Well, it makes sense in context.
That makes Chomsky a national treasure.
Well, you don’t get to live your life just however you want to, no one does, and the First Amendment makes only some little difference there. E.g., you can’t take people’s stuff because your religion teaches it belongs to everybody.
As this guy learned (or rather apparently didn’t.)
No, but not only can a person not be forced to provide a service they don’t want to, they especially can’t be forced by the government if it’s against their religion. And I’m pretty sure someone providing services as an individual would win under an RFRA challenge. Guess we’ll be testing that in court soon. So far, wedding planners are refusing business without legal repercussions, as is their inalienable right.
But this is just a bullshit excuse for bigotry. No bible or religious text says “thou shall not bake cakes for gays”. They say “don’t be gay”. And the law does not require anyone to be gay.
Just as no religion says “thou shall not bake cakes for Jews”, or blasphemers, or atheists, etc. Just an excuse for bigotry.
I agree with you. But if we are going to pass laws, there are certain exemptions that involve very personal association with the “sin” in question. A person of faith can sell things to sinners. A person of faith cannot plan their sin out for them. Thus my example of wedding planners. If kosher caterers can refuse to make unkosher meals, then Christian wedding planners can refuse non-Christian weddings. And often do. THey don’t just discriminate against gays. Believe me, I know. We never did get help with our interfaith wedding.
Wedding planners can certainly refuse certain types of ceremonies, just like caterers don’t have to serve every type of meal. But the gender and sexuality of the engaged are not part of the ceremony. Basically, if they advertise “we plan christian-themed weddings”, they can’t refuse to plan such a wedding based on the sexuality of the participants. They can refuse to plan some different theme.
Caterers can refuse to cook certain foods, but they can’t turn down a customer based on race/religion/sexuality. Wedding planners can refuse to plan certain types of ceremonies, but they can’t turn down a customer based on race/religion/sexuality. Or at least this is how the law should be.
Have you ever been religious or known people who are religious? It’s not about a theme. Christian wedding planners do Christian weddings. Period. Not Christian-themed weddings, as if it’s like a Renaissance-themed wedding, or a Star Wars-themed wedding. And the same rights go to anyone who is involved closely enough with a wedding that their participation would be deemed abetting sinful behavior.
I think it’s fair to disagree with Jeb Bush on this issue. But for BG to call it a “stupid REpublican idea” in the other thread or act like it’s extreme is just off the wall. Not only is it not extreme, the law and trhe constitution are probably on the side of business owners, as long as their faith is an integral part of their business. Such as being a Christian wedding planner. A Christian publisher could also not publish gay books, I think we’d all agree.
So they can plan christian weddings for gay couples.
That’s like planning a Christian Yom Kippur. Or better yet, a Jewish banquet on Yom Kippur. With pork.
How so? There are actual Christian denominations that perform same-sex weddings. Not “Christian-themed gay weddings”, actual official sacramental Christian same-sex weddings.
Which does not mean that every Christian wedding planner has to take those jobs. The thing about being religious is that you get to decide who you’ll associate with in religious matters, such as weddings. There are Jewish events that feature non-kosher food. A caterer who mistakenly labels himself “Jewish” instead of “kosher” doesn’t go “Oh, crap, I guess I have to make your pork, you call yourselves Jews!”
Heck, some Jews even do Sabbath weddings. Jewish wedding planners do not have to take those jobs, since working on the sabbath would violate their religion.
As a Christian, helping people to sin, as a matter of fact, being a vital part of their sin, is a lot to ask. As they say, some jobs aren’t just jobs. They are personal. I agree that pharmacists should have to dispense birth control regardless of their faith. The pharmacist just sees a customer at the counter and doesn’t get involved in their lives. Some jobs, like wedding planners, you become immersed in people’s lives to a great degree. It’s not “just a job”. These people call you at all hours of the day to talk about the wedding, you are supposed to share in their joy. You become the most important part of their wedding aside from the bride and groom themselves. You just can’t ask someone who is morally opposed to such a thing to get that involved.
Please highlight the Constitutional clause that supports that.
A wedding planner who is going to be “morally opposed” to two people getting married, regardless of the circumstances of the parties involved, needs to get into another line of work. Or grow a pair.
So, adaher, if a wedding planner’s sincere religious belief is that engaging in commerce with African-Americans is immoral, can they then refuse to plan a wedding for an AA couple? Or a mixed-race couple? Is that also supportable legally?
Ladies and Gentlemen-
This is fascinating, surely. So fascinating it deserves its own thread instead of cluttering up a thread about the 2016 candidates. I’d appreciate it greatly.
Without debating the merits of the issue, can we at least discuss whether it’s a position that defines Jeb Bush as some kind of extremist, rather than just supporting the current legal status quo?
Perhaps. There’s a trust issue here though. Democrats call for illegals to go to the back of the line as a compromise to get a bill passed now. Once the bill is passed, they’ll campaign on citizenship now as a basic civil right that evil Republicans are denying them.
It’s impossible to flip flop on a matter of immigration law, because the fact is the Republicans support the law, whatever it might be, and Democrats don’t. The law currently calls for deportation of illegals. Democrats oppose that and aren’t any more likely to support it once an immigration reform bill passes. It’s pretty certain that they won’t support a ten year delay for citizenship either.
I’ll say this, your analysis of Democratic goals and motivations maintains its usual relationship to reality. But of course, why would we expect anything different.
However, to try to stay on topic, it’s not Democrats Walker has to worry about. One of the biggest knocks on Jeb from the TP-types was his stance on immigration, if Walker removes that distinction and moves closer to Jeb, he loses badly. Bush will have more money and won’t be stuck with the flip-flopper label.