by Matt Williams
One of yesterday’s national news headlines read “UConn president tells coach Kevin Ollie he can’t travel to Indy meeting” and the story that followed the headline detailed how University of Connecticut (UConn) men’s basketball coach Kevin Ollie and his staff will not travel to the NCAA basketball tournament’s Final Four in Indianapolis this week.
The reason for the Ollie decision is that Connecticut Governor Dan Malloy issued a formal executive order banning state-sponsored and state-funded travel to Indiana … due to new legislation signed into law by Indiana Governor Mike Pence last week, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, which could potentially be used to discriminate against gay people. When he signed the order, Malloy stated, “The idea that somebody from Connecticut who complies with the law here can go to another state and be discriminated against is abhorrent, cannot be tolerated, and quite frankly, we can’t witness it without raising our voice.”
The Indiana law prohibits state and local governments from impeding a person or business’ ability to exercise their religious beliefs. Opponents of the law argue it could be abused discriminate against members of the LGBT community.
UConn President Susan Herbst in support of Governor Malloy’s travel ban, stated in her decision regarding Ollie’s travel, “In support of Governor Malloy’s travel ban to the state of Indiana, Kevin Ollie and other members of the UConn men’s basketball staff will not travel to Indianapolis for the NCAA Final Four and events surrounding it. UConn is a community that values all of our members and treats each person with the same degree of respect, regardless of their background and beliefs and we will not tolerate any other behavior.”
One of the many threads of this story is that the NCAA’s Women’s Final Four Championship is scheduled for Indianapolis in 2016 (it is in Tampa this year), and the UConn Women’s team has qualified for the Women’s Final Four for 8 consecutive years and 13 of the last 16 years. It is reasonable to predict that they will be going to Indianapolis in 12 months.
Another of the threads is that UConn’s Men’s team qualified for last year’s Final Four.
Imagine if we were to time shift events forward or backward one year, do you think Governor Malloy would follow Jimmy Carter’s example from the Moscow Olympic Games and forbid either the UConn Men’s or Women’s basketball teams from playing in Indianapolis this week?
Or, to add a little local flavor … imagine that this season’s UCD record setting Men’s basketball season had continued on into the NCAA Tournament and qualified for the Final Four, do you think Chancellor Katehi and Governor Brown would forbid the UCD team from playing in Indianapolis this week?
If I read between ‘your lines’ correctly, Matt… UConn ‘didn’t show up to play’, so the UConn president got a “two-fer”… made a ‘cool’ political statement, and punished the Coach for not having the UConn team in play. Nice. Particularly since (and I read it) the law doesn’t say what those who are already incensed say it does, and there is already clarifying language on the Governor’s desk. Want to see the President of UConn’s ‘bracket picks’ before I comment further!
Hope you have a good week, Matt… coffee?
i think the real story is how powerful the gay-lobby has become in this country.
I think the real story is how much attitudes have changed, and some political leaders are getting left behind. Look at any polling data. Young Republicans mirror the rest of the country, but the old guard — which includes a number of governors, apparently — still hasn’t changed. The impact on college basketball is a pretty trivial sideshow, in my opinion, but perhaps others care more about that.
while i agree that attitudes have changed, i think this is a case of the exercise of political muscle as a show of force.
Over hype by the left trying to make political points against a Republican Governor. If I’ve heard it right 19 states already have a similar law and Obama voted for something close to this when he was an Illinois Senator and it all falls in line with President Bill Clinton’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA) that he signed into law in 1993.
Simple answer, not a chance.
But Hobby Lobby changed all that. It isn’t the same thing at all any more.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/03/27/indianas-religious-freedom-bill-and-the-ghost-of-hobby-lobby/
i think it goes way beyond the “left” trying make political points against a governor. i don’t see it as a partisan thing so much as a shot across the bow about the political muscle of the gay lobby.
The “gay lobby” didn’t introduce, pass, or sign the bill.
correct the gay lobby is trying to use their muscle to dissuade others from trying to push such legislation in the future. and they’ve done a good job of it.
DP, what is this “gay lobby” you have now referred to three times? The GOP legislature passed the bill. The GOP governor actively promoted and signed it. They’re responsible for the response.
What’s “done a good job” of dissuading others should be that the law is unnecessary, divisive, and probably has unintended consequences.
i’m using it as a term to refer to a network of activists that will blast anti-gay legislation. i actually don’t mean it in a derogatory way (as opposed to the right’s reference to the “homosexual lobby”).
