Colorado GOP trying religious freedom

[LynnInDenver]

Only they're calling it "Live and Let Live". http://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/fi...206_01.pdf

Basically, license to discriminate if you can somehow justify that it's against your religion to NOT discriminate. It's going to be hard to prove that someone doesn't "sincerely" hold it as a religious belief. And, of course, such licensed discrimination makes it harder for anyone who doesn't hew strictly to the "white, straight, cisgendered" stereotypes to simply exist in public.

BTW, it's against my personal religious beliefs to do business with any company or individual who uses religion as their own personal shield for shitty, uncivilized behavior like discriminating against someone for a fact of their immutable makeup. Because I staunchly refuse to not show affection for my husband in public because someone doesn't think they can do business with me because it condones such behavior.

Yes, I'm venting. I'm old enough to remember Amendment 2, which attempted to prevent the State of Colorado from enacting anti-discrimination statutes to protect LGBT, under the guise of "it would grant LGBT special rights", and got us quite rightly labeled as The Hate State.

Plus, I view it as treating some religions differently than others to carve out this sort of exemption. After all, my husband, an atheist, doesn't have an easy piece of "reference material" to refer to so he could take advantage of the exemption, and that qualifies to some as a religion to be an atheist.

[robkelk]

... Plus, I view it as treating some religions differently than others to carve out this sort of exemption. ...

In all of your post describing this problem, this jumped out at me as a possible solution. Hasn't your Supreme Court ruled on it being unconstitutional to treat different religions differently? And also that it's unconstitutional to base a law on any religious belief?

[Matrix Dragon]

Since when have they let that little detail stop them from being terrible Christians?

[LynnInDenver]

... Plus, I view it as treating some religions differently than others to carve out this sort of exemption. ...

In all of your post describing this problem, this jumped out at me as a possible solution. Hasn't your Supreme Court ruled on it being unconstitutional to treat different religions differently? And also that it's unconstitutional to base a law on any religious belief?

As Matrix noted, it doesn't stop them from continuing to try, either in an effort to finally find the "secret sauce" to making it actually be legal, or hoping that we'll just finally let one through because we're all stretched too thinly.

My husband did note that it has to get out of committee, the government needs to vote to actually implement it, and our governor would likely veto it and there's not enough votes to make it veto proof.

With this sort of thing happening, I feel rather justified in the idea that I should be allowed to discriminate against anyone who insists their religious dogma trumps my right to exist in public as who I am versus who they think I should be based on a restricted interpretation of moral code.

[SilverFang01]

Only they're calling it "Live and Let Live". http://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/fi...206_01.pdf

Basically, license to discriminate if you can somehow justify that it's against your religion to NOT discriminate. It's going to be hard to prove that someone doesn't "sincerely" hold it as a religious belief. And, of course, such licensed discrimination makes it harder for anyone who doesn't hew strictly to the "white, straight, cisgendered" stereotypes to simply exist in public.

Actually, you can prove that it is against their "religion" to discriminate.

The Bible states that mankind was created in God's image. If you are human, so is he. If you are less than human, so is he. Exodus 12:49, Leviticus 24:22, Numbers 15:16 and 29 make very clear that we must fight against our tendency to hate those who are different. That we must fight not only for our rights but also for the rights of others, wherever they are, whoever they are, whatever the color of their skin, or the nature of their culture, or whomever they choose to love, because God has said that although they are not in your image, they are in God's.

I'm sure someone will raise a point about the laws against same-sex relationships, or slavery or what not. My answer is that those were compromises made in realization of the fact that humanity can not turn on a dime, but by repeatedly stating the "mission statement" as it were, change does happen.

[LynnInDenver]

Only they're calling it "Live and Let Live". http://leg.colorado.gov/sites/default/fi...206_01.pdf

Basically, license to discriminate if you can somehow justify that it's against your religion to NOT discriminate. It's going to be hard to prove that someone doesn't "sincerely" hold it as a religious belief. And, of course, such licensed discrimination makes it harder for anyone who doesn't hew strictly to the "white, straight, cisgendered" stereotypes to simply exist in public.

Actually, you can prove that it is against their "religion" to discriminate.

