Why do so many conservative Christians feel they have to dictate how the rest of us live?

[chiguirre]

I think you mean privilege, not freedom. Nobody is taking away the freedom of Christians to worship. 

No, I meant freedom. Freedom of speech. Freedom of thought. Freedom of worship. I was only expressing the fears of myself & other Christians I know. That concessions here (redefining marriage, opening bathrooms for any gender, teaching young children about gay sex, etc.) will only lead to more... The Houston mayor demanding pastor's sermons is exactly the sort of thing I am afraid of. In the name of "tolerance," all who disagree are not tolerated. 

 

Anyhow...I hope you all accept my apologies. That's what I get for trying to answer the IP's question in 20 min or less. :) 

The Houston case involved a suit brought by several Christian churches against the city over the invalidation of signatures on a petition. The city attorney responded with a broad subpoena request during the discovery process. It was a hard ball tactic, but not unusual in this type of suit. Here's a link to a good summary for non-Houstonians that appeared on NPR:

 

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2014/10/17/357022015/houston-narrows-the-scope-of-controversial-subpoena-of-pastors-sermons

 

Here's a quote cited from the Houston Chronicle that summarizes the issue:

 

" 'We don't need to intrude on matters of faith to have equal rights in Houston, and it was never the intention of the city of Houston to intrude on any matters of faith or to get between a pastor and their parishioners,' Parker said. 'We don't want their sermons, we want the instructions on the petition process. That's always what we wanted and, again, they knew that's what we wanted because that's the subject of the lawsuit.'

 

"Opponents took advantage of the broad original language, Parker said, to deliberately misinterpret the city's intent and spur what City Attorney David Feldman called a 'media circus.' ...

 

" 'If during the course of the sermon — and I doubt this very much — a pastor took 15 or 20 minutes to go into detail about how the petition process goes, then that's part of the discovery,' she said. 'But that's not about preaching a sermon on anybody's religious beliefs, it's not conveying a religious message, that's part of the petition process, and all we're interested in is the petition process.' "

 

I, personally, think that conservative Christians have been gunning for Mayor Parker since she was elected in 2009. She's very low key and this is the first issue they've been able to attack her on. It was blown out of all proportion because of who Mayor Parker is and what she represents to both sides.

[Jean in Newcastle]

This thread has been very interesting and thought provoking.  I wanted to add something I've heard several times, from the pulpit and from lay people, in the very (very) conservative evangelical churches in which I grew up:  someone will mention the increasing acceptance of gay people in any form, and then say, "Oh, yes, we're going the way of Sodom and Gomorrah." 

 

Well.  That is a doozy of an idea, isn't it?  If you believe God toasts nations who countenance that particular sin in their midst, that would make controlling your culture an imperative, wouldn't it?  For everyone's survival, Christians had better keep us all on the blessing side and not on the cursing side. 

 

That conversation, in my experience, ends with some kind of admonishment to "be salt and light", "speak out", "stand", and to vote.  Though the speakers are taking the OT in a bald literal sense, I have never heard anyone say we Christians should hurt someone to stop sin.  (I don't follow the FRC....hmmm.) 

 

These people are not evil-hearted, and would shudder over the bullying or harm of anyone.  However, they are being sort of logical, according to the way they read the Bible. 

 

For myself, I've come to the conclusion that if my reading of the Bible takes me to a place inconsistent with charity, truthfulness, and justice, I am reading it wrong and had better re-think. 

The other side of the Sodom and Gomorrah story is that the city was destroyed in the end, not because of it's sin, but because there were not enough righteous men in the city.  In other words, you could make a case that what saves a society is the person who follows God.  So, Christians should not be afraid of non-Christians sinking our society but of Christians sinking it.  And the way to do that is not by having the Christians targeting others but by them focusing on their own faith.  This is a theme in the Bible - the remnant of believers in Israel who do the right thing no matter what is going on around them and who can bring blessing to others.  Yes, I realize that many think this is what they are doing in this case.  But as others have shown, the Bible does not advocate activism as a way of following God.  And it doesn't advocate ignoring the laws of the land.  

[Tanaqui]

The other side of the Sodom and Gomorrah story is that the city was destroyed in the end, not because of it's sin, but because there were not enough righteous men in the city.

 

Or that the "sin" in question was being uncharitable and inhospitable, to the point where gang-raping strangers seemed a reasonable thing to do.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodom_and_Gomorrah#Religious_views

 

http://www.religioustolerance.org/hombibg193.htm

[Mrs Mungo]

Thanks, CAmom.

 

"Opponents took advantage of the broad original language, Parker said, to deliberately misinterpret the city's intent and spur what City Attorney David Feldman called a 'media circus.' ...

 

" 'If during the course of the sermon — and I doubt this very much — a pastor took 15 or 20 minutes to go into detail about how the petition process goes, then that's part of the discovery,' she said. 'But that's not about preaching a sermon on anybody's religious beliefs, it's not conveying a religious message, that's part of the petition process, and all we're interested in is the petition process.' "

Wow, that is quite different than the original claim. Thank you!

[Cammie]

Actually, the sermon issue and what happened in Houston raises many, many interesting issues.

 

Churches are tax exempt as long as they are not political.

 

However, it seems more and more pastors use the pulpit to make political statements.

 

Should pastors be free to do so?

 

Should churches lose tax-exempt status for doing so?

 

Where are the lines drawn between religion and politics?

[Jane in NC]

Actually, the sermon issue and what happened in Houston raises many, many interesting issues.

 

Churches are tax exempt as long as they are not political.

 

However, it seems more and more pastors use the pulpit to make political statements.

 

Should pastors be free to do so?

 

Should churches lose tax-exempt status for doing so?

 

Where are the lines drawn between religion and politics?

 

Cammie, I think you have a spin off thread!

 

I want to thank the participants in this thread for taking the time to articulate their thoughts. It demonstrates why I love the WTM community of people who think and are willing to frame those thoughts for others to consider.  What a generous group of people!

 

[lionfamily1999]

Actually, the sermon issue and what happened in Houston raises many, many interesting issues.

 

Churches are tax exempt as long as they are not political.

 

However, it seems more and more pastors use the pulpit to make political statements.

 

Should pastors be free to do so?

