Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 jasper76 wrote:
@PJ: Don't have answers to all to all of your questions, but if the Civil Rights Act and Fair Housing Act are amended to include sexual orientation, then at least homosexuals would have the same baseline protections available to the rest of us.

After that, the courts can figure out the details of whether a baker is taking part in a Religious ceremony by virtue of baking a cake, and other similar questions.

I don't have the answers either. I do think it's telling that most of the hypothetical situations I've heard/seen of LGBT descrimination under RFRA laws involve gay weddings not just refusing to do any business with LGBT people. If the key sticking point with descrimination is going to involve weddings then being in a protected class isn't going to solve anything because religion will still be involved and RFRA laws could come into play.

Gay wedding participation is a relatively niche issue. Widespread descrimination against LGBT people in Indiana should be fairly plain to see if it's happening and can be solved with various forms of legislation that wouldn't have an impact on the gay wedding conflicts.

 jasper76 wrote:
No one is forcing anyone to go into a business that provides public accomadations.

Same old tyrannical argument: if you want a business, you do not qualify for religious freedom. And again -- that kind of thinking is exactly why we have the Bill of Rights.

 jasper76 wrote:
People that make that choice already cannot discriminate on the basis of race, religion, sex, and national origin, even though doing so may hypothetically violate their religious beliefs. I'd just like to see sexual orientation added to the list.

You keep bringing up this issue of adding sexual orientation as a protected class under the CRA. The only sense in which that is relevant here is, that and state non-discrimination laws are exactly what make RFRAs necessary.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Widespread descrimination against LGBT people in Indiana should be fairly plain to see if it's happening and can be solved with various forms of legislation that wouldn't have an impact on the gay wedding conflicts.

Excellent point, echoing Dreadclaw69's point yesterday that it is difficult to see how, for example, selling food to a gay person imposes on anyone's religious liberty. Being coerced by the government into participating in a public celebration of a homosexual relationship is quite another matter.

There is a difference between a business's obligation to serve the public and a person's religious rights. Your religious rights end where you expect someone else to follow your beliefs.

The original Religious Freedom laws were designed to protect people from their own personal beliefs being made illegal. They have morphed into a sword to try to force your beliefs on other people.

A photographer who turns down business taking pictures at a gay wedding is not forcing her beliefs on anyone.

 Manchu wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
No one is forcing anyone to go into a business that provides public accomadations.

Same old tyrannical argument: if you want a business, you do not qualify for religious freedom. And again -- that kind of thinking is exactly why we have the Bill of Rights

ZSo I take it from this that you think that the Civil Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act are tyrannical? By entering a business that provides public accomodations, you are subject to the first, and by being a landlord, you are subject to the second.

Prestor Jon wrote:
Widespread descrimination against LGBT people in Indiana should be fairly plain to see if it's happening and can be solved with various forms of legislation that wouldn't have an impact on the gay wedding conflicts.

Not only should it be plain to see, but given the fact that before SB101 was passed homosexuality was not a protected class, there should be an abundance of evidence of this discrimination.

 Manchu wrote:
You keep bringing up this issue of adding sexual orientation as a protected class under the CRA. The only sense in which that is relevant here is, that and state non-discrimination laws are exactly what make RFRAs necessary.

If sexual orientation is added to the Civil Rights Act, then businesses that provide public accomodations would be forbidden to discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation, the very kind of discrimination that the Indiana bill potentially allows. When it comes to businesses providing public accomodations, discrimination based on race, religion, race, and nation of original, it is already illegal federally, and to my knowledge no amount of relgious objection makes it illegal.

Manchu: Do you believe that sexual orientation should be a protected category? If so or if not, why?

 jasper76 wrote:
So I take it from this that you think that the Civil Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act are tyrannical?

Ah, the first straw man of the day.

Keep in mind that the requirements of laws are not absolute. They are limited by rights. Similarly, rights are not absolute. They are limited by the commonweal.

 Manchu wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
So I take it from this that you think that the Civil Rights Act and the Fair Housing Act are tyrannical?

Ah, the first straw man of the day.

Keep in mind that the requirements of laws are not absolute. They are limited by rights. Similarly, rights are not absolute. They are limited by the commonweal.

