Politics

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

Bigot - Definition and More from the Free Merriam-Webster Dictionary



Before people try to answer that question I think that it would be a good idea to post the definition of the word bigot.

Edit: I think it is kind of bad form to ask someone if they think you are a bigot or not. Does it really help move the conversation forward? Or will it possibly lead to personal attacks?

Cack said "You are free to be bigoted.." so I'm asking if he was speaking directly to me or if this was the nebulous "you" that is often used for the public at large. I don't think you'll be able to find me personally attacking Cack on this thread and I don't necessarily take his words as an attack. I'm just curious who is bigoted in this case. If it's anyone that is arguing for the bill, if it's anyone that would presumably turn away business for fear of being complicit in something they deemed morally illicit or if it's the person who holds a true irrational hatred for a group that isn't like them.

I think this can move the conversation along, as I'm interested in how everyone is grouped.

 

[Cackalacky]

This is where I presumed we'd end up all along. Do you believe what I wrote was bigoted? Do you believe if I were a photographer who turned away homosexual unions, that I'd be bigoted?

The presumption is not a massive leap of faith. It follows fairly straight forward from where 'we" started as you have jumped to conclusions from the get go. To answer your questions.... IMO Yes. and Yes. Its probably not bigoted in the eyes of other people of faith for obvious reasons, but in the secular view, yes without a doubt. Denying someone service because of things they cannot help, which you offer freely to others for profit is bigoted. I see no difference in refusing to serve a black person lunch or refusing to provide a service to anyone that does not conform to your specific view of reality. #Murica.

But you should be free to do so as long as the government doesn't sanction or prefer it. If you want to be a shitty person, you are well within your rights to do so.

Just saw the posts above. of course I don't mean you personally.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

Edit: I think it is kind of bad form to ask someone if they think you are a bigot or not. Does it really help move the conversation forward? Or will it possibly lead to personal attacks?

It helps establish whether conversation is worth bothering with in the first place. If you've already labeled me a bigot, you assume I'm arguing in bad faith, and the odds of coming to a common understanding are virtually nil.

I would add two things to this, first that the claims haven't done well in court because businesses haven't been covered under 18 of the 19 stats laws (and not under the federal one), so wouldn't it make sense that the businesses would not have done well in the court system? Didn't you say yesterday that the business part was added in response to the New Mexico case, so that businesses would be protected? Obviously we won't know how it will play out in court until it gets tested but that was the point of adding that part, wasn't it?

There have been other cases involving businesses (mostly sole proprietorships), but none have been successful. Elane Photography v. Willock was a little different because the New Mexico Supreme Court explicitly declined to apply its own RFRA law because "the government [wasn't] a party". Most other states had interpreted their own RFRA laws as applying to cases brought by individuals against other individuals or businesses. Thus Indiana's decision to spell that out explicitly in its own law.

Second, the piece by David Brooks NYT, is a little rough, he talks about tolerance such as men not shaking an Orthodox women's hand as being respectful, but that is a far cry from not serving someone.

I disagree. Brooks' point is that Americans of all different faiths have regularly and politely managed to deal with one another even when the religious accommodation involved would come off as outrageously rude without the context. There's no reason why Christians and the LGBT can't extend the same courtesy to each other.

 

[Veritate Duce Progredi]

The presumption is not a massive leap of faith. It follows fairly straight forward from where 'we" started as you have jumped to conclusions from the get go. To answer your questions.... IMO Yes. and Yes. Its probably not bigoted in the eyes of other people of faith for obvious reasons, but in the secular view, yes without a doubt. Denying someone service because of things they cannot help, which you offer freely to others for profit is bigoted. I see no difference in refusing to serve a black person lunch or refusing to provide a service to anyone that does not conform to your specific view of reality. #Murica.

But you should be free to do so as long as the government doesn't sanction or prefer it. If you want to be a shitty person, you are well within your rights to do so.

Just saw the posts above. of course I don't mean you personally.

Understood. I believe that ends the discussion for us.

