Indiana and some other states have enacted or plan to enact laws legalizing discrimination against same-sex couples. Blogger and teacher Kenneth Bernstein sent me this excellent article by Tim Cook, the CEO of Apple, who is openly gay. Here is Ken’s reaction.
Cook writes:
“There’s something very dangerous happening in states across the country.
“A wave of legislation, introduced in more than two dozen states, would allow people to discriminate against their neighbors. Some, such as the bill enacted in Indiana last week that drew a national outcry and one passed in Arkansas, say individuals can cite their personal religious beliefs to refuse service to a customer or resist a state nondiscrimination law.
“Others are more transparent in their effort to discriminate. Legislation being considered in Texas would strip the salaries and pensions of clerks who issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples — even if the Supreme Court strikes down Texas’ marriage ban later this year. In total, there are nearly 100 bills designed to enshrine discrimination in state law….
“America’s business community recognized a long time ago that discrimination, in all its forms, is bad for business. At Apple, we are in business to empower and enrich our customers’ lives. We strive to do business in a way that is just and fair. That’s why, on behalf of Apple, I’m standing up to oppose this new wave of legislation — wherever it emerges. I’m writing in the hopes that many more will join this movement….
“This isn’t a political issue. It isn’t a religious issue. This is about how we treat each other as human beings. Opposing discrimination takes courage. With the lives and dignity of so many people at stake, it’s time for all of us to be courageous.”
Andy Borowitz, the humorist who writes daily at the Néw Yorker, put it another way:
“INDIANAPOLIS (The Borowitz Report)—In a history-making decision, Gov. Mike Pence of Indiana has signed into law a bill that officially recognizes stupidity as a religion.
“Pence said that he hoped the law would protect millions of state residents “who, like me, have been practicing this religion passionately for years.”
“The bill would grant politicians like Pence the right to observe their faith freely, even if their practice of stupidity costs the state billions of dollars.”
MORE from Borowitz: Pence Stunned to Learn How Many People Have Gay Friends
Diane Ravitch's blog 
If Cook was serious, Apple could stop selling iPhones in Texas and Indiana. Now THAT would send a message. Otherwise, Apple, along with the NCAA, Salesforce, Angie’s List, look like paper tigers.
LikeLike
To MathVale,
I totally agree with you!
LikeLike
This addresses more than homosexuality and does affect people on core beliefs and convictions. It would address polygamy, incest, and other forms of sexual practices. Sexual morality has been at the core of many faiths from their very beginning, some going back millennia. It’s very easy to attach the word bigotry and disregard fundamental convictions and beliefs. We are more in danger of heading in the direction of denying liberty of faith and speech than of anything else. Many would not approve of adulterous relationships or what is called fornication. Are they bigots too? It’s time to slow down the train running away and riding over the fundamental beliefs of many. What other actions can we force people to do that go against their wills, their wishes, or convictions? Sexual orientation is not the same as race. We all have control and choice when it comes to sexual activity. That’s not the same with skin color or physical features.
LikeLike
Helen, I find your argument duplicitous and empty. Masturbation, pre-marital sex, lusting in the heart, etc. are all frowned upon by many religions. Why aren’t these businesses interested in refusing to do business with those sexual ‘sinners’?
Absolutely no law in existence or proposed requires a religious person to engage in any of these ‘sinful’ activities. It is false equivalence. You and all people are and have been free to believe what you will about anything and everything.
Selling something to someone is not morally equivalent to actually following a practice you disagree with. That has been the norm for thousands of years. Jews do business with gentiles. Muslims do business with infidels. Christians do business with everyone. Selling a good or a service is not and has never been considered making yourself into your customer. That’s just plain silly.
I would have more respect for those bigots if they were just honest about their bigotry, if they just came out and admitted “We hate and fear gay people. We want them dead or at least invisible. We refuse to associate with them.” Honesty is also a virtue pushed by many religions, isn’t it?
Tell me this: my deeply held religious beliefs prevent me from supporting discrimination, bigotry, hatred, prejudice, and homophobia. Does that give me the same right you claim? Can I refuse to do business with you and those who believe and choose to act as you do? I claim that right under your religious freedom bill. And I imagine others will do so as well.
You have control and choice when it comes to religious activity. And yours is offensive and harmful to me and those I love and respect. For a few centuries we have been able to live alongside each other in peace but now you are acting to turn that peace into war. So be it.
I will fight and so will many millions of other people as evidenced by the blowback against Indiana’s legislative manipulation of the very concept of freedom in a pluralistic democratic republic.
LikeLike
“Does that give me the same right you claim? Can I refuse to do business with you and those who believe and choose to act as you do?”
Sounds like you could, based on Helen Louise’s logic. “We all have control and choice” over our beliefs and actions, after all. So people should be permitted to refuse service to Christians solely on the basis that they disagree with Christianity, because religion, like sexual orientation, is “not the same with skin color or physical features.”
LikeLike
Chris, your response is so full of hyperbole and exaggerations that it’s impossible to rationally respond to it. More power to you to do what you wish. I wouldn’t say it’s duplicitous. I would say it’s irrational.
