worst (I don't agree with it but I don't have too) but my real worry is the unintended consequences that will come from it, such as the drowning out of an individuals voice as more and more money gets poured into campaigns, as well as the further corruption of politicians by the obscene amount of money that is being thrown around in these elections.

 

[pkt77242]

Gay activists going after wedding cake bakers and photographers was intended to exploit the tension between our societal repugnance towards discrimination and our religious inclination not to participate in other people's immoral behvior in an ultra-benign and sympathetic setting.

In most situations, the person's sexual paractices are completely insignificant (car wash, dinner, tailoring). I think it would be very hard to find someone who would not already serve a gay person, and nearly everyone (there is always an outlier) would agree that they should be served. Those situations serve no purpose, in terms of changing the culture.

But the person's sexual practices are implicated in a very narrow category of services, like wedding stuff, because now you are (in a very small way) celebrating their union. This is why they were chosen.

let's be honest, I am pretty darn sure that there are tons of bakers and phographers that would have loved to have the business. This was not a live-and-let-live approach. Quite a bold strategy!

I am not saying that you are wrong but if you are going to post something like that, I believe that you should post a link as how you came up with it and if you didn't get it from somewhere what made you believe that that it is true?

As to the last part? Why can't they choose whichever baker/ photographer, or florist they want? Why does it have to be some nefarious plot?

 

[Domina Nostra]

I am not saying that you are wrong but if you are going to post something like that, I believe that you should post a link as how you came up with it and if you didn't get it from somewhere what made you believe that that it is true?

As to the last part? Why can't they choose whichever baker/ photographer, or florist they want? Why does it have to be some nefarious plot?

I didn't make it up. The reasons these cases exist is because that is where the "discrimination" is occuring. The reason the discrimination is occuring there is because, unlike selling a person a coke or fixing his car, weddings are morally significant events in which sexuality plays a prominent role.

It's only "nefarious" if you think they are wrong. But why would they want to be served by a Christian baker or photographer that disagreed with gay marriage? The answer is because they wanted to push their agenda. I doubt Rosa Park just really wanted to sit in that particular seat on the bus, she was taking a legitimate political stand. It's the same here. They were clearly forcing the issue. It was not about access to services, I bet 9 out of 10 wedding photographers would have happily obliged. They clearly believe that "Live and let live" is not good enough in this situation.

There are some Muslim barbers who won't cut women's hair for religious reasons? Are you comfortable with a business that only caters to men in a western society? Does it matter that there are a billion other places to get your hair cut?

 

[wizards8507]

As to the last part? Why can't they choose whichever baker/ photographer, or florist they want? Why does it have to be some nefarious plot?

Commerce is not a one-way street. You can't just choose to buy a widget from me, I have to choose to sell it to you as well.

 

[wizards8507]

There are some Muslim barbers who won't cut women's hair for religious reasons...

...and Muslim taxi/truck drivers who won't transport alcohol, and gay nightclub owners who won't serve people who supported Prop 8, and gay hair stylists who won't serve certain politicians...

New Mexico Gov. Susana Martinez Loses Her Hair Stylist Over Gay Marriage Opposition | ThinkProgress
(and that's a LIBERAL blog)

 

[GoIrish41]

"Closely held corporation" is NOT nebulous and undefined. It's quite clearly defined. If a definition exists on the internet, but GoIrish41 is too lazy to Google it, is it nebulous and undefined?

Entities

A closely held corporation: Has more than 50% of the value of its outstanding stock owned (directly or indirectly) by 5 or fewer individuals at any time during the last half of the tax year; and is not a personal service corporation.

Be honest, did you really think they passed a supreme court ruling based on an undefined legal structure, or are you just spinning?


Please don't define things based on "how you understand their logic" when you clearly do NOT understand their logic (see above).