 

[pkt77242]

It helps establish whether conversation is worth bothering with in the first place. If you've already labeled me a bigot, you assume I'm arguing in bad faith, and the odds of coming to a common understanding are virtually nil.



There have been other cases involving businesses (mostly sole proprietorships), but none have been successful. Elane Photography v. Willock was a little different because the New Mexico Supreme Court explicitly declined to apply its own RFRA law because "the government [wasn't] a party". Most other states had interpreted their own RFRA laws as applying to cases brought by individuals against other individuals or businesses.



I disagree. Brooks' point is that Americans of all different faiths have regularly and politely managed to deal with one another even when the religious accommodation involved would come off as outrageously rude without the context. There's no reason why Christians and the LGBT can't extend the same courtesy to each other.

That is why Indiana added the section covering businesses that is not in other states RFRA (well except South Carolina, I think but I haven't heard of a test case from them). To repeat, that is why Indiana added that clause to argue that it hasn't ever been allowed previously under different RFRA is disingenuous because the other RFRA's did not have the section covering businesses. Now I will admit that we don't know how courts will rule on it, because there hasn't been a case yet, but you can't use the previous RFRA's as proof that it won't happen under this law when this law is different.

The problem with Brooks is that he is comparing two things that are not at all similar. Those basic courtesies are generally followed between the LGBT community and the Religious Conservatives (on the small things), but to compare shaking hands to refusing service to someone is asinine.

 

[pkt77242]

Understood. I believe that ends the discussion for us.

If a gay photographer refused to photograph a Catholic wedding would you call them a bigot?

What if a Jewish deli owner refused to sell a sandwich it a Muslim, what would you call them?

What about a white person refusing to bake a cake for a black wedding?

 

[Whiskeyjack]

That is why Indiana added the section covering businesses that is not in other states RFRA (well except South Carolina, I think but I haven't heard of a test case from them). To repeat, that is why Indiana added that clause to argue that it hasn't ever been allowed previously under different RFRA is disingenuous because the other RFRA's did not have the section covering businesses. Now I will admit that we don't know how courts will rule on it, because there hasn't been a case yet, but you can't use the previous RFRA's as proof that it won't happen under this law when this law is different.

Yes, we can, because most other state courts have interpreted their state RFRAs as applying between businesses and individuals already. Were it not for the New Mexico Supreme Court's refusal to do so in Elane Photography, there would have been no need to so clarify Indiana's law.

The problem with Brooks is that he is comparing two things that are not at all similar. Those basic courtesies are generally followed between the LGBT community and the Religious Conservatives (on the small things), but to compare shaking hands to refusing service to someone is asinine.

It's not asinine. Forcing a proprietor, especially an artist, to participate in something she feels is deeply sinful is illiberal and tyrannical, plain and simple. The CRA was justified because Jim Crow was a deep-seated social evil backed up with a campaign of white terror. And there's literally no comparison between what the LGBT community faces now and what black faced under Jim Crow.

The problem here is that Progressives now believe religion is a social evil along the lines of Jim Crow (which is depressingly ironic, but it at least has historical precedent in the French Revolution), and thus see no reason why the extreme legal remedies of the CRA shouldn't be applied with prejudice against religious individuals and institutions. How long until this myopic focus on Egalite and Laicite bring about an American Robespierre?

 

[Ndaccountant]

If a gay photographer refused to photograph a Catholic wedding would you call them a bigot?

What if a Jewish deli owner refused to sell a sandwich it a Muslim, what would you call them?

No dog in the fight here, but I think trying to hurl labels at people is what contributes to division. Personally, I don't call those people anything. I simply nod my head and walk away.

 

[pkt77242]

Yes, we can, because most other state courts have interpreted their state RFRAs as applying between businesses and individuals already. Were it not for the New Mexico Supreme Court's refusal to do so in Elane Photography, there would have been no need to so clarify Indiana's law.



