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.
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.
Last edited by Oldhag1; 04-06-2015 at 11:41 PM..
Reason: Deleted quote
1) Depends on the issue. Simply baking a cake should be a given; it's discrimination to not make a cake. Now, if the cake is to be decorated in a way that promotes same sex marriage, or if they're asked to cater a same sex wedding, then they should be reasonably allowed to refuse that particular service.
2) Well, drug possession shouldn't be a criminal offense at all. If they simply have them AND have an addiction (sending someone who has pot to NA meetings is a waste of a chair that could go to someone who actually has a drug problem), they shouldn't go to jail and get proper medical care. As for DUI, they committed a crime and would have to face the punishment. Driving while under the influence is dangerous; it can hurt yourself or others. If they need help with a drug/alcohol problem, then they should have the option to participate in these programs, but must also serve their time. Most prisons, as I understand it, offer these programs, or something similar, and do hold various religious services, so freedom of religion is one of the few rights maintained in prisons. So, since the freedom of religion is still active while in prison, then sending them their isn't stepping on that right.
But to be fair, technically the government can suspend rights (well, they can also permanently take them away, but I think that's 100% wrong; temporary suspension of rights is more than enough), so if they did commit a crime, freedom of religion no longer protects them in the same way it protects other people.
Which substances should or should not be illegal is a whole different topic... Dealing with the system as it exists in many states, some substance-abuse offenders may have rehab or AA as a condition of probation or parole - don't go to meetings or complete rehab satisfactorily, go back to jail.
You say they have religious freedom in prison, so it apparently isn't suspended. The point isn't whether someone is allowed to go to AA meetings, it is if they are allowed NOT to, because it is either A.) forcing a spiritual program on an atheist/agnostic or B.) aspects of AA doctrine are considered in conflict with one's personal faith.
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.
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?
Which substances should or should not be illegal is a whole different topic... Dealing with the system as it exists in many states, some substance-abuse offenders may have rehab or AA as a condition of probation or parole - don't go to meetings or complete rehab satisfactorily, go back to jail.
You say they have religious freedom in prison, so it apparently isn't suspended. The point isn't whether someone is allowed to go to AA meetings, it is if they are allowed NOT to, because it is either A.) forcing a spiritual program on an atheist/agnostic or B.) aspects of AA doctrine are considered in conflict with one's personal faith.
Well, there are surely alternatives to AA or of AA. And even so, the purpose of AA is to treat issues of alcohol abuse. I've never been to an AA meeting, but I'm fairly certain the primary activity in AA is sharing stories and such. Some people may share religious based stories, but that can't be avoided and isn't an issue of religious freedom. I imagine they also pray and I know the serenity prayer is a thing, but I'm sure they could opt out of that and still go to the meetings. People do that all the time in a variety of different situations.
I guess I'd need to know more about AA to really got into much detail, but AA isn't a religious service before it's a support group. And I'm sure they could find a support group that doesn't have religion as a basis of the support for someone who had to go to the group as part of a parole requirement.
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?
The difference between an atheist being "sentenced" by a judge to attend a rehab program or go to jail - and a business owner being "forced" to serve homosexuals is really quite simple but might be hard to explain.
First and foremost, there really aren't very many rehab programs that cater to atheists and agnostics. Granted, there may be some secular programs out there, but they might be too expensive (AA is free, to my knowledge).
This is an important distinction because it gives special treatment to the believer. Such a sentence does not really infringe upon a believer since he would have no issue with a program that deals with gods, superbeings, the supernatural, and superstition. An atheist really wouldn't have any options other than to attend a rehab program that relies on magic and the supernatural - or go to jail, certainly an unwanted prospect.
Now, you MIGHT say to yourself, "Sure, but a business owner is in the same position as the atheist if his religious beliefs prevent him from condoning homosexuality yet has to serve gays. He either has to compromise his religious views or pay a fine."
Except they aren't the same at all.