I wish I kept track of all the posts in this thread that stem from a fundamental misunderstanding of Citizens United. No, a corporation is not a person. HOWEVER, a corporation IS people. See above re: closely held corporation. If Lax, Whiskey, Bogs, and Koon start Brocorp, nobody is saying that Brocorp is a person. However, Brocorp consists of Lax, Whiskey, Bogs, and Koon, who are people. Restricting what Brocorp can do with their money is a de facto restriction on what Lax, Whiskey, Bogs, and Koon can do with their money.

If "the Notre Dame football team" were in a room, are you going to tell me that the room is not full of people just because "Notre Dame football team" is not a person?

I just looked up "closely held corporation" on the internet as you suggested and found as many definitions as I had clicks. What they all seem to agree upon though is that a closely held corporation has only a "few" owners "usually" family members. That doesn't seem very well defined from a legal standpoint to me as the words "few" and "usually" are nebulous. I could say that "few" (meaning virtually none) of my posts are agreed upon by you, and you "usually" (meaning always) try to make a point by being insulting or condescending. So I'll just move on. Incedently, the point I was trying to make is that "Closely Held Corporations" make up the majority of businesses and employ somewhere close to half of the population, so this ruling has the potential to create law that only applies to half of the population. And yes, I did think that they tried to jam this through without answering the harder legal questions at hand ... which they often do. And, finally, this: "a corporation is not a person. HOWEVER, a corporation IS people" is nothing but nonsense. Yes, corporations have people involved with them. So do prisons, basketball teams, unions, Lions Clubs, womens' groups, and political parties. Who is making an argument that a political party can opt out of a law based on their strong religious objections? Nobody. But, that is the argument that is being made on behalf of corporations because they are made up of people. Their argument could be made by any group made up of people and then where would our legal system be?

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

I wonder how many religious people don't serve masturbators and people having pre marital sex...

 

[Domina Nostra]

I wonder how many religious people don't serve masturbators and people having pre marital sex...

That is part of what the Hobby Lobby decision is about... do Catholic employers have to pay for single people's birth control? That is also why some shops won't sell porn!

Is not about serving people you disagree with, its about become complicit in their actions. That is why the issue only arises in certain contexts like health care and weddings!

 

[Corry]

What ever happened to personal responsibility?
If you want to go and "do the dirty" that's your business, but don't expect me or other people to pick up the tab if you are careless.

Based on your name I thought you'd have a different take. Just to be clear you don't (unless you're business owner) pay for other people's health care plans. At least not directly. You could be talking about the raising cost of health care as whole, and how the price of one effects the costs of many. In which case disregard.

 

[pkt77242]

I didn't make it up. The reasons these cases exist is because that is where the "discrimination" is occuring. The reason the discrimination is occuring there is because, unlike selling a person a coke or fixing his car, weddings are morally significant events in which sexuality plays a prominent role.

It's only "nefarious" if you think they are wrong. But why would they want to be served by a Christian baker or photographer that disagreed with gay marriage? The answer is because they wanted to push their agenda. I doubt Rosa Park just really wanted to sit in that particular seat on the bus, she was taking a legitimate political stand. It's the same here. They were clearly forcing the issue. It was not about access to services, I bet 9 out of 10 wedding photographers would have happily obliged. They clearly believe that "Live and let live" is not good enough in this situation.

There are some Muslim barbers who won't cut women's hair for religious reasons? Are you comfortable with a business that only caters to men in a western society? Does it matter that there are a billion other places to get your hair cut?

What if they wanted the best Baker or best Photographer and they happened to be Christian and had an issue with gay marriage? Why couldn't they be just like every other couple and just choose the photographer and baker they wanted?

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

That is part of what the Hobby Lobby decision is about... do Catholic employers have to pay for single people's birth control? That is also why some shops won't sell porn!

Is not about serving people you disagree with, its about become complicit in their actions. That is why the issue only arises in certain contexts like health care and weddings!

Can a shop owner refuse to make a wedding cake for someone who has masturbated or masturbates?

What about people who cohabitated?

Had sex before marriage?

Can a wedding cake shop owner ask these questions prior to providing their service?

