Arizona bill: gay discrimination or religious rights?

[Texashiker]

Did you read this article? I have no idea what point you might be trying to make from it as it does not involve people refusing service.

So you have no problems with jews complaining about immoral behavior?

Christians complain about immoral behavior and we are bigots.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

So you have no problems with jews complaining about immoral behavior?

Christians complain about immoral behavior and we are bigots.

This isn't about complaining. You can not like something all you want. That isn't what this is about.

 

[boomerang]

Which Catholic Church are you talking about?

Latin (Roman) Catholic, Albanian Catholic, Belarussian Catholic, Bulgarian Catholic, Greek Catholic, Hungarian Greek Catholic, Italo-Albanian Catholic, Macedonian Greek Catholic, Melkite, Russian Catholic, Ruthenian Catholic, Slovak Greek Catholic, Ukranian Catholic, the Coptic Catholic Church, the Ethiopian Catholic Church, Maronite, the Syriac Catholic Church, Syro-Malanakara , Syro-Malabar, the Armenian Catholic Church or the Chaldean Catholic Church?

And which Jews don't eat pork? Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, Reconstructionist or Humanist Jews?

What are the opinions of each of the 32 distinct sects of Islam on homosexuality?

I'm sorry that you have a need to resort to this in order to boost your own ego. You should really try to analyze why you do this because it comes across like something a grade-schooler would do. Arguing semantics and minutia does not make for a good argument. Now, I do understand that this methodology is pretty highly regarded in the progressive world. But if you want to truly know, the rest of us just laugh at you.

 

[MooseNSquirrel]

What's next? No shirt, no shoes, no service? Can we really discriminate against poor, starving people that have no shoes?

Wow.

Because that is exactly the same as being a woman, gay, old, or short?

 

[Daverino]

I'm sorry that you have a need to resort to this in order to boost your own ego. You should really try to analyze why you do this because it comes across like something a grade-schooler would do. Arguing semantics and minutia does not make for a good argument. Now, I do understand that this methodology is pretty highly regarded in the progressive world. But if you want to truly know, the rest of us just laugh at you.

So basically you don't know anything about the religion and you're going to throw up a smoke screen?

FYI: 38% of American Jews are Reform and the prohibition against eating pork is not part of their faith. They can choose not to eat pork, but are not held to it.

I myself am Lutheran. My denomination supports gay marriage. Missouri-Synod does not.

Westboro Baptist Church states they are Christian Baptist and calls for the death penalty against gays.

So I ask again: Which branch of government will be in charge of regulating which religions and beliefs are legitimate and sincere?

 

[Atreus21]

Where there are standards of behavior bigotry can exist.

Where there are no standards of behavior social chaos exists.

Truth is always some third way, an integration of opposites at a higher level of understanding.

Wow. I agree with you. That has to be a first.

It's good to see that we can agree that libertine-ism is bad.

 

[fskimospy]

So you have no problems with jews complaining about immoral behavior?

Christians complain about immoral behavior and we are bigots.

No one is denying service to anyone there and nobody is using the force of law to protect that denial of service. I fail to see how that has any relevance to the discussion at hand.

As someone who used to live right by one of the major Hasidim communities in NYC I can tell you that they are incredibly bigoted. People here are constantly in conflict with those communities. They lack the Christian flair for attempting to export their bigotry, however.

I find it highly unlikely you know the first thing about the Hasidim in NYC, but it's funny to me how you think Christians are being persecuted. Victimhood complex at its finest.

 

[boomerang]

So basically you don't know anything about the religion and you're going to throw up a smoke screen?

FYI: 38% of American Jews are Reform and the prohibition against eating pork is not part of their faith. They can choose not to eat pork, but are not held to it.

I myself am Lutheran. My denomination supports gay marriage. Missouri-Synod does not.

Westboro Baptist Church states they are Christian Baptist and calls for the death penalty against gays.

Thanks for all the info. It's not germane to the argument I made but I know that it makes you feel better so thanks. You're a good little soldier, but read on.

So I ask again: Which branch of government will be in charge of regulating which religions and beliefs are legitimate and sincere?

You just told the world that you have alt account and right in the same thread. Daverino didn't ask me that question, MomentsofSanity did.

 

[MomentsofSanity]

Thanks for all the info. It's not germane to the argument I made but I know that it makes you feel better so thanks. You're a good little soldier, but read on.

You just told the world that you have alt account and right in the same thread. Daverino didn't ask me that question, MomentsofSanity did.

Daverino has expressed the exact same concern in this thread as I have. Nice deflection though. Ignore the question and claim alt account.

 

[boomerang]

Wow.

Because that is exactly the same as being a woman, gay, old, or short?

Read post 112. Nobody got the inference (or maybe they just didn't care) so I explained it there.

 

[boomerang]

Daverino has expressed the exact same concern in this thread as I have. Nice deflection though. Ignore the question and claim alt account.

If he expressed it, I missed it but I know he didn't ask it of me and he (you) expressly said, "So I ask again:". I already answered your question to the degree it needed answering in the context of the thread. Do you want me to map out the process of legislation from inception to its possible argument before the SCOTUS? The changes to the legislation that are proposed are not law yet and may not even become law.