 

Should churches lose tax-exempt status for doing so?

 

Where are the lines drawn between religion and politics?

Actually, the only prohibition put on churches as far speech goes is the endorsing or denigrating of a particular candidate.

 

Political ideas/issues are wide open for commentary.  

 

They cannot say, "Vote for so-and-so" or "Do NOT vote for so-and-so" from the pulpit.

 

That's another important distinction.  The pastor is a citizen as much as anyone else and still has the right to support a candidate as long as they do not do so from the pulpit.

 

The idea that churches, church members, anyone inside a church, anyone leading a church cannot speak about politics at all is another one of those things that gets repeated so often that people believe it to be true, but it isn't.

[lionfamily1999]

Granted, having political candidates visit your church and stump from the pulpit does seem to violate that rule, but it happens.

[Harriet Vane]

Yeah, it was like full on silent treatment too. They literally ignored them when they asked to order. She said her colleagues went there with her to prove they were right. She was glad to have learned about the restaurant's true colors.

 

People are often stunned at these types of stories, yet every single African-American friend I have has experienced obvious racist treatment multiple times. The America they live in is totally different than the America I live in.

[swimmermom3]

Just out of genuine curiosity-  Do you all believe there is an appropriate time for sincere people to not be forced into something, for religious or philosophical reasons?

 

I am thinking of maybe a nurse who won't assist in circumcisions or late term abortions, or something like an Amish contractor who gets asked to remodel a place to make into an adults only dance club/bar.  

 

 

FWIW, I really am just curious as to what most people think.  

 

I was reading more about the pharmacy issues, I think it was CVS's current policy. They make an effort to honor their employees' beliefs and if a pharmacist is not comfortable with filling a BC prescription, then another one can. But CVS also tries to make sure that customers don't go away empty-handed. I hope I have the basics of this right, but it seems like it is an incredibly hard balance.

 

What's happening in small towns is of course, that there is nowhere else to go. Other problems in the equation even included clerks who were the only ones on duty and who would not process the transaction for condoms, which are over the counter purchases.

 

Often, supporting one person's religious beliefs means denying someone else one or more of their rights. How do we make exceptions for religious beliefs in a country where those beliefs are as numerous as the population?

 

I was thinking about the Jon Stewart segment on Mary's Diner where you could get a 15% discount if you said "Thanks" before the meal. Someone who represented an atheist organization was up in arms about it.  Now the "thanks" was pretty loosely defined and I think one atheist in the restaurant said his thanks to the chef and got his discount.  But in thinking more about this situation, how do we define those religious beliefs in order to have exceptions?

 

Contrary to some of the faithfuls' views, most atheists I know have fairly strong moral codes. Those represent their "belief" system.  My dh believes strongly in non-violence. Could he refuse to serve patrons in his theoretical restaurant that were carrying guns? (Imagine we are in an open-carry state)

 

What a bureaucratic nightmare.

 

I suppose we could start removing classes from the protected list like Muttichen suggested, starting with sexual orientation and race. Maybe we should just do away with protected classes, then theoretically no one's religious rights are violated. Never mind, that you may not be able to have a job, get a mortgage, get medical care, or an education. In fact, I am not even sure we would be the United States.

[LucyStoner]

People are often stunned at these types of stories, yet every single African-American friend I have has experienced obvious racist treatment multiple times. The America they live in is totally different than the America I live in.

I have a black brother. We've relocated on account of skinhead harassment. I've seen my brothers and myself tracked to different school programs without any testing as a way to more or less resegregate the school. I've seen it up close and personal in subtle and overt ways and I still don't think that as a white person I fully get it.

 

I totally agree. It's not surprising.

[Cammie]

The town of Fayetteville, Arkansas, just voted against an anti-discrimination law the city council had approved.

 

While it was being debated Mrs. Duggar (yes, that Mrs. Duggar) recorded a robo-call to the residents of Fayetteville that conflated transgender people with child molesters in order to drum up support to have the anti-discrimination law repealed.

 

The scare tactics that were used by Mrs. Duggar included stating that the bill would allow men with past child predator convictions to enter women's bathrooms and other gender segregated areas.

 

 

Right...we don't need laws against discrimination.  We have come so far...not.

[zoobie]

I was reading more about the pharmacy issues, I think it was CVS's current policy. They make an effort to honor their employees' beliefs and if a pharmacist is not comfortable with filling a BC prescription, then another one can. But CVS also tries to make sure that customers don't go away empty-handed. I hope I have the basics of this right, but it seems like it is an incredibly hard balance.

 

What's happening in small towns is of course, that there is nowhere else to go. Other problems in the equation even included clerks who were the only ones on duty and who would not process the transaction for condoms, which are over the counter purchases.

 

Often, supporting one person's religious beliefs means denying someone else one or more of their rights. How do we make exceptions for religious beliefs in a country where those beliefs are as numerous as the population?

 

I was thinking about the Jon Stewart segment on Mary's Diner where you could get a 15% discount if you said "Thanks" before the meal. Someone who represented an atheist organization was up in arms about it. Now the "thanks" was pretty loosely defined and I think one atheist in the restaurant said his thanks to the chef and got his discount. But in thinking more about this situation, how do we define those religious beliefs in order to have exceptions?

 

Contrary to some of the faithfuls' views, most atheists I know have fairly strong moral codes. Those represent their "belief" system. My dh believes strongly in non-violence. Could he refuse to serve patrons in his theoretical restaurant that were carrying guns? (Imagine we are in an open-carry state)

 

What a bureaucratic nightmare.

 

I suppose we could start removing classes from the protected list like Muttichen suggested, starting with sexual orientation and race. Maybe we should just do away with protected classes, then theoretically no one's religious rights are violated. Never mind, that you may not be able to have a job, get a mortgage, get medical care, or an education. In fact, I am not even sure we would be the United States.

I believe you can refuse entry to your business to people carrying guns. It's not a protected class. I think there are some nutty local laws that may allow you to carry rocket launchers about town, but... ;)

 

Sorry, posted too soon--CVS as a business may make accommodations internally for its own employees. A bakery could hire someone who doesn't personally want to make gay wedding cakes and put him solely on doughnut duty.

