How to test if your RELIGIOUS FREEDOM!!! is really being infringed upon…
The current excuse for the evil bigotry the Republican Party has displayed and advanced with respect to gays and marriage equality is that state action recognizing gay marriage and banning discrimination against gays infringes the religious freedom of those who oppose gays on religious grounds.
The Reverend Emily C. Heath of the United Church of Christ has published a wonderful test to determine whether a person’s religious freedom is truly being violated. Let’s take it together, shall we?
1. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am not allowed to go to a religious service of my own choosing.
B) Others are allowed to go to religious services of their own choosing.2. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am not allowed to marry the person I love legally, even though my religious community blesses my marriage.
B) Some states refuse to enforce my own particular religious beliefs on marriage on those two guys in line down at the courthouse.3. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am being forced to use birth control.
B) I am unable to force others to not use birth control.4. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am not allowed to pray privately.
B) I am not allowed to force others to pray the prayers of my faith publicly.5. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) Being a member of my faith means that I can be bullied without legal recourse.
B) I am no longer allowed to use my faith to bully gay kids with impunity.6. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am not allowed to purchase, read or possess religious books or material.
B) Others are allowed to have access books, movies and websites that I do not like.7. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) My religious group is not allowed equal protection under the establishment clause.
B) My religious group is not allowed to use public funds, buildings and resources as we would like, for whatever purposes we might like.8. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) Another religious group has been declared the official faith of my country.
B) My own religious group is not given status as the official faith of my country.9. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) My religious community is not allowed to build a house of worship in my community.
B) A religious community I do not like wants to build a house of worship in my community.10. My religious liberty is at risk because:
A) I am not allowed to teach my children the creation stories of our faith at home.
B) Public school science classes are teaching science.Scoring key:
If you answered “A” to any question, then perhaps your religious liberty is indeed at stake. You and your faith group have every right to now advocate for equal protection under the law. But just remember this one little, constitutional, concept: this means you can fight for your equality — not your superiority.
If you answered “B” to any question, then not only is your religious liberty not at stake, but there is a strong chance that you are oppressing the religious liberties of others. This is the point where I would invite you to refer back to the tenets of your faith, especially the ones about your neighbors.
Indeed. Whenever one of these radical evangelical conservatives preach on about how birth control or abortion or gay marriage or anti-discrimination violates their religious beliefs and thus the state must some kind of action to stop it, what they are doing is not protecting religious liberty but ending it. What these people want is a theocracy. They want to set fire to the First Amendment to the Constitution and declare that all Americans must be evangelical Christians who have found Jesus, who believe that Jesus carries an AR-15 and just loves those money changers in the Temple and of course the rich and capitalism, and that all laws passed by Congress must first be approved by a Death Panel of Priests.
I like that you acknowledge upfront that this is the work of the Republican Party. In my life conservatism and modern Republicanism has never been this openly bankrupt, threadbare and openly scorned.
I don’t think there would even be a Republican Party right now if not for Fox News and Congressional Democrats propping it up.
The more they keep going down this path (and we all know that if bills like the one in AZ passes it will be used, not only against the homosexual community, but everyone else, as well), the more I think Rand Paul will be the GOP nominee.
Yeah, I have said, even before Bridgegate, that the GOP nominee was going to a Paul or a Cruz. The GOP is going the freak-out Goldwater route.
Per CNN Brewer is going to Veto. No doubt out of economic concerns.
A veto is assured as Arizona’s business community weighs in and threats of boycott mount, Brewer will play both sides briefly and then veto the bill. There have been a slew of “religious freedom” bills in a variety of states of late, all vetoed, retracted or ruled unconstitutional. The religious right will think of new names for the same old game and be back at a later date, they’ve been trying to pass this one into law in Arizona for several years now.
Yall are so stuffed full of propaganda and political correctedness that’s you can’t even see what this is all actually about, yall automatically just jump to “oh my God theyre bigots, theyre this and that”
This has to do with protecting, primarily small business owners, from crybaby sue happy people who think everyone should throw them a party cause of their sexual orientation. Rather than simply saying “hey let’s find somewhere else to give our patronage to” (and thus agreeing to disagree like an ADULT) they are going sue happy and ruining folks lives, and putting them in debt for generations to come. TOLERANCE NEEDS TO BE A 2 WAY STREET!!!
