A bit off-topic, but speaking of interracial unions:
My parents hired a babysitter once when my mother had to spend time in the hospital. I was about 10 years of age. The sitter was an older lady, and white, as my family is.
This lady got chatting to us, and she told my younger brothers and me that what happens when black people and white people marry each other is, their children are born all spotted brown and white, like cows or dogs.
All at once I knew four things, but I didn’t say them, of course. I don’t think I could have put them into words until many years later. I knew what she said wasn’t true. I knew she was ignorant and backward. I knew her heart was full of hate. And I knew I hated her for all these very reasons.
The last, of course, was very wrong of me, but I was a kid, and didn’t know better at the time. I do know better now.
Apart from wanting to take a particular day off as a holiday, I think that when the claims to religious rights conflict with the legal entitlements of other Americans, the State can and should examine and take into account whether the beliefs of the one claiming a religious exemption (“the exemptee”) are a part and parcel of those of a larger body of believers, or are idiosyncratic. Whether the exemptee observes conscientiously a substantial number of other religious beliefs, or if the belief that gives rise to the denial of service to a particular group stands in isolation. Whether the exemptee can give an account of his or her objection. Whether the actions in question are commanded by the exemptee’s conscience, or whether they are merely permitted, or preferred. If the gravity of harm or deprivation to the person denied service justifies denying another American her right to the free exercise of conscience.
Many of these considerations are also used by the review board that approves Conscientious Objector status for military personnel or for draftees. I believe the CO review boards don’t require that the applicant be a member of a sect, but that he give evidence of his beliefs are sincerely and consistently held beliefs.
And, yes, I think it’s fair and reasonable that the State legislatures put together a coherent, methodical protocol by which to decide these questions, much as a CO Review board might do.
I think that there would be many applicants for the religious exemption, and these review boards would have to figure out ways to streamline their processes.
From the Wikipedia article about Bob Jones University vs. United States: “The Court applied a strict scrutiny analysis and found that the ‘Government has a fundamental, overriding interest in eradicating racial discrimination in education . . . which substantially outweighs whatever burden denial of tax benefits places on [the University’s] exercise of their religious beliefs.’ The Court made clear, however, that its holding dealt only with religious schools—not with churches or other purely religious institutions.”
This finding is slightly different from what we’re talking about. We’re not talking about whether Bob Jones University would be fined or shut down for maintaining racial segregation on campus, but whether BJU’s tax exempt status, to which it would ordinarily be entitled as an educational institution, could be revoked in consequence of its enforcement of racial segregation.
Tax exempt status is not understood to be a right of the institutions enjoying it, but as a means of furthering their mission, which the State acknowledges also furthers some public advantage. In the case of BJU, the Court found that BJU’s racial segregation policy was so objectionable as a matter of public policy that it outweighed any good the school’s educational mission might be accomplishing. Therefore, the tax exempt status was taken away.
Revoking tax exempt status is not the same as applying criminal and civil penalties to an individual or an institution. And the essence of the question about our bakers, is whether the state violates the First Amendment when it fines or applies other penalties to entities which practice illegal discrimination on religious grounds.
Different Christian denominations interpret and weight Paul’s precept on homosexuality differently, particularly in light of Jesus’s teachings as given to us in the New Testament. That’s why some denominations perform gay and/or recognize gay marriages. You’re welcome to your own interpretations, of course, but they’re not universally accepted by Christians.
The conditions for that “exchange” might hold water in the PRC or in the former Soviet Union.
People! That’s what the Constitution is* for*! To enumerate and codify the boundaries and limits to be placed on the State’s regulatory powers, and to secure for the American people the liberty to live their lives as they saw best fit, subject to certain basic legal parameters.
That is NOT to be the exchange one makes for entering into commerce. Not in the U.S.A., it’s not. Maybe in Cuba it is. Nor does the American exchange all of his personal banking, credit, and health information to the State “for entering into commerce.” They might do that in Communist China, though.
People! Where are all y’all from???