[Tanaqui]

I believe you can refuse entry to your business to people carrying guns. It's not a protected class. I think there are some nutty local laws that may allow you to carry rocket launchers about town, but... ;)

 

However, if I were to guess I'd say you probably can't refuse business simply to people who own guns. You can require them to not bring guns into your establishment, just as you can require them to wear a shirt and shoes, but that's because it's private property.

 

Not a lawyer, don't quote me on this.

 

[Upward Journey]

The town of Fayetteville, Arkansas, just voted against an anti-discrimination law the city council had approved.

 

While it was being debated Mrs. Duggar (yes, that Mrs. Duggar) recorded a robo-call to the residents of Fayetteville that conflated transgender people with child molesters in order to drum up support to have the anti-discrimination law repealed.

 

The scare tactics that were used by Mrs. Duggar included stating that the bill would allow men with past child predator convictions to enter women's bathrooms and other gender segregated areas.

 

 

Right...we don't need laws against discrimination.  We have come so far...not.

 

:mad: That makes me so angry.  

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

:mad: That makes me so angry.  

 

Huh. Now here's a dilemma that I have. I'm not sure where I stand on the "trans men using women's bathrooms" issue. I have no problem at all with real trans men and women using the opposite-gender bathroom. But I do believe that laws like that do provide an opportunity for pedophiles, who obviously have no moral compass at all and who wouldn't hesitate a second to lie about their sexual identity, to take advantage of women and children. Most bathrooms and changing rooms that I've been in afford no real privacy to their users, with their gapping doors, sagging curtains, broken locks, etc. 

 

Maybe that's a whole other thread, but I'm not sure how to solve that problem to everyone's satisfaction. I completely sympathize with the beneficiaries of those kinds of laws as they're intended, but I also believe that there are a frightening number of unscrupulous people out there who will take advantage of the protection intended by the laws for their own disgusting purposes.

 

And to be fair, I just read the text of the robocall, and I don't think that she conflated predators and trans people. This section--I don’t believe the citizens of Fayetteville would want males with past child predator convictions that claim they are female to have a legal right to enter private areas that are reserved for women and girls.-- sounds to me like she's talking about non-trans predators who will lie to gain access. I'm not usually in a position to defend Michelle Duggar, but I don't necessarily think it's conflation. IMO, anyway.

[Love]

.

 

 

 

Edited November 19, 2015 by Love

[hornblower]

Huh. Now here's a dilemma that I have. I'm not sure where I stand on the "trans men using women's bathrooms" issue.

 

bathrooms should be non gendered & just have closed locking stalls for everyone.  Unisex bathrooms are really such a simple concept.

 

Predators are a totally separate issue & having gendered bathrooms doesn't protect anyone from anything....

[Upward Journey]

Huh. Now here's a dilemma that I have. I'm not sure where I stand on the "trans men using women's bathrooms" issue. I have no problem at all with real trans men and women using the opposite-gender bathroom. But I do believe that laws like that do provide an opportunity for pedophiles, who obviously have no moral compass at all and who wouldn't hesitate a second to lie about their sexual identity, to take advantage of women and children. Most bathrooms and changing rooms that I've been in afford no real privacy to their users, with their gapping doors, sagging curtains, broken locks, etc. 

 

Maybe that's a whole other thread, but I'm not sure how to solve that problem to everyone's satisfaction. I completely sympathize with the beneficiaries of those kinds of laws as they're intended, but I also believe that there are a frightening number of unscrupulous people out there who will take advantage of the protection intended by the laws for their own disgusting purposes.

 

And to be fair, I just read the text of the robocall, and I don't think that she conflated predators and trans people. This section--I don’t believe the citizens of Fayetteville would want males with past child predator convictions that claim they are female to have a legal right to enter private areas that are reserved for women and girls.-- sounds to me like she's talking about non-trans predators who will lie to gain access. I'm not usually in a position to defend Michelle Duggar, but I don't necessarily think it's conflation. IMO, anyway.

 

 

I did not listen to the robo-call. I was just reacting to the pp.

 

We have a name for past child predators, we call them pedophiles.  I was objecting to equating that with being trans. 

 

Honestly, I was wishy-washy on this topic (gender neutral bathrooms) myself until recently.  However, someone very close to me is starting to transition, and hearing the two things equated, brought an immediate, unexpected reaction.

[swimmermom3]

Huh. Now here's a dilemma that I have. I'm not sure where I stand on the "trans men using women's bathrooms" issue. I have no problem at all with real trans men and women using the opposite-gender bathroom. But I do believe that laws like that do provide an opportunity for pedophiles, who obviously have no moral compass at all and who wouldn't hesitate a second to lie about their sexual identity, to take advantage of women and children. Most bathrooms and changing rooms that I've been in afford no real privacy to their users, with their gapping doors, sagging curtains, broken locks, etc. 

 

Maybe that's a whole other thread, but I'm not sure how to solve that problem to everyone's satisfaction. I completely sympathize with the beneficiaries of those kinds of laws as they're intended, but I also believe that there are a frightening number of unscrupulous people out there who will take advantage of the protection intended by the laws for their own disgusting purposes.

 

And to be fair, I just read the text of the robocall, and I don't think that she conflated predators and trans people. This section--I don’t believe the citizens of Fayetteville would want males with past child predator convictions that claim they are female to have a legal right to enter private areas that are reserved for women and girls.-- sounds to me like she's talking about non-trans predators who will lie to gain access. I'm not usually in a position to defend Michelle Duggar, but I don't necessarily think it's conflation. IMO, anyway.

 

The problem is that many conservatives tie pedophilia to homosexuality and transgender. To put them together in a sentence has implications. It's a read between the lines type of message. I am fairly certain that Michelle Duggar meant for people to read between the line.

 

We've known four predators in our community: a middle school math teacher (child porn), a Cub Scout leader, a swim coach, and a gymnastics coach. They were all straight men.

 

I really am not sure how you solve the transgender public bathroom issue. If they use their bathroom for their original sex, they risk getting assaulted or having women reporting them. Or maybe not. Years ago, I went to our local drag club. They made much better women than I do, and on a quick trip into a restroom, I doubt I would know.