Anon.pat, is your typing so bad because of injuries received while your knuckles were scraping the ground?
anon.pat writes an awful lot like Pat Fish of delaware wingnut fame.
anon.pat’s argument is lame:
“Rather than simply saying “hey let’s find somewhere else to give our patronage to” (and thus agreeing to disagree like an ADULT) they are going sue happy and ruining folks lives”
anon.pat-
Did black people in the South have the option of simply patronizing another establishment in 1962? The answer is no. Do gays or other “religiously objectionable” people (adulterers and fornicators come to mind) have that option in AZ today?
Grow up, you angry old bitch. Once you do, you can talk to your neighbor and settle that property dispute like adults.
If you’re right LeBay, I think there’s a critical issue about barking dogs that needs to be dealt with too.
TOLERANCE NEEDS TO BE A 2 WAY STREET!!!
And yet anon.Pat is here defending intolerance. Go figure.
Save your breath anon.pat…they are too busy hurling insults and patting themselves on the back for their witty reparte to engage in an actual discussion. And they certainly can’t agree to disagree…heck, they can’t even be civil when you DO agree with them! (note the posts in “Republican Outreach and Branding”). Oh well, at least they are succeeding in perpetuating the stereotypical liberal response to anyone that disagrees with them.
Sorry flylady, I for one will not agree to disagree! The Arizona law is outrageous. Haters in public business have no right to governmental protection. (PS- the flys will go away if you stay away from dead Fish)
LOL Good one, lefty – cute PS! And hey, I give you props – at least you are just stating your opinion sans insults. You I could talk to!
For Flylady and anon.pat… Employment Division v. Smith (1990 I think is the appropriate year, could be 89) is still controlling over state law. Justice Scalia wrote for the majority, and having read the opinion I tend to agree. I know, Justice Scalia, that liberal backbencher. Yet, in this case, still correct.
“… The rule respondents favor would open the prospect of constitutionally required religious exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind — ranging from compulsory military service to the payment of taxes to health and safety regulation such as manslaughter and child neglect laws, compulsory vaccination laws, drug laws, and traffic laws; to social welfare legislation such as minimum wage laws, child labor laws, animal cruelty laws, environmental protection laws, and laws providing for equality of opportunity for the races. The First Amendment’s protection of religious liberty does not require this.” -J. Scalia, writing for the Majority. (Citations omitted)
Personally I have nothing against anyone of different choices than my own, whatever floats your boat. It’s not my place to judge, but I do have a problem with the govt forcing business owners to provide services to customers that they don’t fundamentally agree with.
EXAMPLE: A gay couple wouldnt approach the catholic church and ask them to marry the 2 of them. Why? Because the catholic church doesn’t approve, so the couple simply moves on and finds another church or venue that will do the service. They don’t sue the diocese for millions cause their feelings got hurt!!
Extending that same protection to business is just common decency not bigotry. When I was growing up if you didn’t see eye to eye with a business owner you simply went somewhere else, not sue them!
In Employment Division vs. Smith, the Supreme Court interpreted the Free Exercise Clause. The Court concluded that a “neutral law of general applicability” does not violate the Clause just because the law incidentally burdens the exercise of religion. Of course, the federal government and States could still provide additional protections.
Congress later provided additional protections via the Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) [Note: Passed by the House unanimously, Passed by the Senate 97-3, and Signed by President Clinton; Among others, the ACLU supported the law; Chuck Schumer sponsored the Act] Under the RFRA, the federal government may not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion unless the burden’s application to the person withstands “strict scrutiny.” In City of Boerne v. Flores, the Supreme Court held that the RFRA applied only to federal action, so many States enacted their own versions of the RFRA.
Arizona Senate Bill 1062 is a near copy of the RFRA. [Link to Text: http://www.azleg.gov/legtext/51leg/2r/bills/sb1062p.pdf%5D What does Arizona’s bill change?
(1) The RFRA did not state who or what may invoke the Act’s protections. For example, the Act did not state whether a for-profit entity could invoke the Act’s protections. Arizona’s Bill clearly states who and what may invoke the Bill’s protections.
(2) The RFRA did not state whether a party could invoke the Act’s protections in suits in which the government was not a party. Arizona’s Bill explicitly allows a party to invoke the Act’s protections even in suits in which the State is not a party.
The Bill does not discriminate against anyone (at least on its face). Further, under Arizona law today, a party may deny public accommodations to a person based on his or her sexual orientation. Any claim of discrimination must be rooted in the legislators’ publicly-stated motivations.
