this is one of those things, where if someone has a service-based business, don’t they already get to pick and choose who they work-for? that’s what i don’t understand. doctors say they are taking no new patients all the time. even hairstylists will go on break or pass off clients to others in the salon. mostly it depends if you work for yourself or work for the state or a corporation. if working for others, then have to go by their stipulation on who is or is not served.
so i could understand a bill requiring a “necessary” service to not discriminate. but one to enforce rights to discriminate doesn’t make sense. i can’t see the need. all anyone in a service industry does if they feel forced to have a client they don’t like for ANY reason– is to perform a very poor service and that client then does not come back. there is already a check and balance there, and no necessity for a law to shore up rights for discrimination.
i guess if they want to post “no gays allowed” — same as in days gone by they had signs “no negros allowed” — then are looking at an inverted application of law, where law is not necessary. a business can put up a sign of any sort, and then it is the social reaction to that posting that will determine outcome. you cannot legislate the populace to NOT react to YOUR acts of discrimination. not only is it not possible, it’s foolish.
“rights of religious expression” are already in effect. otherwise we would have no mormons knocking on doors, no christian based holiday songs played at malls…. the list goes on. and religions themselves discriminate ALL the time. that’s kind of part of their thing — inner circles and outer circles. rights of religious expression are already in effect, and could be taken away by legislation. but they can’t be GIVEN by legislation. for instance, IF salt lake city felt the need to LEGISLATE that mormons are ALLOWED to knock on the door and you must answer and give them at least 10 minutes of your time…… then we could determine that THAT particular religious body is ITSELF in complete charge of the legislative process. which then of course, is a conclusion that democracy no longer rules, and you have a THEOCRACY in its stead.
regardless … there is absolutely no way to legislate people to not react to actions of discrimination. i don’t know what they think they are going to be able to do with that. because just as someone offering a service has inherent rights to render good or bad service — those who are offended by practices of discrimination, have the rights to blackball that service provider. no legislation is going to send you new clients. i mean how stupid would you have to be, to say “oh they have a right to be assholes, so i’m going to use that service anyway.”
it doesn’t happen. or can’t, no matter how you dress it up in a legislative form. what am saying, is there is no such thing as legislating rights for religious expression. it’s an all or nothing proposal. IF you decide religion trumps every other god-given sensibility — then it’s for EVERY religion. and we can make up our own. say i have the “i’m allowed to walk down the street naked” religion. IAWDSN for short. then my rights to practice my religion become something that BREAKS other legislation. and it becomes a domino effect. i have the i get to hit you on the head religion. so assault is no longer illegal. i know that’s simplified. and a rhetorical criticism involving reductio ad absurdum.
the point is, there is absolutely no way to legislate “religious expression” into a democratic right. because you cannot legislate people to not react to me walking down the street naked. you cannot legislate people to not react and hit me over the head back, if i hit them over the head.
then choosing one particular religion or one particular right equates to theocracy. it’s pretty cut and dry.
it’s not difficult to overturn at higher levels, i would think. i know where they are coming-from, and is trying to micromanage employee relations from a government seat. we have that one clerk, who wanted to have the right to not “serve” those who “offended” her according to her religion. but she ALWAYS had the right to quit. ALWAYS. if we had a slave based situation or something, i guess. now IF the government decides those workers have rights to refuse service, and those government services involve necessary services — then would counter that legislation with ANOTHER legislation requiring that ESSENTIAL services are not allowed to discriminate. and then what we HAVE — is a lot of wasted time, creating and structuring legislation that cancels each other out….. and that goes under the heading of “too dumb to be in office.”
there is plenty of clandestine theocracy going on, and it’s a constant battle. if i had my way, would outlaw religious knocking on doors of any type, and would outlaw public renditions of music involving religious preference. but as i found in 4-H when in charge of the christmas music selection — is a little impossible to stop people from breaking out in song when you want them to do or see the right way to BE in areas not governed solely by christian mores or norms. it’s very difficult to make that “rule” — turns out you can only make it for yourself.
here in utah, when i noted — it was reported in the local paper — that the state legislature was waiting to first meet privately WITH the lds church elders before they would begin their session …..that is theocracy. point blank, no doubt or way to defend that it is NOT. so……then becomes a matter of damage control.
you are already under the thumb of theocratic rule, and all the wishing in the world cannot reverse the ever tightening spiral of a theocratic nation conquering your democracy. and the biggest problem or issue with that, is theocratic rule tends to be fascist in nature. for instance, the lds church can state they “officially” allow blacks into the church now. but you look at the leadership — it’s all white male. ALL….. there is not any actual showing of tolerance. say one thing, do another. women are kept in their “place” and then we have issues plaguing the state such as the shutdown of women’s health clinics. in theocratic rule, those with the most money make the rules. a theocracy has no ability to counter social class divides. the gaps are unbelievably horrendous. equality not only does not come into the picture, but INEQUALITY is a backbone of the theocracy itself.
and i sympathize with those who are simple? enough to believe that they are not realizing the full expression of their religious convictions. i would recommend they come to utah, to enjoy a full theocracy in progress. and leave the rest of the nation alone. because they have no idea what path they are on. no idea whatsoever. there is a reason the catholic church was removed from its seat as a world power, or at least at some levels. they have no idea.