|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Maine legalizes gay marriage | |||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
While your topic is focused on marriage, this is not the focus of the fundamentalists. I'm quite sure that fundamentalists have objections considerably broader than just serving canapes. I'm not particularly concerned about fundamentalist objections as these are, for the most part, easily swept aside. I'm not certain that the particular issue I've raised here can be so easily swept aside.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I mean, when does a photographer actually have to take the job? All states have some for of anti-discrimination legislation. So the photographer never has to take the job. He's just not allowed to discriminate. Not participating in a gay ceremony because of you religious beliefs isn't discriminating against sexual orientation, its limiting your behavior for religious reasons. It'd be like a white photographer not participating in a black ceremony because he's afraid of getting harassed. He not refusing because they are black, he's refusing to protect his safety. That is not discrimination.
I'd also like to point out that this is off topic for this thread. If you want to start a thread devoted generally to issues of discrimination, please do so. Well I think discrimination is where you draw the line here though. From the OP:
I've given some little thought to the matter of, in effect, state sanctioned discrimination on the basis of one's sincerely held religious beliefs with regard to marriage ceremonies and find myself undecided. I don't really see it as "state sanctioned discrimination" in the first place. If it isn't discrimination at all then there's no problem. But if it is discrimination then there is a problem. Reading your OP again, it makes more sense what question you are asking... If religious freedom should be allowed to trump discrimination, yeah? I guess if you want just to assume its discrimination and discuss that then I get why you'd rather not discuss whether or not it is discrimination. ABE: lol, I guess I could actually address the topic then... If it really is discrimination then the state shouldn't be allowing it on the basis of religion. Although, you could always just say that you don't have the time, no? Edited by Catholic Scientist, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Not participating in a gay ceremony because of you religious beliefs isn't discriminating against sexual orientation, its limiting your behavior for religious reasons. Well, I guess that's the crux of the matter. I'm sure nobody here would argue that a Catholic priest who believes gay marriage violates his religion should be required by law to officiate at a gay marriage. However, certainly a distinction can be made between the act of performing and sanctifying the marriage and just serving finger sandwiches to the celebrants at a post ceremony reception (unless the caterer actually belongs to a religious sect that teaches against feeding gay spouses, a possibility I'm not willing to rule out a priori). For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Not participating in a gay ceremony because of you religious beliefs isn't discriminating against sexual orientation, its limiting your behavior for religious reasons. Well, I guess that's the crux of the matter. So lets say a photographer doesn't want to participate in a gay marriage. Then what? Should we really probe into his reasoning to determine its legitimacy? How many photographers are really going to refuse work for illegitimate reasons that are non-religious?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
So lets say a photographer doesn't want to participate in a gay marriage. Then what? Should we really probe into his reasoning to determine its legitimacy? What we absolutely cannot do is probe his reasoning to determine its legitimacy. Courts will not and, IMO, should not ever probe into the legitimacy of anyone's religious beliefs. However, what courts can do is determine whether it is a sincerely held belief, and whether it is a religious belief.
How many photographers are really going to refuse work for illegitimate reasons that are non-religious? My suspicion is that the number of people who refuse to do business with others for discriminatory reasons is shrinking, but I also believe that it does still happen. I can't give you any kind of estimate of frequency. Instead, I'll ask you this: How much invidious discrimination should we tolerate? For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
What we absolutely cannot do is probe his reasoning to determine its legitimacy. Courts will not and, IMO, should not ever probe into the legitimacy of anyone's religious beliefs. If we can't probe his reasoning, then how did you know it was a religious belief. What if he just didn't have the time?
However, what courts can do is determine whether it is a sincerely held belief, and whether it is a religious belief. So you're going to investigate if he really did have the time or not?
How much invidious discrimination should we tolerate? Until its noticeable. If the photographer just says that he doesn't have the time but his real reason was just because they are gay, is it even invidious? Well, its not noticeable. I think that we shouldn't really even question him about his reason. When his discrimination becomes noticeably invidious, that's when you step in with the legislation.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
CS writes:
Well, this reminds me of a couple interviews I saw not too long ago. A black man and his partner were looking for a 1 bedroom apartment. They went into a private agency. After they told the woman agent what they wanted, she promptly got up, opened the door, and said "please leave, we don't serve your kind here". So lets say a photographer doesn't want to participate in a gay marriage. Then what? The second interview was of a black man and his black wife. The agent was a white man, though. CS, you're muddying up the water by confusing legit businesses with a side business. Yes, there is a difference. Most photographers who do weddings actually do full time job at some other profession and only does photography as a side job and hobby. Are they doing business? Well, technically, yes. But the spirit of the law was never intended to regulate these side hobbies. Some time ago, I played the trumpet for a gay couple at their wedding. Believe it or not, they actually couldn't find a professional trumpetist who was willing to play at their wedding and they had to ask me. I did it for $100. I didn't pay any tax for it. Heck, I could start my own lemonade business right now in front of my house and would only sell my glass of lemonade to the people in my neighborhood who are under 150 pounds. Do you honestly think anyone would care about the way I do my "business"? The point is nobody cares about a self employed bigoted photographer. We're more concerned about legit businesses like a sandwich caterer or a restaurant. Please stop muddying up the water. You know it's bullshit. I know it's bullshit. Let's stop this charade.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Please stop muddying up the water. You know it's bullshit. I know it's bullshit. Let's stop this charade. I don't think its bullshit. I don't know what you're talking about. Piss off.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
As a side note, you all should listen to this fresh air podcast 05/06/2009. It's about the new movie 'outrage'.
