Religous Freedom being used as an argument to support discrimination
Posted by Maphesdus 12 years, 2 months ago to Legislation
New Arizona legislation could give business owners the right to discriminate against anyone they want, as long as they have a religious reason for doing so. If this passes, it would effectively destroy the Civil Rights Act of 1964, as well as all other Civil Rights and equal protection laws.
Religious beliefs fall under this umbrella. It is the respect for natural rights that keep us civilized, not mysticism
Some things to keep in mind:
The Ku Klux Klan tried to use the argument of religious freedom to justify the burning of crosses and the persecution of African Americans.
Neo-Nazi gangs try to claim religious freedom as justification for their persecution of Jews and other minorities.
The terrorists who helped plan and execute the 9/11 attacks tried to use religious freedom as a defense in court.
Evangelical fundamentalists are trying to use religious freedom as an excuse to violate the First Amendment, which guarantees the separation of church and state.
People obviously have the freedom to believe whatever they want, but just remember the old saying: "Your freedom ends where my nose begins."
If a customer was exceptionally rude in their approach, I wouldn't turn them away just for that reason alone.
Now if a customer is being rude, disrespectful, and/or violent, then that customer can be ejected from the premises until they calm down. Discriminating against certain types of behavior is perfectly fine. Discriminating against certain demographics is not.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Establishme...
The second part of that particular phrase states, 'nor the free exercise thereof.' If I choose to construe my religious belief as not wishing to do business with you because I disagree with your lifestyle, beliefs, whatever, then I have a perfect right to do so. Now, this does not extend to forcing to believe as I do or otherwise coercing you to do aught against your own beliefs, but to force me to accede to your wants simply because you throw a wall-eyed hissy fit because I won't do as you wish is treading on my First Amendment rights.
http://www.usconstitution.net/jeffwall.h...
Please explain to me what rights I'm denying others by not doing business with them?
The 1st Amendment does NOT guarantee the separation of church and state. Reread it. it prohibits the federal government, specifically the legislative branch, from making laws establishing a national church (think Anglican), or prohibiting people from practicing their religions.
Note that the 1st Amendment does NOT prevent States or local governments from doing so. It was the 14th Amendment that extended the prohibition to the States.
The right to be free from unjust persecution and prejudice, and the right to be treated equally and fairly in the public sphere.
However, since the 14th Amendment is currently in effect in our society, and state governments are now bound by the Constitution as well, I did not feel it necessary to point out that historical perspective.
Now if you would like to submit to Congress a new amendment to repeal the 14th, you're more than welcome to do so. Just keep in mind that if you do repeal the 14th Amendment, your state government will gain the right to violate every last tenant of the Constitution, as the entire document would no longer apply to state governments.
Granted, there have been some (rare) cases where a person might have thought they were being discriminated against when they're really weren't, but that is not a legitimate reason for opposing Civil Rights.
Also, the man who wrote that article, Harry Browne, is the author of a book titled "Why Government Doesn't Work," which is simply a rediculous statement. There are certain kinds of government which don't work (Communism, Socialism, Fascism, etc.). If he said Communist government doesn't work, he would be right. If he said Socialist government doesn't work, he would be right. But to simply say that government of any kind doesn't work is such an absurd statement that anyone who makes it can be called nothing but an anarchist. He has no credibility.
Here's a little something for you...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KmmxAo98z...
Honestly, I think the thing that's hurting African Americans more than anything right now is the war on drugs (which disproportionately targets African Americans), and not the after affects of the Civil Rights movement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7M9eYHjC...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdGGx7fj9...
In reality, blacks are committing a disproportionate number of drug related crimes....
By the way, your comment about customers supposedly forcing their unsavory appearance on business owners is slightly disturbing, as it could be interpreted as a justification for racism and persecution against anyone the business owner thought looked strange.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ugly_law
Oh, and just so you know, back in the 1960s and earlier, people who opposed equal rights for African Americans tried to use the argument that if blacks were allowed into their bars and their restaurants, it would drive off their white customers.
So congratulations for succumbing to the same logic used by the defenders of Jim Crow laws. ;)
I suppose the old saying that "History is written by the victors" does have a great deal of truth to it. But if we're going to study history at all, it will obviously be necessary to read such material. Though if we can find historical records written by the defeated, that would obviously help to shed new light on a controversial topic (this is difficult for ancient history, but relatively easy for more modern history). Though if a history book simply presents the facts without taking a side on the issue, that's generally the most accurate approach (though it does tend to make the reading a bit stale).
But even if the history book you're reading is written by a historical revisionist with an agenda, it's still possible to distill some real history from it. You just have to be aware that the author has an agenda, and learn to separate the facts from the author's propaganda.