 

[pkt77242]

Commerce is not a one-way street. You can't just choose to buy a widget from me, I have to choose to sell it to you as well.

But in this case it is discrimination. This isn't a matter of turning them away because they didn't like your prices, or turning them away because they wanted you to travel to another state to do the service and you objected to the travel, or turning them away because you are already booked for that weekend. They are discriminating against them based on their sexual preference and nothing else. Generally as long as the person meets certain criteria in the service industry (they can pay for it, they choose a time that you are normally available, etc) then you have to provide the service.

 

[pkt77242]

I wonder how many religious people don't serve masturbators and people having pre marital sex...

Or on their second wedding, etc. The list goes on and on.

 

[Domina Nostra]

What if they wanted the best Baker or best Photographer and they happened to be Christian and had an issue with gay marriage? Why couldn't they be just like every other couple and just choose the photographer and baker they wanted?

Because they are not like everyone else. They are asking for something entirely new. Whether you think it makes sense or not (try to withold judgment and just concede that people actually think differently), some people believe that their religions do not want them participating in gay marriages.

What we are talking about is whether a photographer can say no to participating in a ceremony that didn't exist 5 years ago that they think is immoral. The question is whether those people have to chose between doing wedding-related business in this country and their religion.

And not everyone gets to chose the photpgrapher they want. Some are booked, some are too expensive, some only work for rich and famous clients, some just don't like you. There is no right to get a certain photographer.

Can a shop owner refuse to make a wedding cake for someone who has masturbated or masturbates?

What about people who cohabitated?

Had sex before marriage?

Can a wedding cake shop owner ask these questions prior to providing their service?

This isn't about judging people for one particular sin, its about some people feeling like they are being asked to celebrate that sin.

If someone came into a cake shop and said, "we really like to masterbate and we want a cake to celebrate that," I would respect the shop owners right to say, "we don't do that kind of stuff."

 

[irishff1014]

All these examples are discrimination by definition. With that said all the that cake place has to say look sorry we are extremely busy that weekend won't be able to fit you in.(I say this because when my wife and i got married this is the first question they asked when is it) Nothing anyone can say about that. And it's a reasonable excuse for someone not go against their beliefs.

 

[Domina Nostra]

But in this case it is discrimination. This isn't a matter of turning them away because they didn't like your prices, or turning them away because they wanted you to travel to another state to do the service and you objected to the travel, or turning them away because you are already booked for that weekend. They are discriminating against them based on their sexual preference and nothing else. Generally as long as the person meets certain criteria in the service industry (they can pay for it, they choose a time that you are normally available, etc) then you have to provide the service.

That's just not true. That would be the case if they refused to sell a Coke or a cupcake to a gay couple who was holding hands. But they are refusing to sell wedding services because they think gay marriage is immoral.

Whether you feel the same way they do or not, they think that providing that particular service is making them complicit with that lifestyle. Just because you disagree with their belief doesn't mean they are simply discriminating against people because they are gay. Its one important step more complicated than that.

 

[Jebediah Springfield]

Because they are not like everyone else. They are asking for something entirely new. Whether you think it makes sense or not (try to withold judgment and just concede that people actually think differently), some people believe that their religions do not want them participating in gay marriages.

What we are talking about is whether a photographer can say no to participating in a ceremony that didn't exist 5 years ago that they think is immoral. The question is whether those people have to chose between doing wedding-related business in this country and their religion.

And not everyone gets to chose the photpgrapher they want. Some are booked, some are too expensive, some only work for rich and famous clients, some just don't like you. There is no right to get a certain photographer.



This isn't about judging people for one particular sin, its about some people feeling like they are being asked to celebrate that sin.

If someone came into a cake shop and said, "we really like to masterbate and we want a cake to celebrate that," I would respect the shop owners right to say, "we don't do that kind of stuff."

If someone came into a shop and the shop owner said "I am a deeply religious person and marriage is a very serious matter to me, so i have some questions []...."

If he doesnt like the answer to, lets just say the masturbation question, is he within his rights to refuse service?