This is just wrong

[BackInTex]

As opposed to "coolly" pushing Christianity all the way to the Supreme Court in the Hobby Lobby case? If memory serves, that case occurred in the last decade or so.

Was that what that case was about? Pushing Christianity? It wasn't similar to Bob's "This is just wrong", i.e. the government forcing someone to do or say something against their religious view regardless of those views?

On a scale of bad to good, I'd put forcing someone to say something on the good side of forcing someone to do something. Sticks and stones and all that.

[silverscreenselect]

the government forcing someone to do or say something against their religious view regardless of those views?

Of course the "someone" in the Hobby Lobby case was a multi-million dollar corporation as opposed to a sergeant in the Air Force.

[Bob78164]

As opposed to "coolly" pushing Christianity all the way to the Supreme Court in the Hobby Lobby case? If memory serves, that case occurred in the last decade or so.

Was that what that case was about? Pushing Christianity? It wasn't similar to Bob's "This is just wrong", i.e. the government forcing someone to do or say something against their religious view regardless of those views?

On a scale of bad to good, I'd put forcing someone to say something on the good side of forcing someone to do something. Sticks and stones and all that.

Not at all. This is about a clear violation of the "religious tests" clause of the Constitution. Hobby Lobby was about corporations seeking exceptions to perfectly valid laws of general applicability. --Bob

[Bob Juch]

As opposed to "coolly" pushing Christianity all the way to the Supreme Court in the Hobby Lobby case? If memory serves, that case occurred in the last decade or so.

Was that what that case was about? Pushing Christianity? It wasn't similar to Bob's "This is just wrong", i.e. the government forcing someone to do or say something against their religious view regardless of those views?

On a scale of bad to good, I'd put forcing someone to say something on the good side of forcing someone to do something. Sticks and stones and all that.

Of course you would.

How would you feel if you lived in a community, such as Tucson as I do now, that when a constitutionally approved student-led prayer, before a football game for instance, was The Lord's Prayer with the last sentence of the King James version omitted as the majority Catholics here do? Or like in Boise where the majority Mormons dictate which student-led prayers are recited? Now amp that up to not just student-led prayers but "authority" dictated prayers?

I'm not opposed to prayers in school, I'm sure many are said before taking tests, just publicly recited ones. I'm also opposed to public money going to support religious causes of any sort including full tax exemption for churches.

[silverscreenselect]

How would you feel if you lived in a community, such as Tucson as I do now, that when a constitutionally approved student-led prayer, before a football game for instance, was The Lord's Prayer with the last sentence of the King James version omitted as the majority Catholics here do?

When I was in elementary school, in the early 60s, we used to say the Pledge of Allegience before class. There was one boy in the class who was a Jehovah's Witness who wouldn't recite the Pledge. In addition, he was kind of a scrawny, geeky kid with big glasses (today's prototypical nerd). Needless to say, the other boys in the class (this was 4th or 5th grade), myself included, made life miserable for him, and some of the bigger guys physically picked on him a lot. We also called him queer (although I didn't know what it meant and I'm guessing a lot of the others didn't either) and other names. I'm sure we made life hell for him but my memory is that he seemed to always be fairly cheerful in spite of things.

One day, the teacher kept all the boys in during recess (except for the Jehovah's Witness) and read us the riot act, explaining why he didn't say the Pledge and that we should be ashamed of ourselves. I was, and the abuse pretty much came to an end.

Every time I hear about various enforced prayers or similar decrees, I think of him and I think that no religion is worth subjecting people to what he went through.

[tlynn78]

Every time I hear about various enforced prayers or similar decrees, I think of him and I think that no opinion of a religion is worth subjecting people to what he went through.

With that bit of difference, I'd agree.

[Bob Juch]

Bryan Fischer of the American Family Association (AFA) wrote yesterday, “There is no place in the United States military for those who do not believe in the Creator who is the source of every single one of our fundamental human and civil rights. Serving in the military is a privilege, not a constitutional right. And it should be reserved for those who have America's values engraved on their hearts.”

[BackInTex]

the government forcing someone to do or say something against their religious view regardless of those views?

Of course the "someone" in the Hobby Lobby case was a multi-million dollar corporation as opposed to a sergeant in the Air Force.

Would it make a difference if it were mom and pop and their single medium sized grocery store? Let me know where that line is for you.

