Arizona bill: gay discrimination or religious rights?

[werepossum]

Admittedly, I'm an outsider to the appliance sexual identity community, and frankly the idea disgusts me even though I don't wish to outright restrict your freedom to do what makes you happy in the comfort of your own home, but I am curious.

Since the female toaster is the hot version, how does the human male deal with the hot slot?

:hmm:

Quickly, brother. Very quickly.

 

[zinfamous]

LOL

In a slightly related vein, I generally can't stand Ann Richards but she said something hilarious just after Texas passed its anti-sodomy law. The two main Republican sponsors were slapping each other on the back at having the landmark bill pass and Richards told them "Don't get too excited, you're both going to jail, because under the law you just passed it's a felony for a prick to touch an asshole."

Ann Richards is/was awesome, though!

 

[zinfamous]

Just remember this one thing: you have to be careful; get burned and you're toast!

bboooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!

 

[Incorruptible]

How about that time where the darkies were gonna attack the white folk if Obama lost?



Or when you went on defending racist protestors

Or that time you said blacks voting for Obama weren't integrated into society

Or that WHOLE THREAD you spent defending that woman who got fired for her racist rant.

Or that other thread you made that got locked by the admin for trolling and bigotry

You are a one-trick bigot pony. Seriously, will you just please move on to Stormfront of FreeRepublic? Some of the other trolls here are amusing if not repetitious. You're just a blight on this forum. You've had more bans than I can count. Hopefully one day it'll finally stick.

The Tea Party isn't racist and I will defend them and the principles of limited government.

The second link it was clear I was responding to a troll and countering his point using his own logic. Are you really this stupid? You selectively misquote to attack me.

You pathetic excuse of a human being, Did you miss the part where I attacked her as well?

The last one was about radical Islamists attacking a guy and the PC crowd got upset.

STFU You miserable leftist scum. You don't like debate so you prefer to pull the race card. Gotta love how you resort to pulling the race card because you don't want debate and you're so PC that you falsely accuse others of racism when they call out your precious POS obama

 

[Venix]

You don't really understand much about how Title VII works then. It did not get the government into the 'determining which religious belief is valid' business because it's not about picking which religious beliefs can be applied by religious people to others. The protections afforded by title VII make no judgement about the belief itself and purposefully so. It also uses beliefs in the narrow context of protecting individuals from discrimination AND only when the beliefs can be reasonably accommodated.
From Title VII:
(j) The term “religion” includes all aspects of religious observance and practice, as well as belief, unless an employer demonstrates that he is unable to reasonably accommodate to an employee’s or prospective employee’s religious observance or practice without undue hardship on the conduct of the employer’s business.
So yeah, you're flat wrong. Title VII does not put the government in the 'which beliefs are valid' business. Any belief that can be reasonably accommodated is covered. You seem to feel that context isn't relevant. What is being done in the Arizona law is grossly different from what is being done in Title VII. The Arizona law allows the uses of religion to protect people against accusations of discrimination. Now the person with the 'sincerely held belief' is not the aggrieved party, but the aggrieving party. The shield has become a sword. That DOES put the government in the 'which beliefs are valid' business because you have a discriminated party that results from the belief and requires resolution.

Again, your understanding of the law is utterly wrong. An employer is only obligated to accommodate beliefs that are both sincerely held and religious. Determining whether a particular belief meets those criteria is the core issue in most Title VII litigation, putting the government firmly in the "which beliefs are valid" business.

Among the many examples is Friedman v. Kaiser-Permanente, where the Ninth Circuit ruled that the plaintiff's veganism, while a sincerely held belief, does not qualify as religious. Then there's EEOC v. Red Robin, where the court determined that an employee's Ra tattoo is religious. Practically any religious discrimination litigation involves the court judging whether the aggrieved party's beliefs are truly religious and sincerely held.

Anyway, this is all just a particularly ineffective attempt at weaseling your way out of admitting an error. Your original statement:

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. ... So simply by claiming its a religious belief, I make it one. The bill introduces an unverifiable means for individuals to circumvent the law.

There is simply no way to apply these statements to the Arizona law but not to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There's really no shame in admitting that you were unaware of the legal legitimacy of the sincerely held belief test.

 

[Daverino]

There is simply no way to apply these statements to the Arizona law but not to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. There's really no shame in admitting that you were unaware of the legal legitimacy of the sincerely held belief test.

I'd agree with you but then we'd both be wrong.