 

 

[Tanaqui]

But I do believe that laws like that do provide an opportunity for pedophiles, who obviously have no moral compass at all and who wouldn't hesitate a second to lie about their sexual identity, to take advantage of women and children. Most bathrooms and changing rooms that I've been in afford no real privacy to their users, with their gapping doors, sagging curtains, broken locks, etc.

 

What is stopping those people from going into the women's bathroom NOW?

 

Also, the vast majority of assaults are committed by people known to the victim. Very rarely is somebody attacked in the public bathroom.

 

Finally - it is possible to be a pedophile and have a moral compass. Pedophiles are those who are attracted to children. Many of them never act on this impulse at all. People who sexually harm children are child molesters. The distinction is important because statements like "pedophiles obviously have no moral compass whatsoever" can prevent somebody who wants help and who does not want to harm children from getting that help. And obviously we WANT those people to get help so they do NOT harm children.

 

There are two interesting links on this subject I know of, however, at least one of them has some graphic descriptions of child abuse so if that's triggering to you you should tread carefully.

 

https://medium.com/matter/youre-16-youre-a-pedophile-you-dont-want-to-hurt-anyone-what-do-you-do-now-e11ce4b88bdb

 

http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2012/09/stop_childhood_sexual_abuse_how_to_treat_pedophilia_.html

 

Again, the right terminology is important because we want to keep budding pedophiles from turning into child molesters. There isn't much help available for people in that situation, which is unfortunate, because helping them would be helping kids.

[swimmermom3]

The problem is that many conservatives tie pedophilia to homosexuality and transgender. To put them together in a sentence has implications. It's a read between the lines type of message. I am fairly certain that Michelle Duggar meant for people to read between the line.

 

We've known four predators in our community: a middle school math teacher (child porn), a Cub Scout leader, a swim coach, and a gymnastics coach. They were all straight men.

 

I really am not sure how you solve the transgender public bathroom issue. If they use their bathroom for their original sex, they risk getting assaulted or having women reporting them. Or maybe not. Years ago, I went to our local drag club. They made much better women than I do, and on a quick trip into a restroom, I doubt I would know.

 

Dumb question, but how do gender neutral public bathrooms work. Ok, now I know at Starbucks you have the little man/woman symbol on the door and there is only one toilet and you lock the door.

 

What about a state park? Or the airport?  Would it be handled the same way family bathrooms are?

[Tanaqui]

Dumb question, but how do gender neutral public bathrooms work. Ok, now I know at Starbucks you have the little man/woman symbol on the door and there is only one toilet and you lock the door.

 

That's one method, and I do believe all places could use more "family" bathrooms, as they're frequently called. Those are quite helpful for individuals who need more help with the toilet.

 

Another method is to simply have everything in stalls, just like now, but the stall doors are a little lower and there's less of a gap.

[Joules]

That's one method, and I do believe all places could use more "family" bathrooms, as they're frequently called. Those are quite helpful for individuals who need more help with the toilet.

 

Another method is to simply have everything in stalls, just like now, but the stall doors are a little lower and there's less of a gap.

I saw more of these on our marathon college tour out west. It seemed more of the new buildings just had family-type bathrooms, where the sink and toliet are all in one small room with locking doors.

I saw one option where there were no sinks in the little rooms and they were in hallway/alcove instead.

In one older building, the first and second floors had the traditional men's and women's, but on the third floor both were converted to gender neutral. There was a sign on the former women's that said "just stalls" and the men's that said "stalls and urinals," so I guess if women used it they would need to be comfortable with someone using a urinal. Besides the signs, I didn't see any other changes.

[texasmama]

I once went to a cool, hip dance club in Dallas when I was a young college student.  They had unisex bathrooms with each stall having a door which went completely to the floor which locked.  No urinals.  I would be okay with this. 

 

I do not want to use a typical public bathroom with men, nor do I want to see men I don't know at urinals while passing by to use a stall.  A typical public bathroom, say at McDonalds's or Target, does not have much privacy.  I want more privacy when I am sitting with my pants around my ankles.  So I vote to have unisex bathrooms with the doors like the one at the cool dance club I went to in college.

[Corraleno]

I do believe that laws like that do provide an opportunity for pedophiles, who obviously have no moral compass at all and who wouldn't hesitate a second to lie about their sexual identity, to take advantage of women and children.

 

I also believe that there are a frightening number of unscrupulous people out there who will take advantage of the protection intended by the laws for their own disgusting purposes.

 

And to be fair, I just read the text of the robocall, and I don't think that she conflated predators and trans people. This section--I don’t believe the citizens of Fayetteville would want males with past child predator convictions that claim they are female to have a legal right to enter private areas that are reserved for women and girls.-- sounds to me like she's talking about non-trans predators who will lie to gain access. I'm not usually in a position to defend Michelle Duggar, but I don't necessarily think it's conflation. IMO, anyway.

 

Men with past child predator convictions can already enter male bathrooms. Women with past child predator convictions can enter female bathrooms. A predator who can pass well enough as a woman to enter a female bathroom without being challenged can already do so. So the only people who would be effectively "outlawed" from using opposite gender restrooms are those who don't pass very convincingly — and the vast majority (of an extremely small minority of transgendered people) are not predators, so you're making life very difficult for transgendered people and greatly increasing their risks of being harassed or assaulted, on the off chance that a predator might try to sneak in as well.

 

But why would a child predator choose to do something that would obviously attract a LOT of scrutiny and attention while he was trying to commit a crime??? That makes no sense. Why wouldn't he just look for opportunities where he'd be less likely to stick out and be watched?

 

 

The problem is that many conservatives tie pedophilia to homosexuality and transgender. To put them together in a sentence has implications. It's a read between the lines type of message. I am fairly certain that Michelle Duggar meant for people to read between the line.

 

:iagree:

[TeacherZee]

Dumb question, but how do gender neutral public bathrooms work. Ok, now I know at Starbucks you have the little man/woman symbol on the door and there is only one toilet and you lock the door.

 

What about a state park? Or the airport?  Would it be handled the same way family bathrooms are?

I know this one since many bathrooms are unisex in Sweden. They are indeed little tiny rooms with a proper door on. Some have sinks in the room others have a row of sinks outside the little rooms. Works perfectly.

