U.S. Politics - Rand Paul is our Savior

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

I'd say we've reached farcical status when people post about how there's apparently a clear logical conclusion where demanding businesses adhere to anti-discrimination law leads to churches forced to hold gay weddings.

It's just a desperate attempt by Libertarians to try and defend political allies who've taken the concept of "religious freedom" to obviously impossible extremes.

There is, actually. There is a clear logical link. It's not a perfect logical link, but the chain of inference is sound.

If you accept the principle that the government can force people to provide services to people engaged in conduct that they disagree with --> then it's a perfectly logical next step to accept the principle that the government can force Churches (just another subset of people) to provide marriage services (just another subset of services) to gay couples (just another subset of people engaged in conduct that they disagree with).

Now I don't think it's likely to happen, at least not any time soon, but you have to recognize that the only reason that it's not likely to happen any time soon is because we afford religious organizations extra leeway to be bigoted and discriminate against people. That's the simple truth of the matter.

[Sci-2]

Now I don't think it's likely to happen, at least not any time soon, but you have to recognize that the only reason that it's not likely to happen any time soon is because we afford religious organizations extra leeway to be bigoted and discriminate against people. That's the simple truth of the matter.

So it won't happen because we have the First Amendment.

That seems like good indication the supposed threat to churches is farcical.

[TrackerNeil]

I personally think that the whole "Kerry was a bad candidate" thing is completely overblown. I think that Kerry did about as well as any Democrat was going to do. I

I think that, general presidential elections are usually determined not by specific candidates but by structural factors; i.e. the perception of the economy and the partisan affiliation of the voters. Hillary Clinton, had she won the 2008 nomination, would probably have done about as well in the general election as Obama did.

[Maithanet]

I think that, general presidential elections are usually determined not by specific candidates but by structural factors; i.e. the perception of the economy and the partisan affiliation of the voters. Hillary Clinton, had she won the 2008 nomination, would probably have done about as well in the general election as Obama did.

Agreed on the structural factors. Hilary, without a doubt would have won the 2008 general election with at least 300 Electoral votes, and possibly more than Obama (I could believe her winning all the Obama states except Indiana, and instead taking Arkansas and maybe some other random states like GA, WV, ND, MT, etc).

The important difference is that the 2008 election was as bad an election for one party as we have seen since 1988. Hell, even with all the horrible scandals swirling around Edwards, if he had somehow won the nomination he still probably would have taken the Presidency. Hilary is going to be running in 2016, and while there are some demographic factors that favor her vs 2008, there's virtually no chance the climate will be as good for democrats.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

So it won't happen because we have the First Amendment.

That seems like good indication the supposed threat to churches is farcical.

Except that there are no necessarily clear-cut rules to determine whether the First Amendment is sufficient to beat out laws of general applicability.

Three cases in point:

First, to illustrate the general principle, you can't use "freedom of religion" to circumvent laws against murder, theft, etc.

Second, to hit a little closer to home, the First Amendment is not currently protecting Churches or other religious organizations from being forced to include birth control coverage in their health insurance policies under the Affordable Care Act even though contraception clearly violates the religious principles of many of these organizations.

Third, to come at it from a slightly different angle, the New Mexico Supreme Court case under discussion in this thread limits the scope of protected "expressive speech" (photography) in support of applying the anti-discrimination law we've been talking about.

It is really not a huge conceptual leap to get you from "if a Church is going to provide, as a service, health insurance, then that health insurance cannot be restricted based upon the religious beliefs of the Church" to "if a Church is going to provide, as a service to the public, the performance of marriage ceremonies, then the provision of that service cannot be restricted based upon the religious beliefs of the Church."

[TrackerNeil]

The important difference is that the 2008 election was as bad an election for one party as we have seen since 1988. Hell, even with all the horrible scandals swirling around Edwards, if he had somehow won the nomination he still probably would have taken the Presidency. Hilary is going to be running in 2016, and while there are some demographic factors that favor her vs 2008, there's virtually no chance the climate will be as good for democrats.

Now there's a thought exercise! How compromised would the 2008 Democratic nominee had to have been for John McCain to win? Obviously, it's difficult to prove a counterfactual, but I am guessing that, given the collapse of Lehman Brothers, Edwards still might have won that year. I think voters would have (sensibly) paid more attention to the economy than to any scandals associated with Edwards.

I'd call the Democrats a mild favorite for 2016, unless the economy tanks or something unforeseen occurs. Yes, I am putting myself out on that limb.

