In this episode, the Drunk Ex-Pastors respond to a listener’s misgivings about how we handled the Kim Davis controversy, which leads to a discussion about elected officials, civil disobedience, and what Jesus thinks about it all. Jason tries to tell a story about his dad, which Christian interrupts with something about his own father that is so poignant that it would move most normal people to tears (Jason, irritated at the interruption, politely listens until he can finish his own story). We return to porn (as men so often do), this time tackling the issue of how many boobs a person has to see before he becomes a sociopathic necrophile. Christian is biebered by Catholics who think like Calvinists, and Jason has no bieber since we ran out of time.
Also, that’s right, we forgot: YOUR WIFE’S DEAD!
Links from this Episode:
Podcast #344: Customer “Service,” Cats vs. Dogs, and Our Former Evangelical Faith
Podcast #242: Liars, Rich People, and the Beauty of Meaninglessness
Podcast #416: Toilet Seats, Religious Texts, and Marriage
Podcast #231: Fragile Masculinity and Dominion Theology
Christian’s bieber: “the view that people will become the worse that they possibly can be, if you allow them an inch… and the idea that you can control that through law”
To be fair, I never said that they will become the worse that they can be. I’m worried about the gradual move in a dangerous direct generation after generation. I’m most concerned about value of human life becoming less and less emphasized. The point I was trying to make is that legality DOES tend to legitimize certain ideas/behaviors in culture, especially for the unreflective person. For example, some people don’t do certain drugs simply because they are illegal. Things being illegal tends to drive them underground and out of the view of the public eye, thus they aren’t seen as normal. The thought that I should be able to have complete control of my fertility (contraception being legalized) lead to the idea that I should be able to end the lives of my unborn children. The idea that the deeply suffering dying person should be allowed to legally commit suicide, leads to the suffering non-dying person to legally commit suicide, soon to the socially pressured “inconvenient” elderly person. This is not the direction I want society to move in. It was never about the idea that a person is going to be the worse that they can possible be, it is about the reasonable person making a terrible regretful mistake because society said it was okay.
Also, aren’t you an environmentalist? So I assume you are all for regulations against the actions of corporations. What – do you think that the people running those companies are going to be the worse they can possibly be if you allow them an inch? They are going to the bare minimum by law in a lot of cases – not every case, some people will make good choices without the regulations. You see what I mean?
You also made some comments about the roles of the church (and how it applies the Gospel) and the state. I agree, but I am not only a member of the Church but also a citizen of this country. So I have every right to influence my government and society using my understanding of what promotes the flourishing of society.
Also, when we were talking about incestuous marriages. I pointed to an actual group of activists that were trying to open marriage up to people closely related. And, I pointed to studies where normal people find themselves having strong sexual feelings for closely related people. Namely, where, say a father and a daughter, meet for the first time as adults. This could happen due to giving up a baby to adoption or sperm donation. The rate of occurrence of having these sexual feelings were as high as 50%(!) of the time for people in these situations.
I just don’t think that a bunch of people who have no desire to marry their sibling are all of the sudden going to want to marry their sibling because it’s no longer illegal. Each stance you take tends to assume that human will become the worst version of themselves without laws. I watched the move “The Purge” recently, and it just made no sense to me. I don’t think a bunch of people would all of the sudden go murder people just because they can.
As far as the environmental regulations go, I don’t view corporations as people, and I believe that corporations (driven as they are by a goal of making as much money as possible) will, in general, disregard the wellbeing of society if it means more profits.
I don’t think corporations are people either, but I do think the decisions being made are made by people.
Sure, but the regulations aren’t on the people, they’re on the corporations, and they’re there because corporations behave differently than people. To me, it’s kind of like how people behave differently online than they do in real life.
” Each stance you take tends to assume that human will become the worst version of themselves without laws”
I believe when a prohibition is lifted in the law, that people, some people, will move in the direction of the lifted prohibition. Yes.
What I don’t believe is that people will become the worse that they could possibly be.
People act like shit online because there is no social pressure or rules to prevent them from doing so otherwise… Which seems to counter your point.
• Dick Bush. The only good Bush out there.
• You know, no one thought Japan could do cars better than America or Europe at one time either. I’d give them a chance on booze. If I still drank booze anyway. Maybe when I’m done with this no grain diet and I weigh in at 160 lbs again, I’ll celebrate with a shot of Japanese whiskey.
• People really have no idea what Born in the USA was about. The lyrics describe a man who was born into poverty, had the shit kicked out of him, was shipped off by the government to Vietnam, then abandoned when he comes home by corporations as he can’t find a job and by the government as the VA gives him no help, and he wanders just continuing to live without hope. It’s a stinging rebuke of the idea of the American dream, which… I suppose does fit perfectly with where the Republican party would like to take America and what Reagan’s policies did.
• “My ex-wife is a real witch.”
“That’s a horrible thing to say.”
“No, no… she’s a practicing wiccan.”
Thank you, I’ll be here all week. Tip your wait staff.
• In response to Jason’s attempt to sell indulgences to your patrons, I attempted to nail my 95 thesis in response to the Papacy to my computer screen. It did not go well.
• Porn. It’s a big topic. It’s a hard topic. It’s something we can have a long talk over that hopefully becomes a penetrating conversation that stimulates the mind. Penis.
• You guys really do sound like an old married couple.
• Dead dad jokes… that is really fucked up.
• How far out of their way should a gay couple have to go to exercise their right to be married? 10 miles? 50 miles? The next county over? The next State over? Cross-country to California? How much of a penalty should be inflicted upon that couple to satisfy the whims of a religious person? There are limits on religious freedom in the same manner that there are limits on speech and are supposed to be limits on guns.
• They aren’t only doing something political, they are doing something legal. If you wish to have legal standing in court to challenge a law or government action, you must demonstrate that the law affects you or harms you.
• Kim Davis just signed a seven figure book deal. So yeah, she’s cashing in on her 15 minutes of fame. Expect her to be the darling of the evangelical lecture and radio set for quite some time.
