Thursday, March 29, 2012

Morning Musings

If people can legally discriminate against gays based on their religion......

House gives preliminary OK to bill that supporters say preserves religious freedom, but opponents say allows discrimination

Shouldn't gays be able to legally discriminate against the faithful?


  1. This is what happens when religion and the state get tangled up. Also, Civil Rights legislation in the 60's, a noble urge, ended up destroying the foundation of personal property rights.

    Having a fundamental right to property means the right to be a loathsome bigot by denying people you hate (no matter how irrationally) access to it.

    These archaic natural rights have been slowly destroyed by the progressive regime. We all belong to the state now.

  2. I obviously fall very clearly on one side of the church/state issue, while still being very respectful [I believe] of the freedom of religion.

    But you bring up a very sticky matter of civil rights. It is hard for me to even internally parse where individual liberty and equal opportunity of access come together at a logical point.

  3. "I obviously fall very clearly on one side of the church/state issue, while still being very respectful [I believe] of the freedom of religion."

    I hope I come across as respecting that, because I really do. I don't see you attacking religion, but rather exploring how it can be used to destroy personal liberty by hijacking the state.

    I am a Christian, but I do not want my religion hijacking the constitution any more than I want flaming leftists doing it.

    It is a sticky issue. Remember when Rand Paul stepped in it? The libertarian in me says let it roll. If a business doesn't want to serve blacks (or whites, or women or Asians or gays) let them stew in their bigotry.

    It gets sticky when the business is the only one in town, or an ambulance service or hospital or pharmacy... So yeah, it's not an easy issue because I can see the other side as well and I fundamentally hate bigotry and discrimination.

    What worries me is the prospect of the state forcing churches to violate their beliefs. Declaring it illegal to refuse to marry gays, putting it on par with refusing to perform racially-mixed marriages, would do the trick, and we're not far from that point.

  4. You come across as extremely respectful, even in your responses to Ducky, et al.

    Rand Paul's interview that sparked the civil rights discussion, is when I really had to take a hard look at where liberty resides in conjunction with the ideals of a free but egalitarian society.

    I take your fears seriously as well, but I'm not as sure that we're as close to your example occurring. I hope I'm right.

  5. I'm not trying to be alarmist, and I hope you are right as well.

  6. Speaking as a former evangelical...who happens to be gay. I admit I fell for the headline that the Republicans are the bullies.

    Until I read the actual bill and a couple more local news articles. Strikes me the story has been framed inaccurately by the media (typical).

    Kinzer's Bill prohibits the city from adding new 'groups' to the extensive EXISTING protected classes under its anti-discrimination housing and employment laws. It doesn't single out nor mention gays per se.

    The Bill was Kinzer's response to activists in Salinas who were lobbying to add sexual orientation to the city’s already extensive anti-discrimination ordinance which Kinzer's constituents felt (fairly in my opinion) would open them to the litigation excesses of militant gay activists.

    This story was engineered to read like 'Those-damn-homophobic-christian-republicans-are-at-it-again'.

    When Davis posed the hypothetical scenario of an apt. owner who can abuse Kinzer's Bill to refuse renting to a same sex couple; Kinzer should have just rebutted by simply asking Davis about the inverse ethics of a gay couple refusing commerce with an evangelical renter.

    That said, if Kinzer's intent was to indemnify biz owners from frivolous lawsuits, there are better, more rational premises to base a bill other than under the guise of 'religious freedom'.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.