[Jennifer3141]

bathrooms should be non gendered & just have closed locking stalls for everyone.  Unisex bathrooms are really such a simple concept.

 

Predators are a totally separate issue & having gendered bathrooms doesn't protect anyone from anything....

 

 

I love common sense so I love the way you think.

 

The predator argument really cracks my dark side up. So you're a predator and you are on the prowl for a child to sexually abuse... But that little blue woman in a skirt icon hanging on a door is going to stop you? Say what?

 

Rape is in your mind, your heart, and your soul but you see, "Women" on a door and what happens? Your drive to be evil dissipates? We need to let the prisons in this country know about this magical force!

 

[Jennifer3141]

And secondly, so you're in a restaurant and you see what you perceive as a man entering a woman's bathroom. Do you confront? Who does that? Who wouldn't just wait? There's a spectrum. I fall in one place on it. Others fall in other places on it. Unless we all start randomly checking panties, I don't get this law at all.

 

Some women grow facial hair. Some men have what sure as heck look like boobs to me. For some reason, those men ALWAYS seem to be mowing their lawn shirtless but I digress...

 

I just cannot imagine interrupting what I'm out in public doing to do a gender check on the person in the bathroom with me. As long as they don't touch, do anything unethical, or talk unkindly to me or my kids - who CARES? Who notices stuff like that? When I'm out at a restaurant, I'm 99% of the time with friends and/or family. Who is paying attention to all these transgender bathroom people??

[zoobie]

And secondly, so you're in a restaurant and you see what you perceive as a man entering a woman's bathroom. Do you confront? Who does that? Who wouldn't just wait? There's a spectrum. I fall in one place on it. Others fall in other places on it. Unless we all start randomly checking panties, I don't get this law at all.

 

Some women grow facial hair. Some men have what sure as heck look like boobs to me. For some reason, those men ALWAYS seem to be mowing their lawn shirtless but I digress...

 

I just cannot imagine interrupting what I'm out in public doing to do a gender check on the person in the bathroom with me. As long as they don't touch, do anything unethical, or talk unkindly to me or my kids - who CARES? Who notices stuff like that? When I'm out at a restaurant, I'm 99% of the time with friends and/or family. Who is paying attention to all these transgender bathroom people??

And how many live in Fayetteville, Arkansas? Run for your lives, nice transgender people who just need to pee!

[Jennifer3141]

And how many live in Fayetteville, Arkansas? Run for your lives, nice transgender people who just need to pee!

 

 

I know! I just want to know what led to this. Was there some crazy drag queen molesting kids or is this some imagined, "boogie man" situation where we are just vilifying people who are weird??

 

[Firefly]

When I was in London in the 80's, an establishment we frequented had bathrooms labeled "Men"  and  "Ladies & Transvestites."  It did not bother me in the least.  Well, except that they tended to hog the mirrors. ;)   But I like the idea of gender-neutral bathrooms.  I'm seeing those more and more.

 

 

[IsabelC]

Pedophiles and other s3xual offenders are one thing.

 

People with 'non standard' gender and/or s3xuality - wherever they identify in the 'queer alphabet soup' of definitions - are a different thing.

 

Seriously, how hard is this concept to understand?

[DragonFaerie]

It seems to me that an awful lot of problems in the world could be avoided if people would just treat each other with more kindness and compassion and less judgment.  Worry about your own glass house before you start throwing rocks at other people’s.

[LucyStoner]

I've walked into the men's room a number of times. I'm not a predator. I'm not a peeping Tom (Tammy?). But when the men's room is empty and the line for the women's restroom snakes out the door? I'm too freaking practical to pee my pants on account of if the stick figure pasted to the door is wearing a skirt or not.

[Cammie]

Huh. Now here's a dilemma that I have. I'm not sure where I stand on the "trans men using women's bathrooms" issue. I have no problem at all with real trans men and women using the opposite-gender bathroom. But I do believe that laws like that do provide an opportunity for pedophiles, who obviously have no moral compass at all and who wouldn't hesitate a second to lie about their sexual identity, to take advantage of women and children. Most bathrooms and changing rooms that I've been in afford no real privacy to their users, with their gapping doors, sagging curtains, broken locks, etc. 

 

Maybe that's a whole other thread, but I'm not sure how to solve that problem to everyone's satisfaction. I completely sympathize with the beneficiaries of those kinds of laws as they're intended, but I also believe that there are a frightening number of unscrupulous people out there who will take advantage of the protection intended by the laws for their own disgusting purposes.

 

And to be fair, I just read the text of the robocall, and I don't think that she conflated predators and trans people. This section--I don’t believe the citizens of Fayetteville would want males with past child predator convictions that claim they are female to have a legal right to enter private areas that are reserved for women and girls.-- sounds to me like she's talking about non-trans predators who will lie to gain access. I'm not usually in a position to defend Michelle Duggar, but I don't necessarily think it's conflation. IMO, anyway.

 

Why don't we let people judge for themselves...here is the text of the call.

 

Hello, this is Michelle Duggar.

I'm calling to inform you of some shocking news that would affect the safety of Northwest Arkansas women and children.  The Fayetteville City Council is voting on an ordinance this Tuesday night that would allow men- yes I said men- to use women's and girls' restrooms, locker rooms, showers, sleeping areas and other area that are designated for females only.  I don't believe the citizens of Fayetteville would want males with past child predator convictions that claim they are females to have a legal right to enter private areas that are reserved for women and girls. I doubt that Fayetteville parents would stand for a law that would endanger their daughters or allow them to be traumatized by a man joining them in their private space.  We should never place the preference of an adult over the safety and innocence of a child.  Parents, who do you want undressing next to your daughter at the public swimming pool's private changing area?  I still believe that we are a society that puts women and children first.  Women, young ladies and little girls deserve to use the restroom or any other facility in peace and safety.

 

What she is doing is putting out a message that people who say they are trans are really just pedophiles and child predators looking to access little girls' bathrooms.  Seems pretty clear to me.

 

This was her argument against a law that would protect the LGBT community from unwarranted evictions and terminations.

 

And really, a little heavy with the scare tactics, don't you think?