Friedman v Kaiser P. is not relevant here. The did not rule on whether any specific belief in Veganism is valid to Veganism. Instead it ruled that Veganism is not a religion and therefore not subject to FEHA protection. As ruled:

"Absent a broader, more comprehensive scope, extending to ultimate questions, it cannot be said that plaintiff's veganism falls within the scope of regulation 7293.1.   Rather, plaintiff's veganism is a personal philosophy, albeit shared by many others, and a way of life. As Associate Justice Werdegar has aptly noted, religious belief is other than “a philosophy or way of life.”  (Smith v. Fair Employment & Housing Com., supra, 12 Cal.4th at p. 1166, 51 Cal.Rptr.2d 700, 913 P.2d 909.)   Therefore, plaintiff's veganism is not a religious creed within the meaning of the FEHA. We quite obviously do not resolve the question of whether a vegan lifestyle that results from a religious belief otherwise meeting the standard in regulation 7293.1 is subject to FEHA coverage."

Note the last part: if Friedman's veganism had arose from a religious belief it may be protected. The court doesn't answer that question. Therefore, the court says nothing to whether a particular belief can or cannot be ascribed to a religion and what the test is.

The decision against Red Robin is similarly supportive. The plaintiff had Kimetic tattoos and were a symbol of his faith, thus protected by Title VII. Again the court made no determination which beliefs were valid and invalid only that the tattoos were an expression of the belief.

As an aside, however, religious justification for discrimination has been overruled in the courts. In the original 1958 verdict for Loving V Virginia, the court ruled:

"Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And, but for the interference with his arrangement, there would be no cause for such marriage. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix."

The Supreme Court would overrule that and stated that interracial marriage was protected under the 14th amendment. Now this is the government as defendant and the separation of Church and State was also in play, so I'm not saying it applies directly. Interesting, anyhow.

The bar for what constitutes a 'sincerely held belief' is so low (see United States v. Seeger) that I cannot find a case where someone claimed such a belief and wasn't ruled in their favor, so long as it was successfully tied to a religion. Which gets to my point: The courts have not ruled (to my knowledge at least) whether some beliefs are valid and others are not for a particular religion. This is purposeful because 'sincerely held belief' has thus far been used to protect religions from discrimination. The government is not in the business of telling people what is and what is not in their religion.

Using Title VII definitions of religious beliefs as a basis to allow a religion to actively discriminate in a public accommodation should be ruled unconstitutional by the 14th amendment otherwise it will get the government in the business of choosing which beliefs are valid and which are not for a religion. I believe the first thing will happen and the second will not.

Anyhow, thank you for making me defend myself. While I still think I'm right in my look at the law, it's good to have to go back through the source material to convince myself. I wish more discussions were like this on this forum. And, as I said, if you can come up with a case where the courts have ruled that a belief was religious, but not 'sincerely held' I would appreciate it.

 

[orbster556]

People claimed a religious objection to desegregation as well. They said mixing races was un-Christian.

As I have indicated earlier, I'm not a strong supporter of this sort of legislation. I would note, however, that Christian theology has sought to transmit, almost from its very inception, a normative ethic regarding human sexuality. The same could not be said for race-based slavery, viz. the concept of race-based slavery -- and, by extension, racial inferiority -- is neither central to the Bible nor the theology which developed from the Bible.

I concede, of course, that particular religious beliefs or strictures ought not to be sanctioned merely on account of the belief or practice being related to religious belief or practice. Although the name presently escapes me, I think back to 19th century Supreme Court case in which polygamy was declared incompatible with US law as demonstrating this principle.

So it is certainly possible that our desire to prevent discrimination against homosexuals will trump the freedom of religious folks.

I would simply note that comparing racial desegregation to integration of gay individuals, at least as it relates to religious objections, is not all that accurate. Ideas of gender complementarity and the intrinsic morality of certain sexual conduct -- both heterosexual and homosexual -- comprise a central pillar of Christian theology in a way that ideas of racial identities or interactions never did.

 

[row]

if a christian butcher, baker, or candlestick maker participate in an event that condones an act deemed sinful in God's eyes they have sinned. it is simply impossible to simultaneously condone sin and work for the glory of God. the bible makes it clear that participation is affirmation.

Paul addressed the issue about whether Christians can in good conscience participate in ceremonies that willfully reject God’s commands (1 Corinthians 10:14-15).