The reason is because the atheist is stuck in an ON-GOING program that is literally trying to change the atheist's take on spirituality, religion, and higher powers. In essence, you MUST believe in a higher power in order for their program to actually work. So not only is the atheist wasting his time, he is going to have his head played with for weeks/months/years as sponsors and speakers try to ramrod the belief of gods with supernatural powers down the atheist's throat.
More than likely, the atheist will have to fake being a Christian (or some other religion) at every meeting.
A business owner who has to bake a cake for a gay couple ... can simply bake the cake and move on with his life. He doesn't have to attend the wedding, make a toast to the couple's matrimony, or participate in any way. More importantly, once the cake is done, it's done. Unlike an atheist who must endure a lengthy, on-going period of higher power indoctrination that is literally trying to change him, the baker does not have to change nor is he being asked to change by baking a gay couple's wedding cake. After all, the wedding will take place with or without the baker's help so it's not as if the baker can "stick it" to the gay couple by preventing the wedding thereby obeying an ancient and arbitrary Mosaic law that we're not supposed to be bound by since the coming of Jesus and pleasing his perpetually angry god.
Also written plainly on the bottom line is this: Persecuting and discriminating against homosexuals is not a main precept or doctrine of any religion. There are a lot of laws that people break including many that require death - adultery, working on the Sabbath, being rebellious against your parents, not being a virgin on your wedding night - should these businesses discriminate against them, as well? Why should such a minor point of a religious belief (bloated and amplified by politics and preconceived bigotry) outweigh the need for peace and the maintenance of a civil society?
Now ... the alternatives for each situation are unequal, as well. The baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple will only pay a fine. Big deal. I doubt it will even be all that much for the express purpose of not being overly burdensome on the small business owner. A few hundred bucks at most. A small price to pay to maintain your strict and intolerant religious code.
The atheist, on the other hand, has to go to jail. He loses his freedom. But it's not just about the crappy life he's going to have in prison. Oh no. Even a 90 day sentence is going to do a lot more harm. The poorer you are, the more alone you are, the more damage a jail sentence will cause. You will likely lose your apartment (and all the stuff in it), you will almost certainly lose your job, and assuming you have a home when you get out, the utilities will probably be shut off, requiring hundreds of dollars in fees and back payments to get reinstated. Without a decent chunk of change in savings and a solid social support network, a jail sentence of even a few months can ruin you. This makes a jail sentence an unreasonable choice for an atheist - especially if he is poor or alone (or worse, both). A religious person should not have an "easy out" of having his life destroyed by even a minor jail sentence.
And I'll speak bluntly here. Those of a fundamentalist religious bent are dangerous to a free-thinking, pluralistic society. They often perceive God's law (i.e. Biblical law) as a higher law than even the U.S. Constitution which means they would have NO qualms about manipulating the government and the democratic process to strip away rights from those that refuse to goosestep to their moral values. They've already shown their capability of doing so with their state constitutional gay marriage bans and this idiotic law in Indiana. Every time our society caters to their so-called "strongly held religious beliefs" is a victory for theocratic fascism and a defeat for freedom, pluralism, and reason.
Yet our nation is backward when it comes to religion - no other industrial nation on the planet is more religious than America. In fact, our degree of religiosity is only seen elsewhere in poor Third World nations. Thus, it comes as NO surprise to me to see our judicial system - a government entity - sentencing people to attend a spiritual-based (read: Christian) rehab program - because it is well known that AA is probably the only game in town.
And what is the cost to a zealot who must bake a wedding cake for a gay couple? I dunnae ... asking their god for forgiveness, I guess. It's not as though a bolt of lightning is going to fry them where they stand for violating some obscure verse in Deuteronomy. Yeah, blah blah blah, forgive me, yada yada ... the cake is baked, your god forgives you ... and that's that.
What happened to "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"?
If a business refuses service to a customer based on religion, race, sexual behavior, hair cut, clothes, scent, song, or whatever, that may make the business owner an a-hole. But do we really need to legislate against a-holes?
