The Gay Thing: Louisiana Governor Bobby Jindal Issues Anti-Gay Executive Order

Wow. Just wow. Not only is Gov. "Bobby" Jindal willing to publicly mix his religion with his politics, willing to go to the mat for this "sincerely held religious belief" bullshit about marriage and wedding vendors in the face of intense bipartisan backlash. . .he's willing to do it unilaterally, and by actually pointing out that this is about The Gays. Usually, they don't do that.

Okay, so I've said it a lot, but I'm saying it again: this issue is bogus, from top to bottom. There is no doctrine that forbids Christian businesspeople from selling their wares to gay people. Or for weddings that their own church doesn't recognize. This was never an issue for any of the countless heterosexual "courthouse weddings," never an issue before gays got legal recognition. Moreover, the public sale of common goods or services is not taking place under the guise of religion, or in a religious context. Religion does not enter into the business transaction. It didn't work as an argument during the 60s civil rights era, and it shouldn't work now.

Image from source, Joe.My.God.

There are other issues with their line of argument, namely that though these things are dreamed up by Christians from a Christian perspective about their mysterious fixation on a "sin" that is scarcely mentioned in the Bible, Christianity is not the only religion. Also, weddings aren't the only events a religious person could have religious beliefs toward. Nor are civil marriages even necessarily religious in nature n the first place. Annnnnd, of course, a person's religious rights apply to themselves, not their customers, not their employees. You--as a business owner, proprietor, cashier, whatever--don't get to shun me because my religious beliefs down align with yours! It's absurd!

But back to Bobby. His state legislature nixed this kind of nonsense, amazingly enough. So, he's doing an end-run, and issuing an executive order. Specifically addressing marriage. It's got to be unconstitutional, and it's certainly mean-spirited. It's also tremendously out of step with the times. And it sets up a whole host of problems that Bobby likely gave almost no thought to, including but not limited to demands from Christians for exemptions to other laws, whether anti-gay, or anti-someone else; demands from other existing religions for exemptions to other laws, and. . .just wait for it. . .demands from possibly newly born religions for exemptions based upon "sincerely held beliefs" about. . .well, whatever they can dream up.

Because the nifty (and bizarre) thing about "sincerely held belief" is that it need not be backed up with doctrine, or commandments, or anything more than what's inside your noggin. These beliefs can even be contradicted by empirical fact (as in Hobby Lobby, which was actually cited in the order), and still be sincerely held.

[Excerpt]

LOUISIANA: Bobby Jindal Issues Executive Order Legalizing Anti-Gay Discrimination
 
Earlier today a Louisiana House committee rejected the bill that would have legalized anti-gay discrimination. That rejection came after big business, including IBM, denounced the bill. Unswayed, Gov. Bobby Jindal has already followed through on his vow to issue an executive order that bypasses the state legislature. . .

Read more at: Joe.My.God.
 

The Gay Thing: Here is Why Religious Objections to Gay Marriage are BUNK

Yes, The Gay Thing again. Sorry for being sort of a one-track-blog lately, but this topic just keeps bobbing up to the top. And the level of stupid amongst blogs, social media, Right Wing World and even from elected officials, is really starting to irritate me to the point of distraction.

I've struggled with writing a streamlined rebuttal to all of these "Religious Freedom Restoration Acts" that keep cropping up, and with the arguments behind them. Then I realized, there is a very simple reason why "marriage" isn't some special, sanctified, sacred, religious haven immune to ordinary laws. And here it is:


Attention RFRA Supporters: Not a church.

Civil marriage and "holy matrimony" have coexisted for decades, centuries even, and have not heretofore presented a religious conflict for wedding and formal event vendors.

That's it. That proves, a) that the perspective of the religiously sensitive cake baker or florist is anti-gay bigotry wrapped in religion, and b) that legal protection for their position is unnecessary.

Everyone knows that the Catholic Church, for example, has been free to ignore the validity of any couple's marriage that they don't deem to fit with their doctrine. Even congregants in good standing have been denied a "church wedding" within its walls. This is still true now, and will remain true unless the Vatican changes its mind on the subject, not whether or not the United States changes its civil laws. The same is true for any church or religion, as it pertains to what they consider valid in their religion.

Wedding reception hall (cakes, flowers, catering):
Also, not a church.

At the same time, many marriages have either no formal religious endorsement, or no religious component at all. There has been no recent prohibition against marriages by atheists, agnostics, interfaith couples, previously married couples, excommunicated Catholics or really, hardly any combination of unrelated, consenting adults. These marriages have co-existed with those considered to be religiously sanctified for time immemorial. These people have purchased cakes, flowers, catering, photography, tuxedos, dresses, hired reception halls, been listed on gift registries, been featured in newspapers, and managed to do it all without creating  religious crises for any of the vendors involved.

The fact that now--now that same-sex marriage is a reality, and soon probably a nation-wide one--suddenly "requires" special exemptions to laws, and protections for religious belief ought to be very telling to everyone what this is really all about: anti-gay bigotry. How can all of the above be true, and this simple fact not be obvious? These vendors managed to ignore any "sincerely held beliefs" about their clients' private lives and personal morality before. Why has that suddenly changed for this particular category of "sinner?" And how can it possibly be legally justified?

Well, it can only be justified if you ignore precedent, logic, reason and go merely for truthiness and "gut-feel," and if you have a tendency to feel squishy about religious teachings. Because even if we did have to bend over backwards for religious belief in any and all case law, Christians have thus far been unable to present which commandment or bit of doctrine forbids selling wares to "sinners" in the first place. But, now I'm off on a tangent. Here, read this excellent article that tends to back me up, won't you?

Image from source, Think Progress

[Excerpt]

Why The Christian Right May Never Recover From Indiana

Maurice Bessinger built his fortune serving barbecue. At the half-dozen locations of his Piggie Park restaurants, customers could enjoy meats slathered in the yellow, mustard-based sauce unique to South Carolina. That is, of course, unless they were black, for Bessinger was also a proud racist. As late as the twenty-first century, Piggie Park distributed tracts to its customers claiming that the Bible is a pro-slavery document — one of them claimed that African slaves “blessed the Lord for allowing them to be enslaved and sent to America.” After Congress banned whites-only restaurants in 1964, Bessinger reportedly put up an uncensored version of a sign warning that “[t]he law makes us serve n***ers, but any money we get from them goes to the Ku Klux Klan. . .”

Read more at: Think Progress