Religious freedom, political correctness, and the culture of outrage

[Syt]

The recent discussions of the Hobby Lobby case, or the discussion of laws that would allow proprietors of businesses to refuse business if their religious convictions require it ("I ain't sellin' to no gays!") made me wonder ...

On the one hand I'm a bit galled that here's people demanding tolerance for their intolerance, or if you want to put it more bluntly, their right to discriminate. While I think that all people/companies should be treated equal under law, I also think that unless he's breaking any laws, a shop owner, in his shop on his ground should have the right to refuse service to people if he so wishes (but should also be prepared to be called out on it).

Anyways, while I disagree with their stances, I can also see their argument that they find they're being discriminated against - them homos ramming their deviant lifestyles down their throats and spitting on their Holy Bible, forced to finance medical prescriptions they don't agree with on principles of faith etc.

I think this is another expression of the culture of outrage that is so prevalent in society these days. Political correctness started out as a good idea - to temper one's language so as to not grossly overstep boundaries - to not call blacks Niggers, or to call gays fags, or Jews kikes or Mexicans wetbacks.

This movement has grown and grown to the point where it's dangerous to say anything that might be perceived as slightly insulting to any specific special interests group.

As a result of this, these groups and people often expect that people go out of their way to not offend them. If someone slights a group - intentionally or unintentionally - the shitstorm is only a few tweets away. People feel they have the right to not be offended by anything.

And while this used to be mostly a prerogative of groups associated with "the left" (ethnic minorities, LGBT community, ...), the conservatives are joining the fun.

Which is highly poisonous to public discourse, from both sides.

Where in the past folks who didn't agree with each other could at least tolerate each other ("I don't agree with your opinions/lifestyle, but this is a free country."), positions are becoming more and more entrenched and irreconcilable.

How to solve it? No idea. People need to chill the fuck out.

Just my 2 cents or your regional currency equivalent.

[Ideologue]

I dunno.  I think you severely underestimate intolerance of political opinions, lifestyles, and creeds in the past (which I suppose means the mid-20th century?).

[MadImmortalMan]

It is our duty to take up the tolerant man's burden and bring civilization to the intolerant heathens.

[Josquius]

It really seems that any sane heartless businessman should convert to Christian Science or some such uber nonsense

[Viking]

Offense is taken, never given.

[Legbiter]

I think homofag/LGTZYX liberation has turned into a parody of what they used to accuse their enemies of doing. Hence I now find it all about as interesting and relevant as disco music or the Soviet Union. 

[garbon]

I do shove my "lifestyle" down peoples throats and spit on bibles pretty regularly.

[Admiral Yi]

Agreed.  Too many groups, too many people, for whom the nurturing and perpetuation of outrage is their central organizing principle.

[CountDeMoney]

Your rights end where my feelings begin.

[Valmy]

Agreed.  Too many groups, too many people, for whom the nurturing and perpetuation of outrage is their central organizing principle.

Yep.  It gets so tiresome.  And the fact the right wing has grafted onto this and now everybody is a victim 

[Eddie Teach]

I do shove my "lifestyle" down peoples throats

Is that what you call your wiener

[The Brain]

Some of my scale model magazines blur the swastikas on Messerschmitts. Need I say more. Need I say more.

[crazy canuck]

While I think that all people/companies should be treated equal under law, I also think that unless he's breaking any laws, a shop owner, in his shop on his ground should have the right to refuse service to people if he so wishes (but should also be prepared to be called out on it).

The original purpose of human rights laws was to ensure the first principle which is a something with which most people agree.   So for example people should not be exluded from enjoying full rights under the law because of their race, religion etc.  Under this principle a shop keeping may not discriminate by refusing to serve people of a different race, religion etc.

But that principle seems to have been lost.  Now equality under the law has been replaced by a kind of superpriority under the law.  And now the US Supreme Court has gone further and given superpriority to religious beliefs.   The pendulum has swung way too far.

[MadImmortalMan]

So for example people should not be exluded from enjoying full rights under the law because of their race, religion etc.  Under this principle a shop keeping may not discriminate by refusing to serve people of a different race, religion etc.

Are you sure of that? The second sentence doesn't seem to be connected to the first. A shopkeeper is not the law.

[Barrister]

While I think that all people/companies should be treated equal under law, I also think that unless he's breaking any laws, a shop owner, in his shop on his ground should have the right to refuse service to people if he so wishes (but should also be prepared to be called out on it).

The original purpose of human rights laws was to ensure the first principle which is a something with which most people agree.   So for example people should not be exluded from enjoying full rights under the law because of their race, religion etc.  Under this principle a shop keeping may not discriminate by refusing to serve people of a different race, religion etc.

But that principle seems to have been lost.  Now equality under the law has been replaced by a kind of superpriority under the law.  And now the US Supreme Court has gone further and given superpriority to religious beliefs.   The pendulum has swung way too far.

Syt - we had the principle that "businesses could refuse service to anyone they wanted" before.  It led to certain populations being denied service.



CC - I really don't see how the USSC has given "superpriority to religious beliefs".  Freedom of religion is a protected right.  The Honny Lobby case is a fairly routine conflict of rights case if you strip out all the Obamacare outrage.  You can disagree with exactly where you draw the line between religious freedom and freedom from discrimination, but clearly you have to draw the line somewhere.  A church would surely be within it's rights to not rent out it's worship room to a bunch of satanists, or for the filming or pornography (gay or straight).