LikeLike
Helen, that is a typical tactic of those who can’t justify their arguments: refuse to answer to the charges I made and accuse me of hyperbole and declare that I am beyond being treated as a human being capable of discussion. I’m not fooled.
I wish you well and May God bless you.
LikeLike
I wish you well also, Chris. But you did resort to hyperbole again, e.g., not treating you as a human being. You might see that applies appropriately to your first response.
LikeLike
Good points Chris,
Even as a Christian, who disagrees with homosexuality (as being “against nature”) the issue is 2 faceted: 1) the partiality/favoritism of this law 2) the separation of church and state.
1. Yes, why not a law giving one the freedom not to serve adulterers, fornicators, pedophiles, etc? You are correct in pointing out the partiality, bias and favoritism (all prohibited in the Bible) of isolating the gay community with this law. Jesus said that remarrying after divorce (except in cases of adultery and faith-persecution) is the same as committing adultery, because the divorce was not warranted and the couple did not live out their love-promises to each other and have no right to remarry. So, why does not IN include ”
wrongly remarried” in this law, or those that battle with thought-mind lusts? Yes, the “right” wing is inconsistent with their mercy and justice and has an biased fear against gays, which is not biblical.
2. The State has the right and responsibility to ensure an even playing-field in terms of domestic affairs. It has no right to discriminate, even if it tries to site biblical principles. Leave it to the Church to decide and act about how gays should be treated, not the State. I’d rather hire and maintain an openly gay employee who is hard working and responsible, over a heterosexual who is lazy and irresponsible. If sexual orientation does not affect job performance then the State, or employer, has no right to make it an issue.
3. Now, if it can be shown (and statistics do support this) that people in gay relationships are more likely to get sick, have medical issues after long-term, chronic, behaviors, and are more prone to chemical abuse-problems, then is it the State job to ensure employers do not have to offer the same medical coverage, as to non-gay people? Does the State have the job to ensure the employer is not overly burdened in health-care costs by hiring employees with documented patterns of “high-cost” behaviors? Yes/No??? I’m not sure, for the argument can be made that a chronic glutton is equally a high-cost behavior that will burden the employer, and society, with higher medical costs, and the alcoholic, etc….
4. Finally, my faith teaches and requires, and blesses, me with the principle of loving all equally; treating the gay the same as the adulterer, disagreeing with their behaviors, yet showing them the same love and mercy that Jesus showed me at the Cross.
LikeLike
I have been a faithful Christian for my entire life. I am a Roman Catholic. The catechism of the Catholic Church teaches that discriminating against lgbtq people is wrong and they must be treated with the same dignity and respect as all children of God.
Could you point to a source for your claim that gay men suffer more illness due to their lifestyle? I will not accept rightwing, homophobic propaganda. I find it hard to beleive that such ‘proof’ exists since the only pele that could possibly be studied in a cohort would be self-identified and it would not be a scientifically representative sample then, would it? Blanket statements like that don’t pass the smell test.
I remember when Anita Bryant and her ilk argued that gays did not deserve equality because they were richer, lived longer, and had more and better things since they don’t have children to raise. Can’t be both, can it?
Amazing the lies made up to justify bigotry and hatred.
God bless you!
LikeLike
The right’s bigotry is only exceeded by your anti-religious hatred. Your narcissism can’t even grasp the irony.
The LGBT movement really needs to get its act together.
LikeLike
By the way, there is a degenerate political philosophy called postmodernism or queer theory that says anything sexual goes. They have done a LOT of damage in academia. Interesting that the rise of this demented belief coincided with the rise of neoliberalism.
The problem with it is this notion clearly steps on the rights of other people, true protected classes like biological women, which these degenerates believe is a social construct and not a biological reality.
LikeLike
That’s the rub in all of this. LGBTs aren’t superior to all other groups, especially the trans who seek to invalidate protections for women to have sex-segregated places like locker rooms, restrooms. and so on in order to have privacy and avoid sexual assault by males. It’s nice to have compassion, but this smallest of minorities needs to get past their narcissism and look at the big picture. To be blunt about it, we are talking about people claiming being a protected class based on their sex lives or, in the case of trans, body dysmorphia or sexual fetish. One’s sex life or sexual fetishes are not immutable like being a biological woman or being in a racial group The LGBTs have counted on the goodwill of the 99 or more percent of the population and often don’t realize their views aren’t necessarily the views of millions of others.
I always believed people should
LikeLike
not be discriminated against in housing or in work because of who they jump in the sack with, but forcing businesses like photographers and wedding cake makers to kowtow to them? I don’t think so. There are always other options.
LikeLike
And to anticipate an “argument,” there is NO evidence at all being gay or lesbian is biological. Many of them would dispute that notion anyway.
LikeLike
“By the way, there is a degenerate political philosophy called postmodernism or queer theory that says anything sexual goes.”
Wow! Are you sure you want to say that Susan???
