"It's not praying for people, it's making statements about belief on behalf of other people who never sanctioned you to speak on their behalf. But that's acceptable to you. Got it."

Whether it's acceptable or not, what I don't think it is is forcing the conscience of anybody in the room. Whether or not the speaker purports to speak for everybody in the room, those observing would not be justified in the inference that everybody in the room is actually spoken for, or has acted to participate in the prayer. Thus, it would be wrong to impute the words of the prayer to the hearers.


"So it's a farce then? It's not a group prayer it's just one person babbling on and everybody else standing there, a captive audience listening to the public profession of religion? "

It's probably in between. Most often, a large number probably do participate in the prayer, and a decent number don't.

"I feel dirty and hypocritical for having to endorse a prayer I do not endorse, because I'm a captive member of an audience of a public event. It's like signing my name to a lie. I am perjuring myself because Christians have no regard for anybody but themselves."

Interesting.

I definitely disagree that it's like signing your name to a lie, just like when the speaker goes on to give a speech and supports some stupid policy in the name of "we," nobody could rightly infer that you have signed your name to that, either. And you're also definitely not perjuring yourself.

But it's too bad you feel hypocritical. I'd encourage you to signal nonparticipation, as outlined above. I try to, when I feel (for whatever reason) that the prayer does not speak for me.

"'d encourage you to signal nonparticipation, as outlined above. "

See my post on the last page as to why this isn't a good solution.

I did, abge. It's an interesting post and it raises important questions, but they are different questions from whether a public prayer constitutes a forced violation of religious conscience.

In brief, I think your post raised a valid concern against prayer, which as a matter of policy should be balanced against the points in favor of it.

So why is praying in the name of other people not forcing anybody's conscience or extracting endorsement of certain values without consent but transporting alcohol or baking a cake is? You're not being compelled to drink or attend a same-sex wedding, so how is anybody's conscience being forced? Unless there was a religious proscription against even touching boxes containing bottles with alcohol or baking cakes which gay people might enjoy, how is this even an issue?

Seems like a strange standard.

" but they are different questions from whether a public prayer constitutes a forced violation of religious conscience."

I think the two issues are impossible to separate. The societal pressure to conform is so great that it forces one to violate their religious conscience.

Putin,

First of all, if you're a wedding photographer, you *are* being forced to attend a same-sex wedding.

Beyond that: it's because of the issue of actions *by the person.* Forcing somebody to deliver alcohol is making them actually take actions that they consider wrong.

Letting somebody stand up and say, "Everybody in this room is a Christian!" does not force any action on their part (though it may be false, and that's concerning).

"Unless there was a religious proscription against even touching boxes containing bottles with alcohol or baking cakes which gay people might enjoy, how is this even an issue? "

I imagine the religious proscription at issue would be knowingly taking personal actions to help in the performance of something wrong.

In other words, if we lived in a world in which no one took religion seriously and no one cared what your beliefs were, then it wouldn't matter if you had such optional prayers. But that's not the world we live in and so it does matter.

"I think the two issues are impossible to separate. The societal pressure to conform is so great that it forces one to violate their religious conscience."

First of all -- really? I've non-participated in prayers before, and I must say I felt very little pressure. I'm not being sarcastic; I'm genuinely surprised.

Second of all, and assuming it's really the case -- well, that raises interesting free-exercise questions, then. Perhaps at some point that lawsuit will be brought. Usually they're brought under the establishment clause, which is perhaps why I'm trained to think of it as a different issue. It certainly still seems like one to me. Perhaps if I were shown a religion in which it was wrong to sit silently through something that one disagreed with, then I could be made to change my mind.

The lawsuit has been brought up, which is why I know about it.

It was a few months ago and a small town, but I'll try to find it for you.

No, I know that one, Town of Greece v. Galloway. But it was an establishment-clause case, so it's arguing a somewhat different line than a free-exercise claim.

I don't know what that means, so I'll take your word for it.