• Another difference between the apostles and Kim Davis is that the apostles (except possibly for Paul) heard directly from Jesus to go and preach. Kim Davis, in so far as we know, has had no word from the mouth of Jesus to refuse to do her job. Why do we have to accommodate and respect every individual’s idea of whatever they think a voice in their head tells them to do or not do?
• Separation of church and state is really the only way to guarantee religious freedom for everyone. Otherwise, your religious freedom is subject to the whims of the majority of Americans and what happens when the majority of Americans no longer agree with you?
• I don’t like a lot of laws. I obey them anyway because that is the system of government we live under.
• Again, IANAL, but as I understand it, it’s a legal matter. To bring court action, you need standing. To get standing, you have to show harm.
• As far as the private sector goes, Christians who discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation run afoul of anti-discrimination laws which prevent private for-profit businesses from refusing services or refusing to hire someone just because they are gay or black or white or Christian.
Does it violate your freedom? Perhaps, but there is a long and ugly history in this country of discrimination against minorities and the government and courts have found a compelling interest in forcing all businesses to abide by anti-discrimination laws. Would Christians feel so blasé about these laws if they encountered signs that said, “Christians need not apply” or were told by a server, “We don’t serve your kind here” as she pointed to a cross on their necks? Would they feel happy about it if they were told by the state, “We won’t marry you go drive 50 miles to the next county?” I doubt it.
• Would it be okay for a private Christian baker to tell a black man, “No, I won’t cater your wedding.” Or tell an interracial couple, “No, God says you should only marry your own kind.”
• The free market will not punish discrimination if the majority of citizens are in favor of it. Throughout the South there were plenty of customers supporting restaurants that forced black people to enter in through a different door, refused to let them sit, and only served them take-out orders.
• Jesus would go to your big gay wedding. If only to let everyone there know that God loved them and share the news of the kingdom of God.
• The devil made me do it. The porn made me do it. No, you have psychological issues and now you’re deflecting your responsibility and your guilt upon a boogeyman that you claim drove you to do it. “It snatched me out of my home…” See? I’m not responsible. I’m not guilty. It’s the porn. I’m an addict. I just couldn’t help myself. Bullshit. Bundy was a sociopath that had mental problems and never got help or treatment, then spent his remaining years trying to absolve himself of responsibility.
• If porn leads to violence, then as soon as the internet was invented, we should have ended up in a Mad Max dystopia within five years.
• Seeing naked women never gets old if you’re well-adjusted.
Isn’t labeling Bundy a sociopath doing the same thing, pushing off his responsibility to a mental illness. It wasn’t Bundy that did it, but is brain?
I find myself mildly biebered my the way @christiankingery:disqus characterized my position on the podcast.
No. There are plenty of sociopaths without other mental issues that have productive careers in corporate America because even in their warped mind, they recognize that the best way for them to thrive is to try and act normally in society. There was a study, if I recall, that sociopaths made great CEOs. Which would explain a great many things.
And there are plenty of people who have horrible, awful thoughts and take responsibility and try and get treatment.
It’s the people who choose to act on those thoughts and then try to blame anything but themselves that I don’t have time for.
But it mainly due to being grouped with Calvinists. =)
I think is okay for a private company to limit its service due to issues of conscience. In the case of the bakeries not wanting to make cakes for gay weddings, it wasn’t that they were refusing service because of who the person was, but what the cake was for. They would have, and have, provided other services to them.
Just like a band may not want their song being preformed at event supporting Kim Davis. Or their song used for torture of suspected terrorists. They don’t want their artistic effort to support something they don’t agree with morally. I support their decisions made from conscience.
Ha ha. Fair enough. 😉
It wasn’t personal, and it wasn’t only you. 🙂
So the free-market works with people in relationships – fewer laws the better, people will regulate themselves. But not for companies, they need more laws and regulations?
You’re confusing consequences and rules/regulations. There are natural consequences to a person if they go around talking to people in person like they talk to them online. They don’t have those same consequences online, so some people behave poorly. Corporations don’t experience the same consequences that a human being will if they treat someone poorly. That is where regulation comes in.
I don’t believe that people are perfect and that everyone will be loving and just with no rules. I just don’t believe that “normal” people will all of the sudden become incestuous if it’s legal.
it wasn’t that they were refusing service because of who the person was, but what the cake was for.
That is a dishonest distinction. The bakers have no objection to providing a wedding cake to a wedding party. They object to providing a wedding cake to a wedding party because the individuals in question are gay. They are refusing to provide service based on qualities of the individuals involved.
It would be akin to saying, “Well, I don’t object to serving black folks, so long as they call their orders ahead, pay in cash, and come in through the service entrance and don’t try to use the counter or tables so they don’t bother the white folks.”
“I just don’t believe that “normal” people will all of the sudden become incestuous if it’s legal.”
Neither do I. But incestuous people will become normal.
“They object to providing a wedding cake to a wedding party because the individuals in question are gay.”
Well, that is simply false. They would serve gay people, they just wouldn’t make a cake for a gay wedding. If the person was heterosexual and asked for a wedding cake for a gay wedding they would have refused service to the heterosexual.
http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2015/02/27/anti-gay-marriage-bakery-gone/24133651/
If I owned a catering company, I would have no problem serving atheists. However, I would not provide service to say a black mass. I believe that that should be perfectly legal.
It is not false. They do not object to weddings. They object to weddings where the participants happen to be gay men or women. Thus they are not discriminating against a function, but against individuals.
As I said, claims to the contrary are saying, “As long as these people know their place, I’ll be happy to offer them lesser service than I offer the good people.”
Which would only be like the wedding cake and the gay customers if you did offer services to Satanists performing a black mass, but said no to pagans wanting to have the same ceremony.
You wouldn’t object to the ceremony, you would object to the people holding the ceremony. There is a difference.
If said Christian bakers had said, “We don’t offer wedding cakes at all.” There wouldn’t be a problem. But they said, “We don’t offer wedding cakes to your kind.” That is a problem.
I may cater masses, but not black masses. I get to decide the distinction between the two, not someone else imposing a new definition of a mass to me. The same for weddings. Just because someone else has decided to redefine what marriage is, doesn’t mean I all of a sudden have to recognize it.