And the American does not exchange and surrender his first-born male child to the State “for entering into commerce,” either.
This is the United States. The State is supposed to have LIMITED POWER to regulate, control, dictate, oversee our actions as free and responsible adults.
That’s what the Constitution does for us. That’s what the Bill of Rights do for us.
Are those documents just dusty old useless pieces of paper that no one pays attention to anymore? Are the contents of the Founding Laws of our nation now outdated, outworn, and irrelevant.
Right. As if we were living in a land that is slowly mutating into Communist China.
No, we won’t, by God!
OK, we’ve already talked about all this. Please read about the criteria that have been under discussion.
If you think your convictions might be wrong, you might want to think about re-examining them. And then figure out how to get them right.
I don’t want to get too far afield here, but I’ll reply briefly to these points: Some Christians denominations have indeed backed away from the prohibitions against same-sex sexual relationships. But the institutional Catholic Church, the Evangelicals, the Eastern Orthodox Christian Churches, many Orthodox Jewish groups, and the Muslim faith have not abandoned them.
Although Saint Paul mentioned the prohibition, they didn’t originate with him. The prohibition dates back about 3,000 years, to the book of Leviticus of the Septuagint.
Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ did not do away with the moral law given by God to the People Israel, but insisted that all of the moral law was to be observed. Some elements of the ceremonial law, however, which was intended to set the People Israel apart from the nations, He did indicate were no longer to be in force. And following His death, Resurrection from the Dead, and Ascension into Heaven, the Apostles, inspired by the Holy Spirit, laid to rest further elements of the Jewish ceremonial law. It’s all documented in the Four Gospels and Acts.
That may be what you think should be done, but in fact it doesn’t work that way. Whether my sincere religious belief is worthy of protection doesn’t depend on whether others share it. It matters whether it is sincere, and of course there are other factors, but whether others share my belief isn’t one of them.
I wasn’t referring to the finding. I was referring to the fact that they claimed the ban on interracial/dating marriage was based on religious belief. And they felt strongly enough about it to lose the exemption and pay the taxes as a result of having that ban. I think that’s sufficient evidence to show that it was a sincere religious belief rather than personal distaste and the fact that it lasted until 2000 pretty well eliminates the idea that it was based on social opprobrium. You doubted that any sect would demand that adherents deny services to interracial couples and I say that the people who banned faculty,staff and students from being involved in interracial relationships and marriages could certainly have understood Colossians 3:17 to prohibit them from providing a wedding cake for an interracial couple. They certainly had no problem denying educational services or employment to those involved in interracial relationships, so why would you think they’d be OK with providing a wedding cake?
Many Christians believed -and continue to believe!- that interracial unions are against God’s laws and intentions. Perhaps one day, there will be small children who react to
Religious prohibitions against SSM the way you did when confronted with your babysitter’s beliefs.
Actually , I would amend that to say that there are not children who can’t understand why God who is Love would prohibit Love, whether they are black and white, or man and man, brown and red, or woman and woman.
That may be what you think should be done, but in fact it doesn’t work that way. Whether my sincere religious belief is worthy of protection doesn’t depend on whether others share it. It matters whether it is sincere, and of course there are other factors, but whether others share my belief isn’t one of them. [/UNQUOTE]
That’s for the legislatures, whom the American People put in place to decide these things, to decide.
I’m sure the information you provide is correct, Doreen, but I’m a “horse’s mouth” kind of gal. I don’t feel confident addressing these points without the actual words of the actual actor.
And here’s what I found on BJU’s own website
"Bob Jones University has existed since 1927 as a private Christian institution of higher learning for the purpose of helping young men and women cultivate a biblical worldview, represent Christ and His Gospel to others, and glorify God in every dimension of life.
"BJU’s history has been chiefly characterized by striving to achieve those goals; but like any human institution, we have failures as well. For almost two centuries American Christianity, including BJU in its early stages, was characterized by the segregationist ethos of American culture. Consequently, for far too long, we allowed institutional policies regarding race to be shaped more directly by that ethos than by the principles and precepts of the Scriptures. We conformed to the culture rather than providing a clear Christian counterpoint to it.