Postmodernism is not a “political philosophy”. From wiki: “Postmodernism is a late-20th-century movement in the arts, architecture, and criticism that was a departure from modernism.[1][2] Postmodernism includes skeptical interpretations of culture, literature, art, philosophy, history, economics, architecture, fiction, and literary criticism. It is often associated with deconstruction and post-structuralism because its usage as a term gained significant popularity at the same time as twentieth-century post-structural thought.”
Where do you get these blatantly false talking points? You do yourself and whatever xtian thought/movement you’re associated with much harm by spewing such utter nonsense.
LikeLike
I’m going to have to preemptively call Godwin’s Law on myself, because there is only one “political philosophy” that comes to my mind when I hear someone use the adjective “degenerate” to describe a form of thought or expression.
LikeLike
The problem is that discrimination can cut both ways. I do not claim to know the answers to these problems. I can only say that some Christians have experienced discrimination. How do we respond in a way that is fair and equitable for all?
LikeLike
HOW have Christians been discriminated against in the U.S.?
LikeLike
Yes, I can see how hard it would be to be part of the dominant culture.
LikeLike
This seems to be happening in several states at the same time. Is this an ALEC initiative?
Example: http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/03/29/the-texas-sized-anti-gay-backlash.html
LikeLike
The NCAA tried to prevent the law from being passed. With millions and millions of dollars riding on the NCAA Final Four basketball tournament in Indianapolis next weekend, now is the time to pressure the governor to change course. This is a golden opportunity because there is little that Indiana responds to more than gold, being a very pro-business state. Several petitions are circulating to push NCAA to move its headquarters out of Indianapolis, which is home to many national sports federations and fraternities and sororities. What a great opportunity for these organizations to speak out. Here is one of Moveon’s petitions: http://bit.ly/1NmJbVS.
LikeLike
So VERY many of us now are ashamed to admit we live in Indiana.
LikeLike
“Opposing discrimination takes courage.”
You mean like the discrimination due to mental acuity that standardized testing regimes impose, rewarding some and sanctioning others????
LikeLike
TAGO!
LikeLike
To say that you are going to practice your religion by not making a cake for a gay couple ( like God really cares if you do) eliminates the higher laws of your religion concerning non judgment, love one another as I have loved you, kindness, compassion, understanding heart etc. Breaking ever major law and moral code of their religion to focus on one, very debatable law, that they think is right, that gays are not to be married. It really boggles the mind and shows that they are stuck somewhere way in the past where the letter of the law was enforced in old testament times. Whereas Christ came to show the spirit of the law, love…So sad that they actually think they are pleasing a God of love by these very unloving, cruel ego centered actions. They are indeed modern day Pharisees and Jesus didn’t really like them too much did he?
LikeLike
I ama follower of Jesus and he told a very interesting parable dealing with this very issue. It is commonly known as The Good Samaritan. Good reading and very clear about his position regarding dealing with those considered sinful and unclean.
Thank you, julie, for your insigtful comment.
LikeLike
Julie, there are more than one attribute to God as described in both Old and New Testaments. Besides a God of love, He is described as holy, pure, just, jealous, and a God of wrath. Not participating in an event that promotes what is considered a sinful relationship and behavior is not judgment. It’s discernment in not participating. If you will read the epistles of the New Testament, you will find many, many warnings about judgment, wrath, chastisement, etc. There is a balance to knowing God and understanding Scripture. My degree is in biblical education and it’s important to get the balanced overview of Scripture. Didn’t Jesus run the moneychangers out of the temple? Romans 1 speaks to the issue as does the epistle of Jude. There is no hate or fear involved. Anyone who claims to be a Christian is just as constrained in their actions and behaviors as any one with a propensity to same-sex attraction. Heterosexuals can’t do just anything they want if they are followers of Christ either. If you read the New Testament carefully, you will see God is more than a God of love. But He does offer His love to those who are willing to repent and submit to His divinely revealed will.
This is holy week for Christians. It’s a time when we all across this globe recognize again the great cost to bring redemption to us who acknowledge we are sinners and fall so very short of the glory of God and His intentions and purposes for us. God is the ultimate judge, but we must also be discerning and obedient to Him. There are many activities we cannot approve of, but that doesn’t mean we don’t love those who participate in them. Ask any parent who still loves their child who has strayed so far from their core values.
I don’t expect many here to understand.
LikeLike
Why is selling items, baking a wedding cake, or taking photographs like having moneychangers at the temple? Stores, bakeries, and photography studios are NOT sacred spaces.
LikeLike
Helen, we are not going to let you claim to be the spokesperson for all Christians. You and the authors of these laws are one sect of the faith and there are others who strongly disagree with you and what you interpret as the truth. My God is does not belong to you and I didn’t ask for you to explain anything to me.
I expect many here understand far better and far more than your limited viewpoint allows. That comment was offensive and dismissive nd judgemental. Not gospel quality at all.
I wish you a blessed Holy Week and Easter.
LikeLike
Enlighten me, please: exactly what did Jesus say about homosexuality? Thanks.