It's not asinine. Forcing a proprietor, especially an artist, to participate in something she feels is deeply sinful is illiberal and tyrannical, plain and simple. The CRA was justified because Jim Crow was a deep-seated social evil backed up with a campaign of white terror. And there's literally no comparison between what the LGBT community faces now and what black faced under Jim Crow.

The problem here is that Progressives now believe religion is a social evil along the lines of Jim Crow (which is depressingly ironic, but it at least has historical precedent in the French Revolution), and thus see no reason why the extreme legal remedies of the CRA shouldn't be applied with prejudice against religious individuals and institutions. How long until this myopic focus on Egalite and Laicite bring about an American Robespierre?

So you think that comparing shaking hands to refusal of service is comparing to similar things and thus a good comparison? That is a horrible comparison.

I don't think that religion is a social evil. I think that using it to discriminate against someone is wrong, but that doesn't make it a social evil. Religious people can't seem to separate the two things. Most people only view religion as bad when it is used to harm someone else (discrimination). That is when it becomes problematic. Religion in and of itself is not Evil but like anything else it can be used for "evil" when it is used to harm someone else.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

If a gay photographer refused to photograph a Catholic wedding would you call them a bigot?

Not at all. I know a few gay men who attend my church that are far better Catholics than I. And I frequently read Eve Tushnet, a celibate Catholic lesbian, who writes about how the Church can create space for the LGBT community without compromising its doctrine.

But to put it bluntly, the LGBT movement is characterized by a worldview that is explicitly hostile to the Church's. As I mentioned previously, artists should never be compelled to "speak" in ways that violate their consciences.

What if a Jewish deli owner refused to sell a sandwich it a Muslim, what would you call them?

Your argument is strongest when the discrimination is clearly motivated by the identity of the victim. In this case, a Jewish baker who refuses to sell a sandwich to a Muslim patron would pretty clearly be acting in a bigoted manner. But a Jewish photographer should be free to decline to shoot an Eid-al-Adha festival. And though it's a weaker case, I think a Jewish baker should be free not to cater such an event either.

We ought to have enough faith in our liberal democracy to allow for strong Right of Conscience exemptions and to encourage tolerance. Jim Crow is not coming back.

 

[Whiskeyjack]

So you think that comparing shaking hands to refusal of service is comparing to similar things and thus a good comparison? That is a horrible comparison.

I don't think that religion is a social evil. I think that using it to discriminate against someone is wrong, but that doesn't make it a social evil. Religious people can't seem to separate the two things. Most people only view religion as bad when it is used to harm someone else (discrimination). That is when it becomes problematic. Religion in and of itself is not Evil but like anything else it can be used for "evil" when it is used to harm someone else.

Your concept of religion is likely why we aren't seeing eye to eye here. Religions are inherently discriminatory:

• These beliefs are Catholic doctrine, while those beliefs are not; and
• People who observe these rituals are Muslims, while people who observe those rituals are not; and
• These activities are immoral and harmful to oneself, while those activities are moral and congruent with human flourishing.

It sounds like you have no beef with religion as long as it lines up with secular liberalism, but as soon as it conflicts, someone is being "harmed", and then it becomes evil, problematic, etc. That belief is no less dogmatic than what the Church teaches.

This is partly why making sexual orientation a protected class is so problematic. All of the major world religions have a metaphysical concept of Truth from which they derive ethical standards. Such standards necessarily involve proscribing certain behavior. Christianity, Judaism and Islam prohibit all non-procreative extra-marital sexual acts (as they have for centuries). Yet the LGBT community largely defines itself by such behavior. There's no room for "love the sinner, but hate the sin." By professing the orthodox Christian belief that homosexual acts are sinful, I am suddenly a bigot, and my 2,000-year-old Church is now a vehicle of hatred and oppression that presumably needs to be coerced by the secular liberal State.

 

[kmoose]

What happens if a gay man goes to a bakery without shoes and shirt, and tries to buy a cake for his gay wedding?