The bakery isn’t saying we don’t offer wedding cakes for your kind. They are saying we don’t offer cakes for those ceremonies, but here are some cupcakes. They don’t recognize “gay weddings” as “weddings”. And to be fair, going back a couple of decades, no country on Earth did either.
It’s not a “lesser” service. And it isn’t about “putting people in their place”. It is about having the freedom to not be compelled by law to use your efforts to support something you find morally objectionable to support.
I get to decide the distinction between the two, not someone else imposing a new definition of a mass to me. The same for weddings.
Not if you opt to live in a society of law and order, you don’t.
The bakery isn’t saying we don’t offer wedding cakes for your kind. They are saying we don’t offer cakes for those ceremonies, but here are some cupcakes.
What are you black people complaining about? There’s a perfectly good water fountain over there.
“Not if you opt to live in a society of law and order, you don’t.”
And our society protects religious freedom. I have the freedom to not support things I find morally repugnant.
What are you black people complaining about? There’s a perfectly good water fountain over there.
You can make this comparison till you’re blue in the face, it doesn’t make it true. They serve gay people. They serve black people. They would even serve a wedding cake to gay people, however they wouldn’t make a cake for a gay wedding. You are forcing them to recognize a broader definition of marriage, one which includes the commitment to the practice of sin in their eyes. Seems fascist to me.
Seriously, you would force a Catholic caterer to provide service to Satanist preforming a “mass”? And you wouldn’t let the Catholic caterer make the distinction between what is a mass and what is a black mass? Seriously?
I think they’ll always be viewed with repulsion and as abnormal.
It’s not a “lesser” service. And it isn’t about “putting people in their place”.
Yes, it is. The message is: they aren’t like your other customers. They are different. They aren’t equal to us and they never will be because they are sinners.
I have the freedom to not support things I find morally repugnant.
Then don’t attend a gay wedding or officiate one should you ever find yourself serving as a priest.
But if you run a small business that is open to the public, then you serve the public. All of it.
“They serve gay people.”
Yes, and as I’ve said, restaurants in the South used to serve black people too. So long as they knew their place, came in a different entrance, and didn’t try to sit down and eat at the restaurant, they could order food and take it home.
The business still served them. It just didn’t serve them equally and hence said they weren’t quite as human as the white people sitting at the counter.
Seriously, you would force a Catholic caterer to provide service to Satanist preforming a “mass”?
You cannot discriminate against someone on the basis of religion. I would think Catholics would be a bit sensitive to that topic given the virulent discrimination they used to face from Protestants in this country.
The more you describe parallel with segregation, the less and less it seems parallel. The only difference is the type of ceremony, not the type of person.
I repeat: Seriously, you would force a Catholic caterer to provide service to Satanist preforming a “mass”? And you wouldn’t let the Catholic caterer make the distinction between what is a mass and what is a black mass? Seriously?
I guess you ARE serious. I think you have sufficiently proven the silliness of your position.
The more you describe parallel with segregation, the less and less it seems parallel. The only difference is the type of ceremony, not the type of person.
Which is bullshit. You don’t object to heterosexuals having a wedding. You object to gay people having a wedding. They can have the same exact ceremony with the same vows, same music, same officiant. You object to the second one because it involves gay people.
I repeat: Seriously, you would force a Catholic caterer to provide service to Satanist preforming a “mass”? And you wouldn’t let the Catholic caterer make the distinction between what is a mass and what is a black mass? Seriously?
If a Satanist came into a restaurant and said, “I need to order six dozen chicken wings and a dozen pies for my Satanist group or Diabolical Book Club or whatever meeting this weekend.” Yes, I would expect a public business to fulfill that order absent any scheduling conflict. If you have a public business, you serve the public.
I guess you ARE serious. I think you have sufficiently proven the silliness of your position.
If you think anti-discrimination statutes are silly, then yes, I think I’ve explained the rationale behind them. And I’d rather live in this world than in the world where discrimination runs rampant.
I would have no problem with that at all, and would serve them. It would be very specifically a “mass” that I would object to.
Yet, many people would still say that it is not a marriage, but a public dedication to commit sin. And if that is their view, and they do not wish for their talent to be used to support it, fine.
I think any law that forces someone to act against their conscience to support what they view as evil, to be not a just law.
The whole wedding cake thing is ridiculous and it shouldn’t violate anyone’s “conscience.” Since when did a cake facilitate a marriage? It’s simply something people eat after they’re already married! It’s just food! It’s not in any part condoning the marriage. Do you also think that a restaurant owner should be able to turn away a gay couple on their honeymoon? What’s the difference???
Then you open up every nation to anarchy.
And many people say medicine is a lack of faith, but we still prosecute them if they opt to choose prayer over treating their sick kids.
People have all sorts of beliefs that they can hold very sincerely. It doesn’t exempt them from the law.
* The Japanese obsession with details means that they have taken many things from the west and refined them to the point where they often surpass the western original. Japanese whiskey quality has improved significantly in the past 20 years and are ranked very high by connoisseurs. Go check out a bottle of Suntory. Another example is Japanese denim. It is significantly better than denim from the US.
* Wallace called in the national guards and in turn EISENHOWER called in the army. Since governors are the commanders of national guards and the president is the commander in chief of the army. Although technically the president is also in charge of the national guard….
Fuck that. If I own a business I can refuse service to whomever I want for whatever reason I want. Its MY business. If you dont like it… dont come back.
Seriously? I have a public business so I MUST serve everyone? Thats freaking bogus. Owners should be able to refuse service to whomever they want for whatever reason they like
Yes! Why not? Wtf are you guys smoking…. if I own a business I should be able to refuse business to whomever for whatever I fancy. Its a free country.
No conscientious objectors in your world, I guess. So the choices are only anarchy or fascism?
Right, but the government won’t force the parents to choose medicine over prayer for themselves.
Ah, okay, so only some sincerely held beliefs then are going to be valid enough to get the holder out of obeying the law. Perhaps just the ones held by organized established religion?