Putting aside any sinister motivation, the bill is good. The bill protects religious freedom, and to the extent the bill hinders government too much, the bill provides an out. [Also, the bill merely clarifies existing Arizona law’ the bill does not make real changes.]
@ap “Extending that same protection to business is just common decency not bigotry.”
Of course it’s bigotry. It’s obviously bigotry. Why pretend it is something else?
And what is that you see as “common decency”? A right to be a bigot?
How soon are we going to hear “You look gay. Go find another restaurant.”
And what if an owner starts to claim that every black person looks gay to him?
So much for civil rights…
@D “Under the RFRA, the federal government may not substantially burden a person’s exercise of religion unless the burden’s application to the person withstands “strict scrutiny.”
The basic problem with your analysis here is that denying service to customers is NOT an exercise of religion.
It’s so sad that everyone is caught up in the politics of not hurting anyone’s feelings that they’re willing to throw hard working people who build their own business from the ground up to the wolves because the hold fast to what the believe. Simply because the incident that sparked everything involved homosexual.
You wouldn’t ask an priest to marry a Satanist believing couple and then sue when he refuses. OR ask the wife of a clan member who owns a photography company to take photos of a black couples wedding then sue when she refuses. OR hire a Muslim caterers for an event and sue them when they refuse to cater pork! I COULD GO ON WITH EXAMPLES ALL DAY!!!!
@Liberal Elite:
You are incorrect. I am Jewish. If I choose to close my business on Saturday because the Sabbath is the day of rest, is that not an exercise of religion? For many, no business judgment is made without considering their beliefs.
Of course, some people will use religion merely as a pretext to discriminate. But the question of whether the choice to discriminate is actually rooted in religion should be answered on a case-by-case basis. For some, maybe the belief is sincere. And in my opinion, the jerks will likely marginalize themselves. At minimum, they will decrease their businesses’ competitiveness and hurt their bottom-lines.
As usual, the conservative identifies not with the person being discriminated against but the person doing the discriminating.
You know why conservatives keep trotting out the same two examples in this conversation? Because those are the only times it has happened. It’s just like the single case of a guy who claims he identifies as a woman using the women’s locker room someplace in Oregon. That one anecdote is the basis for their entire legal position.
I agree. There simply is no genuine religious freedom at stake. It is a transparent charade and that is a big reason these things keep failing.
But hey – Keep it up GOP. There may be a voter somewhere who has yet to figured out how morally bankrupt you are.
Anon.pat and Flylady,
You have nothing at all to fear if you are not a bigot. If you are a bigot, then yes, you should be scared. Because we are intolerant of you. We seek your ruin and destruction. If you want to live in a society where people can be treated horribly, and refused protection of the laws and even basic free market service, then fucking move to Uganda, asshole. Otherwise, if you wish to remain in America as an evil bigot, then do not open a business that is open to the public. Those are your choices.
FMTUA !
Fucking move to Uganda asshole. I love it.
Or perhaps the British version, FOTU ! Fuck off to Uganda.
Extending that same protection to business is just common decency not bigotry.
And here we find out that these wingnuts don’t know the difference between running a church and running a coffeeshop.
Of course it is bigotry. And you are still quite free to be a bigot, really. You just don’t have the sanction of the government to do it. If your religion provides your bigotry safe shelter, then that’s where you should practice it. Don’t ask the government to approve it.
It amazes me how short-sighted these bigots are too.
How long will this law last after the first atheist business owner refuses service to people wearing crosses around their necks.
@D “You are incorrect. I am Jewish. If I choose to close my business on Saturday because the Sabbath is the day of rest, is that not an exercise of religion?”
I don’t have a problem with that. I have a problem with using religion as an excuse to close your business every time you see a gay looking person, or a black person, coming up your walkway. That’s what we’re talking about here.
How is THAT an exercise of religion?
@Liberal Elite:
There is a fine line between skepticism and intolerance. You can (and should) be skeptical that someone’s choice to discriminate is rooted in religion, but you cannot deny the possibility. Not everyone has the same beliefs and morality as you; a real liberal would know that.
Further, I am surprised that anyone cares whether the jerks bar LGBT people from businesses. Do you want to frequent businesses that the jerks own? I wouldn’t. Public accommodations laws made more sense when there was only one game in town. Today, you can walk across the street and give your money to someone who isn’t a jerk. Vote with your money.