LikeLike
“Anyone who claims to be a Christian is just as constrained in their actions and behaviors as any one with a propensity to same-sex attraction. Heterosexuals can’t do just anything they want if they are followers of Christ either.”
As a heterosexual man, I’ve always found the “no sex with men” rule to be a deal-breaker. It’s just too constraining.
LikeLike
I don’t agree with Fox News, Forbes, and the Columbus Dispatch, but I still read them. I find too many of my fellow Christians are withdrawing into an echo chamber. The more I traveled, the more people I met, the more convinced I was that God has a plan well beyond my comprehension. What consenting adults do in private that harms no one has become less of an issue as I grow older. Exploiting children, hurting others, imposing someone’s interpretation of the Bible, Torah, or Koran on others – that seems more against my beliefs every day.
LikeLike
This law is in numerous states. It’s probably from ALEC. They laws say you can do anything you want in the name of your religion, and the burden is on the “government” to show cause why not. Mind boggling. Would it not bring back polygamy? Witchcraft and witchhunts? Bible readings in schools? Open the door fully to vouchers?
By thinking only of discrimation against gays, we miss the point of the law. It’s about a theocracy.
LikeLike
Polygamy has been essentially decriminalized, as long as both parties are consenting adults.
LikeLike
Both? I’d think all parties would have to agree, which sounds like herding cats! Sorry, the image of trying to negotiate this is sort of vivid.
LikeLike
I mean the man and each individual wife.
LikeLike
I think part of the reason these bills are suddenly passing all over the place also has to do with the Hobby Lobby decision last year, that allows those with “deeply held religious beliefs” to essentially offer only what they want to offer to employees. That decision gives a green light to this sort of reprehensible law.
LikeLike
Christ, the primary cause of anal and rectal cancer is anal sex. This is not a pleasant subject, but just ask any oncologist or physician. It’s an unnatural act because the muscles are not made to be penetrated. There are other illnesses and body parts affected medically by various sexual acts. This is just because you asked.
LikeLike
I’m guessing you have quite an search history on your Web browser, Helen Louise.
LikeLike
More an association with various medical personnel. Here’s another that does not relate to a search engine. In Jewish and Muslim societies, very few women experience cervical cancer. The majority, if not all, of the men are circumcised. In the Far East where no men or few men are circumcised, cervical cancer is a leading killer of women. You can ask both gynecologists and oncologists about that one. Some facts are hidden because some consider them offensive. Truths or facts can be both pleasing and offensive. Those who cry for scientific facts in some don’t appreciate them in others.
LikeLike
“There are other illnesses and body parts affected medically by various sexual acts.”
The leading one being pregnancy..
LikeLike
Is that supposed to be an illness? Where would any of us be otherwise? Certainly not posting here. LOL!
LikeLike
For women of childbearing age, pregnancy would have to be in the top ten of reasons why body parts are “affected medically by various sexual acts”.
It is also proven that women over the age of 35 are at a higher risk for pregnancy-related issues. Should we deny them insurance?
LikeLike
Researchers have found some risk factors that may increase a person’s chance of getting polyps or colorectal cancer.
Risk factors you cannot change
Age: your risk gets higher as you get older
Having had colorectal cancer or certain kinds of polyps before
Having a history of ulcerative colitis or Crohn’s disease
Family history of colorectal cancer
Race or ethnic background, such as being African American or Ashkenazi
Type 2 diabetes
Certain family syndromes, like familial adenomatous polyposis (FAP) or hereditary non-polyposis colon cancer (HNPCC, also called Lynch syndrome)
Risk factors linked to things you do
Some lifestyle-related factors have been linked to an higher risk of colorectal cancer.
Certain types of diets: one that is high in red meats (beef, lamb, or liver) and processed meats (like hot dogs, bologna, and lunch meat) can increase your colorectal cancer risk.
Cooking meats at very high heat (frying, broiling, or grilling) can create chemicals that might increase cancer risk.
Lack of exercise
Being very overweight (or obese)
Smoking
Heavy alcohol use
Facts are important.
LikeLike
Helen Louise, you betray yourself with your words, as I expected you would, when baited.
You are quoting pseudo-science garbage put forth by hate groups like the American Family Association and bigots like Peter LaBarbera. It is the same garbage that was used to justify the ‘kill the gays’ bill in Uganda. You are entitled to your own opinions and your own religious beliefs but you are not entitled to your own facts.
I have known thousands of gay men,including ‘oncologists and physicians’ in the 50+ years I’ve been a gay man. I have never known nor heard of a single gay man contracting, treating, or dying from colorectal cancer or anal cancer caused by anal sex. Anal cancer itself is a very, very rare form of cancer. The Southern Poverty Law Center has debunked this garbage pseudoscience here:
http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2010/winter/10-myths
“MYTH # 4
LGBT people don’t live nearly as long as heterosexuals.
THE ARGUMENT
Anti-LGBT organizations, seeking to promote heterosexuality as the healthier “choice,” often offer up the purportedly shorter life spans and poorer physical and mental health of gays and lesbians as reasons why they shouldn’t be allowed to adopt or foster children.