Take care of your kids or else is forcing someone to choose medicine, just as ‘issue the damn licenses or else’ is forcing Davis to do her job.
the love from christians for their fellow sinners is positively overwhelming.
I know there are “anti discrimination laws”, but it seems to me that there should be a limit to the goverbment telling a business owner “you MUST perform your services for such and such”. Screw that. Especially if you have a conscientious objection.
Or maybe the government can use the same line of thought and force mothers to not kill their unborn children.
We are to be obedient to authority:
However, their authority has limits:
The Catechism has some really good things to say about our participation in society, check it out: http://www.scborromeo.org/ccc/p3s1c2a2.htm
Maybe they would, if doctors all agreed that a fetus was the same as a child.
I was a child. I was a fetus. I object to my mother killing me. However, the question is does the fetus have value, and how much.
https://youtu.be/AMwkQVpy98A
Actually, Kenneth, that is completely wrong, at least here in America. Title II of the Civil Rights act of 1964 prohibits discrimination by private businesses which are places of public accommodation based on race, color, religion, or national origin.
In more and more states, discrimination based on sexual orientation is also prohibited. Religious organizations and religious non-profits are exempt when it conflicts with their religious beliefs, but private businesses are not.
If you’re a business, you’re breaking the law if you discriminate based on race, color, religion, or national origin; and in many states sexual orientation, but I think in the Middle East they let you discriminate, so perhaps you should move your business there.
Yeah! If you really, truly don’t like black people and think they’re cursed by Satan, you should be able to refuse them service. Frickin’ government!
There are limits to “freedom”, Kenneth. “Free speech” doesn’t mean you can threaten someone’s life or yell “Fire!” in a theater. What are you smoking? It’s against the law to discriminate against people based on race, color, religion, or national origin, and in some states based on sexual orientation, if you have a private business that serves the public.
I realize this is the 3rd time I’ve stated this, but if you keep spouting your incorrect nonsense, I’m going to keep correcting it.
What is the Catholic church’s teaching on making food for people who are gay-married?
I don’t see why private citizens working for or owning private businesses can’t also be protected from being to compelled to violate their conscience. Freedom of religion shouldn’t be confined to the church. A truly devout person takes their beliefs with them to every part of their life.
I don’t think the Church would have a problem with it, mainly because I don’t believe making a cake in and of itself provides sufficient material support. If I owned a bakery, I would probably have no problem with making a generic wedding cake. However, if they wanted gay-marriage messages or maybe a topper with two grooms, or 3 grooms and one bride, I would object.
Here is a handy flow chart.
http://aleteia.org/2015/08/05/this-flowchart-will-tell-you-when-cooperation-with-evil-is-immoral/
I saw the flowchart earlier. I thought it could drive someone insane. You all purchase products every week from companies that commit human rights violations and your money materially contributes to that. It also materially contributes to paying the salaries of people who use that money for prostitution, drugs, or even to support their gay lifestyle. Following that flowchart would lead someone to drop out of society completely. That’s part of what’s so hypocritical about this whole “conscientious objector” thing. Want a wedding cake for your fourth marriage? Want a wedding cake for your marriage to the person you had an affair with? No problem! Wait, what? You’re getting gay-married? I’m sorry, my conscience won’t allow me to participate in that. Let me look up the law on my iPhone built by child laborers in China to confirm that my business doesn’t have to make food for gay people if I don’t want to.
Totally. If an Islamic man believes in Jihad, he should be able to kill infidels here in America. Freedom of religion!
If a Mormon wants to discriminate against blacks because they’re clearly cursed by God, freedom of religion!
If a business owned by Muslims doesn’t want to serve Jews, freedom of religion!
‘Murica!
(Oh yeah, I forgot that I posted it on the FB post.)
I agree, It would be insane if you were trying to stop all support no matter how proximate. However, that isn’t what happens when flowing the line thought outlined by the flow chart. There are many instances where it is perfectly fine to do the thing in question.
No one is “compelled” to violate their conscience. Close your business or quit your job and go home. God’ll take care of you, right? Because if you have a business, there are certain anti-discrimination laws you will be forced to follow. And you take an oath to represent the government, then you better make sure that your religious beliefs don’t conflict with what you are expected to represent.
It isn’t about whether one is serving a particular person, but what the service itself entails. In the case of the Muslims, if they object to pork or touching pork – I wouldn’t force them to do that.
Okay, now we’re coming to the matter at hand. Who gets to decide what qualifies as the ‘common good’?
America, by and large, rejects your appeal to church authority. So who decides? The individual? Then we have anarchy. The individual’s church? Then we have either an establishment of religion by government or anarchy. The law? Then we have situations that arise which require adjudication to decide whether a belief should be accommodated, what is reasonable accommodation, and when an individual must obey the law regardless of their beliefs.
We, as a society, have chosen to settle the question via the law and the courts.
Close your business or quit your job and go home.
Right, religious people should forced out of society because society doesn’t want to protect their freedom of religion.
I don’t want to adjudicate the abortion issue again. 😛
Suffice to say, not everyone holds to your maximalist view that a single cell organism equals a fetus equals a toddler.
I agree, that it is a tricky balance.
We, as a society, have chosen to settle the question via the law and the courts.
And I am a citizen who gets to have a say in the making of the laws. Laws can be unjust, and when they are they should be challenged. If you have a problem with that, you can go read MLK Jr.
If a Muslim took a job as a FDA or USDA inspector, then they better get over their aversion to touching pig products and make sure my meat doesn’t have dangerous pathogens in it, or they need to find another career.
Nope. The job entails much more than just pork. The FDA can easily find, without much burden, accommodation for them.
And there are already laws that protect them: http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/types/religion.cfm
Lane, you’re acting like people are being forced to worship Baal or be killed. No one is being forced to do anything. Get a different job that doesn’t deal with weddings. Gay weddings are now a thing, so if you live in a state that says you cannot refuse to make food for gay people because that is discrimination, then stop making wedding cakes as one of your offerings if it violates your conscience.
