Facts on controversial topics

[Mad Jax]

Moderator note: I split these posts to their own thread to avoid locking them out in the other thread. Great conversation. Carry on.

Good, Christians should have to obey the law just as everyone else does. Christians shouldn't get special privilege to avoid obeying laws, just because they don't like the law or the people affected by it.

Okay. I'll just order an Islamic embosser to print me up images of Muhammed then. Who are they to deny me my right to insist on business from them for those items?

[Jeffret]

Good, Christians should have to obey the law just as everyone else does. Christians shouldn't get special privilege to avoid obeying laws, just because they don't like the law or the people affected by it.

Okay. I'll just order an Islamic embosser to print me up images of Muhammed then. Who are they to deny me my right to insist on business from them for those items?

OK. Sounds like kind of a mean-spirited thing to do, though. Seeking out someone to cause them problems doesn't seem like a very positive action.

What is your religious belief that requires the printing of images of Muhammed? How is your religion harmed by not having those images?

Or are you intending to base your anti-discrimination claim on some other facet?

Contrary to what some people think, application of the law does take nuance, circumstances, and intent into account. For a good example, look at two recent Colorado bakery anti-discrimination cases, Masterpiece Cakeshop and Azucar Bakery. At Masterpiece, Jack Phillips has made it clear that he intends to discriminate against a protected class. At Azucar, Marjorie Silva made it very clear that she wanted to treat all comers equally, whether they adhered to her religion's beliefs or not (she and many of her employees are Catholic), but she didn't want to add messaging to a cake which had the intent of attacking others. Phillips refused to make the cakes without any specific messaging. Phillips was found to have violated Colorado's anti-discrimination law. Silva was not. I think both decisions were very reasonable.

If you would like to talk about the specific case that Newme referenced, that's a bit different. In that case, Brush & Nib is asking to establish a pre-existing blanket exception for them from specific portions of Phoenix's anti-discrimination law. We can discuss that case in more detail if you're interested, but I'll need to read up a bit on the latest developments.

[Mad Jax]

Good, Christians should have to obey the law just as everyone else does. Christians shouldn't get special privilege to avoid obeying laws, just because they don't like the law or the people affected by it.

Okay. I'll just order an Islamic embosser to print me up images of Muhammed then. Who are they to deny me my right to insist on business from them for those items?

OK. Sounds like kind of a mean-spirited thing to do, though. Seeking out someone to cause them problems doesn't seem like a very positive action.

What is your religious belief that requires the printing of images of Muhammed? How is your religion harmed by not having those images?

It would be mean spirited. Using the law to punish someone for not doing something that they feel uncomfortable doing is mean spirited. Nobody's religious belief requires a specific card printer to produce these types of cards, or make these sorts of cakes, etc. But conscience should be enough reason for anybody.

In that situation, I ask others to ask themselves if they would consider it appropriate to penalize somebody for refusing to print the following:

"6 Million Was Too Low a Number"
"Man-Boy Love is a Human Right"
"Strange Fruit For Sale"
"Get the Word Out: Heroin is Safe"

Nobody owes anybody a detailed explanation that it makes them feel uncomfortable and is bothering their conscience on some religious grounds. I'm completely non-religious and I reserve the right to decide what art I make, commercial or not. Anybody attempting to regulate that basic right, I have news for them; they are the asshole.

[LaMachina]

I'm honestly conflicted on the whole religious conscience thing.

You cite examples MadJax that, while I imagine are intended to provoke, I don't feel are quite accurate comparisons.

Should a business be allowed to refuse service to anyone they choose? If they are uncomfortable with Mormons or Jews or blacks? Obviously we have already gone down that road in history and it's ugly. What is government to do when something borders on ugly prejudice yet is claimed as religious conscience?

[Jeffret]

Mad Jax, before we continue, can you share your fundamental position with regards to anti-discrimination law?

For example:

Do you believe that all anti-discrimination law is wrong and there should be no anti-discrimination law?

Do you believe that anti-discrimination laws should never have been put into place?

Do you believe that some anti-discrimination laws are good but others are an overreach?

Do you believe that anti-discrimination law protects some people correctly but is not appropriate for others?