[IsabelC]

If some criminals or people with dubious intentions decide to pose as trans* people in order to access bathrooms, the solution is to deal with those individuals, not ban trans* folk from using bathrooms. Given that trans women suffer appalling levels of violence, mostly at the hands of men, I don't think it's reasonable to ask them to use men's restrooms. As a couple of people have already pointed out, adopting unisex bathrooms, with fully private cubicles (ie door goes from floor to ceiling) and enough space for a parent/carer to go in with a small child, would be the most practical solution to this kind of dilemma.

[GailV]

Why don't we let people judge for themselves...here is the text of the call.

 

Hello, this is Michelle Duggar.

I'm calling to inform you of some shocking news that would affect the safety of Northwest Arkansas women and children. The Fayetteville City Council is voting on an ordinance this Tuesday night that would allow men- yes I said men- to use women's and girls' restrooms, locker rooms, showers, sleeping areas and other area that are designated for females only. I don't believe the citizens of Fayetteville would want males with past child predator convictions that claim they are females to have a legal right to enter private areas that are reserved for women and girls. I doubt that Fayetteville parents would stand for a law that would endanger their daughters or allow them to be traumatized by a man joining them in their private space. We should never place the preference of an adult over the safety and innocence of a child. Parents, who do you want undressing next to your daughter at the public swimming pool's private changing area? I still believe that we are a society that puts women and children first. Women, young ladies and little girls deserve to use the restroom or any other facility in peace and safety.

 

 

Totally off topic, but the use of "that" rather than "who" in the bolded part is really bugging me. It reads like the convictions are claiming to be female.

[Catwoman]

bathrooms should be non gendered & just have closed locking stalls for everyone.  Unisex bathrooms are really such a simple concept.

 

Predators are a totally separate issue & having gendered bathrooms doesn't protect anyone from anything....

 

We'll have to agree to disagree on unisex bathrooms. I hate them.

 

But I don't mind the idea of a transgendered or crossdressing person using the ladies room if that person is living as a woman.  

[Guest]

When I was in London in the 80's, an establishment we frequented had bathrooms labeled "Men" and "Ladies & Transvestites." It did not bother me in the least. Well, except that they tended to hog the mirrors. ;) But I like the idea of gender-neutral bathrooms. I'm seeing those more and more.

I like them, too. I personally LOVE the "Family Bathroom" concept. Do a lot of other places have those? The idea behind them is that fathers can take their children potty, change a baby, and/or use the bathroom himself; mothers can do the same, etc. those are awesome!

[Firefly]

I like them, too. I personally LOVE the "Family Bathroom" concept. Do a lot of other places have those? The idea behind them is that fathers can take their children potty, change a baby, and/or use the bathroom himself; mothers can do the same, etc. those are awesome!

 

 

It seems they are cropping up more and more here-- rather than having a traditional mens & women's room, they have two or three "family" bathrooms that are one large stall/small room.  Not sure how that would work in larger establishments that have heavy bathroom use, but I like the idea!

[swimmermom3]

Someone asserted upthread that an Orthodox Jew would see things the same way the baker who refused to make the wedding cake did.

 

 

I don't wide to derail the thread, which is not at all about Jewish thinking or actions, but since the issue was raised I wanted to respond...and a little more substantively than I did yesterday.

 

I vehemently disagreement with that assertion.

 

On the simplest level of response: I am an Orthodox Jew.  Torah is the center of my life, and informs every moment of my day.  ...and I would make the cake.  ...and congratulate the couple and wish them well.  I would not feel that I was in any way violating my faith or principles in doing so.

 

...but I know that leaves many of you either with questions or misapprehensions.

 

So, I will try to give a fuller response.

 

My faith is very clear that certain physical acts are forbidden between persons of the same gender. 

 

And that the prohibitions on certain types/categories of intimate relationships is considered one of the 'sheva mitzvos beni Noach' (the seven Noachide laws, which we hold are binding for all people - unlike, for example, the Ten Commandments which were only given to the Jewish people)

 

...and equally clear that an Orthodox Jewish marriage is between a Jewish man and a Jewish woman.

 

 

How do I reconcile those beliefs with the actions I've said I would I take?

 

There are two strands of response to that:

 

1) From a halachic angle, what are my obligations according to Jewish Law?

 

Obviously, I cannot myself engage in physical intimacy with another woman - though as a happily married, cis-gendered heterosexual, the issue has never come up.

 

I'm not performing weddings for anyone, but I would not be allowed to officiate at a same-sex marriage.

 

I could not act as a shadchan (matchmaker) for same-sex couples.

 

Should there every be a concern that Orthodox Rabbis and organizations might be legally pressured to officiate at same-sex marriage or recognize them as religiously valid, I would wish to lobby against that.  (Though I see no cause to be concerned that such a thing would happen)

 

I cannot attend non-Jewish religious ceremonies, so I could not attend one for a same-sex couple.  Should a family member or close friend be having a civil same-sex wedding, I would need to evaluate that individual situation, in consultation with my Rabbi.  (A non-Orthodox Jewish same-sex marriage would actually be more problematic, but that's a complicated topic)  ...but the obligations of shalom bais (literally family peace, meaning harmonious family connections) are enormous, as are other relationship supporting values.

 

I have never been in this baker's position, but if I were, I cannot imagine a halachic reason not to make the cake (or take the photos or organize the wedding).  ...we don't paint with broad brush strokes when we consider halacha.

 

 

I'm having trouble making this aspect clear.

 

Let me try an incendiary analogy:

 

Let us imagine a young Jewish man or woman who comes to my (hypothetical) bakery to get a cake to celebrate his/her conversion to Xtianity.  Remember for a moment that Xtianity is avodah zarah (idol worship) for a Jew.

 

...and I have to admit that my gut-level emotional reaction to this hypothetical situation is intense (in the wedding cake scenario it is very laid back)

 

I would make the cake.  ...and wish the young person well.  ...though I wouldn't be able to offer congratulations.

 

My cake doesn't cause or contribute to avodah zarah in the one case or forbidden sexual relations in the other.

 

I can't, don't want the power to, control other people's choices or lives... my cakes (or photos) don't put people in bed together, or kneeling at the altar of a 'foreign god'. 

 

Those are the choices of the individuals who make them. 

