"It's over: Gay marriage can't lose in courts" - Slate Magazine

[Just_A_Guy]

Anyone want to join me on a deserted island in the ocean to start over?

Nah. We tried that back in '47 (except we went to a desert, not a deserted island). The feds just followed us and asserted sovereignty.

"Live and let live" isn't the way these people operate. Never was; never will be.

[Guest]

Nah. We tried that back in '47 (except we went to a desert, not a deserted island). The feds just followed us and asserted sovereignty.

"Live and let live" isn't the way these people operate. Never was; never will be.

Wasn't that because we needed the Feds and not the other way around?

I have to admit, I'm vague on Utah history.

[Just_A_Guy]

Wasn't that because we needed the Feds and not the other way around?

I have to admit, I'm vague on Utah history.

Suzie and other Utah history buffs will probably snicker at the inaccuracies/over-simplifications in the following, but it's the best I can do off the top of my head:

To answer your question--In a way, but not really. Brigham Young and the Church generally were strapped for cash as he tried to move the Church west, and was looking for financial relief from any source possible. When the Mexican war broke out, Young saw opportunity and (in a deal brokered by Thomas Kane, Jesse Little, and others) supplied a contingent of men for the US Army (the Mormon Battalion)--they were paid in gold, and the funds went back to Church coffers.

But the underlying plan--at least until the Mexican War came up--was to leave American territory; and once there the Mormons just wanted to be left alone. The main reason they kept petitioning for statehood after they became part of the US again, was so that they would be able to pick their own territorial/state officeholders (governors, judges, attorneys general, treasurers, etc) rather than just having to accept whatever DC insiders had offered the President the best price for their appointments.

[Just_A_Guy]

Guv vetoed the AZ bill today, by the way.

[carlimac]

I have no desire to look it up. What were her reasons and is there any chance it will be re-written? Or are religious folks just outta luck for the duration?

[yjacket]

I have no desire to look it up. What were her reasons and is there any chance it will be re-written? Or are religious folks just outta luck for the duration?

Until individuals can get over this morbid fascination with using the law to force someone else to do business with you then religious folks are out of luck.

IMO, that's what it comes down to. Religious freedom is simply an expression of personal belief.

In reality there doesn't need to exist "religious freedom" there simply needs to exist freedom of personal beliefs that as long as I as an individual do not try to force my beliefs on someone else (or aggress against another) I can think, believe, act however I please.

Unfortunately, people have this morbid fascination with exerting power over other individuals to make them act, feel, believe how they believe they should act/feel/believe.

[yjacket]

Problem solved: let private businesses refuse service to anyone anytime for any reason | The Matt Walsh Blog

Hits it.

[Guest]

No soup for you!

[LittleWyvern]

Problem solved: let private businesses refuse service to anyone anytime for any reason | The Matt Walsh Blog

Hits it.

This solution strikes me as a "throw out the baby with the bathwater" approach. The reason I think that is clear by considering the reasons behind the passage of things such as the Civil Rights Act and other nondiscrimination laws. The sociological reason behind the passage of the Civil Rights Act was because society found that discriminating based on skin color was morally reprehensible, and thus society would be benefited if it prohibited such actions. Similarly, society felt that discriminating based on religion and other factors was morally reprehensible. Walsh's solution, in a pure libertarian fashion, dispenses with the idea of societal morals altogether and essentially states that society should not have any morals. Morals, according to Walsh, should only be held by individual people and should not contribute to society. As much as I think Walsh's solution is simple, I still think that social morals are something that benefits society as a whole and thus I am reluctant to completely eliminate them as Walsh calls for.

[yjacket]

I completely agree that social morals benefit society as a whole. I personally don't know any libertarians who want to do away with morals. In fact, I must say that in my personal experience, libertarians are some of the best people I know. The ones I know rank right up there with members of the church as being in general just good all around people.

What most libertarians are against is the use of force to enforce morals. The line of reasoning that we need, no we must have the State enforce morals leads to a whole host of bad outcomes.