Exactly how does one separate the facts from the author's propaganda?
In point of fact, one can't. Propaganda can, and often is, true. Propaganda is merely information intended to promote an agenda (or discredit an agenda). How does one separate facts that are omitted from propaganda?
So your position is that they only have the right to do business so long as they comply with YOUR vision of morality.
I don't want 90% of these walking through the doors of my establishment.
You're anti business and pro big goverment. Why are you here Maph?
(*Note that I said strong government, not big government. Big government is authoritarian, but weak government is anarchy. A small but strong government is ideal in my opinion.)
There are several religious beliefs which are not permissible under our current government. This isn't even a start on a comprehensive list, but here's a few examples:
1. Polygamy: Fundamental to Judaism, Islam, and Mormonism.
2. Racism: Judaism ("The Chosen People"), Islam ("Mohammed was the best man from the best family of the best tribe among the best etc."), many Christian sects, Shintoism.
3. Vigilantism: Judaism, Islam, some Christian sects.
4. Sacred Prostitution: Numerous pagan religions.
5. Human Sacrifice. (I invariably cite the requirement for sacrifice to Huitzilopotchli, "Lest the sun go out!")
6. Collective Suicide. - MASADA -, and I do hope that you can tick off a few of these "cults" yourself.
Ultimately, there have to be limits on religious freedom. While private associations may limit their memberships, public commerce and public accommodations are quite different matters. Or would you rather that we revert back to the interminable religious totalitarianism and strife that gave us internecine conflicts such as the Thirty Years' War and the Crusades? Freedom from religious persecution was one of the principles that our government was founded upon. The Founding Fathers, so well schooled in history, grasped this clearly. That's why it I'm so astounded that the religious fundamentalists of today seem to struggle with it so much.
Oh, and no, religious convictions do not give religious organizations any right to discriminate in their public affairs. If they want to say gay and lesbian people can't get married in their chapels, or can't participate in their religious services, that's perfectly fine. But as soon as the church enters into the public realm and starts providing a product or service to the general public, then the church becomes bound by the same laws and regulations as any secular organization or business.
Another thing I don't think is being fully considered is what would these agencies do if they happened to have a gay or transgender child who needed to be put up for adoption? What then?
As for what then, as was previously suggested, let those niches of society deal with those themselves if they feel they are inadequately served by other means.
A church ringing its bells on Sunday can be considered noise pollution by the nanny state, and therefore harmful to the general public, and therefore the gov't can silence them?
Again, your default position is to give the government blanket authority, except where specifically prohibited, where the reality is that the gov't is prohibited authority except were specifically granted.
And, the law you defend violates the 1st Amendment to the Constitution... which is the fundamental underpinning of our society.
We are a republic and not a democracy for a reason.
And no, I do not believe that the Civil Rights Act violates the First Amendment.
Did you ever stop to consider that the Civil Rights Act just might fit this statement?
And that you might be on the wrong side of history?
And no, the people on the wrong side of history are those who support discrimination, not those who oppose it.
That's how a republic works. People elect representatives, and those representatives decide on the laws. If the people dislike the laws that their representatives create, they can vote for new representatives at the next election, or in more severe cases, impeach the representatives on the spot.
A republic has a fundamental set of rules granting limited powers to government and protecting the rights of individuals.
View the following, and educate yourself:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DioQooFIc...
The communism/fascism dichotomy and the totalitarianism/anarchy dichotomy are both important to keep in mind, and neither dichotomy should replace the other. Rather, the common understanding of left and right should remain intact, and totalitarianism/anarchy should represent a new axis: up and down, and not replace the existing left/right axis.
I'll let you figure out what "groups" have separate rules, and laws.
Rights are not granted by the government.
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."
In other words, even though a specific list of rights is established by the Bill of Rights (Amendments 1 through 10), that list should not be used to deny people of other rights which are not listed in the Bill of Rights. This simply means that the Bill of Rights should not be considered a complete or comprehensive list of all the people's rights, and that the people still have other rights not listed therein.
This does not imply that discrimination is a protected right, and I'm not quite sure how you arrived at that misguided interpretation. All it's saying is that the Bill of Rights should not be considered comprehensive or complete in its coverage.
I have the right to do anything that doesn't infringe upon another person's rights.
We don't need permission from government to exercise our rights, as our rights come from God, not government.
If I should only consider women of my own race to marry... if I should alternatively only consider short women to marry, or red-headed women to marry... that is also discrimination, and is my right, and may well be based upon religious considerations or simply taste. Nevertheless, it is discrimination.