Do you believe that anti-discrimination laws are misapplied in some situations?

This isn't intended to mean you need to answer every question, but to indicate a range of positions on anti-discrimination law and understand where you fall along it.

[dogbite]

Businesses are separate legal entities from their owner and employers. As such they don't have religious rights except for Hobby Lobby in a narrow sense that I disagree with. If you're open to the public for business, you're open to the public for business. If the business transaction is legal, you have no right to refuse it. (Assuming its what your business actually does and within the capacity of the business).

In the samples given above, the speech could be construed as incitement to violence or hate speech which can have other legal limits on it. Except the Mohammed one. I don't see how that one hits those limits as described.

[Jeffret]

In the samples given above, the speech could be construed as incitement to violence or hate speech which can have other legal limits on it. Except the Mohammed one. I don't see how that one hits those limits as described.

I don't yet see how there is any anti-discrimination issue with the Muhammed scenario described above. Some of these fanciful scenarios are just that.

[LaMachina]

Maybe you've already discussed this in ways Jeffret but I'm curious what your answers are to your questions. Particularly whether you think they are any examples of anti-discrimination overreach?

Dogbite, do you have a quick explanation on Hobby Lobby's loophole (for dummies ) or know a convenient, well written place I could read up on it? I'm only peripherally aware of that case, thanks!

[Jeffret]

I'm in favor of anti-discrimination laws as a general statement. I really wish they weren't necessary, but unfortunately history and sociology have demonstrated to us the need. In a perfect society, things would work out okay. Unfortunately, discrimination is pervasive. The "invisible hand" of the market actually works to maintain systematic discrimination. It is tough for oppressed minorities to move up in the marketplace and in society to achieve true opportunity for equality . A truly unfettered system is harsh and brutal. Humans have achieved our dominant position on earth not because we accept the brutality of our environment but because we figure out ways to work together. When we strive to help all to succeed, all benefit. As the National Geographic article I quoted above said, "What if all could thrive?"

I believe that anti-discrimination provisions are justified based on religion, sex, race, sexual orientation, and gender expression. And sometimes some other things. Colorado bans some forms of age discrimination, for example.

There are some instances of overreach, though none come to mind. It's inevitable in dealing with these sorts of issues. In my opinion, the instances of overreach are pretty rare. It's hard to win an anti-discrimination case. It's a little like the difficulties in winning a rape conviction. There are far more cases of illegal discrimination which don't get filed, reported, or won than there are cases of anti-discrimination overreach. Most of the cases of overreach that make the news get resolved pretty quickly.

[dogbite]

I don't have a reference handy, just familiarity from the news reports as it went through the Supreme Court and that Gorsuch as a district judge had a hand in it's early form.

[Jeffret]

Dogbite, do you have a quick explanation on Hobby Lobby's loophole (for dummies ) or know a convenient, well written place I could read up on it? I'm only peripherally aware of that case, thanks!

Here's one overview of it: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/201 ... -decision/

Formerly business entities didn't inherit the religious beliefs and rights of their owners. If you're not part of the majority religion, in whatever place you might live, this decision could create a dangerous precedent about the ability of business owners to inflict their religion on their employees.

[LaMachina]

Thanks gents, I'll take a read through. As a Canadian I'm sometimes confused by the laws and rulings of our southern neighbors...particularly in regards to religion. Although we have our own issues (see Quebec and the hijab/burka controversy)

Jeffret, I find I'm largely in agreement. I would wish for less government involvement but it seems humanity struggles to treat each other fairly by our own natural inclinations. I suppose this whole burka thing could be an example of government overreach although it deals with individuals as opposed to corporations so it's a whole different ballgame.

[Jeffret]

Thanks gents, I'll take a read through. As a Canadian I'm sometimes confused by the laws and rulings of our southern neighbors...particularly in regards to religion. Although we have our own issues (see Quebec and the hijab/burka controversy)

What's that issue?

[LaMachina]

I believe this gives a good, quick overview:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/montreal/ ... -1.4357463

Also, I mentioned hijab when it's actually the niqab and burkas at issue, my bad.