[silverscreenselect]

“There is no place in the United States military for those who do not believe in the Creator who is the source of every single one of our fundamental human and civil rights. Serving in the military is a privilege, not a constitutional right. And it should be reserved for those who have America's values engraved on their hearts.”

I guess this guy didn't have American's values engraved on his heart.

http://www.celebatheists.com/wiki/Pat_Tillman

[silverscreenselect]

Let me know where that line is for you.

It's very simple. It's a corporation. A corporation doesn't have religious beliefs, any more than a car or a television set has religious belief. Corporations have owners, as do other things, and those owners may have religious beliefs, but a corporation is an artificial legal creation.

[BackInTex]

Let me know where that line is for you.

It's very simple. It's a corporation. A corporation doesn't have religious beliefs, any more than a car or a television set has religious belief. Corporations have owners, as do other things, and those owners may have religious beliefs, but a corporation is an artificial legal creation.

So you'd support mom and pop not paying for certain "contraceptives"? What about a baker not wanting to make a cake for a specific customer?

[silverscreenselect]

So you'd support mom and pop not paying for certain "contraceptives"?

I'm kind of curious as to how many unincorporated mom and pop stores there are paying for any kind of insurance for their employees.

[BackInTex]

So you'd support mom and pop not paying for certain "contraceptives"?

I'm kind of curious as to how many unincorporated mom and pop stores there are paying for any kind of insurance for their employees.

Does it matter with regards to you answering the question? What if there is 1? What if there are 100,001?

Regardless of that thought, I will make an observation. You hate corporations. But you like employers to provide insurance. But non-corporations in your mind wouldn't or couldn't possibly do that, so you must hate them, too.

You must be incredibly unhappy.

[Bob78164]

Let me know where that line is for you.

It's very simple. It's a corporation. A corporation doesn't have religious beliefs, any more than a car or a television set has religious belief. Corporations have owners, as do other things, and those owners may have religious beliefs, but a corporation is an artificial legal creation.

So you'd support mom and pop not paying for certain "contraceptives"? What about a baker not wanting to make a cake for a specific customer?

I wouldn't. Just as I agree with Justice Scalia's decision that Native Americans were not entitled to a religious exemption to the general prohibition against peyote use, I don't think any secular employer should be entitled to a religious exemption from providing mandated levels of health insurance or paying the fine provided by law. But at least the mom-and-pop store aren't trying to have it both ways by (a) enjoying the liability protection of the corporate form while still (b) asserting their individual religious beliefs through the vehicle of their corporation.

As for the "baker" example, I think the analogy to at-will employment probably works. You can fire someone for almost any reason, for no reason, or for a stupid reason. But not for a forbidden reason such as race, religious belief, etc. I believe sexual orientation and gender identity belong in the category of forbidden reasons. So a baker can refuse to make a cake for someone because the customer is a Red Sox fan (not that the Sox have anything to celebrate this season), but not because the customer is black or gay. Or wants to celebrate an interracial or same-sex marriage. --Bob

[silverscreenselect]

Regardless of that thought, I will make an observation. You hate corporations. But you like employers to provide insurance. But non-corporations in your mind wouldn't or couldn't possibly do that, so you must hate them, too.

You must be incredibly unhappy.

There are arguments to be made either way as to whether corporations should or should not be required to provide insurance for their employees and as to whether and what types of people private businesses should or should not be allowed to refuse to do business. That's why different states and cities have different laws and why they apply to employers above a certain number of employees (depending on he law, anywhere from 1 to 100 or so employees).

But once a legislature has determined where the line should be, no one should be able to pick and choose which of those general uniform business laws they think they are required to obey. No one has a consitutional right to conduct a business any way they see fit. That way of thinking went out over a century ago.

[BackInTex]

But once a legislature has determined where the line should be, no one should be able to pick and choose which of those general uniform business laws they think they are required to obey.

So you think we're done with changes to laws? You think the laws in existence today are perfect and do not need modifying? Interesting.

[silverscreenselect]

But once a legislature has determined where the line should be, no one should be able to pick and choose which of those general uniform business laws they think they are required to obey.

So you think we're done with changes to laws? You think the laws in existence today are perfect and do not need modifying? Interesting.

I didn't say we were done with changes to the law. Laws are amended all the time. I did say that individuals couldn't arbitrarily pick and choose which laws they would obey.