“What’s “done a good job” of dissuading others should be that the law is unnecessary, divisive, and probably has unintended consequences.”
but they’ve turned it into a cause celeb.
I guess the “gay lobby”, or friends of the gay lobby, called in the death threats to the family with the pizza joint? So evolved, so enlightened.
You have no idea who called in death threats. I could point to examples of egregiously bad behavior on all sides of any cultural issue. I still have no idea what you or DP mean by the “gay lobby.”
Dan Malloy is the Democrat political hack here. The Indiana legislation is needed, like in Florida, because there are many cases where people acting on their religious beliefs have been destroyed by the government. The law is necessary if we TRULY believe in equality and civil rights and freedom… where government has to have a level of burden to be able to establish that there’s been some kind of discrimination.
The test for discrimination should be, IMO, focused on harm done to people because of who they are, but because of what they do or what choices they make… especially when reasonable alternatives exist. A business that refuses to make cakes for gay weddings does not pass the test. And the harm in retribution exceeds by orders of magnitude any done to the customer not provide a service they demand.
Just as expected, gays and gay rights activists continue their march of slashing and burning society and freedoms of others to selfishly attain something irrational… a remedy for their personal insecurity and feelings of not being accepted which is largely manufactured in their own minds.
We don’t have to agree with how people chose to live their lives, but we need to be respectful. There is a disturbing and ugly lack of respect toward religious people coming from the political left and the gay rights activists. It is major hypocrisy given the emotional gay rights narrative of caring, equal rights and respect. Gays seems to want their cake and eat it too.
Your usual pseudo-psychoanalysis (you seem remarkably able to diagnose insecurity in people you don’t know). Here’s a better, more balanced analysis.
http://www.religionnews.com/2015/03/31/indiana-law-come-brief-history-religious-freedom-analysis/
A couple of simple fixes could make these laws less likely to result in overt discrimination. But the real “lobby” that is involved is the conservative religious “lobby” that wants to push back against gay marriage in any manner possible. Hobby Lobby changed everything, and they know it. That’s why over a dozen red states have these laws pending.
The “disturbing and ugly disrespect” is those who wish to actively discriminate against their fellow gay citizens. If you want to protect religious liberties, you also need to protect civil liberties. These things were balanced. Until Hobby Lobby. You have no idea what a radical ruling that was by the Roberts Court.
Frankly
“A business that refuses to make cakes for gay weddings does not pass the test.”
Maybe….or maybe not. What if the town is small and this is the only bakery ? No harm done ? What if there is no public or private venue that will rent the couple space for their reception ? Still no material harm ? What if no one will cater , or provide flowers, or music , or photographs ? Too bad ?
I see these actions as potentially causing very material harm since a great deal of our social interactions are based on these kinds of activities.
I am curious as how you see this as being any different from refusing to let some one come in through the front door or sit at a counter because they have a different skin tone from the owner if the owner claims that white supremacist belief is her “religion” and that she truly believes that it is wrong for different races to “come in contact” with each other. Is this ok as long as she can demonstrate it is her true “religious belief”. After all, Holly Lobby proved that the beliefs do not have to have any basis in fact, they just have to be believed.
Its a good business opportunity–one of the positive things about a free market is that the business owner that does cater to gays and others thus has an added element of competitive advantage over those buinesses that discriminate.
I’m a bit of a radical on the freedom of small to medium size businesses (though not when they get to the scales of oligopolies; and not of course by government offices) to discriminate in any way they want. If the proprieter doesn’t like the way you look when you enter their shop, restaurant, etc. they should be free to deny you entry. Of course, the business that disciminates will suffer some loss in business and give an advantage to their competitors.
My dream of opening a nightclub exclusive to big-nosed people wearing bow-ties and cowboy boots, and dresses only for women (and only for women) may someday be realized….
I do agree that this can be a problem in small towns–though there is some potential profit in broadening your small business to selling wedding cakes (at least special-ordering them) when the only other business in town currently selling these cakes discriminates against gays.
So what happens if white supremacists want pizzas delivered to a KKK rally from a restaurant owned by blacks and they refuse to deliver? Are they liable to a lawsuit? How far does not discriminating go if one is uncomfortable with the situation or the cause?
then what happens if a white supremacist refuses to deliver to a black? your same logic apply?
Just a question, would the black restaurant owner be liable to a lawsuit in this instance if the KKK pushed it?
the problem is once you allow the black restaurant owner to discriminate, you allow the white to discriminate and you end up right back where we were 50 years ago.