For example, welfare, the State enforcing a moral that poor people should be taken care of. While I agree that those who have more should help those who do not have as much, I do not agree it should be done by force; in fact, when it is done by force you get many unexpected and unintended outcomes. For example, every time I see a homeless person begging for food, I immediately think of welfare (why are you begging for food and why am I going to give money to you b/c the State already extracts it's pound of flesh from me to give to you). Where there no social safety net, you bet I would be much more willing to give.

By forcing companies to not discriminate at the point of a gun, people become frankly entitled . . . "well how dare you do blah,blah, blah". They lack the understanding of free interaction and free association.

Ultimately, what it comes down to is people think well as long as the government enforces morality I agree with it is okay, but as soon as the government enforces morality I disagree with it is not okay. And hence we have all the political battles-because ultimately it comes down to force. One group of people want to force another group of people to behave how they believe they should behave. Whether it's discrimination, drugs, marriage, etc.

I actually believe that the greater crime and the sin against the greater morality is trying to use force to compel someone to act in a manner that we deem immoral. For in the beginning, that was the great deceiver's plan- using force to make people be good.

[Just_A_Guy]

The sociological reason behind the passage of the Civil Rights Act was because society found that discriminating based on skin color was morally reprehensible, and thus society would be benefited if it prohibited such actions. Similarly, society felt that discriminating based on religion and other factors was morally reprehensible.

I'm not sure this is completely accurate. If class-based discrimination were reprehensible per se, then the Civil Rights Act would naturally have applied to ALL forms of racial/religious discrimination. Whites would have been prohibited from marrying other whites. Mormons would have been compelled to marry Catholics. Males would be required to vote for females. A straight schoolchild would be required to have a gay schoolchild as his/her best friend. And so on. But these forms of discrimination were not banned; so it stands to reason that the CRA was aimed at something more than mere race/religious/gender/sexual orientation-based discrimination.

I think it might be more accurate to say that the sociological reason behind the passage of the Civil Rights Act was because the effects of discrimination in the commercial sphere were reprehensible, given the economic and social circumstances of the time. And on that score, I'm not convinced that either our economy, or our social attitudes on race/gender, are the same as they were in the 1960s. It's not like if I can't get a mortgage from the local credit union, I can't get one at all. If Old Man Gower won't fill my prescription at the local drugstore, there are other pharmacies that will be happy to get my business.

In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to be told to play nicely with each other. I don't say the world is now officially perfect; but I think circumstances have changed enough that it's worth asking whether nondiscrimination legislation has outlived its usefulness and has become a threat to freedom of conscience in general, and freedom of religious expression in particular.

Walsh's solution, in a pure libertarian fashion, dispenses with the idea of societal morals altogether and essentially states that society should not have any morals. Morals, according to Walsh, should only be held by individual people and should not contribute to society.

I haven't completely digested Walsh's article; but it strikes me that you are suggesting that a society that has no morals enshrined in its legislation, has no collective morals at all. I see that as a bit of a conflation. Society should have--indeed, needs--collective morals; but that moral code should be developed from the bottom up; rather than imposed from the top down. Otherwise, you wind up with what Professor James Scott, in another context, dubs an "Irish Democracy":

One need not have an actual conspiracy to achieve the practical effects of a conspiracy. More regimes have been brought, piecemeal, to their knees by what was once called 'Irish Democracy,' the silent, dogged resistance, withdrawal, and truculence of millions of ordinary people, than by revolutionary vanguards or rioting mobs.

And I really think, as I suggested earlier in this thread, that--where commercial discrimination is concerned--a more lazzeiz-faire approach would solve 80-90% of the problem as the discriminators eventually figure out that one man's money is as good as the next's. But people hate being controlled even more than they love money. So instead, right now--two generations after the Civil Rights Act--we've still got people in the deep South (you and I might differ as to their numbers; but I suspect we agree that they exist) who not only still prefer not to do business with racial minorities and use all manner of subterfuge to avoid it; but hate those groups even more because they've been forced together and look at government as an enemy for foisting this all upon them in the first place.