You act like freedom of religion should trump everything else, but it shouldn’t. There are very devout Muslims who believe that infidels should be put to death. I’m glad the law steps in and says that’s illegal and that “freedom of religion” doesn’t matter in that case.
Kim Davis isn’t MLK. Kim Davis is playing the role of George Wallace blocking the entrance to the schools.
And I, as a citizen, think that the common good is best served if we do not allow discrimination by the government or private, for-profit businesses and in allowing gay couples to form more stable, permanent familial unions.
No, we should allow religious folks to decide what laws apply to them and which ones don’t.
I’m a new convert to the worship of Tezcatlipoca, therefore I exempt myself from laws against murder based on my sincerely held religious belief that Tezcatlipoca requires human sacrifices or the country will be destroyed.
I’m simply asking for reasonable accommodation. Some people are cake bakers, some are photographers, and have been for decades. I don’t see the need to force them out of business because of an abrupt change in law that violates their conscience. There has to middle ground somewhere.
You have all the freedom in the world to practice your religion as a private person, but there are laws for businesses that want to serve the public. There is a very simple way to not break the law (which is biblical) and to practice your religion. That’s to get a different job or profession.
The “Christian” who refuses to make food for gay-married people and complains about their religious freedom is up there with a Muslim who refuses to do his job at a bacon factory and complains about religious freedom. I read about a Muslim lady suing the airline she worked for because she refused to serve alcohol. Give me a break. Don’t get a job where your religious beliefs will keep you from doing it!
Challenging them and working for change (good luck) is different than breaking them.
Civil disobedience is breaking them sometimes.
That’s fine if that’s what you’re called to do, but don’t bitch and whine when you end up experience the consequences of breaking the law.
There has to middle ground, right?
If I was a caterer, and was forced by the law to violate my conscience and cater a black mass – as Comrade would support. I would happily suffer for Christ if came to that. I would happily sit in jail than cater them. However, that does NOT mean I don’t get to loudly protest in the process leading up to it.
No, there doesn’t. If you live in a state where discriminating based on sexual-orientation is against the law, then there doesn’t have to be any accommodation. Sorry. If you live in a state like that, then your state views your unwillingness to bake a cake for a gay wedding the same as being unwilling to bake a cake for an interracial marriage, and it’s flat-out against the law. You will not, and should not in my opinion, be accommodated. You are a bigot and you should find another line of work that will allow your bigotry to remain in the shadows, or you should move to a state that allows discrimination based on your “conscience” or eventually to another country, perhaps Vatican City, so that you can have your religious freedom to discriminate against people all you want.
No.
Lane, what if your religion believes black people are sub-human and cursed by god, and you should not provide them any sustenance whatsoever. Does there have to be middle ground?
What if your religion believes that infidels who will not convert to your religion should be killed. Do we need to find middle ground so that you can have freedom of religion?
Yes, the dreaded “bigot” label. Once you are able to label someone with that, anything is permissible by law.
Protest all you want. But if you get fired, don’t say, “This isn’t fair! Whaaaaa!” Or if you broke anti-discriminatory laws and you get fined, don’t cry about it. You followed your conscience and I’m sure god will reward you. Follow Jesus’ example. He didn’t even break the law and still didn’t whine when crucified.
No one asking to kill someone. No one is asking not to serve a person. Only that they have the right to not participate in an event that they have moral problems with.
What is hypocritical is that YOU completely supported a band from blocking the use of their music at an event supporting Kim Davis. I can consistently support the band’s right to object to their talent not being used for support something they morally have a problem with; you do not.
Anything is permissible by law? Huh?
Discrimination based on color, race, religion, country of origin, and in many states, sexual orientation is considered bigotry whether the people doing the discriminating like being called bigots or not. They usually don’t like it.
Nope, I will loudly say that this isn’t fair. Yet when the consequences hit, I will happily endure them for Christ’s sake.
But there is a hierarchy, Lane. Religious accommodation should be made until it creates undue hardship on the business. If a Muslim got a job a bacon factory, he couldn’t request that all the pigs be removed to accommodate his religion!
In the same way, a business owner has the freedom to be religious and to act in a religious manner (which in my opinion would involve loving and serving gays, not discriminating against them) until it violates state or federal laws. At that point “freedom of religion” takes a back seat to the law. (i.e. a Muslim business owner can’t kill every infidel who comes in and refuses to convert even though that may be what his version of his religion calls for.)
I agree, religious accommodation should be balanced with the hardship of the employer. And it should also be balanced between the business owner and the common good – we simply disagree on where the balance point should be at moment.
Using someone’s music without permission is tantamount to breaking into the bakery and stealing a wedding cake for your wedding. Once again, you’ve drawn a completely false comparison.
Pretty soon,
blacksgays are going to be able to be serviced everywhere! 😉“Using someone’s music without permission is tantamount to breaking into the bakery and stealing a wedding cake for your wedding.”
Forcing a baker to use her talent to decorate a cake for an event she morally objects to, would be like forcing a band to use its talent to write a song for use at event that they have a moral problem with – there might be scandal that the band supports that event! I believe the comparison is valid.
Is there some kind of timeline somewhere as to how long before or after someone is gay married that I’m allowed to serve them food or take pictures of them? Like is it 30 minutes or 3 hours? Can I take a picture of them a week before their wedding, but just not 2 minutes before? What if I accidentally took a picture of them in the background on their way to the wedding? Should I burn the photo? Can I serve them food at my diner while they’re on their honeymoon? If so, at what point in time did it become OK to make food for them? I mean, if I catered their wedding, and they all sat down to eat an hour after the ceremony, is that OK? Should I ask them to wait another hour to make sure we’re far enough away from the wedding for it to be OK with God? What if they stay up all night partying at their reception and all come to my restaurant in the morning? I should refuse them service, right? I’m sorry. It’s all so fucking ridiculous.
The only person who should be able to object to participating in the service is the priest who actually marries them, and that is something he/she is able to do under the law. I would disagree with that being changed.
In the case of the wedding cake, the decorating itself can be viewed as speech. I personally would only draw the line at actively supporting the a gay wedding by what the decorating involved, such as messages written on the cake or toppers. All the other stuff you listed isn’t directly involved.