The Bible states that mankind was created in God's image. If you are human, so is he. If you are less than human, so is he. Exodus 12:49, Leviticus 24:22, Numbers 15:16 and 29 make very clear that we must fight against our tendency to hate those who are different. That we must fight not only for our rights but also for the rights of others, wherever they are, whoever they are, whatever the color of their skin, or the nature of their culture, or whomever they choose to love, because God has said that although they are not in your image, they are in God's.

I'm sure someone will raise a point about the laws against same-sex relationships, or slavery or what not. My answer is that those were compromises made in realization of the fact that humanity can not turn on a dime, but by repeatedly stating the "mission statement" as it were, change does happen.

Ironically, I understand that the cake shop case had to change to a more generic "freedom of my ability to choose speech I support" because they'd found an event he'd baked a cake for celebrating the "marriage" of two dogs, which is technically also something he should have been against if marriage was only to involve one man and one woman.

I do agree that we can certainly argue that any effort to use religion to justify being a discriminatory bigot can be counterpointing by other points in the same texts, including that we can point out all sorts of other things that show they're cherry picking their prohibitions (Wearing a wool-cotton blend? Eat some shrimp this year?).

[robkelk]

...
Ironically, I understand that the cake shop case had to change to a more generic "freedom of my ability to choose speech I support" because they'd found an event he'd baked a cake for celebrating the "marriage" of two dogs, which is technically also something he should have been against if marriage was only to involve one man and one woman.
...

I've said this before, but perhaps not on this forum:

It's easy to support freedom of speech when one agrees with what's being said.

The true test of one's principles is whether one supports because of one's principles something one dislikes.

[LynnInDenver]

...
Ironically, I understand that the cake shop case had to change to a more generic "freedom of my ability to choose speech I support" because they'd found an event he'd baked a cake for celebrating the "marriage" of two dogs, which is technically also something he should have been against if marriage was only to involve one man and one woman.
...

I've said this before, but perhaps not on this forum:

It's easy to support freedom of speech when one agrees with what's being said.

The true test of one's principles is whether one supports because of one's principles something one dislikes.

It is a tough little nut there, I agree. On the one hand, one is in business, and turning someone away isn't that good an idea, regardless of the reason, particularly for something that doesn't do anyone any harm in reality. (Or, as Randy Milholland has actually said, "y'know, I've noticed the money spends the same".) And I've personally worked at companies owned by actual Catholics where things that might have been a concern weren't; One place we actually did run copies of a newsletter for an alternate lifestyles group, and another workplace we did the menus for a place owned by a pleasantly cute gay couple, so I know that there are levels of religious devotion that allow for not interfering with customer service.

On the other hand, it is technically a restriction on speech for the cake shop owner, and I will acknowledge that might be his right ultimately to turn them away with regards to making wedding cakes, although he should post that on his door. Of course, I don't have to agree with him, and my remedy is to not give him any business whatsoever (his shop is less than five miles from my home, for the record).

It's supposed to be ruled on this year by our Supreme Court. I'm expecting whatever side they rule on will be as narrow as they can manage. If they rule for the cake shop, it'll be very specifically on the free speech intersection, and let the anti-discrimination stand in all other circumstances (housing, employment, etc). If they rule against the cake shop, it'll be tailored against being able to smack others with "what you just said is discriminatory in nature".

[SilverFang01]

Being religious means, among other things, making choices to live in the world in accordance to your perception of God's will.

The people that promote these "religious freedom" laws don't seem to get that. They want to exercise their religious conscience --well and good-- but without having to make any sacrifices. What they want is for other people to make the sacrifice for their sake.

I am not impressed by those who think that living a religious life gives you license to shift the burden to others.

[LynnInDenver]

Being religious means, among other things, making choices to live in the world in accordance to your perception of God's will.

The people that promote these "religious freedom" laws don't seem to get that. They want to exercise their religious conscience --well and good-- but without having to make any sacrifices. What they want is for other people to make the sacrifice for their sake.

I am not impressed by those who think that living a religious life gives you license to shift the burden to others.