So you really think a business can get away with turning down people on the basis of race, so long as they can find a religious reason to do so?

Manhcu: Do you believe sexual orientation should be a protected category under ther Civil Rights Act If so or if not, why?

 jasper76 wrote:
If sexual orientation is added to the Civil Rights Act, then businesses that provide public accomodations would be forbidden to discriminate against people on the basis of sexual orientation, the very kind of discrimination that the Indiana bill potentially allows.

You have it backwards -- the point of RFRAs is to protect people (and in Indiana, privately held businesses) from laws that impose on their religious liberty ... yes, including the CRA and state non-discrimination laws.

 jasper76 wrote:
Manchu: Do you believe that sexual orientation should be a protected category? If so or if not, why?

 jasper76 wrote:
Manhcu: Do you believe sexual orientation should be a protected category under ther Civil Rights Act If so or if not, why?

I know this is what you really want to discuss but it is off-topic, except as clarified above ... and honestly I have nothing to say about it.

 jasper76 wrote:
So you really think a business can get away with turning down people on the basis of race, so long as they can find a religious reason to do so?

No. They must also show that the religious belief is sincerely held, that the CRA significantly burdens their religious liberty, and that the CRA is not the least intrusive manner in which the government can pursue its compelling interest in discouraging racial discrimination.

I respect your decision not to answer my question, but it's far from off topic. Amending the CRA and FHA to protect homosexuals would effectively protect them from the kind of discrimination laws like these potentially forgive.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
No. They must also show the religious belief is sincerely held, the CRA significantly burdens their religious liberty, and that CRA is not the least intrusive manner in which the government can pursue its compelling interest in discouraging racial discrimination.

And how does one prove their religious belief is "sincerely held"? Lie detector test? Is there some kind of chemical test kit? Ability to charm a judge?

 jasper76 wrote:
I respect your decision not to answer my question, but it's far from off topic. Amending the CRA and FHA to protect homosexuals would effectively protect them from the kind of discrimination laws like these potentially forgive.

I'm reminded of the whole arizona "what does an illegal immigrant look like?" situation. What does a gay person look like?


Also, when it comes to the example of wedding photography, it's as easy as just claiming that date is already booked.


It's difficult to prove discrimination in a lot of instances. Look at hiring. The other problem is when people develop a chip on their shoulder, it's difficult sometimes to distinguish what they're projecting and what's actually real discrimination. It's like on seinfeld where uncle leo starts claiming everyone is an anti-semite for the slightest of reasons. Jerry does a bit on it.

 jasper76 wrote:
Amending the CRA and FHA to protect homosexuals would effectively protect them from the kind of discrimination laws like these potentially forgive.

As explained above, you are mistaken.

 jasper76 wrote:
And how does one prove their religious belief is "sincerely held"? Lie detector test? Is there some kind of chemical test kit? Ability to charm a judge?

Judging by the case law, it seems like there is effectively a presumption of sincerity that can be rebutted by evidence that the belief is a sham.

 Crablezworth wrote:
What does a gay person look like?

Better question: how is that relevant?

 skyth wrote:
There is a difference between a business's obligation to serve the public and a person's religious rights. Your religious rights end where you expect someone else to follow your beliefs.

The original Religious Freedom laws were designed to protect people from their own personal beliefs being made illegal. They have morphed into a sword to try to force your beliefs on other people.

The business, particularly the small, private business, and the owner of said business are inseparable; by forcing the business to furnish a homosexual wedding you also force the owner. By doing so, it could be said that the LGBT community is forcing its beliefs on the business owner. Why would that be acceptable?

 Manchu wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:
Amending the CRA and FHA to protect homosexuals would effectively protect them from the kind of discrimination laws like these potentially forgive.

As explained above, you are mistaken.

 jasper76 wrote:
And how does one prove their religious belief is "sincerely held"? Lie detector test? Is there some kind of chemical test kit? Ability to charm a judge?

Judging by the case law, it seems like there is effectively a presumption of sincerity that can be rebutted by evidence that the belief is a sham.

 Crablezworth wrote:
What does a gay person look like?

Better question: how is that relevant?