 

 

 

 

2)

 

On the personal level, how I respond to a fellow human being:

 

I believe that we each have a unique contribution to make to the world, our expression of the spark of Divinity within us.   ...and all the qualities we've been given are the tools we need to make that contribution, to fulfill the purpose of our existence, to let our spark of kedusha (holiness) shed all the light it possesses.

 

...and what are those qualities?  Our skills and gifts and talents, yes of course, but also our family background, our challenges, our limitations, our very imperfections... every aspect of ourselves and our background is part of our work in the world.

 

we don't start with a level playing field, and we aren't even all playing on the same field, or with the same tools or capabilities.  We are a product of our inborn qualities, our background, our families, our experiences, our choices before this moment...

What matters isn't where we start (or end), but how we play the game...

 

...do we strive toward the light?  Do we try to be our best and truest selves?  ...and when we don't, do we pick ourselves back up and try again (or if we spend years not trying, do we take an opening one day and turn ourselves in another direction?)  Do we increase kindness and peace in the world?  Do we stand up for what we believe in (even if we later realize we were wrong... or were right but could have done in better)?

 

...and I can never really know where someone else is on his/her individual playing field.  ..and I don't need to.

 

I need to offer others the compassion and caring and belief in their potential to bring kedusha to the world that I hope others will offer me.

 

 

 

Side note:  On our cross country trip last summer for our eldest daughter's wedding, a guest speaker at the community we were visiting for Shabbos spoke about his experiences as a major lobbyist for a large Orthodox organization .  One aspect of that talk was the relationships he had with major Xtian organizations and their lobbying efforts - the times they worked together and when they didn't and the things they saw somewhat similarly and the things they saw very differently.  One of the areas he did not join with some of them on was lobbying against same-sex marriage.  His organization had some worries that religious organizations could someday be legally required to perform such marriages, but the overall approach of his organization could not have been more different than those of the Xtian organizations.

 

I mention this because above I was speaking very personally - and my personal take is my own, I can't speak for anyone else - but although there is a wide range of Orthodox thinking on this subject (as on most subjects), none of it correlates with the conservative Xtian approach.

 

That we also view certain behaviors as prohibited does not at all mean we are approaching the issue from the same angle or through the same lens.

 

 

 

This is a complex issue, on many levels, and I have not done it, or my faith's approach justice here.

...nor have I offered a reasoned analysis, just a heartfelt outpouring of my faith-rooted thinking on the subject.

 

Thank you, whenever you write about your faith and world viewpoint, I am left with much to ponder - all in a good way.

 

 

[LizItaly]

Eliana, I appreciate the time you took to explain the Orthodox Jewish approach to the problem.  I think you may have been responding to my brief assertion that an Orthodox Jew or religious Muslim would react the same way the Christian baker did.  I am not an Orthodox Jew, though some in my family are, and your knowledge of Orthodox Judaism is far greater than mine.

 

Jews, in general, are not much concerned with what people of other faiths do.  They are not proselytizers and they do not regard the religious or non-religious behavior of others as their business.  This, at least, is how I was raised.  But Jews, and specifically Orthodox Jews, are concerned about other Jews.  So my question, posed out of genuine curiosity and desire to learn, is: would an Orthodox baker bake a cake for two Orthodox men who wish to marry each other? Would he bake a cake for an Orthodox girl who wishes to marry a Muslim or Christian man?  

 

 

Suppose the cake were for an engagement party for a gay couple and the baker had been requested to write "Congratulations X and X."  Or even, in a heterosexual situation, "Congratulations Rachel and Mohammed."  How would the baker handle this?

 

In Islam (to take off on a tangent beyond your post), a man may marry any woman so long as she comes from an Abrahamic faith.  But a Muslim woman may marry ONLY a Muslim man.  If a Muslim woman tries to hire a religious halal caterer for her marriage to a Hindu and he refuses, must he be forced to provide food?  I do not direct this last question to you specifically, but pose it as food for thought.

 

One of the greatnesses of Judaism, though often overlooked, ignored, or maligned, is its compassion.  I believe the Jews, even among the most religious, do not shun or strive to shun homosexuals.  They consider them are valuable members of the community who should be treated with respect.  I concur wholeheartedly in this belief.  

 

 

 

[Mrs Mungo]

So my question, posed out of genuine curiosity and desire to learn, is: would an Orthodox baker bake a cake for two Orthodox men who wish to marry each other? Would he bake a cake for an Orthodox girl who wishes to marry a Muslim or Christian man?

 

 

Suppose the cake were for an engagement party for a gay couple and the baker had been requested to write "Congratulations X and X." Or even, in a heterosexual situation, "Congratulations Rachel and Mohammed." How would the baker handle this?

I don't presume to speak for Eliana, but I think she already answered this in her post.

 

From Eliana:

Let us imagine a young Jewish man or woman who comes to my (hypothetical) bakery to get a cake to celebrate his/her conversion to Xtianity. Remember for a moment that Xtianity is avodah zarah (idol worship) for a Jew.

 

...and I have to admit that my gut-level emotional reaction to this hypothetical situation is intense (in the wedding cake scenario it is very laid back)

 

I would make the cake. ...and wish the young person well. ...though I wouldn't be able to offer congratulations.

 

My cake doesn't cause or contribute to avodah zarah in the one case or forbidden sexual relations in the other.

 

I can't, don't want the power to, control other people's choices or lives... my cakes (or photos) don't put people in bed together, or kneeling at the altar of a 'foreign god'.

 

Those are the choices of the individuals who make them.

It sounds like she would make a cake, even when it is an emotional issue for her because cake has nothing to do with anything ceremonial. I imagine that providing food would be similar. She draws the line at engaging in actual religious ceremony and so does the court.

[Pam in CT]

re single bathrooms, usable (one at a time!!) by all:

I like them, too. I personally LOVE the "Family Bathroom" concept. Do a lot of other places have those? The idea behind them is that fathers can take their children potty, change a baby, and/or use the bathroom himself; mothers can do the same, etc. those are awesome!

 

This idea -- that a solution meant to accommodate one group, ended up benefitting other groups as well -- was one of the major findings of the Universal Design movement that grew out of the disability rights movements....

