Between the Hobby Lobby decision and the Masterpiece Cake Shop case, it's become clear that freedom of religion seems to come into conflict with protected classes and basic healthcare policies. Since ending the freedom of religion obviously isn't an option that any free society would move forward with, it seems like the only way to resolve this is to limit protected classes to government interaction. Government should serve all individuals equally, but the private sector should have the freedom to associate with who it pleases. Religious people could refuse service to gay people and vice versa. White people could refuse to service to minorities, while minorities could refuse service to white people or other minorities. It would likely result in a few conflicts initially, but over time, I think most bigotry would be shunned by the mainstream. And for those who remain bigots, they would effectively isolate themselves. Any thoughts?
That depends on how you define morality. Some religious people believe homosexuality is immoral. In the meantime, others believe a lack of tolerance is immoral.
Morality is I am the authority and you all have to bow down before me and follow my edicts. I am better than you so you must all live by my standards. That's morality.
That simple idea has been behind almost everything bad that has happened in the last 15,000 years of human existence
I guess some people are like that, but what I'm aiming for is an expansion of freedom of choice, so that we can avoid these conflicts with religion.
Not completely sure I share the concern. I see potential, for sure. But the decision was very limited, and I can't see religious people refusing service to gay people and vice versa, or white people refusing to service to minorities, or minorities refusing service to white people or other minorities....or at least not mandated by any SCOTUS decisions - - - Updated - - - Not at the federal level you don't. That only works for roudy teenagers and the family alchoholics
Well, I guess what I'm saying is this. Currently, it's mostly a one-way street. Only certain states protect gay people from discrimination, while all states protect religion. So, gay people can be discriminated against, while religious people can't be, in a lot of the country. In addition to this, labor rights, healthcare rights, and pretty much everything else is subject to the whims of religion in the private sector. So we're already halfway at a point where the religious get the benefit of freedom of association, but the rest of us don't. I'd rather live in a country where everyone gets this freedom, and things like prejudice are more out in the open, so that I can ensure that my money doesn't fund things like prejudice or bigotry.
Nothing good ever comes out of freedom of choice. What Americans value is conformity. They jsut can't agree on what to conform to.
I hear ya....but honestly....I'm ready to write the conservative south and midwest off. I wish they were their own Christian Republic. States like New York, California, and others woul be so much better off without them, economically, and emotionally. Saving that...the best alternative is to leave those states alone, and let them figure out all over again why people stopped doing the things they want to bring back. On a tangent...I think that's the biggest problem I have with pseudo Libertarians. They seem to have forgotten history, or intentionally embrace revisionism
It is true that Americans in general don't have as comprehensive of an appreciation of freedom as they should.
I know what you mean. I'm libertarian myself, but I'm of the Chomsky variety, not the Ayn Rand one. Still, I think Americans of today are considerably less bigoted than Americans of the 50s and 60s. That being said, there are definitely times when I'd like to move to a different country.
It was no conflict of or with religion, the owners were still free to believe any way they wished, but now a business is defined as a person and have beliefs, at least according to the SC. There will be no end to people of faith attempting to force others to abide by their beliefs, there are plenty of laws on the books that show this to be true, so hence there will never be an end to the conflict, because even people of faith such as myself believe that my rights end where anothers begin and will stand up against those that want to use the government and laws to force their beliefs on others. The Hobby Lobby will far reaching impact on how people running businesses will conduct business, believe me it will not work out the way some believe it will. As for your idea in the OP, I totally disagree, descriminate all you want in your personal life, associate with whom you wish, but the law says when you run a business you cannot do so and that should remain the law.
There is Nothing to prevent a business from providing healthcare coverage to those catch sexually transmitted illnesses, straight or gay, care for single women going to have a baby, treatment for drinking or smoking related illnesses all would be covered under the ruling, watch and learn, if people can use a law to their advantage they will.
Well, that's the thing though. Even though I personally disagree with Hobby Lobby's stance on contraception, it's their health plan. Wouldn't it actually be the government forcing them to abide by rules rather than the other way around? I'd have to agree with the following post here: Don't get me wrong. I think a lot of religious groups have antiquated beliefs and even bigoted ones, but freedom of choice would logically extend to business practices. That being said, there are still labor laws and consumer rights that should apply.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." http://constitution.findlaw.com/amendment1/amendment.html#sthash.nChjmTOn.dpuf While the attacks are piecemeal the intent of the liberals is to do away with the 1st Amendment. Freedom of speech, freedom of religion, the prohibition on a state religion, freedom of the press, the right to assemble, and the right to petition for a redress of grievances are all objectionable to the leftists. Of course, in the new dictatorship the entire Constitution will be eliminated.
I don't really see why it's anyone else's business what someone else's preferences are. If some people like apples instead of oranges I don't care, so why should I care if they like blacks more than whites, or straights more than gays? As long as contracts are honoured, as long as everyone has the same rights, who cares?
The problem with "freedom of association" is that it is not defined anywhere. It is not in the Constitution, and so we have relied on the common-law and courts to define what it is (which state that Freedom of Association with limits is found implicitly in the Constitution). Because it's not written out like freedom of speech, religion, assembly; equal protection clause; due process clause; etc, it is up to the courts (basically SCOTUS) to tell us what it means. As given out under the common-law in the U.S., "freedom of association" has never been found to mean that private citizens can discriminate as they see fit. We can argue whether it is such a fundamental right that the founding fathers never felt the need to write it down, it's implicit in the 1st/9th/10th amendments, etc. But my point is that in terms of U.S. law is has never meant that people can discriminate as they see fit.
Fair points, but in practice, it seems like the government itself has been more guilty of discrimination than the private sector or individuals. Slavery was legal for a long time and promoted through government by the creation of slave states. The way the government treated Native Americans was definitely discriminatory in the 1800s. Various immigration laws were passed that blocked people from areas like China from coming here or at least obtaining citizenship. State governments in the South created Jim Crow laws. Thousands of Japanese-Americans were put into internment camps during WW2. During the Red Scare, people even simply suspected of harboring support for Communism were publicly harassed by courts. The list goes on and on. Now, it is true that government is somewhat representative of its people's prejudices, but in general, the biggest problems with discrimination in the history of this country came from government actions, not private ones. So, it seems a bit ironic that we have to depend on the same institution to prohibit discrimination privately.
While it is true the government is just as guilty of it, a lot of the big examples you named (and there are certainly others that happened later) were before the Reconstruction Amendments which served to limit the powers of the individual states. It is unfair to say that the private sector is not just as guilty of it. Besides the classic segregation you had in restaurants and stores, there was employment discrimination, lending discrimination, housing discrimination, etc, and there was enough of it that the Federal Government had to step in (via the commerce clause) to protect the minority from the majority. I also think it is important to note that the same people who make up the government are our fellow citizens, especially at a municipal level. In the end it's a hard balance, two points of the Constitution are to empower the people while at the same time protect the minority from the majority. Sometimes the more power you grant to individuals and states, the harder it is to protect the minority from the majority.
Minority rights are definitely important. Still, I get the impression we've evolved as a society to the point where open practice of discrimination will usually result in punishment by the market. If discrimination was legal in terms of refusing service, hiring, lending, or housing, it would still make headlines if a prominent business showed a pattern of behavior that indicated any of this. Imagine the outcry if Bank of America was shown to be refusing service to black people, for example. The same goes for most discrimination against gay people. Where I differ from the status quo is that I don't believe everyone has a right to be served or employed by a given business. I believe labor has certain rights as do consumers, but if a business owner chooses to not serve a particular group, that's his/her choice. And in most cases, it's a bad choice even from a purely selfish perspective given the likely backlash.