At least we agree with the last part about the priest, however not everyone would agree with you.
What about a minister that runs a for profit business that marries people? Would you support him from refusing to do any civilly legal marriage? (I honestly don’t think this business should exist, but it does)
First off, I don’t believe there are laws against discrimination based on political affiliation, so there’s a big problem with your comparison right there.
Second, most bands don’t have a public business writing songs for people upon request. They publish their music and the law protects it from use without permission. If someone uses it without permission, they’re free to sue. Just like if someone stole a wedding cake and used it without permission. Again, the difference is that the bakery has a business serving the public. If a band refused to allow people to purchase their album because they are Christians, then you’d have a case.
If you are seriously going to refuse to understand the difference, then I really can’t help you.
No, I would only support the priest if it were a church or a religious non-profit. I agree with the law on that.
Maybe the people who make the little figurines should only make one male figurine and one female figurine and then go out of business. Otherwise, they may be contributing to a gay wedding in the future.
You know you’re just gonna get yourself talked about on the next podcast, Lane! 😉
I don’t personally agree with many of the people in these cases, but I support the general principal that they are trying to use. I just don’t want religious accommodation to be completely overlooked in these cases by people, and a lot of the time I see it brushed aside in the conversations.
I think I agree with you.
Christian,
There has always been a tension between the free exercise clause and the establishment clause, and the person who unsuccessfully relies on one of those clauses to justify some kind of action always says it’s not fair. I think they are right. Someone is always going to get screwed on the margins. The complaint I find ridiculous is when someone in Kim Davis’s circumstances says that they are being persecuted for their faith. Such person is not being punished for their faith. They are being punished violating a civil law. They remain free to choose and seek solace in their faith. If God wants the baker to refuse to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
I think most people fail to realize that the religious and other freedoms guaranteed by the bill of rights are not absolute. The State has always been able to override those freedoms if the State has a good reason for doing so. In the case of local antidiscrimination laws, the State’s stated reason of preventing discrimination is almost certainly a good enough reason (under either the Federal or state constitution).
I’m not an expert of music copyright laws, but putting that aside. I think a painter can refuse a commissioning if she objects to the request. I think a song writer can refuse to write music for an event they object to. And I think a cake decorator can object, as well. Like I said before, I would only object to messages requested to be added to the cake, not to a generic cake.
I understand the laws that are in place, and also why they were passed, but I think its bogus. The 13th Amendment: Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.
Anti-discrimination laws involuntarily require one citizen to serve another, under the THREAT OF COMPULSORY FORCE. That’s bullshit. The laws have always been unconstitutional . Educate thyself liberal hippy boy 🙂
http://www.hoover.org/research/problem-antidiscrimination-laws
A painter cannot refuse entrance to a public exhibit of theirs based on skin color, race, religion, or country of origin, or in some states sexual orientation.
A band cannot refuse tickets to their concert to someone based on skin color, race, religion, or country of origin, or in some states sexual orientation.
A bakery cannot refuse service to someone based on skin color, race, religion, or country of origin, or in some states sexual orientation.
No one can steal a painting, a song, or a wedding cake without permission.
The baker in question served gay customers. This repeated mischaracterization of the argument is tiring, and shows a lack of charity.
I think the present circumstance of “Christian beliefs” running afoul of local antidiscrimination laws is just another unintended consequence of religious people using the public arena to force their beliefs on others. There would never have been a Roe v. Wade if a bunch of Catholics didn’t keep contraception illegal in Griswald v. Connecticut. There never would have been local antidiscrimination laws if a bunch of Protestants didn’t insist on their private religious right to discriminate against black people following the passage of the 14th amendment. The separation of church and state was intended to protect the church as much as the state, and I believe that the church will continue to shoot itself in the foot as long as it tries to act as a political force in this country.
HA HA HA! That’s the most ridiculous stretch I’ve seen in a while. Slavery and servitude. Good one. Ha ha.
You do realize that the “slave” in question can just close their business or find a new line of work. They’re not being forced out of their home and told to be in servitude to someone or else go to jail.
I couldn’t agree more. A complete lack of charity.
I AM NOT SAYING THEY CAN REFUSE SERVICE based on skin color, race, religion, country of origin, or sexual orientation. I am saying that they get to chose the content of the services they provide.
A painter cannot refuse entrance to a public exhibit, but they can refuse to paint certain content into their art and refuse locations for their exhibit.
A band cannot refuse ticket sells to their concert, but they can refuse to write content into their songs and refuse locations for concert venues.
A bakery cannot refuse service to someone, but they can refuse to include content in their cake designs.
No one can force a person to express themselves with their talent against their conscience.
Lane, bakeries are refusing to provide the exact same wedding cake to two different weddings based on who is getting married.
Shit, you guys wake up early to argue.
Ugh. If a band has a public business writing songs for people, then they can’t refuse service to someone based on skin color, religion, race, or country of origin, and in some states sexual orientation. Most bands don’t offer that service to the public.
I actually got up to restart a server that needed restarting and had planned to get back in bed for 2 more hours after that was done.
And yes, I’m bitter about it.
There would never have been a Roe v. Wade if a bunch of Catholics didn’t keep contraception illegal in Griswald v. Connecticut.
Nonsense. The legalization of contraception itself led immediately to the legalization of abortion. The idea that the protest against contraception is the reason abortion is legal, is quite frankly: silly. “We will show those stubborn Catholics, we will make abortion legal as well”.
UGH! Indeed. It isn’t the customer, it is the content desired.
Above is where I would draw the line. I personally don’t agree with all the bakeries who are refusing, but I’m not willing to stop them. I think an acceptable solution would be to simply have a catalogue of cakes that you will make for anyone, and any deviation from those would be up to the discretion of the baker.
I actually don’t have nearly as much of a problem with that, but that’s not what is happening.
Also, I’d like to see some consistency, such as content for divorced people and adulterers being refused as well.
I posted this a while back…
#eastcoast
My religion views taxation as theft and environment laws as an interference in my God-given right to have dominion over the Earth.