"Therefore, my dear friends, flee from idolatry. I speak to sensible people; judge for yourselves what I say."

however, it is not just for our own consciences that Paul instructs us to avoid participating in ceremonies that celebrate sin. he also commands us to abstain so that we may not corrupt the consciences of those who freely partake of the festivities. why? we must not partake because the other individuals, “whether believer or unbeliever, may think you condone, or even are willing to participate in” the sinful ceremony.

then there’s the specific command in Romans to not offer yourself as an instrument of sin (Romans 6:13):

"Do not offer any part of yourself to sin as an instrument of wickedness, but rather offer yourselves to God as those who have been brought from death to life; and offer every part of yourself to him as an instrument of righteousness."

the Bible says many, many things about sin, but it never tells faithful followers of Christ to actively condone sinful behavior or to use their God-given gifts and abilities to knowingly aid or abet sinful behavior.

“So whether you eat or drink or whatever you do, do it all for the glory of God,” Paul wrote to the Corinthians. “Do not cause anyone to stumble, whether Jews, Greeks or the church of God” (1 Corinthians 10:31-32).

 

[bradly1101]

the Bible says many, many things about sin, but it never tells faithful followers of Christ to actively condone sinful behavior or to use their God-given gifts and abilities to knowingly aid or abet sinful behavior.

Are they allowed to 'not participate' based on the sin of Gluttony? What if the customer is fat?

Are they allowed to 'not participate' based on the sin of Greed? What if the customer drives a Mercedes?

Are they allowed to 'not participate' based on the sin of Lust? What if the customer is super-gorgeous and you feel it for them?

Are they allowed to 'not participate' based on the sin of Anger? What if the customer is is mad at their kids?

Are they allowed to 'not participate' based on the sin of Sloth? What if the customer waddled in real slow-like?
.....
Or any of these sins:

http://www.laestrella.com/Documents/Bible_Studies/Sin_list_part_6.htm

 

[Venix]

The bar for what constitutes a 'sincerely held belief' is so low (see United States v. Seeger) that I cannot find a case where someone claimed such a belief and wasn't ruled in their favor, so long as it was successfully tied to a religion.

United States v. Seeger: "Their task is to decide whether the beliefs professed by a registrant are sincerely held."
Daverino: "It's absurd to think that the government would get involved in determining which beliefs are sincerely held."

Amusing.

I also like how "determine which beliefs are valid" has become "determine which beliefs are valid for a particular religion," a distinctly different statement. Someone can hold a sincere religious belief but not belong to any organized religion, or can belong to a religion that explicitly contradicts his personal belief, yet still have his belief found to be sincere and religious. The courts determine whether a belief is valid for a specific person based on his actions and views, not whether it's valid for or within any specific religion.

The sincerely held belief test will not magically change in litigation over this law. The courts will apply the same standards and come to the same conclusions as they do now. That's the point of a defined legal test.

 

[dmcowen674]

The Tea Party isn't racist and I will defend them and the principles of limited government.

The second link it was clear I was responding to a troll and countering his point using his own logic. Are you really this stupid? You selectively misquote to attack me.

You pathetic excuse of a human being, Did you miss the part where I attacked her as well?

The last one was about radical Islamists attacking a guy and the PC crowd got upset.

STFU You miserable leftist scum. You don't like debate so you prefer to pull the race card. Gotta love how you resort to pulling the race card because you don't want debate and you're so PC that you falsely accuse others of racism when they call out your precious POS obama

Just quoting and bolding this revered character on this board.

 

[dmcowen674]

Originally Posted by K1052
I'm sure this appeals to a lot of the old folks waiting for their ride to the great beyond.

Arizona is a weird place.

It's not just Arizona. Several states are now pushing these similar styled laws to make discrimination legal against gays.

The only thing they all have in common is the GOP.

Yeppers, the GOP in Indiana are pushing for this now as well.

 

[SlickSnake]

repost

 

[SlickSnake]

Are they allowed to 'not participate' based on the sin of Gluttony? What if the customer is fat?

Are they allowed to 'not participate' based on the sin of Greed? What if the customer drives a Mercedes?

Are they allowed to 'not participate' based on the sin of Lust? What if the customer is super-gorgeous and you feel it for them?

Are they allowed to 'not participate' based on the sin of Anger? What if the customer is is mad at their kids?

Are they allowed to 'not participate' based on the sin of Sloth? What if the customer waddled in real slow-like?
.....
Or any of these sins:

http://www.laestrella.com/Documents/Bible_Studies/Sin_list_part_6.htm

I know right?

