Trump to sign "Religious Freedom" Executive Order

[JA]

Well, I guess it's time for someone in Silicon Valley to create an app that allows users to list businesses that engage in discrimination so every decent person can boycott them. We can all help them go bankrupt, especially if they're in liberal areas. If the Right wants this to be about freedom and consumer choice, then we can band together and make the choice to help destroy their businesses.

[Mr. Reactionary]

Do you guys understand that there is a humongous, basic, fundamental difference between MANDATING discrimination and allowing business owners to serve who they choose.

So this is fine with you?

     Assault is a rather different beast.

To some, not getting the cake they want is assault. There is such an expansive view of violence among some, I expect this argument to be made. Look at how the antifa idiots claim they are actually engaging in "self defense" because the mere existence of disagreeable viewpoints is violence. Or that not supporting BLM is violence because the status quo is itself violent.

I mean, rational people wouldnt want hateful bigots to cater their wedding,  but instead we have to deal with dumbasses suing other dumbasses in order to have the state compel performance of a personal service, which always makes me uneasy. Lets say a driver crashes his car through a landowners fence. While I support the court having power to enforce negative duties (remove your car from the landowners property) and  the power to enforce economic damages (cost of repairs), I think it would be awful if the court also had the power to physically enslave a person (force the driver at virtual gun point to replant landowners yard and rebuild his fence). Economic boycotts are better then men with guns.

[GlobeSoc]

R-e-a-g-a-n-i-t-e--C-o-n-s-e-r-v-a-t-i-v-e

[SoLongAtlas]

Religious freedom is the new tacit discrimination. All this does is pander to the religious "get those gays out my store!" crowd. Here's a tidbit for Christians (read hypocrites) that support this measure:

Matthew 22:36-40
6 Master, which is the great commandment in the law?

37 Jesus said unto him, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy mind.

38 This is the first and great commandment.

39 And the second is like unto it, Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.

[Brittain33]

Do you guys understand that there is a humongous, basic, fundamental difference between MANDATING discrimination and allowing business owners to serve who they choose.

Here's a very recent example of "religious liberty" in action. Let's be clear that this is the behavior we want to protect as religious expression:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2017/05/02/mississippi_funeral_home_sued_for_refusing_to_cremate_gay_man.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If your partner of 50+ years dies, and you contract with a funeral home to manage his remains, the funeral home can decide at the last minute "no homo" and in the middle of your grief you're scrambling to reschedule the funeral and find some other facility willing to serve gays within 90 miles. And this is all about "freedom of religion." Freedom.

Now, maybe you can say that you're comfortable with private companies discriminating against customers, and you'd be ok with segregated lunch counters and Jim Crow. That's an intellectually consistent position, if morally revolting. But it turns my stomach to pretend that this is an issue of freedom of religion when we are talking about pure discrimination with only the most tendentious and ludicrous connection to "religion" and which is really all about culture that views gays as subhumans.

[I Won - Get Over It]

Disgusting.


It will likely please Radical Christianity part of Trump's base, but it  likely won't survive courts. Trump knows it, but it still disgusting.

[pbrower2a]

As usual --

poorly contemplated
bypassing Congress
likely to fail Constitutional muster

Imagine that I own a bakery, and I am given a chance to make a wedding cake for a same-sex  couple. But one of my bakers is a devout Christian who refuses to bake and frost the cake because it will be used for an immoral purpose.

I tell that baker to go as far as possible as one could on a cake for a heterosexual couple That baker need not squirt "Adam and Steve"  or "Linda and Eve" on the cake or put the statuette depicting a same-sex couple onto the cake.  If I must do that, then I will. But I expect compliance to that point.

