Majority of Americans support gay rights over religious freedom bills

[Hatshepsut]

... How is that equal and non-prejudiced?

Is a majority always right? In a free society that claims to have a marketplace of ideas, small businesspersons should be able to do business with whom they will, for that matter without having to give a reason for their choices. Of course this is modified for larger firms and those holding monopolies over critical goods; a power company can't refuse to supply electricity to a gay household because of a boss's whim. But in general I don't like either of these two fashionable trends at law: neither homosexuality nor religious credo should be granted special protection under law other than relief from direct persecution.

A constant analogy to the 1960s civil rights movement is made for each new special group. But it's weak. Blacks as a visible minority don't enjoy the option of concealing their status. Unlike for blacks, no history of chattel slavery or Jim Crow attends the other groups, whose members have generally experienced little difficulty in voting and securing employment, housing, or consumer essentials. Although it has been necessary to ban certain kinds of discrimination, we've never defined prejudice itself as a wrong, only that its absence is a virtue.

Adam & Steve are welcome to marry if they want. They should have no trouble finding a cake. I'm a retired boomer and not planning to die too soon.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Why is it deemed a poor equivocation to compare blacks to homosexuals?

A gay person can't help being gay just like a black person can't help being black. So I don't understand the difference apart from one is visible and the other ain't.

[DeistPaladin]

A constant analogy to the 1960s civil rights movement is made for each new special group. But it's weak. Blacks as a visible minority don't enjoy the option of concealing their status. Unlike for blacks, no history of chattel slavery or Jim Crow attends the other groups, whose members have generally experienced little difficulty in voting and securing employment, housing, or consumer essentials. 

Our constitution in section 1 of the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law for all American citizens. It doesn't make any special requirement that said citizens must have a history of chattel slavery or oppression under Jim Crow laws. Neither does it require that said citizens must be identifiable visually as a minority group. Neither does it suggest that said citizens must have experienced difficulty in voting, securing employment, finding housing or acquiring other consumer essentials. It only says that American citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law. 

Every civil rights struggle is different. Women have endured countless eons of second class citizenship. Jews suffered under nearly 2,000 years of Christian pogroms culminating in the Nazi holocaust. African-Americans were enslaved and then subjected to Jim Crow. There is no special contest for what group has suffered most uniquely. What's important is that we strive to create a more just and fair society. 

Although it has been necessary to ban certain kinds of discrimination, we've never defined prejudice itself as a wrong, only that its absence is a virtue.

What?

Adam & Steve are welcome to marry if they want. They should have no trouble finding a cake. I'm a retired boomer and not planning to die too soon.

I'm not hoping for your death. I'm only hoping for the death of your prejudice. Failing that, its political irrelevancy. 

[Hatshepsut]

Our constitution in section 1 of the 14th amendment guarantees equal protection under the law for all American citizens. It doesn't make any special requirement that said citizens must have a history of chattel slavery...It only says that American citizens are entitled to equal protection under the law... 

...and forbids passage of laws that "abridge the privileges or immunities" of citizens or deprives them "of life, liberty, or property without due process." And I have no problem with this. Indeed the 14th Amendment, passed in the wake of civil war, is a constitutional cornerstone. However, there's a difference between equal protection under law and membership in a group which law singles out for special recognition. For instance, an employer is free to discriminate at will against lanky males who speak in a slow Texas drawl because these people do not belong to a protected group. Yet does such discrimination hurt them any less? Personally, I would favor a law requiring all large employers (say those with more than about 50 or 75 workers) to give a business reason justifying a refusal to hire in every case, if an applicant requests they do so, and defend that reason in court if an applicant sues. It would be much better than the patchwork quilt we're busy developing now.

Although I don't agree with George F. Will on most issues, he did advance the concept of the "grievance group," stating correctly that political allocation by group creates resentment and has occasioned many violent conflicts. That's why I prefer a minimum of laws that set economic quotas or prescribe behavior toward members of identity groups.

