Here we go again.
My state, Georgia, is in the throes of another legislative season where various bills are proposed. These relate to gay marriage, protection of pastors, religious liberty, and the ability of Georgians to discriminate. How the issues are framed depend on which side you are on. Check a few quotes:
Our Governor, Nathan Deal, a Southern Baptist, says he is not interested in any bill that “allows discrimination in our state in order to protect people of faith…”
Our paid Georgia Baptist lobbyist, Mike Griffin, a pastor, failed political candidate, and now employee of the Georgia Baptist Mission Board who roams the Capitol on our payroll says, “When it comes to the issue of marriage, while that’s changed [i.e. the SCOTUS definition of marriage], God’s definition has not.”
They are on opposite sides of legislative stuff on the issue but you’ve got to read between the lines to understand either on of them.
Deal doesn’t want a state where gay people may be discriminated against.
Griffin doesn’t want a state where people can be prosecuted for their religious beliefs on marriage. He says that House bill 757 currently bouncing around the Capitol, “protects people of faith from discrimination by the government coercing them into actions that violate their religious beliefs.”
Deal invokes Jesus and quotes the New Testament where “Jesus reached out to those who were considered outcasts…” and that “we do not have a belief…that says we have to discriminate against anybody.”
The quotes above are from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution which I can’t link. Try another, similar, here.
Griffin has a breathless article in the Christian Index that’s adds a bit. In “Religious Freedom Held in the Balance”, he says that the bill “will protect individuals (ex. counselors), churches, private schools, private colleges, adoption agencies, nonprofit organizations, and businesses from adverse government action because of their beliefs on marriage.”
Deal believes it to be a license to discriminate. A gay individual comes into a shoe store and is denied service because the owner (or worker) is against gay marriage. A gay couple is refused service at a restaurant. A gay couple wants to fly Delta to San Francisco for their honeymoon. A gay couple wants to stay at a motel. A gay couple wants to buy a Coke from the corner store. A gay couple wants to by some paint to fix up their domicile with some rainbow paint scheme. A gay couple wants to attend an AA meeting or a Celebrate Recovery meeting. In any of these scenarios, as I understand it, the current bill would give the individual a legal basis to discriminate against the gay person or couple, and that on the basis of the owner/employee’s religious convictions.
I’d ask Griffin if other religious beliefs are so protected. Interracial marriage or dating? Serving divorced people? People have religious convictions about these. Does the government have a list of acceptable beliefs that should be protected and a list of those that should not? Who decided what goes on what list? Is the bill narrowly crafted to deal with only the issue of marriage? Are gay people who shack up, but who aren’t married, not impacted by the proposed legislation?
To the public, Griffin says the bill doesn’t discriminate against anyone but just protects everyone’s religious beliefs.
To the Baptist choir, Griffin says that,
The opposition forces I face at the Capitol are passionate and aggressive in letting their voices be heard above everyone else’s. But the church, as a whole, is too quiet on these matters. We are simply allowing opportunities to get away from us. This is why I am asking for your help! We must not let the government do to us what Hitler did to the pastors and churches of his day. He got them to accept his protection from government action if they would agree to stay out of government. He basically said, you take care of the church and leave government to me. Pastors, this is happening before our eyes today!
Governor Deal, a Baptist, remember, is the representative of Adolph Hitler, sans mustache.
I have an idea. Junk the whole business and start over. Find a way to protect a narrow group of people (bakers, florists) who perform personal, artistic, or creative services for weddings and the like. Pass the naked Pastor Protection Bill (stripped of the expansive religious liberty language to which Deal and others object) that just says ministers (not government employees, officials like clerks, probate judges, and justices of the peace) shall not be required to perform any marriage to which they object. I’d note that no minister, not a single one, ever, has been prosecuted for doing so, but pass the bill anyway.
Deal has the mammoth Coca-Cola Company, Home Depot, and Delta Air Lines on his side. Griffin has a small but vocal cadre of Georgia Baptists on his side. While Griffin has pastored, run for office, and now works as a lobbyist in this state we have approved the lottery and other forms of gambling and greatly relaxed laws on alcohol. Maybe Griffin would find a better use of his time by soul winning and getting people saved, their hearts changed, and their lives turned around. Or maybe we could have our own laws that prohibit immigration from anywhere north of the Mason Dixon line or ban all people under the age of 50 from the state, those are the demographics that do not share what some are calling “traditional values.”
Plodder makes a stunning prediction: The Baptist governor, Coke, Delta, and Home Depot win. Griffin loses, but has plenty of material for the next breathless missive. Perhaps he could go beyond Hitler and work Stalin, Pol Pot, and Chairman Mao.
[For the record: I’m a one man, one woman, for life, guy. And I’m perfectly open to someone threading this needle. There’s bound to be a ton of things I haven’t thought about.]
Maybe there would be a way to thread that needle, if that little eyelet was really the problem.
It may be for some, but for many it is not.
Their problem is a group of people, a sub group of evangelicals [but sadly not all who call themselves such] insist that God is against gay marriage and gay sex.