You'll have to point out to me what specific explanation you are talking about, because I have yet to see one that has convinced me that sexual orientation in the Civil Rihts Act would not help shield homosexuals from discrimination based on sexual orientation.

Do you even feel that homosexuals should be protected from discrimination based on sexual orientation. If you don't, then there's realluy no point in arguing anymore , because that would be a fundamental disagreement as pertains to our current conversation.

The CRA disallows discrimination based on certain categories. The RFRA requires courts to apply a strict scrutiny test in determining whether a law (including the CRA) violates the First Amendment. If in a certain case, a court finds that applying the CRA would violate the First Amendment, the First Amendment trumps.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 jasper76 wrote:
Do you even feel that homosexuals should be protected from discrimination based on sexual orientation.

I don't think a person should be treated poorly because they are homosexual. But I am not sure how that sentiment best translates into a law.

 skyth wrote:
There is a difference between a business's obligation to serve the public and a person's religious rights. Your religious rights end where you expect someone else to follow your beliefs.

Forcing someone else to participate in your activity is the person doing the forcing, not the person who doesn't want to be involved. You're forcing your beliefs on another person when you force them to work for you. Why do you like slavery so much?

 Stonebeard wrote:

 skyth wrote:
There is a difference between a business's obligation to serve the public and a person's religious rights. Your religious rights end where you expect someone else to follow your beliefs.

The original Religious Freedom laws were designed to protect people from their own personal beliefs being made illegal. They have morphed into a sword to try to force your beliefs on other people.

The business, particularly the small, private business, and the owner of said business are inseparable; by forcing the business to furnish a homosexual wedding you also force the owner. By doing so, it could be said that the LGBT community if forcing its beliefs on the business owner. Why would that be acceptable?

Because they are not forcing their beliefs on the business owner. They are not requiring the business owner to marry someone of the same sex. THAT would be forcing their beliefs on the business owner. Having the business owner do the same thing that they always do is not an impositon of beliefs.

This is like saying that an atheist tax preparer that refuses to put donations to a church as a charitable donation on the tax return is in the right.

 Manchu wrote:
how is that relevant?

A couple contacting someone in the wedding industry, the sexual orientation will be made quite obvious. Not the same in food/retail because unless two women/men stroll in holding hands or refer to one another with some sort of romantic affectation "what do you want to order honey?" ect it's difficult to know an individuals sexual orientation simply by looking at them. Hence referencing the arizona law that was absurd at face value because you'd either be stopping everyone who looks hispanic and illegal immigrants don't walk around with a sign on them saying they're illegal immigrants. I would assume bisexual, gay or lesbian individuals don't often make a habit of communicating their sexual preference on their shirts.

Interestingly, at least one federal agency, the U.S. Equal Opportunity Employment Commission has stated that Title VII applies to the LGBT community under the "Sex" provision and has filed suit without any amendment to the CRA.

In 2012, the EEOC held that discrimination against an individual because that person is transgender (also known as gender identity discrimination) is discrimination because of sex and therefore is prohibited under Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

The Commission has also found that discrimination against lesbian, gay, and bisexual individuals based on sex-stereotypes, such as the belief that men should only date women or that women should only marry men, is discrimination on the basis of sex under Title VII.

Reference:
EEOC v. Lakeland Eye Clinic, P.A.
EEOC v. R.G. & G.R. Harris Funeral Homes Inc.

It's not a large jump to go from application of this interpretation for employment and apply it to other areas.

 Manchu wrote:
The CRA disallows discrimination based on certain categories. The RFRA requires courts to apply a strict scrutiny test in determining whether a law (including the CRA) violates the First Amendment. If in a certain case, a court finds that applying the CRA would violate the First Amendment, the First Amendment trumps.

I don't disagree. Are there any existing examples of the CRA bring deemed unconstitutional? I don't know the answer to this precisely, but since it's a current law all businesses that provide public avcomodations are subject to, that suggests that it has never been shown to violate the First Amendment.

 skyth wrote:

 Stonebeard wrote:

 skyth wrote:
There is a difference between a business's obligation to serve the public and a person's religious rights. Your religious rights end where you expect someone else to follow your beliefs.

The original Religious Freedom laws were designed to protect people from their own personal beliefs being made illegal. They have morphed into a sword to try to force your beliefs on other people.