I do take peeve to the women's and LGBT advocacies comparing themselves directly with the historical African-American plight. The latter were chained, lynched, prevented from voting, relegated to shacks in the river bottoms, and otherwise treated with a vile and pointed brutality no American group except the Indians can even dream of. They still get sent to prison or shot by police with astonishing frequency today. While I'm not one to say that women and gays have no legitimate cause, or that they shouldn't advocate for themselves, their agenda doesn't possess the urgency the freedom bus riders had in 1961. At that time activists saw a need to align interests and present a common front for social change lest their efforts be defeated by divide and conquer. Today the game has become a selfish parody of the Civil Rights movement. None of the grievance groups are interested in universal social justice or welfare, only in what they can garner for their own corners.

...we've never defined prejudice itself as a wrong, only that its absence is a virtue.

What?

I owe you clarification. Prejudice is an internal state of mind or emotion, private to the individual holding it. As opposed to discrimination, which is an act directed at someone else. Discrimination doesn't actually require prejudice. For instance a landlord who isn't prejudiced against gays may deny housing to a gay couple anyway, due to fear of pressure from a vocal neighborhood group. I admit that I have my own personal prejudices and suspect most other people do too. I keep these to myself since I don't consider myself an arbiter of community values. An open mind, free of prejudice, is ideal. But ethics doesn't require we be ideal, only that we refrain from wrongdoing.

I'm not hoping for your death. I'm only hoping for the death of your prejudice. Failing that, its political irrelevancy. 

I'm pleased you don't wish me dead. May you live long and prosper.  

You may be assuming that I don't like persons of alternative sexualities. That's not true. Failure to support items on the gay political agenda does not imply animosity toward gays. In fact, a person's sexuality is none of my business. I'm pleased to see some states passing gay marriage and adoption statutes, because these laws merely allow gays to do something nearly everyone else can do, and don't respect a defined gay identity group. So no problem.

I'm not nuts about the recent Indiana law either. I would prefer no law, but Gov. Pence fears a law in the opposite direction could be enacted and he chose to preempt that possibility.

As for political irrelevance, I'm already there. I have no money or power and make few decisions for others...  

[DeistPaladin]

However, there's a difference between equal protection under law and membership in a group which law singles out for special recognition. 

Perhaps I need further explanation here because I don't see how your "lanky" and "speaks with a drawl" examples apply. If someone is unqualified for a job because of certain characteristics (a 90 year old male actor applying for the Broadway role of Little Orphan Annie or a devout Muslim who refuses to serve alcohol that is applying to be a bartender), it's not actionable discrimination, I'm sure we can all agree. I'm not sure what that has to do with the topic since being gay doesn't preclude you from eating cake that you've paid for. 

It may also help you to know the law also deals with breach-of-contract issues. There are not, I can assure you, a hoard of gays looking to sacrifice their special day so they can ambush Christian bakers and force them to bake cakes for them. The problem is when a baker is contracted to make a wedding cake, finds out at the last minute that it's a gay wedding and backs out citing their religious beliefs. 

At that kind of last minute, you don't have the option of "just finding someone else" to do it. 

As a recently married man myself, I can assure you that the planning that goes into a relatively short event is quite involved. With so many things that can go wrong and the need to get everything right because you're hoping to only do this once in your lifetime, the last thing you want is someone who hates your guts handling a critical function of the special day, such as the cake or the photographer. However, the "religious freedom" bill makes the baker, photographer, whatever, untouchable if they back out at the last minute if they can cite a religious objection. 

I do take peeve to the women's and LGBT advocacies comparing themselves directly with the historical African-American plight. 

And again, nobody is saying that any one civil rights struggle is exactly like any other. Native Americans were murdered in unthinkable numbers. African Americans were enslaved and are still targeted by institutionalized racism. Women have been, and still are to some degree, second class citizens subject to rape culture. Jews were, and still are, targets in religious pogroms. Each struggle is different and civil rights is not some special prize awarded to a group that has suffered the most. 

The American Revolution, I believe, is an ongoing struggle with many milestones along the way. Emancipation, Trust-Busting, Suffrage, Desegregation and other struggles have all been battles in our efforts to form a more perfect union. Our founding fathers were flawed human beings who could only point the way. It's been up to us to complete that journey. That ongoing political war is not just about one group. Martin Luther King himself understood this and he fought not just for the rights of African Americans but for women and for all of the poor. 

their agenda doesn't possess the urgency the freedom bus riders had in 1961.