THE FACTS
This falsehood can be traced directly to the discredited research of Paul Cameron and his Family Research Institute, specifically a 1994 paper he co-wrote entitled “The Lifespan of Homosexuals.” Using obituaries collected from newspapers serving the gay community, he and his two co-authors concluded that gay men died, on average, at 43, compared to an average life expectancy at the time of around 73 for all U.S. men. On the basis of the same obituaries, Cameron also claimed that gay men are 18 times more likely to die in car accidents than heterosexuals, 22 times more likely to die of heart attacks than whites, and 11 times more likely than blacks to die of the same cause. He also concluded that lesbians are 487 times more likely to die of murder, suicide, or accidents than straight women.
Remarkably, these claims have become staples of the anti-gay right and have frequently made their way into far more mainstream venues. For example, William Bennett, education secretary under President Reagan, used Cameron’s statistics in a 1997 interview he gave to ABC News’ “This Week.”
However, like virtually all of his “research,” Cameron’s methodology is egregiously flawed — most obviously because the sample he selected (the data from the obits) was not remotely statistically representative of the LGBT population as a whole. Even Nicholas Eberstadt, a demographer at the conservative American Enterprise Institute, has called Cameron’s methods “just ridiculous.”
Anti-LGBT organizations have also tried to support this claim by distorting the work of legitimate scholars, like a 1997 study conducted by a Canadian team of researchers that dealt with gay and bisexual men living in Vancouver in the late 1980s and early 1990s. The authors of the study became aware that their work was being misrepresented by anti-LGBT groups, and issued a response taking the groups to task.”
I have known many, many heterosexual men and women who have died of colorectal cancer. I also happen to know that gay men are not the exclusive practitioners of anal sex. Your prejudice is glaring and unacceptable.
I’m done with you. I’ve dealt with haters like you my whole life. Lying is proscribed by the God you purport to serve and worship. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor. Gay people are your neighbor. You are condemned by your own words.
I will pray for you.
LikeLike
You know thousands of gay men? Come on now! A population that makes up barely over three percent of the entire population and you know thousands? That would mean that you would need to know over 666,000 people assuming you know 2,000 gay people.
LikeLike
I have been active in glbtq politics for over 40 years in NYC, Ohio, WV, and FL. Yes, I have met thousands of gay men at national conventions and the marches on Washington.
But thanks for calling me a liar and telling me what I have and have not done. I don’t know how I got along without your mansplaining things to me for all these years!
LikeLike
Dr. Ravitch,
When you began this blog, it had to do with public education. Most of us, despite our differences on other issues, cared about that area. Now you are taking sides on other issues where many of us cannot agree. I have been sharing your blogs with many educators, but I no longer am as inclined due to other issues where valid disagreements arise.
Therefore, I ask to be removed from your communications. They have gone well beyond the scope of caring about public education into areas where moral and religious convictions cannot agree with the import of what you are sending.
Thank you for all you do for public education.
Sincerely, Helen Louise Herndon hloherndon@cs.com
LikeLike
Helen, I don’t sign anyone up and I don’t know how to remove them. Hang around, there are plenty of education issues that you care about. We don’t have to agree about everything.
LikeLike
If you truly know thousands of gay men then you have to solely hang around with that population. How is that different from the topic at hand. If you only hang around gays then you are in fact doing what you are arguing against in this particular thread. No need to get offended or attack anyone because of a disagreement. I have no problem with you I just pointed out a fact the numbers don’t lie.
LikeLike
i’m not sure what kind of math you are using. I didn’t say I sit down and eat lunch eith thousands every day. I said I have met, talked to, and known thousands.
Since I am in my late 50’s that would mean if just went to a meeting once a month where 100 men atteded each meeting I could potentially meet 1000 men in 10 months.
I’ve attended, spoken at, and presented at meetings in 7 different states for 4 decades spanning about 20 cities and I met lots of people every time I traveled over the years. I am not lying or exaggerating so I really don’t get your point at all.
But peace be with you, in the spirit of Holy Week.
LikeLike
Did you just take the lord’s name in vain? True colors always come out in the end.
LikeLike
Good catch, Dienne!
LikeLike
I believe she meant “Chris” (as in Florida) and not “Christ”
LikeLike
Once I checked out an audio copy of the Bible. When I listened (more than Once) to the beginning of Romans, it struck me that Paul put his admonition against homosexuality right next to the admonition against gossiping. (And remember, Jesus said NOTHING ABOUT HOMOSEXUALITY, PAUL DID)
LikeLike
Last comment should have read “Chris,” not “Christ.” Yes, gossiping is serious and is covered when pastors preach expositive sermons. But no one is forcing gossip on the rest. Jesus never said anything about incest, bestiality or rape either. He did affirm marriage between a man and a woman in Matthew 19. 4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’ 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’ ? 6 So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate.”
As for running the moneychangers out, it was just showing the anger of Christ. There was nothing to compare. Let’s not misdirect what the context is about.