 

...Sidewalk curb cuts were originally meant to accommodate people whose mobility is restricted... but they also ended up being very helpful to women pushing strollers, people riding bikes, etc....

 

... text-to-speech was originally meant to accommodate people with visual disabilities... but they also ended up being used as a tool to teach reading to all learners...

 

... single bathrooms equipped for people in a wheelchair ended up working well as "family bathrooms" with parents with multiple small children...

 

 

 

 

[LizItaly]

Regarding who gets to decide what is a valid religious belief and what is not, I offer this:

 

In general the U.S. government allows for broad religious freedom and believes the state should not interfere with religious practice, regardless of what it is.  Whether a belief is valid or not is not usually important. However, when the government has a compelling reason, it may place a burden on the free practice of religion, if no other regulation can suffice.  So, in an extreme example, if someone believes sincerely that his religion wants him to murder X group, the government can legally stop him because it MUST protect the life of its citizens.  Hence, we do not allow people to force widows onto funeral pyres, etc..

 

In the case of race-based discrimination, the government had a compelling reason to interfere, even with those who claimed religious justification for it, because the discrimination was ENFORCED by laws in certain states, its pernicious influence had spread to other states, and the government had at its disposal NO OTHER WAY to end the discrimination.  As an aside, as I noted before, those who supported, for example, anti-miscegenation laws on a religious basis were historical outliers.  When Loving was decided, the SCOTUS merely restored to America what had long been common law and custom throughout the Judeo-Christian world.  Interracial marriage is both ancient and common.  The American interruption of this was a bizarre anomaly.  

 

In the case of sexual orientation, it is NOT ILLEGAL to serve gays or to provide services for gay matrimonial events.  There is no  state-enforced segregation of gays.  Sexual orientation is not federally protected, and not all states protect it.  In some states, it is protected in some but not all municipalities.  It can never be considered in the same category as race.  

 

There is no compelling reason for the government to  burden religious freedom in this case because there are plenty of businesses who have differing views and who would happily provide the requested service.  For this reason, I believe that extending public accommodation laws to make sexual orientation a protected group is problematic.

 

If a gay t-shirt maker refuses to make t-shirts for a particular church group because they want the slogan "Jesus Hates Gays," he should be well within his rights to refuse.  Religion is protected, but he is not discriminating merely because he doesn't like Christians.  He does not want to associate himself with a particular message.  Totally legitimate.

 

Likewise, if the Black Panthers request t-shirts from any t-shirt maker (black, white, gay, straight, etc.) with the slogan "Kill Whitey," that t-shirt maker should be able to decline, without being accused of discrimination against blacks.

 

Everyone agrees that sexual orientation is protected in Colorado.  But despite constant claims to the contrary, the baker did not decline the gay couple based on their sexual orientation.  He did not say he would not serve them because they are gay.  He offered to sell them anything else.  I have suggested in previous comments that perhaps, if he had had a ready-made wedding cake in the store, he would have sold them that.  But he was requested to create something for an event incompatible with his religious beliefs.  This is the difference.  

 

To those who would argue, "What about places where there ARE no other bakers?"  I would answer, you have a valid point and I would like to see those cases.  But this is certainly not true of Denver, or indeed of the places where similar cases have been identified.  This is not the same as segregation. This is not redlining.  Though I agree that the gay community has suffered in its history, and many in still suffer today, I cannot accept that this is analogous to over 200 years of human bondage followed by state-enforced segregation.  

 

 

[kiana]

While we're discussing religious freedom, here's a specific one I saw recently: http://www.katu.com/news/investigators/Fallen-followers-Investigation-finds-10-more-dead-children-of-faith-healers-231050911.html

 

I think an adult ought to be able to refuse treatment for whatever they damned well please based on faith, but I hold that denying necessary treatment for medical conditions for someone else (i.e. your minor children) should not be a legitimate religious expression. Letting your kid die of appendicitis because you believe that only prayer should heal that should be prosecuted as a homicide.

[Tanaqui]

To those who would argue, "What about places where there ARE no other bakers?"  I would answer, you have a valid point and I would like to see those cases.

 

So you think we should have a rule that applies in some places but not others? Bakers in less populous areas get privileges that bakers in more populous areas do not?

 

However, when the government has a compelling reason, it may place a burden on the free practice of religion, if no other regulation can suffice.

 

 

There you go. The government has a compelling reason to prevent more bigotry against gays. Or at least, it feels it does - and unless you're a very good lawyer, you probably won't be able to make a good argument otherwise.

 

It can never be considered in the same category as race.

 

 

Because...?

[Tanaqui]

re single bathrooms, usable (one at a time!!) by all:

 

This idea -- that a solution meant to accommodate one group, ended up benefitting other groups as well -- was one of the major findings of the Universal Design movement that grew out of the disability rights movements....

 

And another reason that the social model of disability rules, while the medical model is somewhat less awesome.

 

[LizItaly]

So you think we should have a rule that applies in some places but not others? Bakers in less populous areas get privileges that bakers in more populous areas do not?

 

 

There you go. The government has a compelling reason to prevent more bigotry against gays. Or at least, it feels it does - and unless you're a very good lawyer, you probably won't be able to make a good argument otherwise.

 

 

Because...?

 

Actually, it would be "bakers in more populous areas get privileges that bakers in less populous areas do not."  I am saying it is possible that there could be a case where no other bakers/photographers/etc. exist.  I do not believe this is ever going to be likely but it is possible. As I said, I would be interested to see such cases (and I am fairly sure none currently exist).  I am not a lawyer, but I would love to see how such a case is argued.  I would expect to learn much from it.  In other words, I do not know the answer to your question, and I am perfectly willing to admit it.  

 

When I asked about the fairness of citing a gay bar for discriminating against a gay man based on his particular expression of his (gay) sexual orientation, no one was willing to answer me.  Anyone?

 

Again, if Denver did not allow gay people to be customers in cakeshops, then I would say the government had a compelling case to protect them.  But this is obviously not the case.  It is brimming with cakeshops, the majority of whom would be happy to provide a cake for the event.  The government is not in the business of policing thought.  It cannot tell a baker how to feel or what to think.

 

Re: your last question, I answered it above -- you know, the whole thing about human bondage and state-enforced segregation.