Edited February 27, 2014 by Just_A_Guy

[LittleWyvern]

I'm not sure this is completely accurate. If class-based discrimination were reprehensible per se, then the Civil Rights Act would naturally have applied to ALL forms of racial/religious discrimination.

I think it might be more accurate to say that the sociological reason behind the passage of the Civil Rights Act was because the effects of discrimination in the commercial sphere were reprehensible, given the economic and social circumstances of the time.

Well, sure, I wasn't alive during the passage of the Civil Rights Act, so my statement was based on what I know about the rationale behind it. I'm not a history student, so I'm sure I'm inaccurate in places.

And on that score, I'm not convinced that either our economy, or our social attitudes on race/gender, are the same as they were in the 1960s. It's not like if I can't get a mortgage from the local credit union, I can't get one at all. If Old Man Gower won't fill my prescription at the local drugstore, there are other pharmacies that will be happy to get my business.

There's a weakness, though, in assuming that there's always some other place to go: if you are a member of a small and unpopular group in Walsh's world, it may be time to move to a different country. I'm sensitive to the plight of small unpopular groups with no recourse to seek to right wrongs, as the Church was once a small and unpopular group.

In a perfect world, we wouldn't have to be told to play nicely with each other. I don't say the world is now officially perfect; but I think circumstances have changed enough that it's worth asking whether nondiscrimination legislation has outlived its usefulness and has become a threat to freedom of conscience in general, and freedom of religious expression in particular.

Right, "if men were angels no government would be necessary." I generally agree with not having more nondiscrimination legislation than strictly necessary, but I don't think striking down all nondiscrimination legislation (as Walsh seems to hint at but never says directly) will make anything any better. Men are most certainly not angels in this society.

I haven't completely digested Walsh's article; but it strikes me that you are suggesting that a society that has no morals enshrined in its legislation, has no collective morals at all. I see that as a bit of a conflation. Society should have--indeed, needs--collective morals; but that moral code should be developed from the bottom up; rather than imposed from the top down.

That's a good point, and while I don't think societal morals need to be enshrined into law, it does allow society to enforce these morals. The laws themselves definitely should be developed from the bottom up, but I think these laws are what keep societal morals from being just optional.

And I really think, as I suggested earlier in this thread, that--where commercial discrimination is concerned--a more lazzeiz-faire approach would solve 80-90% of the problem as the discriminators eventually figure out that one man's money is as good as the next's.

And I would agree with you here if I trusted people as much as you do to "do the right thing."

[Just_A_Guy]

There's a weakness, though, in assuming that there's always some other place to go: if you are a member of a small and unpopular group in Walsh's world, it may be time to move to a different country. I'm sensitive to the plight of small unpopular groups with no recourse to seek to right wrongs, as the Church was once a small and unpopular group.

I agree with you in principle; but in the LDS Church's case you had a federal/state government that was complicit in the Church's forcible removal and refused to safeguard the property rights of Church members. For my theory to work, you need a) the expectation that the minority members are going to be there in the long term; and b) the knowledge that you cannot obtain goods/services/land in the minority's possession except through voluntary commerce. That *does* require a certain degree of nondiscrimination on the government's part which was lacking in 19th century Church history.

Right, "if men were angels no government would be necessary." I generally agree with not having more nondiscrimination legislation than strictly necessary, but I don't think striking down all nondiscrimination legislation (as Walsh seems to hint at but never says directly) will make anything any better. Men are most certainly not angels in this society.

Ideally we could turn it over to the states--"laboratories of democracy", and all that. But it can't happen unless there are some major modifications to the federal Civil Rights Act; and frankly I don't think those modifications will be politically possible for at least a decade--if ever.

That's a good point, and while I don't think societal morals need to be enshrined into law, it does allow society to enforce these morals. The laws themselves definitely should be developed from the bottom up, but I think these laws are what keep societal morals from being just optional.