If you disagree with something I say, argue the meat of the matter. Don't dance around in the periphery taking potshots at minutia and arguing semantics. It serves no purpose.

There's a reason I usually just make a statement and move on here. It's because of idiocy like this. The OP presented a great question. Is this situation gay discrimination or discrimination against religious rights? You want me to answer a question in a manner so you can get in a huff and take the thread off into some other direction that makes you feel more comfortable. If you're not happy with my answer you're going to have to learn to deal with it.

 

[fskimospy]

If he expressed it, I missed it but I know he didn't ask it of me and he (you) expressly said, "So I ask again:". I already answered your question to the degree it needed answering in the context of the thread. Do you want me to map out the process of legislation from inception to its possible argument before the SCOTUS? The changes to the legislation that are proposed are not law yet and may not even become law.

If you disagree with something I say, argue the meat of the matter. Don't dance around in the periphery taking potshots at minutia and arguing semantics. It serves no purpose.

There's a reason I usually just make a statement and move on here. It's because of idiocy like this. The OP presented a great question. Is this situation gay discrimination or discrimination against religious rights? You want me to answer a question in a manner so you can get in a huff and take the thread off into some other direction that makes you feel more comfortable. If you're not happy with my answer you're going to have to learn to deal with it.

Uhmm, the 'minutiae' they pointed out shows the weakness of your entire argument. Religion can be anything.

 

[HomerJS]

Its not a religious discrimination issue.

Forget the spreading legalization matter for a minute, why don't we allow rastafarins to smoke pot? Can't they claim discrimination?

 

[Daverino]

Thanks for all the info. It's not germane to the argument I made but I know that it makes you feel better so thanks. You're a good little soldier, but read on.

You just told the world that you have alt account and right in the same thread. Daverino didn't ask me that question, MomentsofSanity did.

So now there are two of us asking you the same question and you haven't offered either of us an answer. In fairness, I just implied it starting back on post #3 and continuing on throughout the thread. MoS asked it pretty much outright, now that I look back. Doesn't matter though. You're still not going to answer the question. You'll just deflect.

This isn't semantics.

You cannot allow a group of people to ignore laws based on a set of criteria that are unestablished. No religion in the world has an established doctrine that is followed by all its members. Ergo, the 'sincerely held belief' test that is in this law becomes a legal, not an religious question. It's absurd to think that the government would get involved in determining which beliefs are sincerely held.

My church belongs to the ELC and there's no doctrine in my church that would support me in denying services to a homosexual couple. Let's say I did so anyhow and claimed I did it for religious reasons. How could the truth of my statement be established? While the ELC doesn't support my opinion, other Lutheran branches do. And the nature of Lutheranism affords me a personal relationship with God that extends beyond church doctrine. So simply by claiming its a religious belief, I make it one.

The bill introduces an unverifiable means for individuals to circumvent the law. It is un-Constitutional and will never become law. Either Brewer will veto it or the courts will strike it down.

As a side note, but AZ senators Jeff Flake (R) and John McCain (R) have urged Brewer to veto the law, as has the AZ Chamber of Commerce.

 

[smackababy]

^the best part about this law is that since it doesn't trump the discrimination against protected classes federal laws, it is almost entirely targeted at gays.

 

[Venix]

You cannot allow a group of people to ignore laws based on a set of criteria that are unestablished. No religion in the world has an established doctrine that is followed by all its members. Ergo, the 'sincerely held belief' test that is in this law becomes a legal, not an religious question. It's absurd to think that the government would get involved in determining which beliefs are sincerely held.

My church belongs to the ELC and there's no doctrine in my church that would support me in denying services to a homosexual couple. Let's say I did so anyhow and claimed I did it for religious reasons. How could the truth of my statement be established? While the ELC doesn't support my opinion, other Lutheran branches do. And the nature of Lutheranism affords me a personal relationship with God that extends beyond church doctrine. So simply by claiming its a religious belief, I make it one.

The bill introduces an unverifiable means for individuals to circumvent the law. It is un-Constitutional and will never become law. Either Brewer will veto it or the courts will strike it down.

"Sincerely held religious belief" is an accepted legal doctrine dating back to at least the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

What's absurd is that you know nothing of Constitutional or civil rights law, yet still feel compelled to spew ignorance about "un-Constitutionality" and how a 50-year-old legal test can't possibly exist. Much like how you lecture about concealed vs. open carry and pistol draw speed despite having no firearms knowledge or experience. I see a trend developing.

 

[Daverino]

"Sincerely held religious belief" is an accepted legal doctrine dating back to at least the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

What's absurd is that you know nothing of Constitutional or civil rights law, yet still feel compelled to spew ignorance about "un-Constitutionality" and how a 50-year-old legal test can't possibly exist. Much like how you lecture about concealed vs. open carry and pistol draw speed despite having no firearms knowledge or experience. I see a trend developing.

'Sincerely held belief' is used in Title VII to protect the religious against discrimination. It has never been applied (in my knowledge) proactively to allow the religious to discriminate.

There is big difference.