Things like this tend to take care of themselves. There used to be a glass and window business in our town where the guy had a reputation for being rude, abrasive, and dishonest. You know what? The guy isn't in business anymore because word got around and people wouldn't give their business to him. He is now out of business, and no one had to sue anybody or demand new laws.
As a culture, we'd all be a lot better off if we'd quit whining about our rights and start living up to our responsibilities.
My county has a different program for drug and alcohol diversions. They realized years ago that 12 step programs have about the same success rate as doing nothing, so they adopted a different program. All I know is that the county sheriff once told me that if someone sticks with the program they have a very high chance of staying clean, around 70%. I didn't know anyone who needed the program, so didn't ask for details. I also don't know if it has a religious component, but my impression is that it does not.
I think AA and NA have poor reputations among law enforcement professionals.
What happened to "We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone"?
If a business refuses service to a customer based on religion, race, sexual behavior, hair cut, clothes, scent, song, or whatever, that may make the business owner an a-hole. But do we really need to legislate against a-holes?
Things like this tend to take care of themselves. There used to be a glass and window business in our town where the guy had a reputation for being rude, abrasive, and dishonest. You know what? The guy isn't in business anymore because word got around and people wouldn't give their business to him. He is now out of business, and no one had to sue anybody or demand new laws.
As a culture, we'd all be a lot better off if we'd quit whining about our rights and start living up to our responsibilities.
How about the responsibility we have to each other via the social contract? Perhaps we'd all be a lot better off if we'd quit whining about "me! me! me!" and start thinking about how to make our communities, our nation, and our planet a nicer place to live.
First of all, I want to thank you for taking the time to relate the two issues as you see them. I appreciate that, whether we agree or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
The difference between an atheist being "sentenced" by a judge to attend a rehab program or go to jail - and a business owner being "forced" to serve homosexuals is really quite simple but might be hard to explain.
First and foremost, there really aren't very many rehab programs that cater to atheists and agnostics. Granted, there may be some secular programs out there, but they might be too expensive (AA is free, to my knowledge).
AA/NA does have meetings they say specifically cater to agnostics/atheists. Not as many, and they may be a further distance away. A secular rehab may be approved by the court, but as there are much fewer that do not operate using the 12 step model, so again, harder to find and possibly further away and greater cost.
But the law is what the law is, and the law was broken. If rehab is required as a condition of addict being released into a free society, and it's harder for the atheist to find a rehab agreeable to his/her beliefs, why does that matter?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
This is an important distinction because it gives special treatment to the believer. Such a sentence does not really infringe upon a believer since he would have no issue with a program that deals with gods, superbeings, the supernatural, and superstition. An atheist really wouldn't have any options other than to attend a rehab program that relies on magic and the supernatural - or go to jail, certainly an unwanted prospect.
Here is where you would be wrong. There are Christians who find the 12 steps out of step with their beliefs. There are aspects of the program that believers may find repugnant. Belief in a higher power does not mean the same thing to all people. A Baptist is not a Muslim, a Mormon is not a Jehovah's Witness, etc. etc. I understand most people do not view the 12 steps as an organized religion per se, but they may find its teachings in conflict with their beliefs, whether or not they believe in one God, many Gods, or none.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
Now, you MIGHT say to yourself, "Sure, but a business owner is in the same position as the atheist if his religious beliefs prevent him from condoning homosexuality yet has to serve gays. He either has to compromise his religious views or pay a fine."
Except they aren't the same at all.
The reason is because the atheist is stuck in an ON-GOING program that is literally trying to change the atheist's take on spirituality, religion, and higher powers. In essence, you MUST believe in a higher power in order for their program to actually work. So not only is the atheist wasting his time, he is going to have his head played with for weeks/months/years as sponsors and speakers try to ramrod the belief of gods with supernatural powers down the atheist's throat.