Are there cakes that I would not expect the baker to make? Sure -- some that I would never promise to make "Happy 130th Birthday Adolf" two years from now, with or without swastika is obviously a non-starter with me. Something sympathetic to human trafficking, drug dealing,  terrorism, or pedophilia would also be out of the question. The F-bomb is not available. Those are moral choices. Violation of copyright laws or trademarks? If I have a license to use characters from Warner Brothers but not Disney, then you are not going to get Mickey Mouse, Donald Duck, or Goofy. It's not that I find Disney characters offensive; it's that I don't want a lawsuit by Disney lawyers.

[Bojack Horseman]

So much for being the most gay-friendly president we've ever had. The first Republican candidate to wave a rainbow flag is now going to stab the LGBT community in the back.

This is a classic example of how the left manipulates language to mislead the public.

Do you guys understand that there is a humongous, basic, fundamental difference between MANDATING discrimination and allowing business owners to serve who they choose.

You can be pro-lgbt rights and still value private property rights of all americans. This was goldwater's basic issue and people never sought to understand him.

Would it be "anti-mormon" to pass a law saying homeowners are allowed to not open the door when mormon preachers ring  the bell?

I don't think you understand the fact that the religious right is the oppressive majority that people like me need to be protected from, not the other way around. As glad as I am to be born when I was so I was a young adult when gay marriage became legal, and most of the Bush-sponsored gay hate was before I even knew I was gay, this is a stark reminder that there is still a large segment of the population who hates me and people like me simply because of who we're attracted to.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Does anyone else hate how the term "religious freedom" has been hijacked, and come to mean anything but "freedom" for a lot of people?

Yes. But it turns into despair at how thoroughly our language has been hijacked across to board in service to goverment/corporate interests.

[The_Doctor]

I'd have to look at what the God Emperor did but I'm broadly supportive of the right of businesses to serve who they want as long as they don't receive federal funding for anything. I'm just uncomfortable with mandating a business to serve classes of people on an equal basis as that could create a precedent for regulating businesses in other areas. A baker shouldn't have fo serve gay couples if she doesn't want to; conversely, I find it more effective to shame and boycott these organizations and make it culturally difficult to actually do.

There are better ways to create equality than forcing it into law.

[MasterJedi]

I'd have to look at what the God Emperor did but I'm broadly supportive of the right of businesses to serve who they want as long as they don't receive federal funding for anything. I'm just uncomfortable with mandating a business to serve classes of people on an equal basis as that could create a precedent for regulating businesses in other areas. A baker shouldn't have fo serve gay couples if she doesn't want to; conversely, I find it more effective to shame and boycott these organizations and make it culturally difficult to actually do.

There are better ways to create equality than forcing it into law.

Either way the places that do this are generally small mom and pop shops and can be easily forced asunder due to their disgusting nature. Then again they'd rather go on welfare then make a cake for a gay person and be tolerant like Jesus.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

I'd have to look at what the God Emperor did but I'm broadly supportive of the right of businesses to serve who they want as long as they don't receive federal funding for anything. I'm just uncomfortable with mandating a business to serve classes of people on an equal basis as that could create a precedent for regulating businesses in other areas. A baker shouldn't have fo serve gay couples if she doesn't want to; conversely, I find it more effective to shame and boycott these organizations and make it culturally difficult to actually do.

There are better ways to create equality than forcing it into law.

All businesses in the US exist under the protection and supervision of the federal government. As such, they have certain obligations, including not discriminating against broad classes of the public.

If they feel so strongly about the need to discriminate"protect their religious freedums", they have several options. These include, operating a different type of business with more client selection, operating as a private club, or acting on their strength of their beliefs and accepting the consequences. 

That there are better ways to create equality than via the force of law is a nice sentiment, but not one  remotely validated by history.

[SteveRogers]

Do we have any idea yet what all this EO would actually do? This doesn't seem like an area where the president can do much unilaterally without accompanying legislation.

[Absentee Voting Ghost of Ruin]

Do we have any idea yet what all this EO would actually do? This doesn't seem like an area where the president can do much unilaterally without accompanying legislation.