[BackInTex]

It's very simple. It's a corporation. A corporation doesn't have religious beliefs, any more than a car or a television set has religious belief. Corporations have owners, as do other things, and those owners may have religious beliefs, but a corporation is an artificial legal creation.

So you'd support mom and pop not paying for certain "contraceptives"? What about a baker not wanting to make a cake for a specific customer?

I wouldn't. Just as I agree with Justice Scalia's decision that Native Americans were not entitled to a religious exemption to the general prohibition against peyote use, I don't think any secular employer should be entitled to a religious exemption from providing mandated levels of health insurance or paying the fine provided by law. But at least the mom-and-pop store aren't trying to have it both ways by (a) enjoying the liability protection of the corporate form while still (b) asserting their individual religious beliefs through the vehicle of their corporation.

As for the "baker" example, I think the analogy to at-will employment probably works. You can fire someone for almost any reason, for no reason, or for a stupid reason. But not for a forbidden reason such as race, religious belief, etc. I believe sexual orientation and gender identity belong in the category of forbidden reasons. So a baker can refuse to make a cake for someone because the customer is a Red Sox fan (not that the Sox have anything to celebrate this season), but not because the customer is black or gay. Or wants to celebrate an interracial or same-sex marriage. --Bob

Why shouldn't Red Sox fans be a protected class?

Why isn't the baker a protected class? Should a gay printer be allowed to refuse to print "God Hates Fags" signs for Westboro Baptist Church? I think so. But given Westboro is part of a protected class, I guess that printer would have to comply, in your view.

[Bob78164]

So you'd support mom and pop not paying for certain "contraceptives"? What about a baker not wanting to make a cake for a specific customer?

I wouldn't. Just as I agree with Justice Scalia's decision that Native Americans were not entitled to a religious exemption to the general prohibition against peyote use, I don't think any secular employer should be entitled to a religious exemption from providing mandated levels of health insurance or paying the fine provided by law. But at least the mom-and-pop store aren't trying to have it both ways by (a) enjoying the liability protection of the corporate form while still (b) asserting their individual religious beliefs through the vehicle of their corporation.

As for the "baker" example, I think the analogy to at-will employment probably works. You can fire someone for almost any reason, for no reason, or for a stupid reason. But not for a forbidden reason such as race, religious belief, etc. I believe sexual orientation and gender identity belong in the category of forbidden reasons. So a baker can refuse to make a cake for someone because the customer is a Red Sox fan (not that the Sox have anything to celebrate this season), but not because the customer is black or gay. Or wants to celebrate an interracial or same-sex marriage. --Bob

Why shouldn't Red Sox fans be a protected class?

Why isn't the baker a protected class? Should a gay printer be allowed to refuse to print "God Hates Fags" signs for Westboro Baptist Church? I think so. But given Westboro is part of a protected class, I guess that printer would have to comply, in your view.

There is quite a bit of constitutional doctrine about when classes are or should be protected in this sense. Basically, it comes down to characteristics of people that are immutable (e.g., race, gender, national origin, or sexual orientation) or extremely difficult to change (e.g., religion) that are an important part of who they are. The gay printer would not be allowed to refuse to print "God Hates Fags" for Westboro Baptist Church if she would be willing to print those signs for members of other religions. --Bob

[jarnon]

The gay printer would not be allowed to refuse to print "God Hates Fags" for Westboro Baptist Church if she would be willing to print those signs for members of other religions. --Bob

Do you mean that it's OK to refuse to print "God Hates Fags" signs, as long as he won't print them for anybody? Then a Muslim printer could refuse to print "Jesus Saves" signs for anybody. And a baker could bake wedding cakes for any customer, but they all come with a white bride and a white groom on top. Much as I hate to say it, refusing to print "God Hates Fags" signs is religious discrimination. (But the printer should have the right to change "fags" to a more acceptable synonym.)

[Bob78164]

The gay printer would not be allowed to refuse to print "God Hates Fags" for Westboro Baptist Church if she would be willing to print those signs for members of other religions. --Bob

Do you mean that it's OK to refuse to print "God Hates Fags" signs, as long as he won't print them for anybody? Then a Muslim printer could refuse to print "Jesus Saves" signs for anybody. And a baker could bake wedding cakes for any customer, but they all come with a white bride and a white groom on top. Much as I hate to say it, refusing to print "God Hates Fags" signs is religious discrimination. (But the printer should have the right to change "fags" to a more acceptable synonym.)

