Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Courts may not specifically say AA/NA, but require rehab. However, the rehab industry is dominated by 12 step methodology. A rehab using 12 step theory likely requires AA/NA meeting attendance to sign off that rehab was completed satisfactorily. So 6 of one step, half dozen of another...
It does NOT matter if "the rehab industry is dominated by 12 step methodology" since the individual was not sentenced to a specific alcohol/drug rehab program. It has nothing to do with the First Amendment.
It does NOT matter if "the rehab industry is dominated by 12 step methodology" since the individual was not sentenced to a specific alcohol/drug rehab program. It has nothing to do with the First Amendment.
If a 12 step program is right around the corner, but the nearest secular rehab is 100 miles away, is that an unfair imposition on someone who is opposed to 12 step philosophy?
There are people who argue "just find another bakery/florist etc." if refused service for a same sex wedding due to the proprietor's beliefs. And those who feel finding another provider is too much of a burden to place on the same sex couple, regardless of the beliefs of the proprietor.
I believe about 80% of rehabs in the country are 12 step in nature. I don't think 80% of businesses would deny service to same sex weddings, not even close.
What does freedom of religion or the 1st have to do with business or being allowed to discriminate? The 1st does not apply to business and religious freedom does not allow one to trump business laws. I do not see these as 1st amendment issues, they are issues that those with a desire to discriminate based on religion have.
^^^
Quote:
Originally Posted by HuskyMama
So you obviously feel that no matter what a religious person feels, they need to follow the law no matter how they personally interpret their faith.
Okay... then what is your take on sentencing people to AA/NA and/or 12 step based rehabs - which can be interpreted as spiritual in nature, offensive to atheists or agnostics, or possibly violations of people's faith in other ways. If they chose to violate the law, are they thus subject to penalties that everyone else who violates the same law, regardless of belief or lack thereof?
You keep trying to create some kind of scenario to "prove" that a judge ordering a person convicted of drunk driving to choose between rehab and jail is some kind of First Amendment issue when it is NOT. It's not because the person is not required to attend a specifically named rehab program. Furthermore, if somebody was actually given a choice between rehab and jail, it's likely that it would be a residential rehab facility, which is not AA.
As for a business owner denying service based on specious religious reasons, I'm with Dragonslayer: it's simply using religion to mask bigotry. If you don't want to put two guy or two gal figures on top of a wedding cake, then don't put any figures on any wedding cake. Offer the figures for sale individually wrapped and let the customers decide what combo they want.
Should a bakery owner have the right to refuse to bake and decorate a cake for a bat mitzvah because he/she considers Jews "Christ killers"? Should a bakery owner have the right to refuse to bake and decorate a cake for a St Patrick's Day party because he/she's Muslim and observant Muslims don't drink alcohol, and we all know that everybody celebrates St Paddy's Day with copious amounts of fermented and distilled beverages?
You keep trying to create some kind of scenario to "prove" that a judge ordering a person convicted of drunk driving to choose between rehab and jail is some kind of First Amendment issue when it is NOT. It's not because the person is not required to attend a specifically named rehab program. Furthermore, if somebody was actually given a choice between rehab and jail, it's likely that it would be a residential rehab facility, which is not AA.
I'm not trying to create some kind of scenario. It's been taken to court multiple times as a first amendment issue. This is just one of them...
And he was successful, wasn't he, so what's the issue?
He was successful, as others have been, but the courts still include rehab and/or AA/NA as part of sentencing on a regular basis. So the lawsuits haven't ended the practice.
If someone believes their 1st Amendment rights are violated, they have the right to object to the enforcement of the law and/or use the 1st Amendment in appeal.
And that is what people who object to providing goods or services to same sex weddings are doing.
In one case, it is an atheist being told by the state to go to rehab that includes "spiritual" principles or else. In another, it is fundamentalist Christians being told by the state to provide goods/services to same sex marriage against their religion or else.
I think it's consistent to say the state should not compel either party in either case to participate in something contrary to their religious beliefs or lack thereof, unless not doing so will cause tangible harm to another.
Like I said before, I think in today's age, the problem of "hateful and intolerant" places of business will take care of itself without the intervention of the strong arm of the law, unlike racial discrimination decades ago.
Issue 1: Should a business owner be required to provide goods/services for a same sex marriage, or should they be allowed to opt out if they believe the ceremony is against their religion?
Obviously this has been discussed at length on multiple topics, so please discuss in the context of your opinion on...
Issue 2: People convicted of DUI/DWI, illegal drug possession/use, or other substance abuse related law violations being given the option of AA/NA or jail? The 1st Amendment issue in question is the use of God or higher power or merely spirituality in the 12 steps, even though AA/NA has some meetings that cater to atheists/agnostics. A secondary issue could be religious people who have their own theological differences with the steps.
I know the AA issue has been heard in court, so it's not the win/loss I'm questioning, but if you have reasons you find them similar, what are they? If you see no parallels, why not?