By your reasoning, I must marry every woman I meet who wishes to marry me, or else I'm guilty of the secular sin of "discrimination".
You seem to be totally incapable of distinguishing between private and public affairs, which is actually rather important in regards to the law. You're perfectly entitled to discriminate in your own private life, such as in choosing who to marry and what not, but you are not permitted to discriminate in business or other public accommodations.
Get the child counseling?
Does this mean that local churches which are used as voting sites can no longer be used thus?
The alleged separation of church and state is to protect the citizenry from the government, not from religion.
If you disagree with the tenets of a given religion, why are you going to them for products or services? There's plenty of secular competition...
The only way for religion to become tyrannical is if it adopts the trappings of government. Hence the 1st Amendment prohibition against a state religion (such as the Green religion we enjoy today).
You do NOT have a right to do business with me.
There can be only one true religion; if you don't believe yours is it, why do you follow it? Those secularists who refuse to allow that kind of "discrimination", one treating one's own religious beliefs as true and all others as mythological, are opposed to the 1st Amendment.
The Civil Rights Act of 1964 says otherwise... ;)
Obviously everyone is going to believe that their own religion is the only true religion, and there's nothing wrong with that. But problems arise when people think their religious beliefs put them above the law and make them exempt from following the laws. That can never be allowed.
The civil rights act of 1964 can say whatever it wants to say. It can say that PI is 3.0. It can say that water flows uphill. Doesn't make it so.
Those who create laws cannot be allowed to think themselves above the Constitution, or that they can change or circumvent the Constitution via legislation or regulation.
You have no idea how most of us feel about reverse discrimination, and you might be surprised to learn just how small your 'camp' really is.
That's just a hypocritical term coined by prejudiced bigots who think that they're being persecuted when really what's happening is that they're not being allowed to engage in persecution.
Example:
A Neo-Nazi owns a restaurant, and refuses to let Jews eat there. Then when the authorities force him to obey civil rights laws, the Neo-Nazi claims that he is being persecuted for his beliefs, and claims so-called "reverse discrimination." It's really quite pathetic.
Reverse discrimination applies to where a minority gets advanced (or simply hired) over more qualified applicants, solely for the satisfaction of some contrived quota, or worse.
The recorded instances of this are overwhelming, and has been taken all the way to the SCOTUS.
What happens when the "law" wrongly circumvents one's religious beliefs, where the Constitution clearly trumps the Civil Rights Act?
All of this has stemmed from the legal (and, targeted) attacks against a Christian based bakery, and a Christian based photo shop, that chose not to accept the contract for services from lesbian couples.
The heart of these incidents is that the business owners hold religious values against homosexuality (that you label as discrimination), but they were more than willing to 'live, and let live', and be left alone. They did not seek confrontation, but just wanted to conduct their private businesses as they saw fit, and to be free to embrace their belief system.
The homosexuals weren't that tolerant, however, and demanded that their 'rights' should supersede the business owners. They would not embrace the 'live, and let live' approach, and simply place their business elsewhere. That would have been a 'problem solved' solution....
The homosexuals exploited their perceived 'victim' status, and demanded that the nation agree that their 'right' to hold a minority life style more worthy than anyone else's right to their value system. There is no public sphere benefit achieved from stumping for one person's rights, to be of more value than another person's rights.
Discriminating against African Americans was specifically outlawed by the Civil Rights Act, and that same attitude against discrimination should be extended to the LGBT community as well.
To discriminate against a person in business and other public accommodations is a violation of that person's right, and as such cannot be permitted.
Now you are 'demoting' my answers to you? You did see my 'kidding' emoticon, right....
Isn't this discrimination on your part? :-0
The various governments within the United States have powers granted them by the people via the Constitution, but they have NO rights.
And nowhere in the Constitution is gov't granted the right to regulate public business. Even the so-called "commerce clause" was written to make trade between States regular; that is, to prevent economic warfare between States.
Take a sandwich..the lines are long.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_ZSS3yxpn...
The gov has no right to 'master' over ANY part of an individual's life! Again I ask, why are you here Meph. You're obviously lost.
property rights. logically, this includes persons.
There are laws against illegal immigration that aren't being enforced. Why aren't you crying about those laws?
The Governments only purpose is supposed to be protecting us from enemies foreign or domestic. NOT all this other stuff you keep trying to justify just because some power-lusters implemented them. And they break their Constitutional oathes doing it too... Have you know appreciation for our Constitution???
Will there ever come a day when racism and religious issues are so far in the past that we don't need a law forcing businesses not to discriminate? Or will gov't always have to monitor that businesses aren't discriminating?