It's not religious discrimination. It's viewpoint discrimination. Viewpoints are not a protected class. --Bob

[TheCalvinator24]

I wouldn't. Just as I agree with Justice Scalia's decision that Native Americans were not entitled to a religious exemption to the general prohibition against peyote use, I don't think any secular employer should be entitled to a religious exemption from providing mandated levels of health insurance or paying the fine provided by law. But at least the mom-and-pop store aren't trying to have it both ways by (a) enjoying the liability protection of the corporate form while still (b) asserting their individual religious beliefs through the vehicle of their corporation.

As for the "baker" example, I think the analogy to at-will employment probably works. You can fire someone for almost any reason, for no reason, or for a stupid reason. But not for a forbidden reason such as race, religious belief, etc. I believe sexual orientation and gender identity belong in the category of forbidden reasons. So a baker can refuse to make a cake for someone because the customer is a Red Sox fan (not that the Sox have anything to celebrate this season), but not because the customer is black or gay. Or wants to celebrate an interracial or same-sex marriage. --Bob

Why shouldn't Red Sox fans be a protected class?

Why isn't the baker a protected class? Should a gay printer be allowed to refuse to print "God Hates Fags" signs for Westboro Baptist Church? I think so. But given Westboro is part of a protected class, I guess that printer would have to comply, in your view.

There is quite a bit of constitutional doctrine about when classes are or should be protected in this sense. Basically, it comes down to characteristics of people that are immutable (e.g., race, gender, national origin, or sexual orientation) or extremely difficult to change (e.g., religion) that are an important part of who they are. The gay printer would not be allowed to refuse to print "God Hates Fags" for Westboro Baptist Church if she would be willing to print those signs for members of other religions. --Bob

Your inclusion of sexual orientation as immutable is supported neither by current case law nor by anecdotal evidence.

The existence of a single case of someone who claims to have changed their orientation destroys the notion of immutability.

You may not believe that claim, but who are you to question who claims that he or she was once gay and is now straight?

[mrkelley23]

Why shouldn't Red Sox fans be a protected class?

Why isn't the baker a protected class? Should a gay printer be allowed to refuse to print "God Hates Fags" signs for Westboro Baptist Church? I think so. But given Westboro is part of a protected class, I guess that printer would have to comply, in your view.

There is quite a bit of constitutional doctrine about when classes are or should be protected in this sense. Basically, it comes down to characteristics of people that are immutable (e.g., race, gender, national origin, or sexual orientation) or extremely difficult to change (e.g., religion) that are an important part of who they are. The gay printer would not be allowed to refuse to print "God Hates Fags" for Westboro Baptist Church if she would be willing to print those signs for members of other religions. --Bob

Your inclusion of sexual orientation as immutable is supported neither by current case law nor by anecdotal evidence.

The existence of a single case of someone who claims to have changed their orientation destroys the notion of immutability.

You may not believe that claim, but who are you to question who claims that he or she was once gay and is now straight?

Every other "immutable" case that Bob stated up there has anecdotal cases of change, as well. With the possible exception of national origin, I guess, although I think there are semantic arguments for that one.

[Bob78164]

Why shouldn't Red Sox fans be a protected class?

Why isn't the baker a protected class? Should a gay printer be allowed to refuse to print "God Hates Fags" signs for Westboro Baptist Church? I think so. But given Westboro is part of a protected class, I guess that printer would have to comply, in your view.

There is quite a bit of constitutional doctrine about when classes are or should be protected in this sense. Basically, it comes down to characteristics of people that are immutable (e.g., race, gender, national origin, or sexual orientation) or extremely difficult to change (e.g., religion) that are an important part of who they are. The gay printer would not be allowed to refuse to print "God Hates Fags" for Westboro Baptist Church if she would be willing to print those signs for members of other religions. --Bob

Your inclusion of sexual orientation as immutable is supported neither by current case law nor by anecdotal evidence.

The existence of a single case of someone who claims to have changed their orientation destroys the notion of immutability.

You may not believe that claim, but who are you to question who claims that he or she was once gay and is now straight?

So tell me, when did you choose to be straight? --Bob

[BackInTex]

So tell me, when did you choose to be straight? --Bob

When I chose to be alive. Wait, I could not chose to be alive. But I could choose to be dead.