Question: Religious Freedom or Discrimination? How do you see the controversial AZ bill?

I prefer the approach taken by several area pizza places:

If I were a betting man I'd put my money on the veto. I think you're right about the governor's "no drama" thing.

Nate Harris said:

If I were a betting man I'd put my money on the veto. I think you're right about the governor's "no drama" thing.

Click to expand...

Even if she were to sign it, a Federal court would throw it out.

Tidewater said:

Even if she were to sign it, a Federal court would throw it out.

Click to expand...

this

these laws are BS pandering for vote buying that do nothing but invite drama, the ACLU and numerous others in to decide an issue that was decided by the courts already. In the end all they do is drain resources out of the State budget to make a politician look more attractive to his/her base. Right wingers will get all excited and in the end the State will throw several million dollars into the pockets of lawyers, while Fox news applauds then shakes their head in disgust.

Same thing is about to happen here in GA apparently

Alabama is about it introduce another prayer in school bill

all of these are exactly the same. I should have gone to law school

bamacon said:

Since I've read the text I don't see the problem. Then again, I didn't see the problem with their law in 2010 that simply enforced federal immigration laws. Personally, I think Brewer will veto and take the "No Drama" approach since she is term-limited. She has been a complete sell-out after the 2010 loss. Besides, who needs religious freedoms these days?

LINK

Click to expand...

I've always gone with the quote, attributed to Oliver Wendell Holmes "your right to swing your fist ends where my nose begins".

This issue causes me problems. I see some nasal contact but I also believe that a business owner has an inherent right to screw up his own business by being a bigot if he so desires.

Consider me on the fence here, though as I mentioned in an earlier post I do think the courts will strike these bills down.

I did find this rather telling and think that the Republicans are killing themselves with these issues. You want to make young people run to the Democrats here is how you do it.

Tidewater said:

Even if she were to sign it, a Federal court would throw it out.

Click to expand...

As cynical as that sounds, you are probably correct. However, the law as amended seems pretty tight to me.

Jon said:

You want to make young people run to the Democrats here is how you do it.

Click to expand...

Assuming so-called "young people" know nothing about the Constitution and care little about individual freedom, I agree.

Tide1986 said:

As cynical as that sounds, you are probably correct. However, the law as amended seems pretty tight to me.

Click to expand...

Perhaps, but Federal judges can (and do) decide cases based on their personal preferences and then search case law (and sometimes even the text of the Constitution itself, and the words of those who breathed life into it). But first and foremost, most decide cases based on what they like.
And that is as illegitimate as two dogs humping on the White House lawn.

Tide1986 said:

Assuming so-called "young people" know nothing about the Constitution and care little about individual freedom, I agree.

Click to expand...

I hate to go there, but I will. Should there be individual freedom to bar service based upon the color of someones skin, religion, or nationality?

BamainBoston said:

The Constitution specifically protects freedom of religion, so that analogy isn't all that great. The closest thing would be freedom to bar service based on the freedom of association, as the Boy Scouts did with gays.

Click to expand...

Many used religion specifically, in an attempt to discriminate based upon skin, religion, and or nationality which was eventually made illegal through the civil rights act by making it illegal to discriminate no matter the reason (unless it was a private organization). If some view that it is ok to use religion to discriminate for anything, then it should be ok for all.

BamainBoston said:

People always say that but it's not really true. Some people used religion in a sort of general way to support segregation, but for the most part it's revisionist history. For instance, I can think of no major Civil Rights era case that turned on a freedom of religion argument.

Click to expand...

Fair enough. I would say that most of the time its not so much the actual message that is bad, its how sufficiently religious people attempt to twist it to suit their needs. However, religion, even interpreted religion, was cited as a factor into the reason that races should be separate. While the bible does have specifics with regards to homosexuality, the basis for using religion as a basis for discrimination, specifically racial discrimination, has been made illegal when it was made illegal to discriminate for any basis.

chanson78 said:

I hate to go there, but I will. Should there be individual freedom to bar service based upon the color of someones skin, religion, or nationality?