I'm against gov't forcing businesses to serve customers they don't want. The old saying "if we don't provide good service to our customers, someone else will" is true. Also, I imagine if the economy isn't that great many businesses don't have luxury of pushing their racist agenda. They need the business.
If you turn away business for whatever reason, then you have lost that income by your own free will...and there is no-one that you will have to answer to but yourself.
I like those odds....
“In a free society, one does not have to deal with those who are irrational. One is free to avoid them.”
― Ayn Rand, The Virtue of Selfishness
I joked that it was a good thing it was a gift, because if they're donating to the Nature Conservancy, I wouldn't buy it.
Another friend exploded, angrily asserting that they had a perfect right to spend the money from the sales of their product any way they wished. He was older than me, and I would normally have been intimidated by his outburst.
But I said to him, calmly, that if they advertise what they do with the money they get from their sales, in hopes of increasing those sales by appealing to would-be purchasers.. then they should also then expect to lose sales for the same advertising.
He quietly conceded my point.
Do you, or have you ever, owned a business Maph?
And no, I haven't ever owned my own business, though I'm still in college at the moment, and I'm currently using the skills I've learned to try and establish a video game development company which I hope to get off the ground by the time I graduate. Though if it doesn't work out, I can still use the work I've done as a portfolio to get a job at an existing studio (there are actually quite a few around where I live).
College student...who knows everything yet has never actually DONE or accomplished anything..like say...surviving on your own efforts. I love these college kids who are so worldly and knowledgible and have never been off their parent's, or the gov's wallet. (which is really OUR wallet by the way.) You go start that video game development company and then we'll talk again about this "profiting even if they engage in discriminatory tactics" b.s. Make sure you hire the first homeless person you find too...DON'T DISCRIMINATE! No one will mind that he makes the entire office smell like dog shit or that he doesn't have a clue about video games either.
Though I admit I have dreamed about creating some kind of company that could put low or unskilled laborers (such as homeless people) to work, but I'm not quite sure how I would work out the logistics of that, so for now I'm just focusing on developing my skills so I can eventually create my game development company.
Take all this with a grain of salt b/c I'm still learning.
So if I determine that a person suffering from Down's Syndrome can't manage my office, then that's discrimination? (the bad kind that you want to be illegal)?
Therefore if I determine that a person suffering from homosexuality can't manage my office, that too is the same kind of discrimination?
You're all over the board here.
Save your money, and start a lawn-care company.
Or a construction company.
Or get a McDonald's franchise.
Homeless people are generally homeless for a reason. And it's not discrimination.
And discrimination is already outlawed against minorities, women, people with disabilities, veterans, and a few other categories as well. I simply think those same protections which already exist for these groups should be extended to the LGBT community as well (and they already are in several states).
In particular, how does it harm someone of a different race, religion, nationality, sex, hair color, political affiliation, height, weight, intelligence... whatever?
LGBT community... what race is this? nationality? sex? Please may I see pictures of their unique sex organs that they are neither male nor female?
There's no reason to extend protections to them.
We have a word for that, which describes a practice prohibited by the 13th Amendment...
"Slavery".
If you want to be stupid as a business owner and refuse customers based on race-well, then you're stupid. and your business will most likely do poorly. But I will tell you right now-my business does not cater to progressives. they vote to steal. I do not do business with thieves.
Black families in the 50s had the lowest rate out of wedlock births. By 1974, that rate exploded 10x. What major things happened during this period? The Civil Rights Act of 64 and the very next year, the war on poverty and welfare. I am not suggesting false markets do not contribute, but the breakdown in family structure is what leads to violent crime. Here is an interesting study on point:
http://www.heritage.org/research/reports...
You are correct that a breakdown of family structure leads to violent crime, but what is causing black families to be broken down? If you stop and actually look at the facts, the answer is clear: Disproportionate arrest and imprisonment for drug use. Only 16% of black people actually use drugs, yet 65% of the people in prison are black, and they're in prison on charges of drug related crimes. If you want to know what's destroying black families, there's your answer.
Disproportionate arrest ? Blacks also are responsible for a disproportionate amount of violent crime. I will post a Sowell article on point
A few years before 1970, we declared war on poverty. I'd love to read expert opinions on working which "war" caused the family breakdown. Maybe both of them did. Maybe the Second Great Migration caused it. Does anyone know of any books on this?
Either way... since your for laws that force do goodery why would you be against drug laws.
If it's the drug...people own their bodies they can put in them what they choose....
(the answer has nothing to do with safety and peripherally to do with Obamacare).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w7M9eYHjC...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdGGx7fj9...
I submit that the MAJORITY of Americans resent being told that it takes a federal law to keep us from being racists.
You might want to incorporate that in your lectures to us.