 

[Cackalacky]

Your concept of religion is likely why we aren't seeing eye to eye here. Religions are inherently discriminatory:

• These beliefs are Catholic doctrine, while those beliefs are not; and
• People who observe these rituals are Muslims, while people who observe those rituals are not; and
• These activities are immoral and harmful to oneself, while those activities are moral and congruent with human flourishing.

It sounds like you have no beef with religion as long as it lines up with secular liberalism, but as soon as it conflicts, someone is being "harmed", and then it becomes evil, problematic, etc. That belief is no less dogmatic than what the Church teaches.

This is partly why making sexual orientation a protected class is so problematic. All of the major world religions have a metaphysical concept of Truth from which they derive ethical standards. Such standards necessarily involve proscribing certain behavior. Christianity, Judism and Islam prohibit all non-creative extra-marital sexual acts (as they have for centuries). Yet the LGBT community largely defines itself by such behavior. There's no room for "love the sinner, but hate the sin." By professing the orthodox Christian belief that homosexual acts are sinful, I am suddenly a bigot, and my 2,000-year-old Church is now a vehicle of hatred and oppression that presumably needs to be coerced by the secular liberal State.

Good post. But on the other hand I think that many people DO justify many behaviors using religion based on or from a fundamental misunderstanding due to its nebulous interpretations. Being gay is not a new phenomenon either, it is just more socially acceptable at this point in history than in most others so lets not make the mistake of arguing this is something new nor unnatural. Bigotry, OTOH is a fairly recent concept even to liberal democracies so its quite relevant to expect old dogmatic ideas to be challenged by the evolution of a liberal society.

 

[Cackalacky]

What happens if a gay man goes to a bakery without shoes and shirt, and tries to buy a cake for his gay wedding?

 

[IrishinSyria]

This is what I'm still failing to understand. The bolded and what Jayhawk posted seem to agree, but actually they contradict.

The truth is that right now in every place in this country that doesn't specifically have gays listed as a protected class, you can already hang a no gays sign. So this law doesn't actually change the status quo at all relative to discrimination against gays. You're already allowed to do it 100% legally everywhere in the country that doesn't have a local law forbidding it.

So this law hasn't actually legislated anything of note. If someone hung a "no gays" sign today versus a month ago it still stands on the same legal ground. It has made no change to the status quo of the legality of discrimination against gays. That's what I really don't understand still about the uproar... is the uproar over the law itself? Or is the uproar over the fact that gays aren't a universally protected class?

This isn't necessarily true. Some counties and municipalities in Indiana have laws that prohibit discrimination against gays. There's a very open question as to whether this law would preempt a civil suit filed under those laws.

 

[pkt77242]

I guess my question to people who think it is ok to turn away gay people for things like wedding photography and wedding cakes, is why don't those some Christian's turn away people on their second or third wedding, or people who had children before getting married, or people who had sex before marriage? What is it about the gay wedding in comparison to the others that causes the need to discriminate?

 

[Ndaccountant]

I guess my question to people who think it is ok to turn away gay people for things like wedding photography and wedding cakes, is why don't those some Christian's turn away people on their second or third wedding, or people who had children before getting married, or people who had sex before marriage? What is it about the gay wedding in comparison to the others that causes the need to discriminate?

Maybe I am not reading everything correctly, but wouldn't the point you raise indicate the validity of their actions in court? I would presume someone seeking protections the law provides would need to show they are not selective in how their beliefs are administered thru their business. If said person behaved in the way you are suggesting, I would presume they would lose the protection the law provides. Am I reading this wrong?

 

[pkt77242]

Maybe I am not reading everything correctly, but wouldn't the point you raise indicate the validity of their actions in court? I would presume someone seeking protections the law provides would need to show they are not selective in how their beliefs are administered thru their business. If said person behaved in the way you are suggesting, I would presume they would lose the protection the law provides. Am I reading this wrong?

I think so but I could be wrong. The question is if they are all sins, why is the one sinner being picked out for discrimination? Why would you say no to all the things that the Church thinks is sinful and wrong? Why are the gays being treated differently then the other sinners who are still helped? It is hard to use the argument that gay weddings are wrong in the eyes of my church and that is why I can't bake the cake when you are baking cakes for other weddings that would be viewed as wrong in the eyes of their church. Does that make sense.