Also, listen to this fresh air with Camilla Taylor. Edited by Taz, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
CS writes:
Let's try this again. I don't think its bullshit. I don't know what you're talking about. Piss off.
You're muddying up the water by comparing apples and oranges. How? By assuming they're both fruit and therefore they must be the same. There's a difference between a business like wedding catering and a business like wedding photography. It's a subtle difference, but there is a difference. Try to think of photography as like selling lemonade during the summber. Most people do it more as a hobby and side job than as a real profession. Sure, there are some that have studios. But they are largely unregulated. We generally don't expect them to have to accept every appointment or every house call. They could simply say "no, I don't want to do your wedding" and that's the end of that. On the other hand, we tend to think of real businesses as places where we can go or depend on. A restaurant can't just turn you away because the manager had a bad day. These businesses are very well regulated and there are certain standards we, as a society, expect them to meet. The same goes with apartment agencies. When you first brought out the example of wedding photographer, I already guessed you were intending to muddy up this issue. Stop playing your bullshit game. The spirit of the law with regard to these issues are meant to regulate real businesses where we, as a society, already has a standard for them to meet. Nobody cares about the private photographer you were talking about. Capice?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
subbie writes:
Oh please, all your examples are instances where they don't affect other people. You're comparing apples to oranges. None of these accomodations is anything close to accomodating their religious based bigotry.
Our country has a long and venerated history of accommodating religious objections to generally applicable laws; military service, photographs on drivers licenses, markings on slow moving vehicles are a few that come immediately to mind. Such accommodations are not automatically granted, it depends on a balancing process where the burden on the religious belief is compared to the harm done by not requiring compliance with the law. Now, if you want to take the position that there ought to be no accommodation of religious beliefs whatsoever and that all people should be subject to all the same laws, that's certainly a defensible position.
Nope, not taking that position at all. I honestly don't understand how you could not see the difference between allowing a person to not have a photo on driver's license because of religious reasons and allowing a business to deny service to certain people because of religious bigotry. I mean... would you like me to explain in detail why the two examples don't mix and match?
A careful reading of what I've said here will show you that I'm undecided on the matter. It appears that your belief is that this would not be a reasonable accommodation.
I got that part, and a more careful reading of my previous posts would show that I was actually criticizing you guys for being undecided on this matter. It's like me saying I'm undecided whether interracial marriage should be allowed or not or whether the Earth is flat or round. As to why I am undecided on those issues should baffle every sane person.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Stagamancer Member (Idle past 4946 days) Posts: 174 From: Oregon Joined: |
As far as I know in the US, the state doesn't recognise marriages except for those that have a state issued marriage license or common law marriages that a court has recognised. True, but the state allows religious figures (priests, rabbis, etc) to act on behalf of the state and issue marriage licenses. So, the religious ceremony happens, and the couple signs a state issued certificate. My point is to take away the power of the religious figures to act on behalf of the state. We have many intuitions in our life and the point is that many of these intuitions are wrong. The question is, are we going to test those intuitions? -Dan Ariely
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 315 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Our country has a long and venerated history of accommodating religious objections to generally applicable laws; military service, photographs on drivers licenses, markings on slow moving vehicles are a few that come immediately to mind. My curiosity is piqued. Please tell me more.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3322 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
DrA writes:
He's talking about Amish horse drawn vehicles on the highway.
My curiosity is piqued. Please tell me more.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1285 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
Oh please,... First off, tone down the snark.
all your examples are instances where they don't affect other people. Not entirely true. If one person gets a pass on serving in the military, someone else will take their place. If someone gets a driver's license without a picture on it, it makes law enforcement more difficult, potentially endangering everyone. However, your point does have some merit to it. The burden in the examples I chose is borne more generally by society, instead of by two individuals. On the other hand, in most cases, the burden on the engaged couple is rather slight. All they have to do it find another photographer (a profession my Dad engaged in exclusively for over 60 years), caterer etc. I'm not discounting that on a particular case this might be a significant hardship if there aren't many around, in a small town for example. But in most cases, it's a small hardship. Moreover, in the case of a photographer, I'd rather not have someone taking pictures at my wedding who didn't want to be there, for whatever reason. Assuming that in most cases the hardship on the engaged couple is slight, how does that weigh against compelling someone to do something that goes against their religious beliefs? Or do you discount that factor to nothing?
I honestly don't understand how you could not see the difference between allowing a person to not have a photo on driver's license because of religious reasons and allowing a business to deny service to certain people because of religious bigotry. I mean... would you like me to explain in detail why the two examples don't mix and match? Never said I didn't see the difference, and I think what I've just said shows that I in fact do see the difference. However, just because there are differences doesn't mean that there aren't similarities, too. Granted that in my examples there's little burden on individuals. However, there is an accommodation for sincerely held religious beliefs. So, the question becomes, at what point does the burden become too heavy to justify the accommodation. You seem to be suggesting that any burden on an individual instead of one borne by society generally is too much. Is that your position?
I got that part, and a more careful reading of my previous posts would show that I was actually criticizing you guys for being undecided on this matter. It's like me saying I'm undecided whether interracial marriage should be allowed or not or whether the Earth is flat or round. As to why I am undecided on those issues should baffle every sane person. I suppose so, but until this last post of yours, there was very little by way of explanation why you believed the way you did. For we know that our patchwork heritage is a strength, not a weakness. We are a nation of Christians and Muslims, Jews and Hindus -- and non-believers. -- Barack Obama We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024