"In so doing, we failed to accurately represent the Lord and to fulfill the commandment to love others as ourselves. For these failures we are profoundly sorry. Though no known antagonism toward minorities or expressions of racism on a personal level have ever been tolerated on our campus, we allowed institutional policies to remain in place that were racially hurtful.
"On national television in March 2000, Bob Jones III, who was the university’s president until 2005, stated that BJU was wrong in not admitting African-American students before 1971, which sadly was a common practice of both public and private universities in the years prior to that time. On the same program, he announced the lifting of the University’s policy against interracial dating.
“Our sincere desire is to exhibit a truly Christlike spirit and biblical position in these areas. Today, Bob Jones University enrolls students from all 50 states and nearly 50 countries, representing various ethnicities and cultures. The administration is committed to maintaining on the campus the racial and cultural diversity and harmony characteristic of the true Church of Jesus Christ throughout the world.”
In reviewing instances of the denial of goods or services, would the review boards that I propose be put into existence, working with the exemptees, be able to distinguish between sincerely held religious convictions as opposed to any lingering cultural anti-homosexual ethos?
I think that would be an excellent goal for these boards.
An anti-anybody ethos ought not to be accommodated.
A sincerely-held religious belief ought to be.
I don’t know, because I wasn’t there, but it wouldn’t surprise me one bit, if smart men and women had been able to identify Mr. Jones segregationist attitudes as culturally derived, rather than religiously derived.
Even had he denied an interracial couple a wedding cake. And claimed the denial was religiously motivated.
A review board would have discovered that this was not so.
Thank you so much, raventhief, for your reply to my earlier comment.
Your reflections seem to me most eloquent.
I’m being very careful to avoid as much as possible diving into the topic of LGBT people and issues themselves, because the topic of laws and regulations is, of course, contentious, and I don’t want that contentiousness to spill over onto the topic of the whole LGBT issue, (any more than it already is), because that’s a whole other issue, and one which is contentious enough already.
There’s no point in causing hurt or distress when it’s not necessary.
Ah, yes, the old Leviticus argument. Do I want to get into how Leviticus, one of the books of the Torah, was directed toward the Jews of that time, and how the New Testament is the New Covenant, how Paul said in Galations we’re not bound by…nah. This is a thread about a Constitutionality, commerce, and freedom of religion/freedom of expression
However either one of us interprets the Bible or whatever denomination we may belong, should either of us enter into a commercial enterprise, we are bound by the laws governing commercial enterprise because that’s the trade-off. If you think making a wedding cake for a gay wedding is a sin, fine, close your shop. If that seems like too big a sacrifice for your faith, remember that Paul and 11 of the 12 apostles made a much bigger sacrifice for theirs.
So? Even for the Christian denominations that are Bible literalists, The Bible is not the whole of their religion. This board loves nothing better than playing gotcha-ya over what is ir isn’t in The Bible. Too bad this isn’t an opportunity to win the internet by rules lawyering. There is a lot more to Christianity than just that book. Personal revelation plays a major role in many sects, just for starters.
There are, however, many who would use religion as a convenient excuse to deliberately and gratuitously subject customers to humiliating experiences.
Maybe go ahead and ask about the race of the couple there too, as long as we are legitimizing discrimination.
You will have to ask the poster who first brought up the idea of overturning the democratic process by judicial fiat.
So, you want the state to decide which religions are valid.
What happens if they decide that your religion isn’t one of the “accepted” religions?
Once again, you are arguing against the very basis of the Civil Rights Act.
The Civil Rights Act makes no distinction whatsoever about goods and services whether they exist yet or not. The reason for this is because if it did, then it would be completely pointless. You could tell the black guy, “I can’t stop you from sitting at the lunch counter, but you can only eat the food that has already been prepared before you ordered it.”
Did I stutter?