Beyond pumping some badly needed hot air into Trump's deflated ego, not really.

It would appear that they're still trying to find a balance between writing something he'll like, and something that won't be immediately smacked down by the first court that looks at it.

We do have a leaked draft from back in February that didn't go anywhere:
https://www.thenation.com/article/leaked-draft-of-trumps-religious-freedom-order-reveals-sweeping-plans-to-legalize-discrimination/

[pbrower2a]

I'd have to look at what the God Emperor did but I'm broadly supportive of the right of businesses to serve who they want as long as they don't receive federal funding for anything. I'm just uncomfortable with mandating a business to serve classes of people on an equal basis as that could create a precedent for regulating businesses in other areas. A baker shouldn't have fo serve gay couples if she doesn't want to; conversely, I find it more effective to shame and boycott these organizations and make it culturally difficult to actually do.

There are better ways to create equality than forcing it into law.

Non-discrimination.

I think I have had ways to deal with some of the issues. A same-sex couple, a mixed-race couple, partisan politics? Fine.  There are people with qualms about doing certain things, and I suggested how the owner of a bakery might deal with an employee's qualms about certain things. I might have to do the slight work to do the task, but that is part of an ownership function.

But same-sex, biracial, or interfaith couples have legal protection. Some other things don't. I may prefer banking a cake for a bar mitzvah to making one that praises Adolf Hitler. I would rather bake cakes for fundamentalist Christians than risk their market by baking something obscene for which I am known. I do not endorse criminal behavior of any kind, and I am not going to risk a lawsuit as when offering an image of Donald Duck (for which I have no rights) instead of Daffy Duck (for which I have rights). Sure, the person asking for an image of Donald Duck might be new in town; so is one of Disney Corporation's lawyers who might be tricking me into a lawsuit that can put me out of business and cost me everything I have.  I have a right to avoid trouble in which I have no legal backing.

So if my employee cites chapter and verse from the Bible on why it same-sex, interracial, or interfaith marriage is wrong, then I have a practical solution of doing what might be contrary to my devout employee's values. Just don't ask me to put a swastika on a birthday cake.     

[MAINEiac4434]

But Hillary was just as bad as Trump on gay rights because she wasn't on the bleeding edge of marriage equality and something something something

[afleitch]

What about philosophical freedom? If white supremacy is part of who you are and your belief system, why can't you live it out free from persecution?

[🐒Gods of Prosperity🔱🐲💸]

Do you guys understand that there is a humongous, basic, fundamental difference between MANDATING discrimination and allowing business owners to serve who they choose.

Here's a very recent example of "religious liberty" in action. Let's be clear that this is the behavior we want to protect as religious expression:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2017/05/02/mississippi_funeral_home_sued_for_refusing_to_cremate_gay_man.html

You must be logged in to read this quote.

If your partner of 50+ years dies, and you contract with a funeral home to manage his remains, the funeral home can decide at the last minute "no homo" and in the middle of your grief you're scrambling to reschedule the funeral and find some other facility willing to serve gays within 90 miles. And this is all about "freedom of religion." Freedom.

Now, maybe you can say that you're comfortable with private companies discriminating against customers, and you'd be ok with segregated lunch counters and Jim Crow. That's an intellectually consistent position, if morally revolting. But it turns my stomach to pretend that this is an issue of freedom of religion when we are talking about pure discrimination with only the most tendentious and ludicrous connection to "religion" and which is really all about culture that views gays as subhumans.

If the story here is to be believed, then it is illegal to breach contract in this way, and no religious freedom executive order or legislation that has been seriously proposed would change that.

[Helsinkian]

The thing about small bakeries is that making and decorating a cake can be considered to be a form of art. It's different than selling an already made cake. I don't feel comfortable forcing an artist to create a piece of art that he doesn't want to create.

If a Christian customer goes to a gay baker and asks him to bake him a cake with the words "1 Corinthians 6:9" (a verse condemning homosexuality), or the content of that verse, written onto it, should the baker be forced to bake the cake?