Davy, that is too much Rand Paulian ( you know Rual Paul’s little brother) for me. Public businesses are public and must serve all comers, regardless of the owner’s bigotry. Part of the fun is making a hater serve those he hates. No one should feel the bite of discrimination in the public domain. Of course few will frequent a business owned by a jerk, but all should have the right to demand service.
@D “Not everyone has the same beliefs and morality as you; a real liberal would know that.”
And not everyone respects religious based morality. In fact, one can argue that it’s a wholly fake morality. How is it possible to get true morals from a rather silly ancient list?
I believe in freedom of religion, but when that religion is used to promote bigotry, misogyny, racism, homophobia,… via the false virtues, then it goes too far… and it’s not really about religion any more.
From my perspective, we’ve suffered far too long from what people claim to be religion, but really isn’t. Who thinks the St. Bartholomew’s Day massacre was really about religion?
@Delawarelefty & Liberal Elite:
What you both wrote legitimatizes the jerks’ concerns. Thank you for undermining our freedom of conscience. The standard for belief is wholly subjective, not objective. The question is when (not if or whether) society should intervene where subjective beliefs become actions that hurt others. The federal RFRA and Arizona’s S.B. 1062 provide the same answer: when a compelling governmental interest justifies the intrusion. This was the law before Employment Division vs. Smith. The difference? Arizona’s bill allows litigants to assert claims in private litigation, while the federal Act requires litigants to seek exemptions in separate litigation. (Again, you can seek exemptions only from federal action under the federal RFRA.) The RFRA was a liberal/progressive reaction to a Supreme Court decision written by a conservative justice (Scalia) and in which three liberal lions dissented (Blackmun, Brennan, and Marshall). The current reaction is a result of simple disagreement with some people’s alleged beliefs. That is what makes me upset. Real liberals (and progressives for that matter) would let the law pass and then devote resources to disproving anyone that argues that his or her discrimination is rooted in religion.
It is not a simple disagreement on beliefs. It is asking the government to sanction Jim Crow rules as they might be created by these bigots.
If your religion means that you have to actively practice your bigotry, then you should practice that bigotry, but you should not get any protection from the government for it.
“Real liberals (and progressives for that matter) would let the law pass and then devote resources to disproving anyone that argues that his or her discrimination is rooted in religion.”
I”m sorry, I didn’t get that memo. Can you provide a link for me?
The supreme court has ruled that laws must have a secular purpose. Even supporters allow that the AZ law law had no secular purpose. It was entirely devoted to allowing the “sincerely religious” to not feel uncomfortable.
If the mythological Muslim wedding photographer who keeps being used as an example by Republicans actually exists, he is allowed to feel uncomfortable once in a while. That is one of the prices we pay for living in a free society.
Meanwhile, on the hand gun front there is a parallel sensibility regarding the discomfort of gun owners. Basically we now say that armed bullies are allowed to never feel uncomfortable. At any point when they feel uncomfortable, they are within their rights to kill someone. This is a recent development, and it puts the lie to the old saw that an armed society is a polite society.
anon.pat, I think what you’re failing to realize is that business establishments are taxed, whereas religious institutions are not, so there’s a difference in commerce. If you’re tax exempt for being a religious institution, you do unfortunately get to discriminate (despite discrimination being against the tenets of your faith, but I digress). If you’re a business, you don’t get to because those tax dollars link citizens to businesses through government. Especially if you’re subsidized in any way or enjoy any kind of tax break, it absolutely is up to the government to separate your religious discriminations from how you run your business. That’s why a gay couple shouldn’t have their “feelings hurt”, as you so reductively put it, when a church refuses them, but they should be able to do something about it when a diner boots them out because they look kinda gay in the waiter’s opinion.
Calm down. No gay person wants you to “throw them a party” because of their sexual orientation. They just want to eat in a restaurant or shop with their partners, and they want to be allowed to do all the things you do in life. Nobody is being gay AT you. They’re not going to restaurants to make out, and they’re not having sex on your lawn. If you’re really that religious, you should probably do what Jesus said about homosexuals, which is to love and respect your fellow human beings.