More than likely, the atheist will have to fake being a Christian (or some other religion) at every meeting.
A business owner who has to bake a cake for a gay couple ... can simply bake the cake and move on with his life. He doesn't have to attend the wedding, make a toast to the couple's matrimony, or participate in any way. More importantly, once the cake is done, it's done. Unlike an atheist who must endure a lengthy, on-going period of higher power indoctrination that is literally trying to change him, the baker does not have to change nor is he being asked to change by baking a gay couple's wedding cake. After all, the wedding will take place with or without the baker's help so it's not as if the baker can "stick it" to the gay couple by preventing the wedding thereby obeying an ancient and arbitrary Mosaic law that we're not supposed to be bound by since the coming of Jesus and pleasing his perpetually angry god.
I agree with you on an atheist being sentenced to any 12-step based rehab. I agree that it is a form of religion being imposed by the state. I think the meetings catering to atheists and agnostics are a crock, just a way of getting people in the door, to ultimately convert them to the AA/NA version of God.
However, what is the difference between an atheist faking being a believer in a higher power (not necessarily Christian) and a Christian (or member of any other faith that opposes same sex marriage) being required to fake their approval of an event they do not condone? True, the atheist would have to fake it repeatedly throughout the course of rehab - but the person who doesn't want to condone same sex marriage has to fake it for any same sex couple requesting services for their wedding.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
Also written plainly on the bottom line is this: Persecuting and discriminating against homosexuals is not a main precept or doctrine of any religion. There are a lot of laws that people break including many that require death - adultery, working on the Sabbath, being rebellious against your parents, not being a virgin on your wedding night - should these businesses discriminate against them, as well? Why should such a minor point of a religious belief (bloated and amplified by politics and preconceived bigotry) outweigh the need for peace and the maintenance of a civil society?
I don't believe God would have any issue with a person providing goods/services to a same sex wedding. But neither do I feel it is my place to tell people what they should believe.
But suppose a Christian bakery refuses to bake a cake for the baby shower of an unwed mother, because they do not want to imply they condone fornication. To the best of my knowledge, this is not against the law, as unwed mothers are not a protected class. So the unwed mother would have no recourse under the law, but the same sex couple would. If a Christian were to refuse goods/services for the wedding of a heterosexual couple that were known to be having an affair with each other while still married to other people, I don't believe they would have any legal recourse either.
With regard to the peace and maintenance of a civil society, I'm not so sure allowing a small minority of people of faith to occasionally deny services to "sinners" is going to be the fall of society. Is it right? Not in my opinion. Just because someone has a right to do something doesn't make it the right thing to do.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
Now ... the alternatives for each situation are unequal, as well. The baker refusing to bake a cake for a gay couple will only pay a fine. Big deal. I doubt it will even be all that much for the express purpose of not being overly burdensome on the small business owner. A few hundred bucks at most. A small price to pay to maintain your strict and intolerant religious code.
The atheist, on the other hand, has to go to jail. He loses his freedom. But it's not just about the crappy life he's going to have in prison. Oh no. Even a 90 day sentence is going to do a lot more harm. The poorer you are, the more alone you are, the more damage a jail sentence will cause. You will likely lose your apartment (and all the stuff in it), you will almost certainly lose your job, and assuming you have a home when you get out, the utilities will probably be shut off, requiring hundreds of dollars in fees and back payments to get reinstated. Without a decent chunk of change in savings and a solid social support network, a jail sentence of even a few months can ruin you. This makes a jail sentence an unreasonable choice for an atheist - especially if he is poor or alone (or worse, both). A religious person should not have an "easy out" of having his life destroyed by even a minor jail sentence.
With regard to the provision of same sex wedding good/services, if it is only a small fine with each refusal, that might create a reasonable balance of the state's interest in a fair society vs the exercise of religious beliefs. However, I think what is more likely to happen is increasing penalties for repeat offenders, and the possibility of greater penalties for a "pattern" of discrimination. Also, social media being what it is, once word gets out regarding their personal beliefs and policy, they may be subject to same sex couples requesting their services, knowing they will be refused, planning to report the incident for the express purpose of driving them out of business for their intolerance.