LikeLike
“But no one is forcing gossip on the rest.”
Guess you’ve never held a job – pretty hard to avoid gossip. Anyway, who’s forcing you to be involved in homosexuality? If so, you should report that – it would be a crime.
LikeLike
This contains highly inappropriate language, but it’s directly on point here.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eb-JZSyhWSc
LikeLike
Religious freedom in Indiana? What a joke! Indiana now leads the country in the diversion of public funds to special interest faith-based private schools through vouchers, thus undermining public education and religious liberty in one fell swoop while spllntering the school population along religious and other other lines. GOP Govs Pence and Daniels and their GOP accomplices in the legislature have made the state a disgrace, a laughing stock, the butt of crude jokes. And Pence’s and his pals’ vendetta against state school supt Glenda Ritz, who ousted Tony Bennett and outpolled Pence himself, only adds to the shame.
As a former Indians public school teacher I am deeply embarrassed by my native state. Oh, if only onetime Hoosier writer Ambrose Bierce were still alive. But I will add this haiku —
Combine ignorance
with arrogance and — Voila! —
Hoosier lawmakers
Edd Doerr (arlinc.org)
LikeLike
God(capitalized only because it’s the first word of the sentence)damn all religions!
Is that inclusive enough??
LikeLike
More than one governor and their opportunistic legislators want to be known as the promoters in chief of a faith-based corporate welfare state.
“Faith-based” policies are popping up all over. The most recent are intended to make visible the right of people who own a privately held business to practice discrimination based on their religion, free of government interference.
The Supreme Court ruling in the Hobby Lobby case has brought energy to others who now want to use The Religious Freedom Restoration Act to secure special rights. These rights may well come along at the expense of some long-standing civil rights, and tank some important but “burden-filled” government regulations.
The original Religious Freedom Restoration Act, (Pub. L. 113-296), passed in 1993, was spnsored and supported by a broad spectrum of conservative and liberal politicians and religious groups.
A recent Supreme Court ruling that has emboldened the proliferation of state laws based on that Religious Freedom Restoration Act. It is summarized here with some of the antecedent cases. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burwell_v.Hobby_Lobby_Stores,_Inc. At least 20 states have passed.or have tried to pass versions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.
The most recent effort to create a version of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act in Indiana has made national news, and not exactly as expected. The back lash should have been expected.
The very title of the Act assumes that religious freedom has been vanishing from American life. Far from it: Organized religion is changing and religious groups are politically active in new ways., some of these as surprising as supporting same sex marriage.
There can be little doubt that versions of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act state are arising in a historical moment when 37 states permit same sex marriage, and organized lobbies of religious groups are visibly trying to influence domestic policies and international affairs.
ALEC, for example, the American Legislative Exchange Council, provides model legislation bearing on religion. You can discover that by a simple key word search for ”religion” at the ALEC website. Religious groups are clearly being considered in many of ALEC’s model legislation addressed to schools and health initiatives. See, for example. http://www.alec.org/model-legislation/health-care-sharing-ministries-tax-parity-act/
Here is a little-known fact bearing on religious privilege in the United States. If may be a surprise to many. Atheists are not permitted to hold office in the following states, and in Arkansas they cannot they serve as a witness.
Arkansas, Article 19, Section 1: No person who denies the being of a God shall hold any office in the civil departments of this State, nor be competent to testify as a witness in any Court.
Maryland, Article 37: That no religious test ought ever to be required as a qualification for any office of profit or trust in this State, other than a declaration of belief in the existence of God; nor shall the Legislature prescribe any other oath of office than the oath prescribed by this Constitution.
Mississippi, Article 14, Section 265: No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office in this state.
North Carolina, Article 6, Section 8: The following persons shall be disqualified for office: Any person who shall deny the being of Almighty God.
South Carolina, Article 17, Section 4: No person who denies the existence of a Supreme Being shall hold any office under this Constitution.
Tennessee, Article 9, Section 2: No person who denies the being of God, or a future state of rewards and punishments, shall hold any office in the civil department of this state.
Texas Article 1, Section 4: No religious test shall ever be required as a qualification to any office, or public trust, in this State; nor shall any one be excluded from holding office on account of his religious sentiments, provided he acknowledge the existence of a Supreme Being.
Source http://americanhumanist.org/HNN/details/2012-05-unelectable-atheists-us-states-that-prohibit-godless
I am troubled by the idea that “freedom of religious conscience” will come to mean freedom to refuse service to persons and groups who are judged unworthy, sinful, or a threat to a particular faith by virtue of propagating “false” doctrines…or being an atheist.
I see this coordinated effort as another campaign to defeat critical thinking, quite literally replacing that essential capability with doctrine.
The spillover from this effort is evident in public schools where there are efforts to limit the curriculum, the horizons of students, and what can be taught. Religious doctrines that deny the merit of scientific inquiry, the value of lessons about human feelings and ideas in literature and the arts, the very important role of more than one religious movement is shaping political and cultural history as well as current affairs. Teachers are not afraid of teaching about religions, but that is different from indoctrination.
