Allright, now I'm pissed.
h/t Dartagnan: Bobby Jindal Vows To Remain A Bigoted, Hateful Jackass, Louisiana Be Damned
Referenced Jindal op-ed is here.
Full disclosure: As I've admitted before, I have a terrible blind spot on this issue, in that I have absolutely no respect, reverence or regard whatsoever for anyone's "religious" "beliefs." I could not possibly care less what anyone's "religious" "beliefs" are, and I always assume for the sake of argument that public declarations of "religious" "beliefs" are phony, cynical, self-serving and self-congratulatory. Jindal's odious op-ed is a prime example of why.
It was disappointing to see conservative leaders so hastily retreat on legislation that would simply allow for an individual or business to claim a right to free exercise of religion in a court of law.
Ugh. Here we go. Isn't this the same guy who said the GOP needs to "stop being the stupid party"?
Get this straight, shitbird: The "free exercise of religion" can NEVER and will NEVER be a standalone defense to any cause of action in any court of law in any jurisdiction in any civil case under any circumstances. Never, ever, ever.
Got that?
N
E
V
E
R
.
Not in this country. Not on my watch. No way, no how. The courts and the American people will never allow a civil defendant to walk into a court of law and essentially say to the judge, "Yes, I violated the plaintiff's legal rights. Yes, my actions caused the plaintiff to suffer economic harm. But, since I believe in [insert ancient myth/superstition here], I should be excused from liability; I should not have to compensate the plaintiff for the harm I caused."
Not. Gonna. Happen.
"Religious" "beliefs" are naught but thoughts, qua thoughts. They are neither verifiable nor falsifiable. Non-verifiable, self-reported thoughts by themselves cannot be the basis for civil liability, and cannot be the basis for an excuse from civil liability. Period. Full stop. Non-negotiable.
Personally, I don't give a rat's what you "believe." And here's a little tip for you and all the other poor, persecuted "Christians" out there whose "beliefs" are not being "tolerated," one which I'm sure will come as a great shock: "The government" doesn't care what you "believe" either. I, and "the government" (viz., the law), only care what you DO. You can go right on thinking and believing whatever you want, or whatever your imaginary friend or your favorite book of Bronze Age fairy tales tells you to believe. NO ONE CARES. If anything, you're the ones giving the rest of us a reason to care, because you're the only people in America who want to put your thoughts and "beliefs" into action to punish your fellow citizens for being who they are, and get away with it.
If you get sued, be it for discrimination or anything else, you should not need "religion" to get you out of it. If you did not violate the plaintiff's rights, and/or did not cause him any legally-cognizable harm, you can win a dismissal without invoking your precious purported so-called "beliefs." If you did, and the plaintiff can prove it, then you must compensate him for the harm you caused. It's that simple. That's the basis of civil law, and civil liability. Deal with it.
More dissection of Jindal's BS below the Orange Glyph of Liberal Intolerance.
Gov. Jindal really thinks it's no big deal to allow individuals and businesses to give themselves a self-reported unverifiable excuse, "in a court of law," for violating other people's rights.
Why shouldn’t an individual or business have the right to cite, in a court proceeding, religious liberty as a reason for not participating in a same-sex marriage ceremony that violates a sincerely held religious belief?
Because (a.) "religious liberty" does not include violating other people's rights or inflicting harm on them; (b.) "religious" "beliefs" are neither verifiable nor falsifiable; and (c.) if "not participating" -- whatever that means -- is lawful, viz., does not violate the plaintiffs' rights or cause them any economic harm, then your "religious liberty" is irrelevant. In short, you can't give people a legal excuse for harming others that is self-reported, self-defining, unverifiable, unreasonable and arbitrary.
Let me say this one more time: "Religious liberty" can NEVER, EVER be a standalone defense to any cause of action in any court of law in any jurisdiction in any civil case under any circumstances. Never, ever, ever.
Let me also point out here that the only way a person or a business "not participating in a same-sex marriage ceremony" could end up "in a court of law," is if the party that refuses to participate is the defendant in a civil lawsuit brought by whomever sought to engage his/its services. This will become important in a moment.
[G]iven the changing positions of politicians, judges and the public in favor of same-sex marriage, along with the potential for discrimination against Christian individuals and businesses that comes with these shifts, I plan in this legislative session to fight for passage of the Marriage and Conscience Act.
Bobby, you either don't have a clue what discrimination is, or you are being deliberately obtuse and making crap up for the sake of your audience and paymasters. Or both.
There is absolutely NO "potential for discrimination against Christian individuals and businesses that comes with these shifts[.]" None. Zip. Zero. Zilch. Nada. Squat. Diddly. Bupkis.