Yeah, I do agree with that part. I don't have a lot of sympathy for him "having to stop selling wedding cakes" while this has been playing out; from one standpoint, that's the choice he should have made at the beginning, as opposed to expecting people to quietly leave once he had realized that it was a same sex wedding they wanted a cake for. And to a certain extent, attempts to "legislate morality" also fall under trying to force a burden on others so they don't have to deal with a world that doesn't comport itself in accordance with their perception of God's Will.

I do have one piece of basically religion that I follow; faith is something I consider a private thing. I don't ask someone what religion or not they follow. Many of my friends I don't know unless they've actually volunteered it. I had one that I literally didn't know they were heavily involved in their local Catholic church until their funeral. Religion tends to be the organized public rituals and teachings, and the public actions in the service of one's faith and beliefs. That part can be good, and I recognize the comfort that those rituals provide thousand of people every day, but I object when they insist that those have to be publicly coddled in a way that I can't be myself in ways that technically don't harm anyone, and indeed, them requiring me to not be myself harms me greatly, and very much more than the perceived harm from the challenge to their worldview of what's correct.

[Labster]

Actually, you can prove that it is against their "religion" to discriminate.

The Bible states that mankind was created in God's image. If you are human, so is he. If you are less than human, so is he. Exodus 12:49, Leviticus 24:22, Numbers 15:16 and 29 make very clear that we must fight against our tendency to hate those who are different. That we must fight not only for our rights but also for the rights of others, wherever they are, whoever they are, whatever the color of their skin, or the nature of their culture, or whomever they choose to love, because God has said that although they are not in your image, they are in God's.

Careful with this kind of logic.  Mormon religious documents say that people with dark skin are Lamanites, and thus are being punished and marked for being a Baddie in the previous life.  Portions of the Old Testament are clearly racist against various tribes of the Middle East, most of which don't really exist any more but do have descendants.  These examples have less to do with modern church/temple/mosque doctrine -- you can prove just about anything you want by picking and choosing individual parts of scripture.  Even from the Koran, which was designed to be resistant to this phenomenon.

It's easy to support freedom of speech when one agrees with what's being said.

The true test of one's principles is whether one supports because of one's principles something one dislikes.

To keep a tolerant society, we must be intolerant of intolerance.

[SilverFang01]

Actually, you can prove that it is against their "religion" to discriminate.

The Bible states that mankind was created in God's image. If you are human, so is he. If you are less than human, so is he. Exodus 12:49, Leviticus 24:22, Numbers 15:16 and 29 make very clear that we must fight against our tendency to hate those who are different. That we must fight not only for our rights but also for the rights of others, wherever they are, whoever they are, whatever the color of their skin, or the nature of their culture, or whomever they choose to love, because God has said that although they are not in your image, they are in God's.

Careful with this kind of logic.  Mormon religious documents say that people with dark skin are Lamanites, and thus are being punished and marked for being a Baddie in the previous life.  Portions of the Old Testament are clearly racist against various tribes of the Middle East, most of which don't really exist any more but do have descendants.  These examples have less to do with modern church/temple/mosque doctrine -- you can prove just about anything you want by picking and choosing individual parts of scripture.  Even from the Koran, which was designed to be resistant to this phenomenon.

I'll take it under advisement.

[robkelk]

Speaking of wanting other people to make the sacrifices:
Sweet Jesus ice cream shops face boycott, as Christians call its branding 'hate speech'

Sweet Jesus, people... really?

[Labster]

Oh for Christ's sake.

[LynnInDenver]

Speaking of wanting other people to make the sacrifices:
Sweet Jesus ice cream shops face boycott, as Christians call its branding 'hate speech'

Sweet Jesus, people... really?

Welcome to a fresh serving of Cultural Appropriation, Christians... doesn't taste very good, does it?

Yeah, that might be a little harsh of me. But I'm betting the complainers are the same sorts that complain about all the racist mascots being binned.

[Rajvik]

@jferio I complain about the latter there, but this i just find funny. But, I'm not Christian.
Someone needs to grow up and get a life, which is what I usually have to say to the complainers in the other group as well

[LynnInDenver]

And HB1206 has died in committee. Hooray.

Note: I expect them to try it again next year.