So you see where this is going. Personally I have no problem with the black restaurant owner not delivering those pizzas because of their beliefs, just as I have no problem with someone not wanting to photograph a gay wedding because of their religious beliefs. This opens up a whole can of worms which I’m sure is going to get tested both ways.
Do you consider those equivalent?
and you also have no problem with a white owner denying service to blacks – correct?
No, where did I say that? I put in a specific situation where the KKK was involved and said I felt the black restaurant owner would be justified not delivering to them. Nice try with the roundabout way of making a bullshit accusation that you’re trying to cowardly insinuate. Correct?
you didn’t say it – that’s the implication of your comment. otherwise how and where do you draw the line as to what is permissible discrimination?
Once again bullshit. My comment didn’t imply anything of the sort.
it did. you said that a black person could refuse to serve a kkk person, by extension a kkk person would have the right to refuse to serve a black person. if not, again, explain how and where do you draw the line as to what is permissible discrimination?
BP… never get into an argument with an attorney… truth does not matter, only winning the case.
That is different. A business not servicing gay weddings is not the same as a business refusing service to an individual because of his/her race. As I understand, the business was willing to provide the customer with a standard wedding cake and the customer refused.
Here is an example of the slippery-slope of this type of argument…
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-nation/wp/2015/01/22/this-colorado-baker-refused-to-put-an-anti-gay-message-on-cakes-now-she-is-facing-a-civil-rights-complaint/
you don’t see a fundamental difference between refusing to service gay weddings and refusing to put a message of hate on a cake?
The main organization that pushed the Indiana law: http://www.advanceamerica.com/blog/?p=1849 Pretty clear what their agenda was.
“message of hate” is subjective and frankly (because I am) a term that you should not use unless you can demonstrate the capacity to apply it in all circumstances. Otherwise you, yourself, are guilty of projecting hate. With the cakegate events, there is MUCH, MUCH, MUCH more hate being demonstrated toward the religious bakers than for any customer refused.
Cake bakers are artists and any artist should be provided the right to refuse what art they will be responsible for creating or not creating. The point is… if one baker is going to be forced to create art that demonstrates support for homosexual marriage, then it stands to reason that another baker can be forced to make art that demonstrates opposition to homosexual marriage.
anti-gay messages are messages of hate. there is a huge difference between putting a message of hate on a cake and supplying a cake for a gay wedding. huge difference. would it be problematic to refuse to do a jewish wedding? would it be problematic to refuse to put an anti-jewish statement on a cake, in your opinion?
no, i said, “you don’t see a fundamental difference between refusing to service gay weddings and refusing to put a message of hate on a cake?” because frankly argued there was a slippery slope.
Anti-gay marriage was the message the baker refused.
I have been anti-gay marriage, so are you going to make the case that I am hateful?
Like I said, you should not carry a loaded word gun unless you really understand how to use it correctly.
oops, accidentally pressed report comment again–apologies dp!
DP–two lines to demarcate–
–what kind of message is or is not deemed ‘anti-gay’ , and who decides which category a particular message falls into?
–does a message that is defined as anti-gay also automatically also fall into the category of hate-speech? If so, how does this affect the definition of an ‘anti-gay’ message?
On what side of the line should these statements fall
“Gay sex seems icky to me”
“Why do so many gays act so funny”
“That’s so gay”
“what a gay weirdo”
“I like some gay people, but would hate to be gay myself”
“I’m so glad I’m not gay on this my wedding day”
(last one could be dumb joke message on joke wedding cake)
I’ve used examples from juvenile speech–such statements may certainly appear to be somewhat prejudicial against gays; are they also “anti-gay” and “hateful”? Should the business be shut down?
The Oregon case…
So it is clear… the war that is being waged by the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transvestite activists and their political pals is one against religious people. We are aghast that a religious family will attempt to deprogram their child to standard heterosexual orientation (even though science can’t even confirm that the cause of homosexuality is not learned or temporary or psychological, etc.) , but it is fine that all powerful government officials pursue deprogramming of religious people.
There is a cultural war underway and it is going to get very ugly thanks to the lack of restraint from those on the left.
“There is a cultural war underway and it is going to get very ugly thanks to the lack of restraint from those on the left.”
as usual frankly is letting his partisan lenses get in the way of his clearer head. what’s happened here is that the right is attempting their same tactics they’ve tried on these issues for the last twenty or thirty years, the problem is that they are dealing with a force far stronger than they have ever encountered and so – yes, it’s a bit ugly but most the ugliness is the right taking one in the jaw they weren’t expecting because they’ve gotten away with this stuff for so long.