"Christian individuals and businesses" aren't being, have not been and will not be treated any differently or held to any different standards than non-"Christian" individuals and businesses when it comes to interaction with the LGBT community. A non-Christian business can no more refuse to accommodate LGBT customers than a "Christian" business can; "Christian" businesses and individuals are not being denied a defense to civil liability that is otherwise afforded to everyone else, or being subjected to legal requirements and restrictions that don't apply to anyone else. What you and the rest of the poor persecuted "Christian" martyrs want is actually the precise opposite: you want to be given an affirmative defense to civil liability that is not afforded to non-"Christians." You want to be given immunity from legal requirements and restrictions that the rest of us have to live by.
Sorry, but you're just not that special.
As a nation we would not compel a priest, minister or rabbi to violate his conscience and perform a same-sex wedding ceremony.
No shit, Sherlock. No one disagrees with that, no one wants that, and no one is calling for that.
But a great many Americans who are not members of the clergy feel just as called to live their faith through their businesses.
Sorry, no. A "business" is not a church, a temple, a synagogue, a mosque, or a private club; business owners are not clergy no matter how "religious" they purport to be. "Live [your] faith" all you want, sell or don't sell whatever you want, offer or don't offer whatever you want. But whatever you sell and whatever you offer, you must sell that and offer that to
everyone on the same terms. If you want to pick and choose your customers based on
your "faith" or
your "beliefs," then don't incorporate; open a church or a private club, not a "business."
[T]hat’s why we should ensure that musicians, caterers, photographers and others should be immune from government coercion on deeply held religious convictions.
This again. Bobby, dude, m'man, boobie, a private civil lawsuit is
not "government coercion." You and other right-wing tools and libertarian phonies and proxy-martyr concern trolls who regard every law as a bill of attainder may get off on your respective paranoid fantasies about "government" holding a gun to your head, but creating a private cause of action and having a court system in which to litigate it -- i.e., giving private citizens the
option to enforce their own legal rights -- is not even in the same ballpark, let alone the same level, section, row or seat, as "coercion," let alone by "government" holding a gun to your head. No offense, but get the f*&# over yourself.
The legislation would prohibit the state from denying a person, company or nonprofit group a license, accreditation, employment or contract — or taking other “adverse action” — based on the person or entity’s religious views on the institution of marriage.
Wait... I thought you said you wanted to give "an individual or business ... the right to cite,
in a court proceeding, religious liberty as
a reason for not participating in a same-sex marriage ceremony"; to "allow for an individual or business to claim a right to free exercise of religion
in a court of law." How would legislation that prohibits the state from denying licenses &c. to such people accomplish that?
The bill does not ... create a right to discriminate against, or generally refuse service to, gay men or lesbians. The bill does not change anything as it relates to the law in terms of discrimination suits between private parties.
Then how do you propose to "allow for an individual or business to claim a right to free exercise of religion in a court of law" and thereby escape civil liability "for not participating in a same-sex marriage ceremony" where such non-participation would otherwise be unlawful?
Which is it, Governor?
A pluralistic and diverse society like ours can exist only if we all tolerate people who disagree with us.
Why should we tolerate people who want to break the law because they irrationally hate a whole class of people, and demand to be excused for both the hate and the lawbreaking? I know of no English-language dictionary that defines the verb "tolerate" to mean "absolve of any liability or blame for discrimination, prejudice, wrongdoing or injustice."
The left-wing ideologues who oppose religious freedom are the same ones who seek to tax and regulate businesses out of existence. The same people who think that profit making is vulgar believe that religiosity is folly.
Oh, f*** you, Bobby, you and your ideological proxy war against wholly imaginary adversaries. You can't whine about not being "tolerated" or taken seriously when you describe the "people who disagree with [you]" like this. Boo frickity hoo.
The rest of Jindal's op-ed is standard "conservative" self-congratulation and resentment. I give him credit for putting this verbose whine-fest in the "liberal" New York Times, but it makes me wonder if he and others on the GOP's color-war team think they're going to win anyone else over by talking and writing like teenaged girls. (No offense to teenaged girls intended.) This is the kind of thing we should expect from pundits and bloggers, not actual elected officials; it's childish and irresponsible. As a public officeholder, a representative of all the people of his state, Jindal should know better than to tell one class of people that they're being persecuted when they're not, to make victims out of non-victims. Shame on him for doing that, and shame on everyone else for enabling it.
In a larger sense, Jindal's adolescent mewling is only part of the problem. Angry reactions to it, like mine, are part of the problem too. As noted above, it's because elected officials like Jindal make such grotesque, cynical and disingenuous statements in public about religion and "religious liberty" and "Christians" and so forth that I have absolutely no respect, reverence, regard or admiration for same and never give them the benefit of the doubt as to their sincerity or altruism. It's also why our friends on the other color-war team think that the desire and quest for equality constitutes a direct personal attack on them, that the "gay agenda" is demanding that they change their thoughts as well as their behavior.
A chicken-and-egg, who-started-it discussion would be futile at this point, as would any additional both-sides-do-it pablum. I think if we start by filtering out everything except actual public statements made by actual elected officials, starting with Jindal's op-ed, I think the contrast -- and the answer -- will be clear.