It is one thing to honor one’s own religion and another to propose that it become a state-approved challenge to hard-won civil rights… including public education free of religious indoctrination.
LikeLike
Thanks for that info, Laura.
I had noticed a number of those clauses while researching the constitutional mandates for public education.
LikeLike
Well said Laura,
I wonder if the teaching of sole-evolution, without a dialectical discourse of thesis and antithesis (of evidence for and refutation against), of the promotion of a Richard Dawkin’s interpretation of evolution (as seen in his book, The God Delusion) already makes the State in violation of the 1st amendment; for it is inhibiting and prohibiting a dialogue of critical analysis about evolution (and origin theories/models) by its monologue of atheism and materialism.
Having students read critiques about the limitations, anomalies and problems within evolutionary theory, and origin modeling, (even those from an intelligent design genre), does not violate the 1st and is actually good pedagogy, in that it helps develop dialectical skills. The evolution-only camp is just as guilty of stifling dialogue and thinking as much as those other groups it accuses.
LikeLike
Maybe someone more knowledgeable about constitutional law can help me out (FLERP?).
Isn’t this “religious freedom” law a violation of the Establishment Clause? In other words, is the government sanctioning and establishing a State religion, be that all religions? Does the Establishment Clause dictate how many religions must be acknowledged as valid in the eyes of the state before a constitutional issue is raised? Does this now set up a litmus test only the State can decide as to what beliefs are considered religious enough to be granted a right to refuse business to another person in a discriminatory fashion?
Can I be a white supremacist and claim religious beliefs to refuse minorities? Can a Catholic refuse divorced and remarried people?
It sure seems like an end run around the First Amendment to gradually establish a narrow form of Christianity on a nation. I am religious, but I see an alarming slippery slope where certain people, once these laws are in place, will gradually focus the intent to cover only what they believe.
LikeLike
Yes it is an end run around the US Constitution.
LikeLike
Individuals, and their businesses, are protected by the 1st amendment; whereby the State cannot inhibit or prohibit their free exercise. So, if one wants to withhold a good or service from someone the State cannot prohibit that (except what falls under the Equal Employment Act and Housing Acts, which are essential services). We don’t make all-male clubs force to accept females, so if someone of a specific sexual persuasion cannot buy food somewhere, they are free to buy it somewhere else.
Now the hypocrisy of the “right” is that their faith teaches that adultery and fornication are no better than homosexuality, or any form of perversion; all sins are equal, though some have more negative consequences. So, in IN will the law give one the right to not serve and adulterer too, and if not, why? How about not serving those who view a little porn? Come on IN, and all of us, let our laws show no partiality.
LikeLike
Whenever laws “skirt” the 1st amendment, the courts historically have used a tripartite-analysis of the issue: 1) what was/is the original intent of the framers of the Constitution 2) how has the issue been decided in prior historic court precedence and 3) does the decision cause “necessary entanglement” between the State and the Church (which is to be avoided).
Most of the Framers were theists and Christians; many of whom fled persecution in England as the Anglicans were belligerent toward the Puritans. The Framers believed in the great and necessary role of religion and personal faith, in order to have a functioning Republic with moral integrity. They just didn’t want to see the State endorse any one denomination. The term “separation of church and State” is not in the 1st amendment, but was a phrase used by T Jefferson.
I believe the IN law will lead to a violation of principle 3, the creation of a State-endorsed interpretation of religion. Especially, in that it shows partiality and bias against a certain subpopulation, when other subpopulations are not singled out (ie. do we have laws against adulterers not getting service too, what about porn-addicts too?)
Even as a believer I realize the inconsistencies of the IN law, and the bias against a specific group.
The realm of “Ceasar” (secular society and the workplace) is not the same as the “kingdom of God”. So, let the church decide on how to deal with specific groups within its context, and the State to decide within its context.
LikeLike
This link has a good summary of the IN law, though I would like to see the actual Bill in its entirety (anyone find it and can share it).
http://thefederalist.com/2015/03/30/your-questions-on-indianas-religious-freedom-bill-answered/
LikeLike
Rick,
I agree that individuals should be able to determine who they interact with. Unfortunately, that opens up the can o’ worms that is discrimination in all its forms. And it seems to me that the current sentiment and law is that discrimination against certain classes of people (race, sex, sexual orientation, origin, etc. . . ) is illegal.
I contend that the state’s discrimination against students based on inherent characteristics, e.g., mental capabilities, through sanctions and rewards associated with standardized testing should be illegal also.
By the way I didn’t respond (forgot to) to your request for my email to further a discussion. It is dswacker@centurytel.net. My apologies. Feel free to email me anytime.
LikeLike
“Most of the Framers were theists and Christians; many of whom fled persecution in England as the Anglicans were belligerent toward the Puritans.”
Most of the framers were born on this continent and did not flee religious persecution.
