Absolutely. Allowing folks, even fundamentalist religious folks, to live their lives as they please (as long as they don’t violate the rights of others) is a fundamental tenet to liberalism as I understand it.
Yes. No thought police.
Yes.
They’re not being forced as I understand it – they were subpoenaed by one of the attorneys. That subpoena might not actually be legally enforceable, as I understand the situation.
I’m not aware of any pastors being forced to perform any marriages or ceremonies at all, and I would oppose such actions.
As far as bakers, dressmakers, etc., I do not believe they should be allowed to legally discriminate by race, religion, orientation, etc. If a baker opens a business selling to the public, I don’t believe the baker should be allowed to discriminate against a gay couple (or an interracial couple, or a Jewish couple) and refuse to sell them a cake because of their race/religion/orientation.
so…you are picking and choosing which group get freedom and which don’t. that should be unacceptable to any true liberal. that is why I am moving fast toward the libertarian side of things. the govt cannot be trusted to make these decisions. today it’s my group; tomorrow it’s your group.
Yep. I feel real concern for the rights of flat-earthers to pull their kids out of the public system and homeschool them they way they want to. If we don’t stand up for the rights of ignorant and totally misinformed children to get diplomas that are the equivalent to the ones the other kids get, who will?
Since what seems like the main focus of the OP has already been dealt with, thought I’d weigh in on the rest, just for fun.
This totally reminds me of liberals tearing their hair and crying in their beer because conservatives had ‘won’ in the late 90’s. It shows a fundamental (no pun intended ) lack of understanding of the US voters and how attitudes shift and morph over time, and the very nature of what a ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ as well as their platforms also shift as times change.
What a load of horseshit. We are no more going to become ‘another European-style, liberal society’ than we became a fascist dictatorship when the Republicans were in full control of the government. Again, this shows a fundamental misunderstanding of how the US political system works to even say such a thing.
Because attitudes have shifted on the matter of gay marriage doesn’t mean we are going to become a European socialist clone next year. This is the same sort of over the top reaction social conservatives were moaning about when Civil Rights were pushed through in the 60’s.
Not only that but we will certainly have universal health care and a chicken with every bag of pot as well! You seriously need to get a grip and learn how the US political system actually works…and more importantly, how the US VOTERS actually work.
when pastors are forced to turn over their sermons so they can be inspected by bureacrats and there is no outcry from liberals against this egregious violation of their free speech, then I conclude that true liberalism is dead. the real liberals today are the libertarians.
b/c he believes gay marriage is sinful. therefore he wants no part of it. his freedom to not participate in those weddings has been erased. he will have to lose his business if he wants to stay true to his convictions.
As has been pointed out to you, this hasn’t happened. And you don’t seem to understand what a libertarian actually is if you think that liberal today are libertarians OR that libertarians would go for a government that would do what you are describing, even if it’s only a fantasy in your own head given to you by something like Faux News.
whether any were actually shut down or not isn’t important. the point is that it is no longer wise to trust the govt to exercise its power in defense of minority groups. it didn’t happen in the reconstruction period, and it won’t happen now.
So the answer to my original question appears to be no. In a liberal (as defined by today’s liberals) society, there will not be a place for minority groups to act in accordance with their conscience. If you have a business, you will be forced to serve all customers regardless of your convictions.
Again, I would hope that liberals everywhere would react in horror to this kind of “liberalism”. Thomas Jefferson is rolling in his grave.
What is it about the concept of separation of church and state that you have a problem with, or don’t understand? Churches that actively promote a political party or candidate and influence their parishioners to vote a particular way are in violation of the statute that gives them their tax exempt status.
My opinion is that no religious organization should be tax-exempt but, since they are, they should either follow the rules or lose it.
I agree that no organization should be tax exempt. but your first paragraph clearly represents an attempt to shut down a certain kind of political speech. that’s not very “liberal”.
That’s not harm. Having to be a part of something you don’t like is not harm or restriction of religion.
The baker doesn’t have to witness, endorse, congratulate anyone’s marriage. They just have to bake a cake. Should they be allowed to refuse to bake cakes for divorced people marrying? How about for Bar or Bat Mitzvahs? Hallowe’en parties?
Seriously- interacting with people who’s beliefs don’t match up with yours is the price we pay for being in an open, pluralistic society. Their is no constitutional right to a smooth, bump free life.
No, it’s asking Churches to abide by the rules they agreed to in order to gain the huge benefit of being tax-free. So you’re ok with groups cheating and not following the law if they don’t want to?
For any reasonable definition of “freedom,” you’re talking about the ability of people to fulfill their desires. Libertarianism focuses not on what people want to do, but what they own. Desires are a real thing; private property is a highly useful fiction we use in order to manage conflicting desires.
Libertarianism massively restricts folks’ freedom to manifest their desires, by leading to a world of extreme difference between the powerful and the powerless. Ultimately you’ll end up with a lot of people in a state nearly indistinguishable from slavery, except instead of being beaten for escaping, they’ll starve for leaving their employer.
This proposition is too complex for this thread, but be assured that it’s been hashed out elsewhere. Libertarianism leads inexorably to a plutocratic tyranny.
I am not agreeing with the bakers or defending their decision. I am simply defending their right to act consistent with their own convictions. That is a right so precious, that I am willing to go to great lengths to defend even those who I find reprehensible (i.e. KKK, etc.). that is what liberals used to stand for.
I think that the two most cogent points made above are that firstly, right wingers, being punitive, authoritarian, revengeful, bigoted sorts, are ever patrolling for evidence that the Enemy will be just like they themselves plan and hope to be should they ever assume total power.
Secondly, certain kinds of Christians build their identity around martyrdom and victimization, and are ever patrolling for evidence of such. Both constantly need to wring “proof” out of thin and unpromising materials, and it’s kind of a shame they have to work so very hard.
If you want to argue that the principles of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is a liberal plot to outlaw freedom by ending segregation and discrimination, perhaps you would like to describe why you think African-Americans, gays, Muslims, Christians, women, and many other people will be better off if people are allowed to fire them, cut their pay, or deny them service? How does that make us a better country?
Let’s take a hypothetical scenario. An extreme racist runs a lunch counter. He claims that his religion dictates that the races are not to be mixed in any way whatsoever. Therefore, he believes it is his moral duty not to provide service to any African Americans who may want to eat there. Which do you believe: (a) that his racism is protected by the First Amendment; or (b) that his customers have a right under the 14th Amendment and the Civil Rights Act to be served, regardless of the color of their skin?
Suppose a doctor or hospital believes your kind is sinful and wants no part of it (for whatever definition of “your kind”). You show up bleeding with grave injuries. Should the doctor lose his freedom not to participate in treating your kind, or should he be allowed to roll you out into the parking lot to bleed to death?
He’s a private business; should he be allowed to stay true to his convictions, even if you die because of it?
What if you are only permanently injured? Temporarily injured? Inconvenienced?
It shows a fundamental (no pun intended ) lack of understanding of the US voters and how attitudes shift and morph over time, and the very nature of what a ‘liberal’ or ‘conservative’ as well as their platforms also shift as times change.