For example, should an atheist be asked to find and attend meetings catering to atheists/agnostics if they don't want to attend traditional 12 step meetings, even though those meetings may be further away, or if they don't want to do that, go to jail, since they broke the law. How might this relate to the argument that a business owner should be fined if they do not want to provide goods/services to a same sex wedding vs the argument that same sex couples should just find another merchant who does not object to the ceremony?
The difference between the two scenarios is this:
In scenario one, a business owner is subject to the regulations that apply to the operation of a business. Those regulations are not discriminatory on the basis of religion, but are neutral regulations ensuring that businesses do not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
In scenario two, an individual is being subjected to a criminal penalty. The individual is being offered the opportunity to attend a faith-based substance abuse program in order to avoid the criminal penalty. The actual rule is that there needs to be a secular alternative to avoid Establishment Clause problems (could the secular alternative be jail? Good question--I think the spirit of the law is best achieved by allowing a secular substance abuse treatment option).
There are actually two different aspects of the 1st Amendment at issue. In scenario one, we are looking at the "free exercise" clause--"Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]."
The Supreme Court has acknowledged that the 1st Amendment does not give religious exemptions to religiously neutral laws. Employment Division v. Smith.
If a State enacts an anti-discrimination statute that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, then it is on firm constitutional ground. Frankly, this is similar to grounds that were argued on behalf of segregationists (on Freedom of Association grounds)--"we shouldn't have to serve someone we don't want to." But now you do, and that is the right approach.
Scenario two addresses the "establishment" clause--"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
From Justice Black: "Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another ... in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State' ... That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach." By mandating a faith-based substance abuse program, a law would violate the establishment clause by aiding a religion.
The difference between the two scenarios is this:
In scenario one, a business owner is subject to the regulations that apply to the operation of a business. Those regulations are not discriminatory on the basis of religion, but are neutral regulations ensuring that businesses do not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.
In scenario two, an individual is being subjected to a criminal penalty. The individual is being offered the opportunity to attend a faith-based substance abuse program in order to avoid the criminal penalty. The actual rule is that there needs to be a secular alternative to avoid Establishment Clause problems (could the secular alternative be jail? Good question--I think the spirit of the law is best achieved by allowing a secular substance abuse treatment option).
There are actually two different aspects of the 1st Amendment at issue. In scenario one, we are looking at the "free exercise" clause--"Congress shall make no law . . . prohibiting the free exercise [of religion]."
The Supreme Court has acknowledged that the 1st Amendment does not give religious exemptions to religiously neutral laws. Employment Division v. Smith.
If a State enacts an anti-discrimination statute that prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, then it is on firm constitutional ground. Frankly, this is similar to grounds that were argued on behalf of segregationists (on Freedom of Association grounds)--"we shouldn't have to serve someone we don't want to." But now you do, and that is the right approach.
Scenario two addresses the "establishment" clause--"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion."
From Justice Black: "Neither a state nor the Federal Government can set up a church. Neither can pass laws which aid one religion, aid all religions, or prefer one religion to another ... in the words of Jefferson, the [First Amendment] clause against establishment of religion by law was intended to erect 'a wall of separation between church and State' ... That wall must be kept high and impregnable. We could not approve the slightest breach." By mandating a faith-based substance abuse program, a law would violate the establishment clause by aiding a religion.
If a law requires a person violate their faith to continue operating a business as the law requires, I'm not so sure it's not discriminatory to religion. If a Catholic hospital can decline to provide abortion services, why shouldn't a person who owns and operates a business be allowed to decline to take any part in a same sex marriage? If someone feels so strongly that they are willing to risk their livelihood to the backlash of declining these services, I think they should be allowed to. The vast majority of businesses will continue to provide services to same sex weddings, and the merchant who isn't participating does not in any way impede the wedding from taking place, even if the couple need to bake their own cake or pick wildflowers from a field.
I'm not suggesting companies be allowed to engage in blanket discrimination of all gays on all occasions. But I do think they should be allowed to opt out of appearing to condone a ceremony that they strongly feel is immoral. People have been able to successfully contest penalties imposed by the state when they declined to participate in activity contrary to their faith. This is nothing new. When state legislatures demanded students recite the Pledge of Allegiance in the 30s, Jehovah's Witnesses were able to secure an exemption from the requirement in 1943. And this was before the words "under God" were added. JWs have also been allowed exemption from having to apply for permits to go door to door in another municipality. And then there are conscientious objectors to military service. The Federal RFRA was written in response to a religious freedom case lost in the courts, on peyote's use by Native Americans. I don't think there is any lack of precedent to overturn laws thought to favor no particular religion when it turns out there are people of faith who object.
I am in full agreement that AA or 12 step rehab should not be forced on atheists... or anyone really. But we have a lack of secular evidence based rehabs supported by the courts. So despite the courts ruling, many people feel that jail or AA/NA are their only two choices. And that needs to change.
This is mostly all moot; sexual orientation will likely be a protected class within a decade. When it is, it will have the same protections as race, religion and gender. Even if your religion says that black people are inherently sinful, you still have to serve them. It will one day be the same with homosexuals, as it should be.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