So instead of going to their favorite bakery for wedding cake, they go to John and Johanna Christian bakery because they want to make a fuss. They want to hire Bill Sbcer to do their photographs, and they want the wedding done at First Baptist. [Well maybe not the latter…. YET.]
They, as a movement -certainly not everyone of them, want to break down every barrier thats excluded them from a ‘full’ life. [maybe because their life style is unsatisfying and Christians are to blame -not the life style?]
And so they are forcing a clash between religious and secular positions.
Which by the way is what many Muslims are doing on the other side -the religious side as opposed to the gay secular side. They want laws passed that guarantee them freedom from secular rules.
One example is that they want to be allowed to have a place to wash their feet at work so they can then lay out their prayer mat and fulfill their obligation. Not break or lunch time, no matter, its time. Again, not all, but the ones who care the most about their religion.
And who is behind this battle against Christian believers and for Muslim believers? Our enemy of course. The forces of darkness.
I don’t mean Georgia’s governor either. A politician has to seek to thread that needle, which is hard to do. But in the end, that little eyelet isn’t really the problem, for it will become smaller and narrower, and then poof, it will disappear!
“One example is that they want to be allowed to have a place to wash their feet at work so they can then lay out their prayer mat and fulfill their obligation.”
There is a notable difference between telling someone, “You have to do this new thing in order to accommodate religious views,” versus, “you are not allowed to pick and choose who gets to receive the services you already offer.” The latter is an issue of discrimination, the former is not.
If I pay two employees $15 an hour to do the same work, and one of them insists on taking extra breaks, don’t you think that the other employee(s) might be resentful?
Besides I wasn’t trying to tit for tat accurate. One only has to read about sharia law demands in Western countries to see what is coming down the road.
That stuff has history of litigation and a body of case law. It’s not the subject here.
William, I think that you threaded the needle quite nicely in your article.
I guess what I meant by threaded the needle is that I thought that you offered a great compromise in your article. The fact is that same sex marriage is now the law of the land, and the best thing that we can do is take measures to ensure that everyone’s Constitutional rights are protected.
A county Clerk, or a Judge have both taken on a job that requires them to comply with and even enforce laws that they might disagree with. On the cake thing, although I really don’t think that the interracial marriage comparison is valid, I do think that the overall point of not legally being able to discriminate is a valid point. If you provide a service to the public then within reason, you should be willing to serve all the public. Having said this, I can think of scenarios where one might feel obliged to deny service, the gay couple thing being one. The lady had routinely served gay people in her business, she just didn’t want to be a party to their marriage.
That’s right John, The whole notion that is used by the gay lobbyist and thier “politically correct” cohorts (The Baker should sell cupcakes to gay people) is unfair, invalid and inaccurate. I’m not sure I have seen a case where a baker or a restaurant has denied service to a homosexual couple – simply because they are homosexual – has anyone actually seen a case like that?
However, I have seen where they have denied to take part in thier homosexual ceremony. That is the difference. If I am a baker and two guys walking and holding hands and they want a cupcake and a Coke – why would I not sell him a cupcake and a Coke that’s what I’m in business for – however if they come in and say Dave we would like for you to make th that is the difference. If I am a baker in two guys walking and holding hands and they want a cupcake and a Coke – why would I not sell him a cupcake and a Coke that’s what I’m in business for – however if they come in and say – We demand you to use your speech (artistic ability) the way that we tell you to – I think the latter is very wrong and is a violation of my freedom of speech, Association and freedom of religion.
Even though I asked the question above – why wouldn’t I sell them a cupcake and a Coke – I think another question should be asked in our free society – if I open a business should I not be free to operate the business as I see fit?
If I choose to “discriminate” against people with blue eyes – and I refuse to accommodate people with blue eyes – then am I not limiting my own business and potentially leading toward the failure of that business by my own action? In a free-market society once the word gets out that I do not serve people with blue eyes then people with blue eyes will not come into my business – further people who are married to people with blue eyes will not be coming to my business – further people who have children that I have blue eyes were not coming to my business – and even further often times people who have friends that have blue eyes will not come into my business – eventually – because of my own business stupidity – I have elimated it for myself so much of the consumer public – that I have lost my business.
If people are free to operate their business the way that they desire – then also people are free to protest and to spread the word about that business – you have freedom on both sides – and free-market decisions determines who “wins and loses”.
I personally think it is wrong to discriminate against people simply for the purpose of discriminating – however I do think there are times when it is completely valid both politically, socially, and more portl however I do think there are times when it is completely valid both politically, socially, in more importantly within our religious conscience to say “I refuse to participate”.
I also think it’s wrong for people to “provoke” others so they can yell discrimination – in other words – if the homosexuals could have gone to another baker/photographer/florist – then they should simply do that.
I think is very stupid to discriminate and if some one has a business and they are discriminating in my community I can demonstrate my displeasure by not frequenting the business – even if I am not part of the group that is being discriminating against and working to expose the discrimination.