Click to expand...

Yes.

I wouldn't patronize such a place, but they certainly have that right, even when the government doesn't respect it.

BamainBoston said:

True, but the Civil Rights Act didn't make it illegal to discriminate on any basis. It made it illegal to discriminate on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.

Click to expand...

Yes, but its illegal irrespective of the reason. There is no clause that makes discrimination legal as long as you are discriminating because of your religious beliefs.

BamainBoston said:

Sort of. Religious organizations can still discriminate. You can't sue the Catholic Church, for instance, for not hiring female priests. The question becomes does religious freedom only apply to organized bodies and their pursuits or does it apply to the individual and the individual's pursuits.

Click to expand...

Yeah but that is technically a leadership position in a private organization. This is specifically with regards to discrimination of patrons of a business. You are conflating religious freedom with utilizing that religious freedom to selectively discriminate. I would argue that religious freedom was not intended to allow you to affect others with your religious beliefs, only protect your ability to worship and follow a specific flavor of religion. However, it becomes a chicken and egg issue then. If my religious beliefs prohibit me from doing some certain thing, and I have a business that caters to the public, how is it fair that I be forced to perform that certain thing in a way that goes against my religious beliefs which indirectly affects other peoples ability to get services.

I think that the reason that people have such a hard time with issues like this is that as America becomes increasingly non-secular, people are having a harder and harder time reconciling peoples religious beliefs as something that isn't malleable. I would argue that religion has brought some of this upon itself, due to its shifting away from the rigidity and dogmatism. Once you have shown that you are willing to move the goalposts of what God supposedly wants, what is one more shift on something that to many seems relatively benign? Now mind you, I don't think that this is solely religion's fault, as much of society has changed, but I do believe that the perception factor by a growing non-secular society is increasingly putting anyone who steadfastly holds to religious beliefs as bigots, and everyone else is apathetic. This is likely due to the language that comes out of the two camps who really have a dog in the fight being on such polar opposites of the messaging spectrum.

BamainBoston said:

I think you are right about a lot of that, but I do think there is an interest in not having to take part in business transactions that violate central tenants of my faith. If I am a devout Christian who happens to be a wedding photographer, for instance, I should be able to say no to a customer solely because they are gay. My chosen profession should not make me a slave to whoever comes through the door of my shop. I really don't think that is an extreme view. I don't think we would criticize a lawyer, for instance, for refusing to work divorce cases because they don't believe in divorce.

Click to expand...

JMHO, but for future reference, I wouldn't use a lawyer in an analogy engineered to elicit sympathy for the lawyer's position. Hell, that is almost as bad as telling me to feel sorry for the poor IRS agent having to sort through my files that he feels aren't up to snuff.

BamainBoston said:

I think you are right about a lot of that, but I do think there is an interest in not having to take part in business transactions that violate central tenants of my faith. If I am a devout Christian who happens to be a wedding photographer, for instance, I should be able to say no to a customer solely because they are gay. My chosen profession should not make me a slave to whoever comes through the door of my shop. I really don't think that is an extreme view. I don't think we would criticize a lawyer, for instance, for refusing to work divorce cases because they don't believe in divorce.

Click to expand...

Let's take that to the next level. Say a gay person gets in a horrible, life threatening accident far in the boonies. They are attired such that it is painfully obvious they are gay. What if the only doctor available doesn't believe in homosexuality and that if they were to perform a life saving procedure they would be condoning sin as God had decided to obviously take this persons life in punishment.

This no longer is about whether someone can find another photographer, but truly a life or death matter that is now in a murky gray area due to this type of law.

Now I realize that this is a bit of a straw man, but it isn't terribly worse than equating all cases of discrimination to gay people not wanting to bother finding another bakery or photographer.