Sorry, typing one handed while holding a baby and trying to give her a bottle.

 

[Wild Bill]

What happens if a gay man goes to a bakery without shoes and shirt, and tries to buy a cake for his gay wedding?

Toss a couple wine coolers back until you start feeling sexy about yourself, throw in a Madonna CD, crank it up and express yourself.

 

[IrishinSyria]

Maybe I am not reading everything correctly, but wouldn't the point you raise indicate the validity of their actions in court? I would presume someone seeking protections the law provides would need to show they are not selective in how their beliefs are administered thru their business. If said person behaved in the way you are suggesting, I would presume they would lose the protection the law provides. Am I reading this wrong?

This is the question I keep coming back to. It seems like this law either mandates that courts examine whether someone's religious beliefs are sincere or correct or that it provides cover for anyone who can point to the banner of religion. I can't believe that anyone wants our courts evaluating people's religious beliefs.

 

[Ndaccountant]

I think so but I could be wrong. The question is if they are all sins, why is the one sinner being picked out for discrimination? Why would you say no to all the things that the Church thinks is sinful and wrong? Why are the gays being treated differently then the other sinners who are still helped? It is hard to use the argument that gay weddings are wrong in the eyes of my church and that is why I can't bake the cake when you are baking cakes for other weddings that would be viewed as wrong in the eyes of their church. Does that make sense.

Sorry, typing one handed while holding a baby and trying to give her a bottle.

I think the answer would be no. But, would that person be afforded the protection of the law? Based on what I have read/listened to, the person seeking protection would need to demonstrate why the refusal went against his/her religious beliefs and how he/she reacts to other similar "sinful" circumstances.

Said differently, the law doesn't afford carte blanche protection, rather the opportunity to argue in court where the they will have to demonstrate why they should be protected. Judging by other court cases in recent history, few people will succeed.

 

[Ndaccountant]

This is the question I keep coming back to. It seems like this law either mandates that courts examine whether someone's religious beliefs are sincere or correct or that it provides cover for anyone who can point to the banner of religion. I can't believe that anyone wants our courts evaluating people's religious beliefs.

I don't think its evaluating their beliefs, rather their actions in carrying out their beliefs. If it's inconsistent over time and selective, they don't get protection.

Again, maybe I am thinking about this wrong, but that is how I am interpreting it.

 

[IrishLax]

This isn't necessarily true. Some counties and municipalities in Indiana have laws that prohibit discrimination against gays. There's a very open question as to whether this law would preempt a civil suit filed under those laws.

Right, that's what I meant when I said "You're already allowed to do it 100% legally everywhere in the country that doesn't have a local law forbidding it." But I think you get your point... it does maybe change the status quo of some places in Indiana that did already have sexual orientation, etc. as a protected class... so it is very relevant, even if only for those places.

 

[EddytoNow]

Your concept of religion is likely why we aren't seeing eye to eye here. Religions are inherently discriminatory:

• These beliefs are Catholic doctrine, while those beliefs are not; and
• People who observe these rituals are Muslims, while people who observe those rituals are not; and
• These activities are immoral and harmful to oneself, while those activities are moral and congruent with human flourishing.

It sounds like you have no beef with religion as long as it lines up with secular liberalism, but as soon as it conflicts, someone is being "harmed", and then it becomes evil, problematic, etc. That belief is no less dogmatic than what the Church teaches.

This is partly why making sexual orientation a protected class is so problematic. All of the major world religions have a metaphysical concept of Truth from which they derive ethical standards. Such standards necessarily involve proscribing certain behavior. Christianity, Judaism and Islam prohibit all non-procreative extra-marital sexual acts (as they have for centuries). Yet the LGBT community largely defines itself by such behavior. There's no room for "love the sinner, but hate the sin." By professing the orthodox Christian belief that homosexual acts are sinful, I am suddenly a bigot, and my 2,000-year-old Church is now a vehicle of hatred and oppression that presumably needs to be coerced by the secular liberal State.