I going to try that again…
That’s right John, The whole notion (and talking point) that is used by the gay lobbyist and thier “politically correct” cohorts (The Baker should sell cupcakes to gay people) is unfair, invalid, incomplete and inaccurate. Even Kasich has used this faulty argument several times.
I’m not sure I have seen a case where a baker or a restaurant (caterer) has denied service to a homosexual couple – simply because they are homosexual – every case I have seen the business person is asked to participate in activity that goes beyond the mere selling of a product…. has anyone actually seen a case where a business has outright said “we will not serve gays, at all, ever”?
Specifically, I have seen where they have denied to take part in thier homosexual ceremony. That is the difference. If I am a baker and two guys walking and holding hands and they want a cupcake and a Coke – why would I not sell him a cupcake and a Coke that’s what I’m in business for – however if they come in and say –
“We demand you to and associate yourself with our ceremony and to use your speech (artistic ability) the way that we tell you, or else, and if you don’t we will use the power of the government to come down on you!”
I think the latter is very wrong and is a violation of my freedom of speech, Association and freedom of my free practice of religion (which includes my freedom adhering to religious principle within my business).
Even though I asked the question above – why wouldn’t I sell them a cupcake and a Coke – I think another question should be asked in our free society – if I open a business should I not be free to operate the business as I see fit? Are we free or not? Do our freedoms extend to speech that is unpopular? To religious expression in my life beyond simply that of my home and my church?
If a business owner chooses to “discriminate” against people with blue eyes – and I refuse to accommodate people with blue eyes – then am I not limiting my own business and potentially leading toward the failure of that business by my own stupid action? In a free-market society once the word gets out that I do not serve people with blue eyes then people with blue eyes will not come into my business – further people who are married to people with blue eyes will not be coming to my business – further people who have children that I have blue eyes were not coming to my business – and even further often times people who have friends that have blue eyes will not come into my business – eventually – because of my own business stupidity – I have eliminated for myself such a great portion of the consumer public – that it will only be a matter of time before I lose my business – and my reputation for that matter.
If people are free to operate their business the way that they desire – then also people are free to not make purchases or to otherwise participate with them in consumerism and further are free to protest and to spread the word about that business – you have freedom on both sides – and free-market decisions determines who “wins and loses”.
I personally think it is wrong to discriminate against people simply for the purpose of discriminating – However I do think there are times when it is completely valid politically, socially, in more importantly within our religious conscience to say “I refuse to participate in _________”. IMO, that should not be against the law.
I also think it’s wrong for people to “provoke” others so they can yell discrimination – in other words – if the homosexuals could have gone to another baker/photographer/florist – then they should simply do that – just like in my example if a bakery does not serve blue eyed people and I am offended by that – one can simply go elsewhere.
I think is very stupid to discriminate and if some one has a business and they are discriminating in my community I can demonstrate my displeasure by not frequenting the business – even if I am not part of the group that is being discriminating against and working to expose the discrimination.
#letthefreemarketwork!
#Peopledonothavearighttoforcesomeoneelsetoparticipateinsomething
#businessesareprivateletthemoperateastheywish
I appreciate the comment, John, as well as Tarheel’s lengthy elaboration.
I’m not sure, Dave, how to codify the artistic expression business, neither am I seeing a bright line in cupcakes vs wedding cakes. It seems odd that you would happily (or dourly) serve a rainbow cupcake to a kissy same sex couple who celebrate right in front of you but not want to deliver the wedding cake to an event you would not attend. Not to argue with your sensitivities, I just don’t see workable statutes…but maybe someone has some.
I suspect that the anti-discrimination argument will easily win the day, especially when the Baptists are invoking Hitler to make their arguments.
I don’t know that there’s a difference either – but as I said in my post – apparently repeatedly -LOL – I think he should be up to the business owner whether he does either – I’m saying that if I owned a bakery my conscience would allow me to sell a cupcake and a coat to someone who walks in off the street – but I would have a problem decorating a wedding cake for a homosexual couple.
Guess what I’m saying is that it should be up to the business owner as to how he deals with it. It’s also important to note that we’re not talking about a hospital or grocery store or somewhere that sells/provides essential services – we’re talking about luxury items (bakery, florist, photography) that no one is entitled to and no one should be required to provide.
Not only is treating people unfairly wrong – it’s Bad business practice. The free market will handle it – if allowed to do so.
*a cupcake and a coke…(not a coat)
Meanwhile, Georgia Senate bill 6 is written to deny driver’s licenses to DACA recipients.
Probably done as a response to one of Obama’s questionable Executive Orders.
The above comment is the first of mine to go into moderation. Is there any particular reason for this?
There’s no record I can find of any of your comments ever being made here. No “Kep” has ever made a comment here. A first-time comment is always held for moderation. Is it possible that you’ve commented previously under a different name?
So sorry, Dave. I can’t even spell my own name.
Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA)
Aren’t these persons illegals? People who have been here for many years and never bothered to earn citizenship or legal status?