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 it sounds like to me is a bill to allow the religious to discriminate against anything they don't like on religious grounds - or anything they claim as religious grounds. I can see this ending up as causing so many problems that it will have to be struck down, as other attempts to push through religion -favouring legislation have had to be.
Yeah, this is a tricky issue.
For example, I think a Jewish baker should not refuse to make a birthday cake for a Nazi group having a party for Adolph Hitler. All it requires is putting a swastika on the cake. No big deal.
On the other hand, I think a Jewish photographer could refuse to work at a Nazi gathering. He should not have to be subjected to all those swastikas and that "Sig Heil" stuff for several hours.
For example, I think a Jewish baker should not refuse to make a birthday cake for a Nazi group having a party for Adolph Hitler. All it requires is putting a swastika on the cake. No big deal.
On the other hand, I think a Jewish photographer could refuse to work at a Nazi gathering. He should not have to be subjected to all those swastikas and that "Sig Heil" stuff for several hours.
The latter is a clear case of freedom of association. Though it'd probably not be prudent to turn down the work for the given reason that you don't like Nazis; it would just be good to be booked up for months in advance and leave it at that.
The baker example is more ambiguous. The swastika has become a symbol of hatred for most folks, and participating in hate speech is something that should not be forced on someone. I doubt there's a Jewish baker who hasn't put Christian symbols on cakes paid for by Christians, as it's "just business". But I can't think of many people who would want to force a Jew to bake a cake honoring the architect of the Holocaust, either. That goes beyond "just business".
I don't know that this issue HAS to be tricky, though, it is really just a matter of the Nazis finding a vendor that they are comfortable with and that is comfortable with them, and if that happens to be impossible, well, such is life. Where the state gets involved is in imposing a single objective standard for morally innocuous situations. For example there used to be an entirely false perception in the South that black people were diseased, scary, lazy people who needed to be segregated and kept in their place. That is something that the system had to address rather specifically to eradicate those distorted values from society. On the other hand, it's not a false perception that Nazis hate Jews and other groups, and should not expect such groups to cater to their whims. The difference is where the ill will lies. In the days of Jim Crow, the ill will and character assassination was with the vendors. In the Nazi example it's with the customers.
LANSING, Mich. — A bill providing protections for people with sincerely held religious beliefs was put on a fast track Thursday, passing out of the House Judiciary committee and the full House of Representatives on straight party line votes Thursday.
Speaker of the House Jase Bolger, R-Marshall, who sponsored the bill, said the measure will do none of the horrible things opponents claim but will merely protect people and their beliefs and practice of religion.
He cited several examples of protections, from the baker who doesn't want to provide a wedding cake to same-sex marriage couple to the Jewish mother who doesn't want an autopsy on her son who died in a car crash. Both cited religious beliefs as reasons in their cases.
"This is not a license to discriminate," Bolger said. "People simply want their government to allow them to practice their faith in peace."
For example, I think a Jewish baker should not refuse to make a birthday cake for a Nazi group having a party for Adolph Hitler. All it requires is putting a swastika on the cake. No big deal.
On the other hand, I think a Jewish photographer could refuse to work at a Nazi gathering. He should not have to be subjected to all those swastikas and that "Sig Heil" stuff for several hours.
Being a Nazi is not a protected class under anti-discrimination law.
First Amendment. They consist of 16 words as follows: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . . " The first clause is known as the Establishment Clause. The second clause is known as the Free Exercise Clause. The subject of the First Amendment is clearly the "Congress." The purpose of the First Amendment is to bar the Federal Government from interfering with the freedom of religion in the United States. Congress may not establish a religion or prohibit the free exercise of religion in America. Since the purpose of the First Amendment is to stop any abuse by the Federal Government against religion, this explains why the words "God" "natural right" "worship" or "conscience" do not appear. Rather than trying to promote a radical secularist philosophy, the most likely reason the framers did not use the word "God" in the First Amendment is because the subject is Congress.
Oh, that pesky Constitution. With the passage of the 14th Amendment in 1868, it was made clear that all of the provisions of the Constitution apply to all of the government bodies within the United States, not just to Congress.
Therefore, you could re-word that to say "The government shall make not law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
So what happens when a Christian claims it's their 'sincere' religious belief that they cannot provide service for a Muslim or Hindu because of the Biblical 1st Commandment? Or vice-versa?
The baker example is more ambiguous. The swastika has become a symbol of hatred for most folks, and participating in hate speech is something that should not be forced on someone. I doubt there's a Jewish baker who hasn't put Christian symbols on cakes paid for by Christians, as it's "just business". But I can't think of many people who would want to force a Jew to bake a cake honoring the architect of the Holocaust, either. That goes beyond "just business".
Some bakers might be offended to make a wedding cake with two brides on it. Should they be allowed to refuse to make a cake like that?
So what happens when a Christian claims it's their 'sincere' religious belief that they cannot provide service for a Muslim or Hindu because of the Biblical 1st Commandment? Or vice-versa?
Being a Nazi is not a protected class under anti-discrimination law.
So should the Jewish baker be required to male a cake with a swastika on it?
I say Yes.
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.