[Maithanet]

Nestor said:

It is really not a huge conceptual leap to get you from "if a Church is going to provide, as a service, health insurance, then that health insurance cannot be restricted based upon the religious beliefs of the Church" to "if a Church is going to provide, as a service to the public, the performance of marriage ceremonies, then the provision of that service cannot be restricted based upon the religious beliefs of the Church."

The type of discrimination we are talking about "I don't approve of gay marriage, therefore I will not serve gay customers" has already been well covered in US history with regard to interracial marriage. And while Loving vs Virginia made it illegal to ban interracial marriage, churches were still free to ban the practice individually, and they still are.

“After the Supreme Court struck down state bans on interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia in 1967, there was never the suggestion that private religious groups that wouldn’t perform interracial marriages would be shut down,” Harvard Law School Dean Martha Minow points out. “Or lose their tax-exempt status.”

In 2011 there was a prominent case of a KY church refusing to recognize interracial marriages.

So the slippery slope argument from "If I can't discriminate against gays in my place of business, I will be forced to accept them in my church" has already been demonstrated to be false.

[Maithanet]

Now there's a thought exercise! How compromised would the 2008 Democratic nominee had to have been for John McCain to win? Obviously, it's difficult to prove a counterfactual, but I am guessing that, given the collapse of Lehman Brothers, Edwards still might have won that year. I think voters would have (sensibly) paid more attention to the economy than to any scandals associated with Edwards.

I think the more likely scenario would be the Democratic party forcing Edwards to step down in (even post-convention) and giving the nomination to Clinton. That would be a big black eye, but by the time the election rolls around, Clinton would have overcome it.

[Shryke]

There is, actually. There is a clear logical link. It's not a perfect logical link, but the chain of inference is sound.

If you accept the principle that the government can force people to provide services to people engaged in conduct that they disagree with --> then it's a perfectly logical next step to accept the principle that the government can force Churches (just another subset of people) to provide marriage services (just another subset of services) to gay couples (just another subset of people engaged in conduct that they disagree with).

Now I don't think it's likely to happen, at least not any time soon, but you have to recognize that the only reason that it's not likely to happen any time soon is because we afford religious organizations extra leeway to be bigoted and discriminate against people. That's the simple truth of the matter.

No, it's more that religious services are, by definition, based in moral systems that will be against certain behaviours whereas florists are not.

It's not that we afford religious organizations extra leeway, it's that religious organizations are rightfully recognized to be different from businesses.

As people keep pointing out, we've already done this song and dance with black people. All the examples are already there, waiting to be spotted.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Nestor said:

The type of discrimination we are talking about "I don't approve of gay marriage, therefore I will not serve gay customers" has already been well covered in US history with regard to interracial marriage. And while Loving vs Virginia made it illegal to ban interracial marriage, churches were still free to ban the practice individually, and they still are.

In 2011 there was a prominent case of a KY church refusing to recognize interracial marriages.

So the slippery slope argument from "If I can't discriminate against gays in my place of business, I will be forced to accept them in my church" has already been demonstrated to be false.

1. It's not a "slippery slope" argument - or at least, I didn't make a "slippery slope" argument. I also don't acknowledge "slippery slope" arguments to be valid forms of argumentation.

2. What you're engaging in is a form of hasty generalization (or more strongly, perhaps even retrospective determinism). It's true that the end of legal prohibitions against inter-racial marriage did not result in Churches being compelled to perform inter-racial marriages. But so what? I never claimed one necessarily led to the other.

3. I've already acknowledged that although I've laid out a solid inferential chain, the roadblock is clearly the First Amendment and the fact that we allow religious organizations to engage in a level of discrimination unacceptable in the general population.

4. And the real questions is, how long are we going to allow that to be case? Given the two recent examples of encroachments by the government on First Amendment protections that I've highlighted in my previous post, I don't think the answer is "forever."

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

No, it's more that religious services are, by definition, based in moral systems that will be against certain behaviours whereas florists are not.

It's not that we afford religious organizations extra leeway, it's that religious organizations are rightfully recognized to be different from businesses.

The first sentence is a non sequitur.

The second sentence poses a distinction without a (meaningful, to this conversation) difference.

You didn't actually say anything.

[Shryke]

The first sentence is a non sequitur.

The second sentence poses a distinction without a (meaningful, to this conversation) difference.

You didn't actually say anything.

No, it's not. To all of this really.

A religious service is by definition based in a moral code. (Do X, Don't do Y) As such, religions are allowed to base their actions within those moral codes. Businesses are not founded on any sort of moral code and thus do not get the same leeway. This shit is simple.