 

[Venix]

'Sincerely held belief' is used in Title VII to protect the religious against discrimination. It has never been applied (in my knowledge) proactively to allow the religious to discriminate.

There is big difference.

"It's absurd to think that the government would get involved in determining which beliefs are sincerely held."

Because you totally knew what Title VII was before I mentioned the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 100% true story.

 

[Daverino]

"It's absurd to think that the government would get involved in determining which beliefs are sincerely held."

Because you totally knew what Title VII was before I mentioned the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 100% true story.

Yeah, I've NEVER posted on this topic before. Totally making this shit up as I go along.

 

[werepossum]

Although I think a very good argument could be made that refusing to serve gay individuals is 'un-Christian', I am somewhat uncomfortable with the state intervening to coerce a private citizen into doing something she doesn't want to do. Just as I think it would be wrong to force a gay caterer to work an event held by the Westboro Baptist clowns, I think it would be wrong to force or require a Christian caterer to work a GLAAD convention.

Of course, there are certain areas on which society has taken away the right of the individual to choose whom to serve. For such intervention to be justified, I think the category being protected must be universal. The moral strength of our laws prohibiting discrimination on the basis of race, for example, springs from such laws preventing discrimination against *all* races, viz. it doesn't protect one or two of the racial groups while leaving others vulnerable to discrimination.

It would be possible, of course, to prohibit discrimination on the basis of any and all sexual orientations. The problem, however, is that if the broad classifications and categorizations used in the Civil Rights Act were applied in this context, I think we wind up sanctioning a whole host of non-heteronormative sexual identifications (e.g., polyamoury, zoophilia, necrophilia, incest etc.). I'm not sure if society is tolerant enough to be handle this.

Philosophically I agree completely; government should not be interfering with private citizens. Practically however such behaviors tend to group, so that especially in small towns gays (or blacks, or Muslims, or albinos, etc.) become second class citizens. Therefore I must regretfully abandon my core ideology in favor of protecting minorities. I WISH people weren't dicks and it wasn't an issue as I dislike further empowering government, but sadly there are plenty of places where peer pressure would be in favor of discrimination, not against.

So basically you don't know anything about the religion and you're going to throw up a smoke screen?

FYI: 38% of American Jews are Reform and the prohibition against eating pork is not part of their faith. They can choose not to eat pork, but are not held to it.

I myself am Lutheran. My denomination supports gay marriage. Missouri-Synod does not.

Westboro Baptist Church states they are Christian Baptist and calls for the death penalty against gays.

So I ask again: Which branch of government will be in charge of regulating which religions and beliefs are legitimate and sincere?

That's a red herring as this law is designed to protect a common religious tenant, not to establish a particular flavor of religion as the state religion. I'm against the law as it is discriminatory and just not nice, but determining which religion's beliefs are legitimate and sincere is not a part of this law. Might bring up a second equal protection issue though, if one groups' beliefs become protected by law and other groups' are not.

Lutherans rock, BTW.

 

[werepossum]

"It's absurd to think that the government would get involved in determining which beliefs are sincerely held."

Because you totally knew what Title VII was before I mentioned the Civil Rights Act of 1964. 100% true story.

Dude, EVERYBODY knows what Title VII is. Especially people like Daverino to whom civil rights are a big issue.

 

[Venix]

Yeah, I've NEVER posted on this topic before. Totally making this shit up as I go along.

I complain that you post about topics you know little about. Your defense is that you've done the same thing many times in the past. Heh.

"It's absurd to think that the government would get involved in determining which beliefs are sincerely held." <- Good to know that you think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is absurd.

 

[Daverino]

I complain that you post about topics you know little about. Your defense is that you've done the same thing many times in the past. Heh.

"It's absurd to think that the government would get involved in determining which beliefs are sincerely held." <- Good to know that you think the Civil Rights Act of 1964 is absurd.

Hold on hold on hold on.

Are you posting, with a straight face, that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 gives the right for religious groups to discriminate? Are you saying that the anti-discrimination protections afforded religious groups in Title VII are equivalent to a 'right' that religious groups have to discriminate against others in a public accommodation?

If so, then let me laugh in your face. At close range. And I've had a LOT of coffee today so my breath STINKS. Here: let me get Bender to do it for me.

 

[Venix]

Hold on hold on hold on.

Are you posting, with a straight face, that the Civil Rights Act of 1964 gives the right for religious groups to discriminate? Are you saying that the anti-discrimination protections afforded religious groups in Title VII are equivalent to a 'right' that religious groups have to discriminate against others in a public accommodation?

If so, then let me laugh in your face. At close range. And I've had a LOT of coffee today so my breath STINKS. Here: let me get Bender to do it for me.

No. I've neither said nor implied anything of the sort.

You dismissed the sincerely held religious belief test as "unverifiable" and "un-Constitutional," and insisted that "it's absurd to think that the government would get involved in determining which beliefs are sincerely held." I educated you about how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does exactly that.

There are many legitimate reasons to oppose this law. Your ignorant complaints about the sincerely held religious belief doctrine are not among them.

 

[Sheik Yerbouti]

It's discrimination. Anyone with an IQ above 70 can acknowledge that.