Okay…
Maybe, can you tell me what the difference is between asking her to remove her scarf, which is not denying service to anyone, and denying service based on personal prejudices?
The anti-discrimination laws that you are fighting against are the only reason why he can’t be fired for being black. Can you explain why the state can compel an employer to continue to employ someone who makes their customers uncomfortable? Isn’t that pretty much like making the business owner chattel slavery in the soviet union?
You aren’t. But as a person who opens their business to profit from the public, you do have to accept some rules.
Nice story. Do you realize that she held those beliefs just as strongly as you hold your beliefs about SSM? How can you judge her, call her ignorant and backward, realize her heart was full of hate, and even hate her yourself, when you strongly hold what I, and many of the american public believe to be ignorant and backward beliefs yourself?
Since you have acknowledged that not only do there exist, but you have personally met, those who hold racial ignorant prejudices against others, can you understand why protections are needed to prevent those who hold those hateful beliefs from deliberately and gratuitously humiliating customers?
I actually believe it was courts that made that decision but why do you think that’s for the legislators to decide but it’s not for the legislators put in place by the people of Colorado or California or New York or … to decide that sexual orientation should be a protected class? You do realize that’s the issue right? The democratically elected officials put in place by the people in certain states have decided that discrimination against people due to their sexual orientation should be prohibited in the same way that discrimination due to race,religion gender etc is forbidden. ( And some of these laws go back quite a bit- it’s been the law in NYS since abut 2003)
Your quote is what the president of BJU said in 2000. It’s not what Bob Jones himself said in 1960 *- which was " If you are against segregation and against racial separation, then you are against God Almighty because He made racial separation in order to preserve the race through whom He could send the Messiah and through whom He could send the Bible. God is the author of segregation. God is the author of Jewish separation and Gentile separation and Japanese separation. God made of one blood all nations, but He also drew the boundary lines between races."
But regardless of whether you think Bob Jones truly held this as a religious belief, the fact remains that you are finding any way possible to avoid answering the actual questions which are 1) whether someone who believes God forbids interracial marriage should be permitted to refuse to provide services for an interracial wedding and 2) If they should not be permitted to refuse, what is the difference between refusing services to same sex couples and refusing services to interracial couples. You can’t simply say that no one holds this as a religious belief , or that anyone who does so is incorrect without making it appear that the only difference is that you oppose same sex marriages but not interracial marriages.
This address on Easter Sunday was apparently a response to a Billy Graham statement criticizing segregation.
I like ultimatums! They’re always a sign that the gloves have come off, and my interlocuter is willing to show me who she is and what she’s all about
And an ultimatum referring to the executions of the martyred Apostles.
This is an ultimatum informing me that we must submit to the State in this matter or prepare to die.
Wow. They don’t come better than that!
You know, nowadays, one of the few places in the world where you can be executed for what we in the West would consider a fairly minor infraction of a government regulation, is Communist China.
You may not know this about Communist China, but until recently enforcement of the famous one-child policy rose to and including deadly force. And if you yourself lived there, nelliebly, the women Party trusties, who live and work on every block and in every sector of every shop, to keep “an eye on things” (the “lidless eyes” of the Party) . . . and if you lived there, and these women were to note that you appeared to be gaining weight around the middle, and you had exceeded your quota of children, (i.e., 1) do you know, the Party trusties would get in your face and start to give you ulimata, also . . . ?
“Submit to an abortion, or else.”
“Or else you and your husband will be arrested, and your other child be placed in an orphanage.”
“Or else, your other child will be forced to clean city sewers all his life when he grows up. No education for him.”
If you continued to resist, nelliebly, the Communist Party operatives would throw you down on the ground and scream into your face:
“have an abortion, or live off the grid, off the black market, in the out-of-the-way places, where strangers might toss you a few crumbs. Because you and your unborn child will be illegal ‘invisibles.’”
“have an abortion or kill yourself.”
“Have an abortion or we will kill you and the child.”