I think they need a good gaydar detector at the door to these homophobic businesses to figure out who is gay, and who isn't. They can require all the customers to expose themselves and be inspected, so they can determine sex, then hook up an electronic sensor to their crotches and show them a series of sexually erotic images to determine their true sexual identity. Of course, some of these customers will also be shocked when they are outed like this, in public, or they suddenly discover their subconscious desires for their own sex, but it's all just for their own good, and the good of free iPod Baby Jesus, you know?

And no matter what, the GOP has got to keep legislating stupid discriminatory hate laws just to keep all the fundi religitards happy and get their votes, right?

 

[Daverino]

United States v. Seeger: "Their task is to decide whether the beliefs professed by a registrant are sincerely held."
Daverino: "It's absurd to think that the government would get involved in determining which beliefs are sincerely held."

Amusing.

I also like how "determine which beliefs are valid" has become "determine which beliefs are valid for a particular religion," a distinctly different statement. Someone can hold a sincere religious belief but not belong to any organized religion, or can belong to a religion that explicitly contradicts his personal belief, yet still have his belief found to be sincere and religious. The courts determine whether a belief is valid for a specific person based on his actions and views, not whether it's valid for or within any specific religion.

The sincerely held belief test will not magically change in litigation over this law. The courts will apply the same standards and come to the same conclusions as they do now. That's the point of a defined legal test.

Quote the whole section if you're going to quote it:

"The validity of what he believes cannot be questioned. Some theologians, and indeed some examiners, might be tempted to question the existence of the registrant's "Supreme Being" or the truth of his concepts. But these are inquiries foreclosed to Government. AS MR. JUSTICE DOUGLAS stated in United States v. Ballard, 322 U.S. 78, 86 (1944): "Men may believe what they cannot prove. They may not be put to the proof of their religious doctrines or beliefs. Religious experiences which are as real as life to some may be incomprehensible to others." Local [380 U.S. 163, 185] boards and courts in this sense are not free to reject beliefs because they consider them "incomprehensible." Their task is to decide whether the beliefs professed by a registrant are sincerely held and whether they are, in his own scheme of things, religious."

The passage you chose in Seeger confirms my statement that the government can play no role in determining whether a belief is a component of a religion. Seeger's beliefs were upheld by the court and he got an exemption. So this would not be a case where the plaintiff's religious beliefs were held to be insincere.

There is a huge difference between defining beliefs as a test to protect religions against discrimination and defining beliefs that one can legally impose on others in contravention to the Equal Protection Clause.

 

[Venix]

The passage you chose in Seeger confirms my statement that the government can play no role in determining whether a belief is a component of a religion. Seeger's beliefs were upheld by the court and he got an exemption. So this would not be a case where the plaintiff's religious beliefs were held to be insincere.

How exciting. Your tangential statement that's exactly the same thing I said ("The courts determine whether a belief is valid for a specific person based on his actions and views, not whether it's valid for or within any specific religion") is correct. Did you just win an argument with yourself?

Your original claim is still obviously and hilariously wrong:

• Daverino: "It's absurd to think that the government would get involved in determining which beliefs are sincerely held."
• United States v. Seeger: "Their task is to decide whether the beliefs professed by a registrant are sincerely held"
• Might as well dogpile: "[W]e hasten to emphasize that while the 'truth' of a belief is not open to question, there remains the significant question whether it is 'truly held.' This is the threshold question of sincerity which must be resolved in every case."

Not only does the government "get involved in determining which beliefs are sincerely held," it's a question which "must be resolved in every case." Do you really think you can bullshit your way into reconciling such plainly contrary statements?

There is a huge difference between defining beliefs as a test to protect religions against discrimination and defining beliefs that one can legally impose on others in contravention to the Equal Protection Clause.

Strange how actual legal scholars don't echo your claim that the law obviously violates the Fourteenth Amendment.

 

[sportage]

Getting way too complicated here.
No need for rocket science to determine this AZ law is just plain not good.
We all know what the true intention of this law was.
Everyone knows.

The outrage is just the half of it.
The other half is where any law like this could ever see the light of day.

If the so called religious sector of America feel this law was needed, then I say maybe its time to round up some of them and lock them away. Away for a loooong loooong time!
Besides, pretending religious freedoms necessitates any law as this only gives religion a bad name.
As Jesus once said, "Damn it Im warning you, don't make me come back down there".