Some of the framers were christians and theists, others were deists and others non believers. But beside that it doesn’t make any difference what religious beliefs the framers held, that is a strawman argument. What matters is what the constitution says and the intent of the words themselves. And other than the conventional way of “dating” the text of “the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven” there is no mention of a god.
LikeLike
I don’t think it’s totally clear that this law violates the Establishment Clause. If the law is neutral on its face, is generally applicable to everyone, and is designed to accommodate (rather than advance) religion consistent with the Free Exercise Clause, then it may not violate the Establishment Clause. On the other hand, if it has the purpose and effect of advancing religion and favoring religious practices and beliefs over secular practices and beliefs, it may violate the Establishment Clause.
This is a balancing act, and it reflects some of the tension between the Establishment and Free Exercise Clauses. On the one hand, the Free Exercise Clause restricts government’s to interfere with religious practices, and so we might expect that legislation that protects religious practices from government interference should be constitutional. On the other hand, there’s the Establishment Clause.
Along the same lines, the main thrust of the original federal RFRA, and the state versions that were drafted after the federal one was ruled unconstitutional (on a separation of powers basis), was to restrict the government’s ability to constrain an individual’s religious practices. So to the extent the original RFRA may have violated the Establishment Clause, it arguably did so in service of the Free Exercise Clause. The right to free exercise of one’s religion is a significant countervailing interest in an analysis of whether an RFRA law is constitutional.
By contrast, the Indiana law appears to have the aim of prohibiting not just government, but also *individuals* from constraining people’s religious practices. That seems like a very big difference. Under the original RFRA, the question was, “Can the government enforce a law prohibiting the use of peyote if smoking peyote is central to my religious practices?” Under the Indiana law, the question is, “Can some gay couple force me to make a cake for them if not making cakes for gay marriages is central to my religious practices”?
Then combine this with Citizens United, and things get even more interesting.
LikeLike
Thanks. Favoring religion, even if all religion, by a government entity makes me nervous. I appreciate the explanation. My concern is that once a broad exemption from discrimination is granted all religions, a future administration will begin to narrow that to only specific forms of religion deemed acceptable. In other words, the establishment of a state religion. I have little confidence in this SCOTUS to sort it out.
LikeLike
I share that concern, and I find non-sectarian laws that advance religion concerning to begin with. On the other hand, for what it’s worth, I think secularism is on the winning side of history, in terms of trends. That may be a bitter consolation if you’re a serious Christian, though.
LikeLike
Well, if one takes secularism, materialism, evolution to its logical end, you either end up with Naziism, or Stalinism…….and yeah, that gives me a lot of hope. Sorry, I’ll be content with my Christianity (which apparently is an “opium of the masses”). Better to be deluded with hope, than deal with the “bleakness” of Satre’s “Nausea”????
LikeLike
I also wonder too how much of the Free Exercise Clause is judged based on whether the actions are in public or private. Seems if I stopped a gay couple from entering my home would be different from denying a wedding cake at a local bake shop (or a gay couple stop a straight couple:)
My thoughts wander to education. Can a teacher refuse to teach a single mother based on religion, now? Maybe a student can refuse to attend a school with a divorced and remarried teacher?. Can a school nurse refuse to treat a Muslim invoking religious reasons?
Tangled webs woven. But I’ll stick to Euclidean theorems, even though mom always wanted a lawyer.
LikeLike
Your questions are good ones. The answer to all three is that yes, they each have that right, but only insofar as it applies to their freedom to act or not act. They are not immune from adverse decisions by their employer or their school district. In that sense, Free Exercise is not unlike Free Speech, or the “Right to Opt Out.”
LikeLike
I thought The Onion was spot on with this one:
Indiana Governor Insists New Law Has Nothing To Do With Thing It Explicitly Intended To Do
LikeLike
What also gets me is people like Cook if not Cook himself fully support the actions of Planet Fitness in its retaliation of a woman who warned other women that an obviously male person was in the women’s locker room when she was present. Lots of lies about that case, which the man in question was and is a sexual fetishist and not a “trans woman.” I suppose Cook would say the establishment has the right to impose sexual harassment on a biological woman and to kick her out if she didn’t like it. Same argument, folks, that some religious business owners are saying about not creating wedding cakes and photos for same-sex couples. You can take your business elsewhere or even set up your own business catering to them and probably make a killing at it.
These people can’t see anything beyond their narcissism.
LikeLike
What bothers me to about those quick to use the “hate card” (as in IN) is the issue of psychological projection; we accuse others of that which we ourselves are harboring in our souls/hearts.
Just because one does not agree with another’s sexual orientation does not mean we hate them. Your doctor does not hate you when he tells you smoking is unhealthy and you should stop. One may not like and agree with the diagnosis, or prescription to chose a healthier behavior, but one should not accuse the other of hating them (unless, they themselves hate all those who are pointing out the unhealthy aspects of their behavior).
Those quick to use the “hate card” I believe are portraying their own inner rage against those who disagree with them. I have no inner rage against anybody. Though I may disagree with their behavior, I still have good-will toward them (as the ultimate declaration: “peace on earth and goodwill toward humanity”).
LikeLike