[dogbite]

I'm of mixed attitude on the burqa thing. I do agree that as far as a need to identify a person, a clear face picture and face exposure for comparison is important for our current toolset. You could have a person of the same gender do the identification in private if that were the key factor. Although small businesses that have this ID necessity might not be able to meet that requirement.

If we move to dna or other biometric then it's a non-issue.

On the other hand, with all the cameras in public and data mining I'm tempted to wear obscuring clothing in public as well just to thumb my nose at it all.

[Jeffret]

I also find the laws regarding wearing the burqa in public difficult. I don't really have a position on it and haven't studied it much. France has had a similar law for some years. It's not too surprising Quebec would follow that example.

If the laws were just about religious garb or specific religious costuming, then they would be a problem. However, they're written in a general fashion. Sure, they impact some religions or some religious observances more than others but that's not necessarily an issue. There are some significant secular arguments for the laws, not based on religion or clearly discriminating.

[Mad Jax]

Mad Jax, before we continue, can you share your fundamental position with regards to anti-discrimination law?

For example:

Do you believe that all anti-discrimination law is wrong and there should be no anti-discrimination law?

Do you believe that anti-discrimination laws should never have been put into place?

Do you believe that some anti-discrimination laws are good but others are an overreach?

Do you believe that anti-discrimination law protects some people correctly but is not appropriate for others?

Do you believe that anti-discrimination laws are misapplied in some situations?

This isn't intended to mean you need to answer every question, but to indicate a range of positions on anti-discrimination law and understand where you fall along it.

Those are all fair to ask.

Let me just say I'm not arguing the legality of the issues. Whether or not the action is currently legal is something I can't know in every case because different states have different laws. I was generally sticking with hypotheticals anyway and using extremes to illustrate where things might go.

I will say that the government should have anti-discrimination laws applied in some if not all circumstances (I would say all for certain but there may be some situation which I haven't considered. For instance, I haven't made up my mind on whether or not the current ban on transsexual citizens in the military is good policy or not. I need more time to examine the issue and hear multiple opinions on the subject).

As for private business owners, I wonder how much good anti-discrimination laws have done. Most discriminatory practices were imposed by the government itself; i.e. Jim Crow laws. Also, if I were a private business owner I would love to have competitors discriminate. More business for me. Still, I haven't answered the question so I will now.

I think there are instances where they are appropriate. One instance is a private medical practice not being permitted to refuse patients based on such criteria.

There are also instances where they are inappropriate. Nobody should force someone to do something which is against their conscience and it should be something people accept at face value in most cases. Certainly something as trivial as artistry oriented fields. I find far more offensive the possibility that the Westboro Baptist Church could sue the parents of a serviceman who died because they wouldn't print "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" placards, than that of somebody having to go someplace else for wedding invitations. So I think anti-discrimination laws have potential for horrendous abuse and should be applied only in circumstances where they are absolutely necessary.

[Mad Jax]

In the samples given above, the speech could be construed as incitement to violence or hate speech which can have other legal limits on it. Except the Mohammed one. I don't see how that one hits those limits as described.

I don't yet see how there is any anti-discrimination issue with the Muhammed scenario described above. Some of these fanciful scenarios are just that.

It is a Haram offense to depict an image of the prophet Muhammed in the Islamic faith. Suing a Muslim for refusing to do so is similar to suing a Christian for refusing to depict something he/she sees as sinful. Both see it as an offense to God.

[dogbite]

I know that. That's the risk of operating a public accommodation in an open society.

Certainly the owner can explain that issue and see if the customer would like to take the job elsewhere. But the owner doesn't have the right to refuse the job on the grounds of sin or offense.

[Jeffret]

It is a Haram offense to depict an image of the prophet Muhammed in the Islamic faith. Suing a Muslim for refusing to do so is similar to suing a Christian for refusing to depict something he/she sees as sinful. Both see it as an offense to God.

Yes. Agreed on how some Muslims interpret that.

But, I think it's a poor example. I don't see how your rights are being infringed. I presume the intention has something to do with religion, but I can't understand how that would work. I'm at a loss. I keep trying to come up with different rationales but I can't find one that seems plausible or meaningful

I recognize this scenario is supposed to demonstrate possible problems with anti-discrimination law, but I can't figure out how it has an relation to it.