I think you are underestimating the mistake being made here. It is overreach. When the government punishes good people for following their religious beliefs, then the bully perspective changes. And guess who is in bed with him? The LGBT community that has previously benefited from the victim label.
The bully has shifted, and that will undermine the cause… but not before it gets very ugly.
I have talked to a lot of people that supported gay marriage and now are clearly unhappy with this type of thing and opining that “gays are going too far”.
It is exactly what reasonable people were saying would happen with the crusade for gay marriage. Because the separate by equal solution was rejected by the gay crusade, it was clear that they were just out for blood… punishing a society that made them feel marginalized in the least… even if they could not discern between true actions against them or only the voice of insecurity in their own head.
I am of the mind that gays are mean bullies and Christians are the victims. That narrative is growing.
“When the government punishes good people for following their religious beliefs”
that’s a subjective assessment. i would argue in this case the christians are attempting to be able to have the right to discriminate against a group of people and the gays are fighting back. that puts the christians as the bullies who are whining because their victims have grown strong enough to kick their asses.
No need to confine the discussion to Christians–perhaps you can force these laws on Muslim american communities and other faith communities in the USA, and see the delight with which they embrace the always more enlightened and tolerant progressive views.
There are lots of Christians who don’t support these forms of discrimination. Or so I’ve read.
Just as there are a lot of gays that don’t support the gay-rights march to persecute Christians by exploiting gay rights progress.
And refusing to make a gay wedding cake is not discrimination. It is freedom to express.
1. Who wrote the Indiana law?
2. Who passed it?
3. Who signed it?
“And refusing to make a gay wedding cake is not discrimination. It is freedom to express.”
cite me case law on that.
Well there is that liberal-inconvenient Bill of Rights… which also covers the freedom to practice religion.
And then there is…
Cake makers are cake artists. Are you telling me that you support forcing a cake artist to make any cake you should demand? Of only if you are part of some protected victim group?
freedom to practice religion doesn’t mean freedom to discriminate. i asked for case law.
DP (your 3:27 post): Cite us case law that supports the opposite, including any appeals that may have transpired in regard to that case law.
Frankly
“I am of the mind that gays are mean bullies and Christians are the victims”
I am of the opinion that self proclaimed Christians have used bullying techniques up to and including the death of gays ( Mattehew Sheppard) for many, many years and are now upset when strong tactics are being used against them. I do not approve of bullying regardless of who does it. I am however very much in favor of companies that are going to discriminate on the basis of “group association” being required to label their intentions clearly on their window or door in a prominent place so that those who are members of the targeted group, or those who do not like this form of discrimination do not waste their time ( or money ) going in. I would consider it just like the “no shirt, no shoes, no serviced announcement that many establishments choose to post. Basically a public announcement that let’s everyone know their position of which they are supposedly proud.
Would you have any problem with this proposition ? If so, why ?
Wow… two ‘weirdos’… there are gay Christians (they may not be ‘in good standing’ with others of their faith, but they still believe in Christ and his message of love and redemption)… and then there are those who do not believe there is a God/Supreme being, who equate those who believe in God, and his Son, with homophobia/discrimination. Those two are “stupid”/ignorant. Christians would be hard put to find any direct text attributed to Jesus that would justify discrimination (except in one’s own behaviors). And the atheists/agnostics would have the same problem. Grow up. Get real.
Honestly, this whole Indiana law situation is one of the stupidest things I’ve seen in quite a while. The governor would have done well to get outside advice from constitutional scholars (and maybe some pollsters). The other governors are getting the message: if you pass an RFRA bill, you also need to add LGBT to anti-discrimination laws that are on the books (or pass one). There is a balance of competing rights here.
Frankly is only seeing one side of this issue. If he prefaced his statements about those poor bakers in Oregon, or various other states, with the observation that their views are, in fact, discriminatory, I’d see that maybe he had the balance he demands from others. But he doesn’t do that. The only victims he sees are the religious business owners who want to discriminate, a right he feels should be legally protected.
Hypothetical…
Would the baker have refused business to the gay customer wanting to purchase a cake for her nephew’s birthday party?
I am guessing that the answer is no.
The baker was not refusing to make a cake for the customer. The baker was refusing to make a cake for a specific event.
If a white supremacist came in and demanded a cake to celebrate Hitler’s birthday, wouldn’t the baker have the right to refuse to make the cake?
This says it all…
So yes, Gays have power now and they are the new bully in town. Bend down to them and recognize their superior power or prepare to be destroyed.