Also with regard to the unequal alternatives, there's a wide range of substance use/abuse offenses, and instances in which rehab is part of the sentence. Everything from possession to giving birth to an addicted baby to drunk driving and killing someone. In some cases, I feel jail is appropriate, others, not so much. Depends on the offense. Rehab may be an alternative to jail, condition of probation or parole, etc. And as I stated earlier, there are Christians or members of other faiths who have their own objections to 12 step programs, and might be inconvenienced finding a rehab they do not find offensive to their beliefs, just as an atheist might. But it can be argued that the law is being applied equally to all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirina
And I'll speak bluntly here. Those of a fundamentalist religious bent are dangerous to a free-thinking, pluralistic society. They often perceive God's law (i.e. Biblical law) as a higher law than even the U.S. Constitution which means they would have NO qualms about manipulating the government and the democratic process to strip away rights from those that refuse to goosestep to their moral values. They've already shown their capability of doing so with their state constitutional gay marriage bans and this idiotic law in Indiana. Every time our society caters to their so-called "strongly held religious beliefs" is a victory for theocratic fascism and a defeat for freedom, pluralism, and reason.
Yet our nation is backward when it comes to religion - no other industrial nation on the planet is more religious than America. In fact, our degree of religiosity is only seen elsewhere in poor Third World nations. Thus, it comes as NO surprise to me to see our judicial system - a government entity - sentencing people to attend a spiritual-based (read: Christian) rehab program - because it is well known that AA is probably the only game in town.
And what is the cost to a zealot who must bake a wedding cake for a gay couple? I dunnae ... asking their god for forgiveness, I guess. It's not as though a bolt of lightning is going to fry them where they stand for violating some obscure verse in Deuteronomy. Yeah, blah blah blah, forgive me, yada yada ... the cake is baked, your god forgives you ... and that's that.
Quite a massive difference I would think.
I do agree that we need to be a society that is accepting of all faiths or lack thereof, and our laws should serve the function of protecting our rights as free individuals, not imposing our religious beliefs on others. Laws with the potential to severely impact one's livelihood for any reason, religious or otherwise, should be imposed only after very careful consideration of the effect of the offense on society as a whole - especially if the impact to one's livelihood is apt to occur with or without the government getting involved. We live in a different world than we did when the Civil Rights act was passed. One, people as a whole are much less tolerant of blatant racism or homophobia than they used to be. Two, the internet changes the game dramatically. Clearly, word gets out when they engage in behavior considered discriminatory. I think the free market is now far more effective at reducing, if not completely eliminating, bigoted practices than it used to be, because of these two factors.
With regard to the religious zealot, it's not quite so simple as pray for forgiveness and get it. True repentance involves a resolution to not engage in the sin again. People are not perfect, give into temptation all the time, but the intent not to commit the offense has to be there. If someone knows that the next time a same sex couple asks for their goods or services for their wedding that they will continue to provide them, they can't truly pray for forgiveness. Go forth and sin no more, yada yada. So the mental anguish of a religious person repeatedly violating what they believe is a tenet of their faith isn't something we can tangibly measure. Whether you or I believe the same as they do doesn't reduce the psychological/spiritual harm they feel they are being subjected to under the law.
You should be pleased to learn that the atheist/AA matter was taken to court, and ruled in favor of the atheist. I was. But I think what is good for the goose is good for the gander, and believers shouldn't be required under law to fake approval of practices they don't believe in, just as atheists shouldn't.
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.
Just because you don't believe that providing goods or services to same sex weddings is a first amendment issue doesn't mean other people don't.
Keep in mind, I am in no way condoning blanket discrimination or even agreeing with the stance that someone should deny any services to a same sex wedding, but I do believe that their rights should be respected, agree or not.
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.