I wake up at 4:30 M-F to go to the gym. It’s the only time I can go. 🙂
It’s nice he would sell them muffins, but he still discriminated against them and treated them like second class customers.
Why should they have to close dowb their business or find anither career? Do you understand what that means to most business owners?
“Hey I know you are in debt out the wazoo, you put your mortgage on the line to start this up, and you have no clue what else you could do to provide for your family…. …… but yeah, just go find another line of work or go to jail”
Its a violation of our constitutional rights.
Oh, and for the second time in two weeks you are triumphantly laughing and scoffing at ideas that supreme court justices, congressman, senators, etc. find difficult to reconcile.
Indoctrination, indoctrination, indoctrination…..
So… how bout those Seahawks?
You guys are hilarious. Which part of your “constitutional rights” is being violated?
Sorry, Kenneth, but comparing a slave who cannot escape and a convict relegated to servitude to an employee in modern day America is laughable. Anyone who finds that “difficult to reconcile” has an agenda.
I don’t watch football until at least halfway through the season and only when my local team is doing well. 🙂
Im not comparing the two. I am only arguing that BOTH instances might be covered under the same ammendment.
Two essential elements of involuntary servitude are involuntariness, which is compulsion to act against one’s will, and servitude, which is some form of labor for another. Which of these two elements do you think not apply? Obviously there are certain exceptions to the rule for the state such as jury duty and the draft during war times…. but why should the state be allowed to FORCE someone to do business with someone else?
This is absurd. Next time I get pulled over for speeding, I’m going to tell the officer my will was to go faster than the speed limit, and that by law I cannot be compelled to go against my will because that would make me a slave.
Laws force people to go against their will all the time, and no one is forced to work for anyone or to own a business.
If you were forced to work for someone against your will with no chance of getting out of it and then forced to do something in direct opposition to your religion, you might have a point. Beyond that, you’re just spouting complete nonsense.
Lol its absurd because you only applied one of the two legal conditions…. try harder
I dont need to meet whatever terms and conditions you have made up in your imagination. Only the ones outlined in our constitution. If I own a coffee shop and decide I dont want to serve children on people without facial hair on what constitutional grounds should I be forced to do otherwise? Lets say a bearded man comes with a sherrif.
“Ill have a cup of coffee please”
My response
“Nah, I dont want to make you any coffee. I prefer to make coffee for clean shaven folk, but there is another shop down the road thst serves everyone”
Police officer steps in
“Excuse me sir but YOU MUST perform services for this man or else be fined and face jail time”
Thats forced servitude. The fact that im getting paid doesnt negate the clear violation of himan rights. Its my body, its my life, it my business, and I shouldn’t be FORCED to work for someone if I dont choose to.
Involuntary servitude is needed to make either condition relevant and that doesn’t exist today in the United States except for convicts. Comparing slavery and employment is silly.
Just as long as they refuse to make a cake for anyone who violates ANY of God’s laws – liars, cheaters, haters, the greedy, fornicators, divorcers, cussers, drunkards, complainers, whiners, coveters, the slothful, the unfaithful, the merciless, the prideful, the…. Oops – they now have NO customers, and they can’t even bake themselves a cake. Shit outta luck, I guess.
I don’t think you understand what “slavery” and “forced servitude” entails. Owning a coffee shop doesn’t come even close to qualifying.
Also, I don’t believe unshaven men are protected by anti-discrimination laws, so you should be fine, and I’m in no threat of being refused service at all!
It is their conscience, not yours. That’s how freedom works. If you want to try to form their conscience to include other sins as well, go for it!
“Knock yourself out with your saki…” Nice one.
And that’s why the “conscience” (which is completely subjective and randomly applied as the person sees fit) is not a valid reason to refuse service to the public
…….. those are the legal conditions that define involuntary servitude…..
That is simply an argument against freedom.
I can take this about as seriously as I can take someone calling Obama “Hitler”.
Haha! I saw one of those guys at the court house the other day. You can ridicule the idea all you like, but thats not the same thing as an argument. You may not like how the law defines these things, but they are what they are. I think you are having a hard time disassociating this ammendment with american slavery of Africans. The concept is much more broad.
Dude, what is meant by “forced servitude” and “slavery” has nothing to do with employment and occupation. Continuing to insist that it does isn’t going to change that. It’s like comparing prison to a staff meeting at work. It may feel like “prison”, but it’s nothing like it.
Next time my employer wants me to fill out my weekly status update, I am going to try to use the 13th amendment to get out of it. I’ll let you know how it goes.
Christian,
You can keep insisting that the two legal requirements are not “really” the ones that matter, but they factually are. Neither the government nor individuals can FORCE you to perform labor against your will. You cant tell your boss “you MUST do a deal with so and so”. How can you not see how thats bullshit? Affirmative acts are one thing…. but FORCING a business to work for someone is bogus
To illustrate….
Imagine a member of the KKK approached you and said
“Hey, I want you to build a website for our organization. We are gonna have a racist rally and then afterwards have a great big party. I want you to design a website to advertise the after party and give directions etc.
PS,
At the bottom of every web page I want the site to read:
THIS SITE WAS MADE BY CHRISTIAN KINGERY”
Now suppose you told the KKK to fuck off. Nothing they do is against your religion. They were perfectly willing to pay, etc. How would you feel if the government stepped in and said that you MUST work for the kkk. Even though its completely your business. Even though you could usually work whenever you wanted. Not this time. No, you MUST work for them or face jail time.
Bro…. thats forced servitude
Dr. Alfred Avins arguing my case. Published bu Cornell University…
http://scholarship.law.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=2424&context=clr
Judge NAPOLITANO:
“The compulsion to perform the service, compulsion by law, is what violates the ancient and natural and personal right to refuse to do business with whomever you don’t want to do business with without having to justify it to the government. That is a right that is now gone. When the courts force you to perform a service that is not food, shelter, or clothing, they are really forcing you to engage in involuntary servitude.”
There was no king in Israel in those days, and every man did what was right in his own eyes…
The KKK is not and would never be protected under anti-discriminatory laws.