If it's the one I'm thinking of, then I think it demonstrated, ethically, if not legally, that there is immense pressure placed on non-Christians when Christian prayers are read at the beginning of government meetings.

"First of all, if you're a wedding photographer, you *are* being forced to attend a same-sex wedding."

And inter-racial weddings. And inter-faith weddings. And secular weddings. And weddings of religions you do not believe in. You're being 'forced' to attend weddings period, because that's the job you chose to occupy your time with.

"Letting somebody stand up and say, "Everybody in this room is a Christian!" does not force any action on their part"

Neither does I suppose writing a blurb for a book claiming Semck endorses it, even if he doesn't. The point is you are speaking for somebody else and affixing somebody else's name to values they do not hold.

"I imagine the religious proscription at issue would be knowingly taking personal actions to help in the performance of something wrong."

But it's not your actions that are 'wrong'. It's somebody else's. So why does it concern you? Should construction workers be allowed to not build churches? Should pizza delivery people be allowed to not deliver to meetings for religious people? Or are only religious people allowed these kinds of protections because of your fondness for the word guilty?

First, Putin et. al., stop talking about workers. This entire thing is about owners of businesses. If a trucking *company* refuses to transport alcohol, that is their business. If a trucker working for a trucking company refuses, he should be fired. But a company has a right to choose who it does business with. Of course, for service based businesses, the easiest way to do it is to set a price that isn't competitive when the nosiness comes knocking. Then they'll go elsewhere.

Hi Draugnar:

"These are the owners who have every right to say "your money is no good here""

That is a good point I overlooked and thanks for making it. I have mixed feelings on that matter. For instance, when that shop in Arizona put up a "we refuse to serve Arizona legislators" (because of the anti-gay and anti immigration stuff) I certainly support that right. It's difficult to argue for one without the other, isn't it?

So I tend towards agreeing with you but I'd certainly entertain counterarguments.

So here's a question for you, and really just to dig deeper on this, I'm not trying to trap you: what about those southern barbershops with the "Whites only" signs in the '50's? Do the owners have the right to refuse service based on race?

""These are the owners who have every right to say "your money is no good here"""

That could be argued for sure, but that's not what the law said. It only applied to theists. Is it right to presume you agree with the former but not the latter?

@Semck - Employment is at will. If a person doesn't want to fulfill the duties assigned him, he can go find another job. Period. On that I agree with Putin and Oscar. Freedom of religion does not extend to the employee/employer relationship. The business is the employer's "house" and they have the say. If you don't like, you aren't forced to do it, but you'll stop getting a pay check.

My argument is strictly from the viewpoint of the business owner being allowed to refuse to accept business he finds morally reprehensible according to his moral code.

Yes, that is correct, and it goes toward my question for draugnar too. what if my religions demands I discriminate against arizona legislators? Less ridiculously, what if my religion demands I discriminate against blacks, and I refuse to serve them? Much less ridiculously still, what if my religion demands I discriminate against gays and I refuse to serve them?

At what point does the religious protection break down? Because I guarantee you won't get away with the "religion vs. blacks" option in a court of law (semck?), and I truly fail to see the difference between that and vs. gays.

"So here's a question for you, and really just to dig deeper on this, I'm not trying to trap you: what about those southern barbershops with the "Whites only" signs in the '50's? Do the owners have the right to refuse service based on race? "

This is a tricky one. I think, at the time, they had every right. But as color is not something that can be hidden (don't ask don't tell comes to mind), it is a more black and white (no pun intended) issue and is more problematic because it is so obvious as to encourage more recriminations against blacks. I don't think a store should ever put up a sign that says "We refuse to serve homosexuals." But the real question is, should they be allowed to refuse service to other races? I would say no and read all of this...

I say that because race isn't a choice at all. There is still debate if sexuality is or not. Nature versus nurture. Race is clearly 100% nature. Same as traditional gender (M/F, not including the transgendered for now). But sexual orientation is potentially nurture and religion is often the same. So, if someone is allowed to say "We don't serve Satanists or KKK groups" they should also be allowed to say "We don't serve LGBTQ".