To some degree you're probably right; though I would note that apologists for the old anti-sodomy statutes used similar reasoning.

And I would agree with you here if I trusted people as much as you do to "do the right thing."

Bear in mind that, for purposes of this discussion, I'm not trusting people to act in accordance with yours or my morals--at least, not intentionally. I trust them to act in accordance with their self interest.

MoE may initially hang a "no gays" sign outside his bakery; but when Suzie opens her own bakery and MoE uses his mad statistical skills to calculate just how much more money Suzie is earning because she will serve gays; he's going to think long and hard about how much of his policy is based in mere animus versus how much of his policy is based in wanting to abstain from supporting behavior with which he disagrees. And chances are he'll come up with a policy that you would view as more rational (selling baked goods to gays, maybe even generic wedding cakes) while allowing him to hold true to a recently-reevaluated moral code (not writing a congratulatory message on the cake, or not delivering to the wedding venue, or something like that).

Thus, in acting according to his own self-interest, MoE has implemented a policy that you happen to find more "moral" than the old policy. It may not be perfect, by your standards; but it is a policy that MoE fully accepts. He can deal amicably and professionally with gays on an "agree to disagree" basis--perhaps becoming even more sympathetic to them in time--rather than regarding them (and teaching his children and his children's children to regard them) with the seething hatred that the conquered inevitably has for the conqueror.

[Suzie]

I fully respect those who do not agree with gay marriage, even though I disagree with their point of view legally speaking I do understand in part where they come from. Having said that, I have no respect (figure of speech) for those who refuse to offer services to others based purely on their sexual orientation.

[Quin]

I fully respect those who do not agree with gay marriage, even though I disagree with their point of view legally speaking I do understand in part where they come from. Having said that, I have no respect (figure of speech) for those who refuse to offer services to others based purely on their sexual orientation.

I grew up in an area where "No Americans" & "No White, No Foreign" signs were on shop fronts, restaurants, medical clinics, post offices, preschools, apartments. Even in places without signs, you could stand and wait for hours while everyone who wasn't you got served first. No, no, you were welcome but the person who came in an hour after you is more important. You want. You wait. "Decent" people will be seen first. And if you press, then you won't get helped at all, and the police will be called. Yes. Asking "Excuse me, please? How long?" Is considered threatening and abusive, and means you've just lost your chance to buy milk. Or gas. Or get the gash in your child's arm stitched up.

Later, in an area where black people had the same kind of discrimination.

I've worked for many years in places I'm not allowed to order food, or buy groceries, or books, newspapers, etc. in many if not most shops & cafés. Nor lease a car, or apartment, or hotel room, or even hire a cab. (Because I'm female, and women are not allowed, or it's up to the owner if they want to allow women, and those who attempt to do these things will be chased off, beaten, &/or arrested and beaten).

I hate seeing the same attitude here, in this country.

Discrimination makes me very sad.

Q

[Guest]

Not all of us who are against gay marriage are for discrimination. I absolutely do not agree with denying someone's business because of sexual orientation, the only possible exception being where the business is directly related to supporting a gay wedding.

[Guest]

Discrimination makes me very sad.

Q

Senseless discrimination, sure. But, if you weren't practicing discrimination, you could end up with another abusive spouse. So yes, discrimination, is VERY necessary.

Especially if the activity puts you in a real choice between spending eternity in prison or spending mortal life in prison... such as the case of Catholic Adoption Agencies forced to stop denying placement of children to unmarried couples or legally married homosexual couples.

The interesting thing is... Star Trucking was indicted by the Feds for religious liberty violations for forcing 2 Muslims to transport alcohol (read this in Rush Limbaugh's website, I looked it up and what he says is actually true. Interesting.).

So yeah, darned if you do, darned if you don't. There is only 1 behavior accepted - the one that aligns with the specific voter block you're targetting... conflicting or not.

Edited February 28, 2014 by anatess