So, if I am employed by McDonald’s and I’m told to clean out the deep fryer, but I really don’t want to clean out the deep fryer. I mean I REALLY don’t want to. Can I sue them for trying to force me into involuntary servitude after they fire me?
There are all kinds of laws that businesses have to adhere to. Some of them are anti-discriminatory. You can’t refuse to do business with someone based on skin color, race, religion, country of origin, and in some states sexual orientation. Sorry you don’t like it. I personally think it’s great.
You can say it’s akin to slavery all you want, but I’m just going to continue laughing at that. You should go find some actual kids who have been sold into slavery and tell them you know what it’s like to be a slave because you had to bake a cake for a gay wedding.
Professor Kenneth, since you seem to be the constitutional law expert of the group, how do you mesh your “interpretation” of the 13th Amendment with the applicability of the 14th Amendment? #keeptrollinbro
Sigh…..
Do you understand that there is a difference between slavery and involuntary servitude? Do you understand that this ammendment has been used on a wide variety of cases outside of SLAVERY. You are laughing at a cartoonish naive strawman.
Why?
SMH
No, because YOU voluntarily work at that place. However, if you were just minding your own business and happened to own a deep fryer cleaning company, and the government FORCED you to work for said company that should qualify IMO
Easy,
The STATE may not discriminate. So any organization run/funded by the state needs to service everyone equally. This has bothibg to do with thw private sector.
#nicetry
Don’t you voluntarily own a business cleaning deep fryers?
Involuntary servitude in the 13th amendment was never meant to refer to a situation which you could simply walk away from.
I’m laughing at you trying to apply “involuntary servitude” having a job or business that you could simply walk away from if you are “forced” by law to do something you don’t want to do.
Great job. What about the Civil Rights Act?
#conlawkenneth
The civil rights act is not part of the constitution and is partly objectionable on constitutional grounds. Namely, the issue we are disputing. Surely you see that when someone says “I disagree with law X” its ridiculous to say “but then how would you implement law x?”. I think antidiscrimination laws violate numerous rights given in our constitution. Im not a legal scholar, but I can still have an opinion. 🙂
Perhaps in your world “walking awy from” your job would be no big deal. But for most of us that would be totally devastating.
“Oh, no forced sevitude here! Its a totally free choice. You can allow us to force you into working against your will or…. you can simply go to jail or file bankruptcy. Complete freedom.”
Liberal logic…..
Oh, I’m sorry you’re not free to break the law because it’s the profession you chose. Whether you like it or (obviously) not, anti-discriminatory laws are the law of the land. I personally think they good, and I’m happy with you going bankrupt if you’re a bigot…although I’m sure you could just stop making wedding cakes altogether or open a different type of bakery, etc. That wouldn’t fit your narrative though, would it?
Christian,
We were discussing whether or not the government SHOULD be able to force one to work for another person against their will. Not whether or not you happen to like the government forcing people to work.
Again I ask (for the last time):
Which of the two legal definitions of involuntary servitude are not met? Can one really “just walk away” if doing so means bankruptcy? I don’t think so. Forcing someone to go out of business or else go to jail is as compulsory as it gets. I think that bigots are jerks and I would be willing to bet an open racist would go out of business…. but that doesn’t mean the government can enforce labor
That’s why the Supreme Court exists, right? To determine the constitutionality of an implemented law. Applying the Commerce clause, the Supreme Court established the constitutionality of provisions of the Civil Rights Act. You’re definitely free to disagree with it or its constitutionality and have a differing opinion, but until its not the law anymore, you have to follow it just like everybody else.
So is this kind of like “choosing” to go to Hell? 😉
Haha! I knew someone was going to go there even while I was typing it. Yes, free will, “Yahweh style”
Very true, Mike! Im not heartbroken over it. There is definitely alot of good that has come from these laws.
Its just that when I break it down, something seems way off with the whole concept.
Kenneth,
“Forcing someone to work for someone against their will” is worlds apart from laws that state that if you decide to run a public business, you cannot refuse to do business with people based on race, skin color, etc. Anyone with a couple ounces of common sense can see that. There are all kinds of laws you have to obey in this world. It’s like saying that because we have to obey laws, no one is free, and we’re all slaves. While you may be able to make a technical argument that no one is truly “free” in that sense, that doesn’t mean that we all fit the accepted definition of a slave.
And yes, you can just walk away, even if it means bankruptcy, which is way different than what “involuntary servitude” used to mean. Why stop at bankruptcy though? It could mean DEATH! You could be sitting at home unemployed instead of working at the bakery when a plane lands on your house and you die, in which case, you would have been forced to work for someone or DIE!
If you own a bakery in a state that doesn’t have anti-discriminatory laws based on sexual orientation and they pass those laws, modify your business if you have that much of a problem feeding gay people after they get married. Or stop making custom cakes and make a bunch of generic cakes that anyone can buy. Or sell your business and buy a Taco Bell franchise. These cases are nothing like involuntary servitude. Owning a business is a VOLUNTARY enterprise.
Christian,
Because you refuse to address anything that im actually writing, and continue to assert over and over again that I am alleging the anti discrimination laws are the equivalent of SLAVERY, (which I have never said) I think its best to agree to disagree. It was a great podcast.
Kenneth, you asserted that “Anti-discrimination laws involuntarily require one citizen to serve another, under the THREAT OF COMPULSORY FORCE,” and are therefore the same as what is meant in the 13th amendment when the term “involuntary servitude” is used. How am I not addressing “anything that [you are] actually writing?” I’m not saying you said that anti-discrimination laws are slavery. I’m drawing a parallel to another argument that would be as equally ridiculous as what you are asserting. I’m saying that being able to not do something by “walking away” is completely different than being forced to be someone servant. Please! I can’t address it any more clearly.
Besides, although you may be able to find a few “legal experts” who agree with you, the highest court of the land clearly doesn’t. You should understand this because I can also find a plethora of theologians who can make a case for “the rapture” but Catholic dogma (the highest law of your religious land) clearly states that they are wrong.