You know, it’s really very simple. If you are against ACTION “A” because of your religion or whatever then just don’t do ACTION “A”. But as long as others doing ACTION “A” doesn’t directly affect you (e.g., ACTION “A” can’t be “murder” or “sexual assault”, etc.) then what gives you the right to stop others from doing ACTION “A”? Why do you care what consenting adults do in the privacy of their own homes? Again, even more importantly, what gives you the right to impose (through legislation) your values on other people who disagree with you? The “liberal” view that some of you always use in a pejorative sense is not about forcing you to be a certain way, it is about giving people who have different views the freedom to live however they want. If you don’t believe in gay marriage then don’t marry someone of the same sex. That is a justifiable position. But why forbid gay people from getting married? What’s it to you? Why they feel the need to be recognized in some religion is beyond me but who cares what I think. If they think that it is important then all power to them. It is really none of my business, and certainly not the business of state legislatures.
Nobody is being gay AT you.
1). Bravo
2). I am noticing that these ill conceived laws not only give the GOP a black eye, but they give Christianity a back eye
@jason330:
The Arizona law is CLEARLY constitutional. The Supreme Court has interpreted the federal version of the law on several occasions. In fact, the Arizona law would only extend the protections to for-profit businesses and make it easier to invoke the protections.
Even your boys at Fox News disagree with you on the Constitutionality of that law.
Enjoyed the discussion. It’s really quite simple. If your religion REQUIRES you to violate the Golden Rule to reach your “ultimate” reward, you may want to reconsider your deity. It should also be unlawful in the public sphere to discriminate against choice of spouse as designating who can sit at a lunch counter and who cannot. I rather enjoy the whole counterpoint – “these laws would allow a Muslim cab driver to refuse service to an unmarried opposite sex couple; a woman without a chador; etc.” because let’s be honest, the RFRA that you small minded folks like to cite erroneously is only about preserving your religious (Christian, evangelical, etc) view. Slate (and Scalia) called it right, it would also open the door to Sharia law. Shall we compare distinctly held religious beliefs against each other? I have nothing against Muslims, but I do have a problem with any religion’s superiority complex; and further I do truly believe your right to religious freedom starts where mine stops.
So if we accept the RFRA can I urinate right in front of your path? It’s a deeply held religious belief, to make a fellow human-being walk in the wake of my urine. Maybe splash a little on your shoes, very unintentional but wow lucky for you, maybe you’ll spin one dollar without going over. Oh wait that’s The Price is Right. Sort of like your GOP morals.
The SC’s Lemon v Kurtzman decision established…
1) The government’s action must have a secular legislative purpose;
2) The government’s action must not have the primary effect of either advancing or inhibiting religion;
3) The government’s action must not result in an “excessive government entanglement” with religion.
I honestly kinda hoped the law would go through. But I was hoping they would actually force them to. If you are pro not serving gays or other minorities, I would like to make sure you are visible. I think an upside down star on your clothing with a government issued number tattooed to your arm nice and large would be good. I want to make sure I can see you from afar. Nice and visible. Because now when I go to shop I can’t tell who are the people I need to make sure not to support. My money is just going to anyone when it could be spent on decent humans instead. Stop using religion as a title for your intentionally kept small brains and hearts.
It is actually a pretty good point. I’d love to see bigots pay a price for their bigotry. Except I think, in the long run, a steeper price would be paid by the people discriminated against.
Because of the link between behavior and attitude, I cold see a downward spiral in which bigots begin trying to one up each other in terms of cruelty.
I think a healthy dose of what it actually feels like to be visible and disliked might cure the masses who think they are currently being discriminated against because their limited in scope/view/intelligent/depth opinions aren’t being forced on their country’s people.
I think of how I empathized with other people’s problems prior to my own personal similar experience. I am making a large assumption that years of never experiencing true discrimination has led to a large population ignorant of the experience altogether.
I think of growing up and my mom explaining why she won’t play such and such a game with me or go along with some exciting adventure because she has a “migraine” and all I could think of was how I felt when I had a headache, (which was minimal in actual comparison) and how lame I thought her excuse was to pass on life’s coolness and fun all because of a little pain in your head; until of course, I experienced my own migraine.
I get where you are coming from, but the people who think they are being abused by gay marriage suffer from a huge empathy deficit. Trying to get them to understand or care about someone else’s problems would be like trying to explain the color purple to someone who has been blind since birth.
A basic tenet of Christianity is love your neighbor. To be a bigot of any kind is the antithesis of Christianity.
Jason 330
I know what your mean. I guess that is why I want them to experience it fully.