The business, particularly the small, private business, and the owner of said business are inseparable; by forcing the business to furnish a homosexual wedding you also force the owner. By doing so, it could be said that the LGBT community if forcing its beliefs on the business owner. Why would that be acceptable?

Because they are not forcing their beliefs on the business owner. They are not requiring the business owner to marry someone of the same sex. THAT would be forcing their beliefs on the business owner. Having the business owner do the same thing that they always do is not an impositon of beliefs.

Then, by that same logic, nether would the business owner be imposing their beliefs on the homosexual couple. The business owner is not preventing them from being married, nor is the business owner stating that they shouldn't be married. The business owner is simply refusing to participate in or assist with a ritual that the business owners' religion prevents them from participating in or assisting with.

 jasper76 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
The CRA disallows discrimination based on certain categories. The RFRA requires courts to apply a strict scrutiny test in determining whether a law (including the CRA) violates the First Amendment. If in a certain case, a court finds that applying the CRA would violate the First Amendment, the First Amendment trumps.

I don't disagree.

Sure you do or at least you did:

 jasper76 wrote:
Amending the CRA and FHA to protect homosexuals would effectively protect them from the kind of discrimination laws like these potentially forgive.

... which is mistaken, as I have repeatedly explained.

 jasper76 wrote:
Are there any existing examples of the CRA bring deemed unconstitutional? I don't know the answer to this precisely, but since it's a current law all businesses that provide public avcomodations are subject to, that suggests that it has never been shown to violate the First Amendment.

This is incoherent. The CRA would not be entirely struck down because a given application was deemed unconstitutional. Also, your constant refrain of "public accommodation" side steps the distinction in question, namely:

 Manchu wrote:
[...] Dreadclaw69's point yesterday that it is difficult to see how, for example, selling food to a gay person imposes on anyone's religious liberty. Being coerced by the government into participating in a public celebration of a homosexual relationship is quite another matter.

On that note:

 Crablezworth wrote:
it's difficult to know an individuals sexual orientation simply by looking at them

Agreed BUT I think what people are worried about is that allowing businesses to discriminate against homosexuals will foster a larger climate of prejudice where gay people (once again) have to keep under the radar. I don't always hold my wife's hand in public. But, come to think of it, I do like the fact that no one would throw me out of their business for doing so. It is totally understandable that gay people feel the same way. OTOH, I don't think the Indiana RFRA as it currently stands would allow business owners to throw people out or refuse service simply because a prospective patron is evidently homosexual (much less suspected of being homosexual).

 Frazzled wrote:
Forcing someone else to participate in your activity is the person doing the forcing

This point is apparently obscure ... although I cannot explain why.

 Manchu wrote:

 jasper76 wrote:

 Manchu wrote:
The CRA disallows discrimination based on certain categories. The RFRA requires courts to apply a strict scrutiny test in determining whether a law (including the CRA) violates the First Amendment. If in a certain case, a court finds that applying the CRA would violate the First Amendment, the First Amendment trumps.

I don't disagree.

Sure you do or at least you did:

 jasper76 wrote:
Amending the CRA and FHA to protect homosexuals would effectively protect them from the kind of discrimination laws like these potentially forgive.

... which is mistaken, as I have repeatedly explained.

 jasper76 wrote:
Are there any existing examples of the CRA bring deemed unconstitutional? I don't know the answer to this precisely, but since it's a current law all businesses that provide public avcomodations are subject to, that suggests that it has never been shown to violate the First Amendment.

This is incoherent. The CRA would not be entirely struck down because a given application was deemed unconstitutional. Also, your constant refrain of "public accommodation" side steps the distinction in question, namely:

 Manchu wrote:
[...] Dreadclaw69's point yesterday that it is difficult to see how, for example, selling food to a gay person imposes on anyone's religious liberty. Being coerced by the government into participating in a public celebration of a homosexual relationship is quite another matter.

I use the phrase "public accomdations", because that is he language of the CRA.

Selling food to a gay person may pose no imposition to your religion, but if you made up a religion that did say so, it would. Providing housing to a homosexual couple could easily be construed as a violation of someone's religion, because by providing housing, you'd be complicit in the cohabitation.