Now, I want it clear that I don't believe any non-traditional sexual role is bad at all (except rape, child abuse or animal abuse). But I understand the point of view of the extreme religious individual, especially the case of a photography studio whose owner and employee would have to attend the wedding. He should have the right to refuse any situation that would make him feel uncomfortable. A wiccan wedding, a Satanist wedding, a nudist wedding, a gay wedding. Doesn't matter. Likewise, if the product he is creating (the baker and the t-shirt company) is distinctly offensive to his sensibilities, he should have the right to refuse to make it. Now, if they came in and ordered a traditional wedding cake with nothing distinctly "gay" or "satanic" or "wiccan" or "nudist" about it, then no, he shouldn't be allowed to say no. But then the person ordering the cake need not mention it is for a gay/satanic/wiccan/nudist wedding to get it made. Same with the t-shirts.

On other services, like the transport of goods. There are plenty of transportation companies out there, so refusing to transport a product the owner finds unsavory should be completely within his rights.

And the difference, YJ, is nature versus nurture or choice. We know race is in the genes. We don't know what causes non-traditional sexual and emotional connections.

@Draug

Although there are a plethora of problems with the above, one in particular comes to mind:

Why does it matter that it's harder to hide being Black than it is to hide being Gay? At the end of the day, you are forcing someone to hide who they are in order to have a normal interaction with society. You of all people should understand the psychological harm this can and does cause, so I'm curious as to why you'd like to live in a world in which it is OK to treat people like that.

I didn't mean hide in the literal sense. Race is genetic. homosexuality is up for debate. No one has found a gene or an enzyme or anything biological that they can point to and say "this child will not have a traditional sexual orientation". If they could, then it would 100% change everything and *force* the government to include sexual orientation as a protected class. But as it is, it is, on some level, a choice. The same argument you just made could be made for nudists. It's who they are and how they feel most comfortable. Yet we make them put on clothes in public and no one would ever tell a wedding photographer that she didn't have the right to refuse business to a nudist couple getting married.

And yes, it can cause psychological distress. But likewise, being forced to attend a religious ceremony that violates your religion also causes psychological distress. The couple can find another photographer. The photographer can't find another company when he is the owner. The company is him. Have you ever owned a small business? I'm a partner in a couple and sole proprietor of a consulting and web development firm. My companies are my life.

If your argument is that nature trumps nurture than your argument fails before it even starts.

There is certainly more evidence that being gay is nature and being Christian is nurture, so by your own logic gays should trump christians when one is forced to be uncomfortable.

"Have you ever owned a small business?"

No, have you ever fucked a man?

Let me be perfectly clear on one other thing. This doesn't mean that I think they should be immune from a civil suit or that they can't be pursued for civil rights violations. They should have to face the person or organization they refused service to and prove to the courts that they consistently enforce the "don't violate my religion" across all customers of all types (not just gay, but Satanists and nudists and wiccans) at all times and that they are an organization founded on certain religious principles. It can't just be "oh, I've decided to day that I'm Christian when it comes to gays" as that is a hate crime and not an actual action in defense of one's religious freedoms.

@abge - Actually I experimented in high school. So bite me asshole.

"Actually I experimented in high school. So bite me asshole."

Congratulations? I wasn't judging you; I'm just saying that's not a particularly relevant question to this conversation.


But why should theists get special treatment? If you believe businesses can deny services, just let them deny services without cause. This back and forth trying to judge if someone is truly a christian bigot or a normal bigot is crazy.

Anyway, I'm off to bed.

My point is this: If you wan to live in a world in which a business can deny service to anyone for any reason than fine. I think that would be a shitty world to live in but to each their own.

But, to argue that one marginalized group should suffer just to pander to another group that already gets way more than its fair share of passes is outrageous.