[#gravelgang #lessiglad]

Do we have any idea yet what all this EO would actually do? This doesn't seem like an area where the president can do much unilaterally without accompanying legislation.

The only part of this EO that may sustain a court's scrutiny is the part directing the IRS to essentially ignore the Johnson Amendment, which prohibits 501(c)(3)s from endorsing a political candidate.

[pbrower2a]

We are making much about the baker/cake decoration example, aren't we?

It's not considered great art. The visual and verbal expressions are usually benign and predictable. Making an image of Half Dome would be art. "Happy Birthday, Julie!" isn't. Technically, a pornographic image might be art requiring more sophistication than the expression, Happy Retirement, Susan!" "Snake for Senate", "Graft for Governor", "Moron for Mayor", and "Crook for Congress" (names altered to depict what the decorator might think -- use the real names if you wish) would be reasonable expectations even if one disagrees with the candidate.

As an artistic image, Half Dome should be no problem as an object of controversy. A salacious image might. "Congratulations on your marriage, Adam and Steve" might offend anyone with anti-homosexual views. If one ads a depiction of sex between two men one has even more cause for contempt. Just because a decorating artist might be able to come up with a depiction of overt sexuality (and this would be a problem for straight sexuality, too, for most people) does not mean that such is appropriate.

Text? The salacious language of 'Humbert Humbert' in Lolita is necessary for creating the story -- but in context it develops the character of a villain in a literary masterpiece. Out of context it would be inappropriate for offering a 12-year-old girl. If a potential customer asked me to bake a cake and use such text as a decoration. them I might need to call the police to warn them of the potential for child sexual abuse. I would cooperate with the police, even putting the text on a cake for delivery to the pervert just to create a most delectable corpus delicti.  Protecting a twelve-year-old girl from someone old enough to be her grandfather is the issue.  

Freedom of speech includes the right to remain silent, especially in refusing to endorse what one considers objectionable. After all, one is completely free to express the official line of the North Korean government in North Korea.    

[Brittain33]

If the story here is to be believed, then it is illegal to breach contract in this way

Have you reviewed the contract signed with the Picayune funeral home, or are you just guessing?

[MasterJedi]

The thing about small bakeries is that making and decorating a cake can be considered to be a form of art. It's different than selling an already made cake. I don't feel comfortable forcing an artist to create a piece of art that he doesn't want to create.

If a Christian customer goes to a gay baker and asks him to bake him a cake with the words "1 Corinthians 6:9" (a verse condemning homosexuality), or the content of that verse, written onto it, should the baker be forced to bake the cake?

It starts with the cakes and then goes to schools not wanting to teach gay kids or Doctor's refusing to treat gay patients. Needs to be squashed at this level otherwise it is guaranteed to get to that level.

[HAnnA MArin County]

Wait, I thought Ivanka told him not to pick on the LGBTQIA community for fear that it would damage their standings in the social bourgeois, because as much as Republicans hate gay leople, they love money more.

Poor Donald is so desperate for a "win" that he's willing to throw anybody under the bus, more proof that he's all about himself and no one else.

But hey, tell me again about Hillary not supporting gay marriage something something 2002 statement?

[pbrower2a]

Most Americans have gone from seeing homosexuality as 'icky' to 'inevitable'. Maybe they have gotten to know that homosexuality is harmless (the argument "Gay is OK, but not for me") in contrast to homophobia which can hurt anyone, straight or homosexual.  Homosexuality isn't about sex; it's about love. Acceptance of homosexual marriage has come about faster than acceptance of interracial marriage.

If there are people who cannot love people of their own 'racial' group, then they will need the right to interracial marriage if they are to get love (and that's before I even discuss people that look very different yet find much in common). There are people who cannot love the other gender; for them same-sex marriage is a necessity if they are to get love.