First off, I am a Catholic and a Christian. I hate to admit it, but the Catholic Church has gone through multiple periods when it behaved in an un-Christian manner. The whole missionary concept of saving the heathens from themselves wasn't very Christ-like. Missionaries were followed by conquering armies that subdued and then stole land and resources from the native people leaving them in poverty. The Protestant Reformation was the direct result of some very un-Christian behavior on the part of Catholic Church leaders. Just because something is being done by Christians doesn't mean it is morally correct.

However, and I would like to emphasize this point, Christians have also done a lot of good for the poor and the hungry. We will be judged by our actions. Many Christians can be rightfully proud of the way they have modeled their lives after Christ. IMHO this isn't a fight Christians should be waging. We should be out helping the downtrodden, not refusing to bake a cake because, heaven forbid, a gay couple may celebrate their marriage by sharing the cake with their family and friends. We have more important battles to fight.

We Christians are good at talking the talk, but very few of us can walk the walk. Rather than showing up for a one hour service on Sundays, our time would be better served in acting Christ-like seven days a week. Mother Teresa set the example. I don't see many following in her footsteps.

 

[pkt77242]

Whiskey, while I know that you are ok with the idea of a gay baker not making a cake for a Christian wedding, do you really think that many Religious Conservatives would feel the same way?

My gut feeling is that it would be all over Fox news (and Facebook, and Twitter) about the war on Religion and how the left is attacking Christianity. So while I can understand that you feel that way, I highly doubt that even half of Religious Conservatives would feel the same way. In fact I bet they would be responding just about the same way that the LGBT community responds when they are discriminated against.

 

[pkt77242]

What happens if a gay man goes to a bakery without shoes and shirt, and tries to buy a cake for his gay wedding?

The baker would be so taken with lust that a "No Pants Party" would ensue?

In all seriousness, they would be free to turn them away if they would turn away everyone that came in like that.

 

[IrishJayhawk]

On another note, I found this to be a pretty interesting read. Not 100% evidence, but pretty solid indicators that Obamacare is saving lives.

Barack Obama says health care law has led to 50,000 fewer preventable hospital deaths | PolitiFact

*Spoiler alert...the claim is "mostly true."

 

[pkt77242]

Watchdogs file complaints against 4 presidential hopefuls

 

[Cackalacky]

Right, that's what I meant when I said "You're already allowed to do it 100% legally everywhere in the country that doesn't have a local law forbidding it." But I think you get your point... it does maybe change the status quo of some places in Indiana that did already have sexual orientation, etc. as a protected class... so it is very relevant, even if only for those places.

Ballard, council to legislature: Repeal law, protect LGBT from discrimination

Indianapolis Mayor Greg Ballard and the City-County Council on Monday called on the Indiana General Assembly to either repeal the divisive Religious Freedom Restoration Act or add explicit protections for sexual orientation and gender identity in state law.

Ballard also issued an executive order that anyone who receives money from the city government must abide by its human rights ordinance, which has had such protections in place for a decade.

Supporters say the RFRA, set to become law on July 1, is needed to protect religious freedom from government intrusion, pointing to similar laws across the country. But circumstances unique to Indiana's bill have sparked a national firestorm over fears that it could legalize discrimination against gays and lesbians.

Chief among those circumstances is the fact that many states with an RFRA, including neighboring Illinois, also have statewide bans on discrimination based on sexual orientation, alongside other protected classes such as race, sex and religion.

Indiana has no such protections. And it explicitly prohibits local human rights ordinances from being exempt from the RFRA.

 

[connor_in]

On another note, I found this to be a pretty interesting read. Not 100% evidence, but pretty solid indicators that Obamacare is saving lives.

Barack Obama says health care law has led to 50,000 fewer preventable hospital deaths | PolitiFact

*Spoiler alert...the claim is "mostly true."

Politifact....