And as the thousands of existing and extinct forms of religion suggest, religion is basically whatever you want it to be, the Bible and other religious texts can be interpreted however you want it to be, etc.

 jasper76 wrote:
if you made up a religion that did say so

This is simply a bad faith argument (no pun intended).

 jasper76 wrote:
Providing housing to a homosexual couple could easily be construed as a violation of someone's religion, because by providing housing, you'd be complicit in the cohabitation.

The FFHA does not preclude land lords from discriminating on the basis of marital status. In some states, land lords may refuse to rent to unmarried couples (and married couples). Can a land lord refuse to rent to a married gay couple if they do not refuse to rent to a married straight couple? Arguably, no (assuming non-discrimination laws covering sexual orientation) -- because the state rather than any church decides who is married. Legally, people are either married or they are not married. Whether an individual or religious institution considers the marriage valid is immaterial.

Religions are made up all the time, and some gain ground, and some even get the coveted blessing from the IRS? Why is this a bad faith argument?

Your argument is not simply that someone invents a religion but that someone invents a religion specifically to discriminate against others.

Back in real life, we are not talking about a religion that was invented by any of the people who hold it, much less invented by them to circumvent existing or prospective laws.

 Stonebeard wrote:

 skyth wrote:

 Stonebeard wrote:

 skyth wrote:
There is a difference between a business's obligation to serve the public and a person's religious rights. Your religious rights end where you expect someone else to follow your beliefs.

The original Religious Freedom laws were designed to protect people from their own personal beliefs being made illegal. They have morphed into a sword to try to force your beliefs on other people.

The business, particularly the small, private business, and the owner of said business are inseparable; by forcing the business to furnish a homosexual wedding you also force the owner. By doing so, it could be said that the LGBT community if forcing its beliefs on the business owner. Why would that be acceptable?

Because they are not forcing their beliefs on the business owner. They are not requiring the business owner to marry someone of the same sex. THAT would be forcing their beliefs on the business owner. Having the business owner do the same thing that they always do is not an impositon of beliefs.

Then, by that same logic, nether would the business owner be imposing their beliefs on the homosexual couple. The business owner is not preventing them from being married, nor is the business owner stating that they shouldn't be married. The business owner is simply refusing to participate in or assist with a ritual that the business owners' religion prevents them from participating in or assisting with.

Nope. By acting not as a public accomodation, they are trying to keep someone else from not following the tenets of their religion. There is an ecpectation that a business not discriminate as far as customers are concerned.

This doesn't mean they have to serve people who want something out of the usual. If you only provide something a certain way (as in, you only provide sandwhiches with ham in them, a customer has no right to expect a turkey samdwhich). As a business, you have a right as to what to sell, but not who to sell to. I would put an ecception for rude customers or customers who wamt to harm someone. However, these can't be based on who the person is. A homosexual holding their partner's hand is not rude.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Manchu wrote:
Your argument is not simply that someone invents a religion but that someone invents a religion specifically to discriminate against others.

Back in real life, we are not talking about a religion that was invented by any of the people who hold it, much less invented by them to circumvent existing or prospective laws.

It's pretyy common for someone's god to hate every type of person that they do.

OK, I see your point of contention. I guess I don't see any fundamental difference between a religion that was made up last week and one that was made up last millennium.

In any case, it's clear that there are religions (no matter when they were developed) that do have an apparent interest in discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. Theor spokespeople have been all over the news lately, so I know they already exist. Hopefully, time will show that they are in the (vocal) minority.

Back to painting minis

How is this not simple?

Do you have a right to force people to participate in your rituals that impose on their religious values?

NO

Do you have a right not to be forced to participate in other people's rituals that impose on your religious values?

YES

 jasper76 wrote:
I guess I don't see any fundamental difference between a religion that was made up last week and one that was made up last millennium.

Fine but that is not the distinction in question.

 jasper76 wrote:
In any case, it's clear that there are religions (no matter when they were developed) that do have an apparent interest in discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.

This is also incoherent. You're talking about a religion (having interests) as if it is a person or institution. Do you mean church? In fact, the subject is the right of the human person to religious liberty. Yes of course humans have an interest in their religious liberty.