Anti-LGBT/Religious Freedom Laws

Seems like there's controversy with one of these in basically every Southern state right now. The one here in North Carolina is drawing national outrage, with businesses threatening to leave and government officials from other states barring non-essential state travel (which I think is a great way to deepen the political divide, but that's a separate issue). Deal recently vetoed the one in Georgia, and now Mississippi is proposing something even stronger.

I know that the conservatives love shouting that the liberals are taking away their freedom and that the liberals love bashing the conservatives for being bigots who are denying basic human rights, and nobody seems to be interested in compromise because they're all busy trying to find the best way to compare their opponents to Hitler.

That said, doesn't it seem like there is a fairly obvious compromise here? Basically, write the following into law:

1. Religious institutions (e.g. churches, religious schools) may freely hold their employees/members/students/whatever to their own standards of belief and practice. Relatedly, religious leaders may refuse to perform marriage ceremonies based on the beliefs and practice of the couple to be married.

2. Businesses may not discriminate based on the sex/race/religion/gender identity/sexual orientation/whatever of their customers.

And, just to clarify (2) a bit: 3. Artists may not discriminate based on the sex/race/religion/gender identity/sexual orientation of their customers, but they may refuse to produce art with certain content to which they object. So photographers can refuse to take nude shots, cake decorators can refuse to make cakes that say "yay gay marriage," "God hates f**s," or "Roll Tide," but they can't refuse to produce the exact same product for two different people based on sex/race/religion/etc of the person.

There. Done. Why does this need to keep being an issue?

 

The Mississippi one will get more attention soon, since it will surely be signed into law.

 

And your solution is completely agreeable. It makes too much damn sense, though.

 

And we cannot have compromise or common sense these days. Nope, it is ME | YOU.

 

It really should be that simple but, no, our politicians have to go the route of sweeping overreach every time.

Take NC for example. The outrage would be mitigated had they:

a) stopped at the public facilities issue, if indeed the concern was with the way the legislation was worded
b) add LGBTQ to the state's anti-discrimination protection since they wiped out all local protections already in place

I'm not saying that would have stopped all the outcry, but at least it shows an effort to be fair and show equal consideration of constituents.

 

Why prohibit business from discriminating? Let them run their own business into the ground. Drawing a delineation between religious institutions and businesses to me is bull shit and a lazy cop out. The same rules should apply to both.

 

As an NC resident. . . yep

 

Wedge issues are what keep politics afloat. If you solved this and abortion sensibly, what else would we have to fall back on?

As for the idea, part of me says go with it and that it's a great compromise/logical conclusion. Another part of me says that if you value freedom, discrimination (in some sense) has to be a part of it. Ideally, people would just go two doors over and have them bake their cake, make their coffee, etc. but people like to be offended. I also have more symathy for the small business owner in this arena than I do other larger businesses.

For total record, if someone wants to discriminate against me because of any held belief/lifestyle I have, I'm totally fine with it. I'll just not go back to that business.

Edit - Ive actually not followed the NC law. Their new push that they will pull you over for going 71 in a 70 affects me a lot more and I've focused/followed it.

 

Because in some places, there are no alternatives. It is no different than segregation (which perhaps you have a reasonable disagreement with how that was dismantled, I don't know).

 

Until we can put a fetus in a stasis container, I don't know how we can solve abortion for everyone.

 

And, by the way, citizens in these states should be mad as hell at all the money going into this unnecessary (and sometimes hateful) legislation. Not to mention the cost of the coming legal battles. Idiotic, wasteful grandstanding.

 

It's already illegal for businesses to discriminate. This just clarifies the situations in which they're not allowed to discriminate. If you want to say that we should have no anti-discrimination laws for private businesses at all, I think there's something to be said for it (and once I would've agreed, although I don't now), but it's a different discussion than "regarding which things should they be allowed to discriminate?"

As far as separating businesses and religious institutions, I would argue that treating them the same--despite them being entirely different sorts of things with entirely different goals--would be stranger than separating them.

 

The Church will say that they should not have to hire a LBGT person because it is against their beliefs. Sounds okay until I start a Church of the KKK and refuse to hire Blacks.

Employment discrimination won't fly.

 

In some places the church is your only option, but we don't seem to be concerned about that. I feel that the government absolutely should not be allowed to discriminate as it is a public entity. For private ones, I have no more desire to tell you what clientele you are or are not allowed to service than dictating the style of interior decor. To me it seems absolutely ridiculous to say that a church can discriminate but not a business. If you feel so strongly about the practice to ban it, religious institutions should not be exempt. Otherwise you're (not you specifically) just talking out of both sides of your mouth. It'd be like saying slavery is wrong, unless of course its part of your religion, in that case god speed.

 

I have similar sympathies for the small business owners, but that sympathy isn't enough for me to want to nix anti-discrimination law. The reason is that your "go two doors down" reasoning relies on a society in which a significant number of people aren't discriminating. Drop a law like that in 1960s Mississippi and you get a total disaster. I'm all for preserving ability to discriminate on a personal level, but having some restrictions in place for businesses prevents societies from going 1960s Mississippi.

Regarding the NC law, it was ostensibly in place to allow businesses to make their own bathroom rules (after a Charlotte law mandated that businesses allow transfolks to use the bathroom of their identity, not necessarily their biological sex), but given that it takes away local power to make laws on a whole host of issues (including, IIRC, anti-discrimination, sick leave, and minimum wage) and that it conspicuously leaves sexual orientation out of the things NC businesses aren't allowed to discriminate on, it looks to me like a power grab and a middle finger to Charlotte by the state government.

Also, the NC police have said that the "71 in a 70" thing was a misinterpretation. They're still doing a speed limit crackdown, but they're (in their own words) going to be reasonable about it.

 

Interesting on that law.

I'm going to have to drive through enough Barney Fife patrolled areas that I just don't want them to feel they have even more reason to pull me over for going 36 in a 35, which would probably be more likely.

 

I'm not sure that being black falls under either faith or practice, but honestly, if the Church of the KKK wants to exist as a non-profit, let 'em.

 

My friend, when it comes to church there is always another option. Even the Highlander could just hang out in an Indian burial ground for his holy ground needs.

 

It is sad to hear stories of trans men in North Carolina who are getting yelled at by ladies for being "in the wrong restroom," and for them to have to hand them a card explaining that they are merely following the law, and while they are indeed men in many ways, their birth certificate said "girl" so they have to go to the women's room now. Humiliating. Keep in mind, some of these folks were hermaphroditic at birth. I don't see why they can't go to the men's room if that is where they want to go. Who is threatened by that?

 

No alternatives to what?