I for one think we need to rid ourselves of the term Gay and change it to Cheerless.
Hobby Lobby changed all that.
There is a sign, in many establishments, including a taqueria in Woodland, stating, “We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”. Guess that is the most hateful sign of all.
“We reserve the right to refuse service to anyone”
they do have those signs. but is it true? answer is no. under the civil rights act of 1964, restaurants are not allowed to refuse service based on race, color, religion, or natural origin. there is also caselaw that prohibits restaurants from refusing service based on arbitrary conditions. the signs do not prevent courts from ruling that such refusal is discriminatory.
So was I discriminated against because a Hasidic woman wouldn’t shake my hand? (I guess I am unclean.)
Are Hasidic Jews guilty of sex discrimination when they refuse to do business transactions with an American business woman?
I figured freedom of religion was one of our highest virtues and rights.
Having your handshaken isn’t a protected right.
I am entertained by the fact the LGBT crowd and Lawyers seem to want their cause be celebrated now as a “religion”.
Since when is anyone who is LGBT NOT a man, woman, Black. Hispanic, White? There are laws supporting serving anyone.
The cake maker refusing to write something hateful seems to me to be wanting the business to have a good reputation, not as an “anything goes” cake artist. Then you get the cakes made up like body parts, offensive symbols, and they cannot refuse?
I know as a photographer I was asked to do a charity shoot locally, and was excited about it, until I found who they “partnered with”. I do not support National Charities, only local ones. So I opted out, but are people trying to say I would be obligated in spite of my beliefs? I would not have done a good job in that situation.
I am curious, if NAMBLA decided to purchase a building in downtown Davis and started a campaign effort to recruit new members would the community accept them with open arms?
What if they promoted an Easter egg hunt at one of our local parks? Would the citizens of Davis accept this??
What if ISIS members decided to move to Davis and hold weekly meetings at the public library and they wanted their meetings catered by a local restaurant? Do you think any local restaurants would refuse service??
Do any of the above scenarios constitute discrimination?
Clem
I will take a stab at answering your questions.
1) Does NAMBLA have the right to do this. Yes Would the community welcome them with open arms. It depends entirely on what you mean with “open arms”. Is anyone going to be putting up welcome NAMBLA signs. Doubtful. Would you find people who would defend their right to promote their message including myself. Yes. Our constitution support their right to self promote. It also supports my right to oppose them in my own messaging which I also would do vigorously.
2) If they promoted an Easter egg hunt at a local park would the citizens of Davis accept this. If they were acting legally, yes, they would as NAMBLA members have as much right to the use of a public park as any other citizen. I suspect the turn out would be very, very low as those of us who do not approve of their message could vote with our absence.
3) If ISIS wants to hold weekly catered meetings, they should certainly be allowed to as long as all they are doing is speaking. However, as a terrorist organization, I am sure that there are probably laws against them recruiting and other laws against nationally recognized terrorist organizations certainly might apply. This is an apples to oranges comparison as I strongly doubt that any LGBT organization has been designated as terrorist.
As to your question regarding discrimination, I would certainly agree that all of the examples that you gave would certainly be discriminatory, but not necessarily illegal as others have pointed out that for the law to apply, the discrimination must be against a protected group, not of the “no shoes, no shirt, no service” type of discrimination which targets individual appearance and behavior, not a specific protected group.
Looks like a female teacher in Indiana threatened to burn down the pizzeria. She must have watched Do The Right Thing.
“On the heels of the news from the pizza shop, coach [Jess] Dooley allegedly took to Twitter to say, “Who’s going to Walkerton, IN to burn down #memoriespizza w me? Agree with #FreedomofReligion bill? “That’s a lifestyle they CHOOSE” Ignorant.” ”
http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/04/01/high-school-coach-suspended-after-threatening-to-burn-down-christian-owned-pizzeria/
Wasn’t our nation founded on religious liberty? So now some liberal lawyers set up a small Christian pizzeria in a town of 2,000. Sad.
Do I need to post examples of religious fanatics acting hateful toward gays? I’m sure in a nanosecond you could find examples on the internet. Hint: Westboro.
There were a few other values as well. Like equal protection under the law, things like that.
Don’t “hate crimes” actually violate equal protection under the law?
Hmmmm……
Weren’t some of you objecting to the very thought of Sharia law being active on the UCD campus ? Or does religious freedom and rights only apply to the Christian religion ?
I would buy a cake at Your Muslim Bakery in Oakland (in the day), but I wouldn’t expect them to cater a KKK or Mormon gathering.