A church can refuse to perform an interracial marriage on the grounds that it is against their religion. And that's ok because religion is what they do. A business is not allowed to refuse service to an interracial couple because businesses are not based in a moral system and the moral beliefs of specific individuals working for said business don't count.

You are attempting a poor, well trodden upon argument based on trying to conflate a business and a religious organization while ignoring that they are not the same thing at all. Your arguments are getting poorer with each reply.

[aceluby]

4. And the real questions is, how long are we going to allow that to be case? Given the two recent examples of encroachments by the government on First Amendment protections that I've highlighted in my previous post, I don't think the answer is "forever."

Your two examples are completely wrong when it comes to churches. There was a recent SC case that said churches are allowed to ignore discrimination laws when it comes to firing someone. Secondly, chruches ARE exempt from the BC mandate. No encroachments.

[Sci-2]

And the real questions is, how long are we going to allow that to be case? Given the two recent examples of encroachments by the government on First Amendment protections that I've highlighted in my previous post, I don't think the answer is "forever."

Both examples have to do with businesses trying to claim religious exemption.

Which ideally differs from religions seeking to serve their congregations. Otherwise, it seems to me, we go back to why these religions have tax exempt status in the first place.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

No, it's not. To all of this really.

A religious service is by definition based in a moral code. (Do X, Don't do Y) As such, religions are allowed to base their actions within those moral codes. Businesses are not founded on any sort of moral code and thus do not get the same leeway. This shit is simple.

Except that you are conflating the "freedom of religion" provided by the First Amendment with the "freedom of speech" (and per the Courts, as a corollary, "expression") provided by the First Amendment. You are explaining why the "freedom of religion" logic wouldn't lead one to provide the same protections to businesses engaged in speech and/or expression.

To which I can only respond - well no shit. That's not the argument that's being made.

Keep beating the straw man, though.

[Shryke]

Except that you are conflating the "freedom of religion" provided by the First Amendment with the "freedom of speech" (and per the Courts, as a corollary, "expression") provided by the First Amendment. You are explaining why the "freedom of religion" logic wouldn't lead one to provide the same protections to businesses engaged in speech and/or expression.

To which I can only respond - well no shit. That's not the argument that's being made.

Keep beating the straw man, though.

If that's a strawman, you are made of straw. You keep trying to act like the government cannot distinguish between a religion and a business when it clearly can. What applies to one does not apply to the other.

We've got a crystal clear line here and have for ages now. Businesses do not get to discriminate based on moral codes, religions do. It's a line that's even obvious and sensible.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

Your two examples are completely wrong when it comes to churches. There was a recent SC case that said churches are allowed to ignore discrimination laws when it comes to firing someone. Secondly, chruches ARE exempt from the BC mandate. No encroachments.

For once, I accept partial criticism. I was not being entirely precise, because as you intimate, while the ACA mandate excludes specifically churches and houses of worship as individual entities, it does not exclude organizations owned or wholly controlled by religious organizations, including religious charities, universities, etc.

[NestorMakhnosLovechild]

If that's a strawman, you are made of straw. You keep trying to act like the government cannot distinguish between a religion and a business when it clearly can. What applies to one does not apply to the other.

We've got a crystal clear line here and have for ages now. Businesses do not get to discriminate based on moral codes, religions do. It's a line that's even obvious and sensible.

Not only did I NOT say that - I have said, basically, the exact opposite several times in this very thread.

[Shryke]

For once, I accept partial criticism. I was not being entirely precise, because as you intimate, while the ACA mandate excludes specifically churches and houses of worship as individual entities, it does not exclude organizations owned or wholly controlled by religious organizations, including religious charities, universities, etc.

Yes. It recognizes that not all actions a religious organizations takes (or perhaps more accurately, not all things a religious organization is engaged in/running) are necessarily religious in nature.

[Shryke]

Not only did I NOT say that - I have said, basically, the exact opposite several times in this very thread.

Yes, you did. It's the basis of your entire argument. "Government can force churches to perform marriages they don't want to based on the same reasoning that let's them force businesses to deal with people they don't want to". http://asoiaf.westeros.org/index.php/topic/104489-us-politics-rand-paul-is-our-savior/?p=5475265

This chain of logic only works if you believe the government does not distinguish between the two entities. That what applies to one must apply to the other. Which is, again, false. The break in your attempted chain of logic here occurs when you try to make the required jump from "government doing something to a business" to "government doing something to a church".