Civil Rights isn't invoked by some sort of threshold of injustice, oppression or suffering. Just because Jim Crow has been abolished doesn't mean there isn't much more work to do. There are more subtle forms of racism at work in our society (sometimes not so subtle) but that doesn't mean we dust off our hands and say we're done. Neither do we neglect injustice towards other groups just because there isn't the same degree of overt institutionalized discrimination against them. 

The important message of the 14th amendment, which itself is part of the as-yet unfulfilled promise of America, is that there should be no second class citizens at all, be it based on race, gender, creed, class or sexual orientation. And just because we've achieved a certain level of success toward that goal, such as "well, there's nothing on the law books officially", doesn't mean we say "they're not suffering like this group over here did so fuck 'em". Where there is injustice, we should seek to correct it. That's what "form a more perfect union" means to me, anyway. 

None of the grievance groups are interested in universal social justice or welfare, only in what they can garner for their own corners.

I need more elaboration here. As I can see, no one is asking for special privileges. Gays are asking for the same rights that everyone else has. I had a marriage with my wife without having to deal with a Christian baker who backed out at the last minute, refusing to serve an atheist wedding on the grounds of religious objections. I think we should have enjoyed the same day even if she and I had similar body parts at the groin. 

I owe you clarification.

 
You actually don't owe me anything but I appreciate the clarification. 

You may be assuming that I don't like persons of alternative sexualities. That's not true. 

I may have made some assumptions which I apologize for. I've heard the "I don't have a problem with what two freaks do but..." line and others by what I call "closet homophobes" so many times, not the least of which from former friends I haven't heard from since coming out as bisexual. On the plus side, I don't have to grit my teeth as I listen to their fag jokes that are followed by the lame backpeddling of "uh, not that there's anything wrong with that, of course". I'm just thankful that it turned out that my soul-mate had the right body parts for us to enjoy equal protection under the law. 

Please disregard any false assumptions I attributed to you as stemming from past experience and nothing to do with you. 

Failure to support items on the gay political agenda does not imply animosity toward gays. In fact, a person's sexuality is none of my business. I'm pleased to see some states passing gay marriage and adoption statutes, because these laws merely allow gays to do something nearly everyone else can do, and don't respect a defined gay identity group. So no problem.

I'm not nuts about the recent Indiana law either. I would prefer no law, but Gov. Pence fears a law in the opposite direction could be enacted and he chose to preempt that possibility.

As for political irrelevance, I'm already there. I have no money or power and make few decisions for others...  

G'Kar from Babylon 5 once put it so profoundly when he said the scripted line, "Our thoughts form the universe. They always matter." Michael Jackson sang about how if you want to make the world a better place, look at the "man in the mirror". No matter how insignificant we may feel we are because we have no multi-billion dollar PACs or lobbyists at our beck and call, our thoughts and words matter. 

The American Revolution requires nothing less. 

[Hatshepsut]

It may also help you to know the law also deals with breach-of-contract issues...However, the "religious freedom" bill makes the baker, photographer, whatever, untouchable if they back out at the last minute if they can cite a religious objection.

I was ill-informed here. Breach of contract shouldn't be excused. And part of why I don't care for this whole genre of law: It's complicated.

Perhaps I need further explanation here because I don't see how your "lanky" and "speaks with a drawl" examples apply.

Because anti-discrimination laws don't actually prohibit discrimination. They apply only to members of the protected groups they specify. At the federal level the category areas include race, color, religion, national origin, sex, age, military veteran status, and presence of a disability. Within each category, only groups the law perceives to have suffered oppression are afforded legal relief. Meaning, if you're white you can't file a claim for discrimination on racial grounds. If you're under 40, you can't claim discrimination by age. We did agree that a business reason negates a claim, as in your acting example. But if you're a boss who doesn't like Star Trek fans, you're free to have at it, business reason or not. Or any number of other personal factors unrelated to ability to do the job.