 

[Daverino]

How exciting. Your tangential statement that's exactly the same thing I said ("The courts determine whether a belief is valid for a specific person based on his actions and views, not whether it's valid for or within any specific religion") is correct. Did you just win an argument with yourself?

Your original claim is still obviously and hilariously wrong:

• Daverino: "It's absurd to think that the government would get involved in determining which beliefs are sincerely held."
• United States v. Seeger: "Their task is to decide whether the beliefs professed by a registrant are sincerely held"
• Might as well dogpile: "[W]e hasten to emphasize that while the 'truth' of a belief is not open to question, there remains the significant question whether it is 'truly held.' This is the threshold question of sincerity which must be resolved in every case."

Not only does the government "get involved in determining which beliefs are sincerely held," it's a question which "must be resolved in every case." Do you really think you can bullshit your way into reconciling such plainly contrary statements?



Strange how actual legal scholars don't echo your claim that the law obviously violates the Fourteenth Amendment.

We seem to be at odds over 'belief' and 'truly held'.

I think I've been pretty consistent saying that the government does not judge what beliefs are part of a person's religion. You seem to be concentrating on whether a belief is 'truly held' and whether they're just making up their belief to gain protection?

Paul Bender said the law runs afoul of the 14th Amendment when it applies a religious exemption to protections afforded by the Federal government. He then points out that since homosexuality is not protected by either Arizona state law or the Constitution, the law could never be applied in Arizona. I believe that it's only a matter of time before SCOTUS settles the issue on gay rights and discrimination. At that point, the law will run afoul of the 14th Amendment. If the law passed today and the ACLU sued I think it will hasten that process along and the law will be struck down. Nothing I've seen from recent court rulings makes me believe Federal courts would uphold this law.

 

[Incorruptible]

Just quoting and bolding this revered character on this board.

Typical moron leftist. Did you even read my post?

 

[piasabird]

I have a kind of open mind. Lots of people live in conditions I would call sinful. They shack up, cheat on their wife or husband, get drunk in the morning, do illegal drugs, you name it. Gay sex is just one kind of sin. So I see nothing wrong with baking someone a cake for their wedding as long as the cake is in good taste. However, I don't know their whole story. For all I know they might have wanted decorations with body parts on top of the cake like genitalia or naked bodies. That is something I could see refusing to do. Putting two women or two men plastic figures on the cake is really a non-event!

I could also see refusing to go to a gay wedding reception to deliver the cake. It all depends if they want to make money or not. Maybe selling cakes to gays could just make you more money. Any business that deals with the public is going to have to interact with people not like themselves. Maybe it is best to just try to get along. For instance some people at our Mormon church unit have a store and they sell cigarettes. Mormon don't smoke but they make money off of it. I think smoking is a filthy habit, but I understand how people can get addicted to smoking.

 

[Daverino]

Typical moron leftist. Did you even read my post?

There is never anything to read in your posts. Just insults and profanity, sprinkled with racism and bigotry when you get far enough from your last ban.

You're the only poster who makes Nehalem look like the soul of wit. He's just stupid. You're bigoted, spiteful AND stupid. Like a shit-poster trifecta. Which is why you'd be perfectly at home on free republic or some tea-party circlejerk forum.

Not here though. Too many smart people around, both liberal and conservative.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

oops

 

[Fanatical Meat]

why are you calling yourself a leftists scumbag? did you sign into the wrong troll account again?

That's right, Run away you leftist scumbags. You make up crap and when I point out the truth you run away.





Gotta love the hypocrisy of these morons, If a Muslim business owner wanted to discriminate these leftist idiots wouldn't say anything. Also a Muslim business owner has every right to discriminate because it's private property which too many idiots on here don't understand.

Zinfamous, you are the best I will laugh about this today.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

I see a veto coming soon.

 

[Incorruptible]

There is never anything to read in your posts. Just insults and profanity, sprinkled with racism and bigotry when you get far enough from your last ban.

You're the only poster who makes Nehalem look like the soul of wit. He's just stupid. You're bigoted, spiteful AND stupid. Like a shit-poster trifecta. Which is why you'd be perfectly at home on free republic or some tea-party circlejerk forum.

Not here though. Too many smart people around, both liberal and conservative.

There is nothing racist about what I said you scumbag. You're nothing but a bigoted leftist scum who has no respect for the Constitution.

You falsely accuse me of racism and when I respond you run away like the coward you are. STFU and go get yourself teabagged.