At last, if you continued to resist, the Party operatives would seize you by your arms and legs and carry you to the clinic, where you would be strapped down and aborted.
Even if it turned out you weren’t pregnant at all, but had a tumor on one of your ovaries.
Because you had resisted the Party trusties ultimata, you might not receive care for the tumor . . . and may die anyway.
Lovely.
This kind of brutish behavior is by no means confined to Communist China. It has a history just about everywhere groups of men and women come into contact with other groups. Throughout all of history, some people just like running the show, and have so much energy and drive, that nothing but external force will prevent them forcing everyone else under their thumb. They know how to manipulate those weaker than themselves, and how to enlist the support of those who are incipient bullies, but lack the know-how to be in a position to throw their weight around as much as they would like.
It’s been the story in ancient Mesopotamia, in Egypt under the Pharaohs, in China during the dynasties, in pre-Columbian America, in Greece, in Rome, in Northern Europe during the Viking Age, in Sudan, in Ethiopia, and throughout sub-Saharan Africa. It’s been in Western Europe, in Tsarist Russia; it’s been everywhere.
Ours is the only nation every established that intentionally set up a form of government and a system of laws as a means to prevent this kind of government tyrannizing over others.
The kind of tyrannizing that says, “violate your conscience or go out of business,” for example.
That sort of ultimatum would have gone over in any of the satrapies, empires, khanates, suzerainties, and kingdoms of history in which the strong held all the cards of power over the majority.
Tyrannical ultimata shouldn’t be tolerated here in a country with a system of government designed to protect the people from that very government infringing on their liberties.
It shouldn’t be tolerated here in a country whose “Greatest Generation,” of whom only a few thousands remain alive, fought and died to protect this land from the twin tyrannies of Nazi Germany and the Empire of Japan.
And until quite recently, it wouldn’t have been tolerated.
And it’s all because people don’t wish to be incovenienced or disappointed by being informed told that their order for one particular special order item from a baked goods shop, that they’ll need to visit a bakery two street up, or a few blocks away.
To prevent this inconvenience or disappointment, nelliebly tells us all here - today - on this very board - that she is perfectly willing that I should be put to death.
Which mode of death do you choose for me, nelliebly? The Chair? Lethal injection? Firing squad?
What form shall my execution take so that a number of our citizens can avoid inconvenience or disappointment when organizing their festivities?
Does anyone else here sense that something has gone wrong . . . terribly wrong in this country?
I don’t agree that every accommodation of the needs of a protected class in Colorado or California should trump every aspect of the First Amendment rights of every American, across the Board. Nor the other way around.
That’s why we have legislatures and referenda.
Once again, I would leave questions 1 and 2 not to the Courts alone, whose membership represents too much power wielded by too few in matters of our First Amendment rights, but only as ratified by the express will of the American people, by referenda, the will of the American people expressed directly, and to the legislatures, elected to office by the will of the American people.
That is my final answer. Further inquiries will elicit the same reply.
And it was the legislature that said that you may not discriminate on the basis of seuxal oreintation.
So, your final answer is that duly elected legislatures may enact laws to protect minorities from discrimination, and you would be against courts overturning the will of the legislatures?
Do you realize that in the case that we are talking about, the duly elected legislature made anti-discrimination laws that the bigots are attempting to overturn in the courts? You are arguing against your own position, here.
Federal courts should legislate on Constitutional matters.
And I would expect my state and federal legislators not to overstep and attempt to bestow rights on any entity in the US that infringe upon the Constitutional rights of others.
And if they do, the fed courts should take them down.
And to answer Doreen’s question further, I deny that the legally recognized union of two men or of two women is in any way analogous to the marriage of any one adult man with any unrelated adult woman, of any color, creed, language, or nationality.
If you or Doreen would like to start another thread on the question of whether the legally recognized union of two men or of two women is analogous to the marriage of any one adult man with any unrelated adult woman, I’m sure some interesting discussion will ensue. My small contributions may appear, as well. If I have time.