In my view, we should replace the current anti-discrimination regime with a universal requirement to show a business reason for employment and promotion decisions. Small businesses might be exempt due to the burden this will impose and because they rarely monopolize availability of work. There's really no other way to do it fairly. I had a hard time getting jobs because of my speech pattern, yet didn't fall into a speech-disabled class because I can make myself understood even if the other party believes me a retard. Without a general doctrine, we're going to have dozens or hundreds of protected groups instead, with people still falling through the cracks between them. Yet reality is squeaky wheels get greased and only groups which can organize and agitate have any hope– then their finite resources also force them to advocate selfishly; no group can help any other.

I need more elaboration here. As I can see, no one is asking for special privileges.... 

Yet privileges inevitably become involved. For instance, married persons can get health insurance through their spouse's employer if their own job doesn't offer benefits, or if they're unemployed. Single persons don't have that option. Many companies and city governments are now treating unmarried domestic partnership the same as marriage for purposes of health and life insurance benefits. Singles who don't gain from these policies nonetheless must help pay for them, via taxes or higher prices on goods.

I support gay marriage per se despite this particular unfairness, since I think the needs of inheritance rights and rights to or for children which marriage protects are important enough to trump objections. Yet again I feel we need to decouple health care from employment and marriage altogether, rather than add more coupling situations and groups as we're now doing. Employers and cities don't need to be in the insurance business: They can pay salary and the worker can decide where to buy health care plans.

G'Kar from Babylon 5 once put it so profoundly when he said the scripted line, "Our thoughts form the universe. They always matter."

Somehow I thought my thoughts barely made it far enough to reach the electroencephalograph leads on my scalp, but....  

[Heywood]

When ever you see poll results.  Think about this video

[Heywood]

Is a majority always right? In a free society that claims to have a marketplace of ideas, small businesspersons should be able to do business with whom they will, for that matter without having to give a reason for their choices. Of course this is modified for larger firms and those holding monopolies over critical goods; a power company can't refuse to supply electricity to a gay household because of a boss's whim. But in general I don't like either of these two fashionable trends at law: neither homosexuality nor religious credo should be granted special protection under law other than relief from direct persecution.

I also do not like "either of these two fashionable trends at law".  I wonder though....if it is not inevitable.  Here is something that I have been thinking about.  Humanity is a thing or being.  It is a being with a collective intellect.  That collective intellect isn't static.  It is growing and getting smarter.....it is improving. Its improving because as individuals we have become so much better connected.  

If individuals who make up the collective intellect of a humanity being are analogous to neurons of a biological brain, then I am witnessing a brain wiring itself up from the inside.  As that brain wires itself up, it is going to become smarter and more aware, and more assertive.  Individual freedom and choice human beings have enjoyed is going to fade as this humanity being begins to assert its ability to make choices.

[Esquilax]

Unlike for blacks, no history of chattel slavery or Jim Crow attends the other groups, whose members have generally experienced little difficulty in voting and securing employment, housing, or consumer essentials. Although it has been necessary to ban certain kinds of discrimination, we've never defined prejudice itself as a wrong, only that its absence is a virtue.

Do you have any idea how sociopathic you sound when you say things like this? This argument is one of the most immoral justifications for a law I've ever heard: "Oh, this group hasn't suffered enough to be worth protection yet." What that means is that you've quantified injustice in your head, such that the group in question hasn't passed the minimum threshold of discrimination and anguish necessary for your empathy to be engaged to action. It's not an argument that no injustice is happening, just that you are content with the level of injustice currently going on. Your complacency is not an argument.

[Polaris]

Can't we support both?

Are you kidding?

That's like stating, "We should allow businesses to turn away black people due to their skin color but the black people can still have their other rights".  How is that equal and non-prejudiced?  

I wasn't viewing religious freedom as the right to bash others, but so much as keeping to one's own values...aka a Moslem not having to serve pork or someone being able to pray in public.

Both extremes of the debate are wrong and what I was advocating is a compromise between both extremes. I usually am not one for compromise on political issues, but both of the extreme sides are wrong.