Update: Thanks, Steve and Tengrain, for the shout-outs, and a warm welcome to visitors. And hey, stick around for a minute, because today's a very special day!
So David Brooks is out with his 112th career use of the word "amazing" in today's Times, on behalf of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, not the one just passed into law by the Indiana state government, but the old 1993 federal one:
I'm personally very glad that the right of Native American Church members to perform their traditional peyote ceremonies is established and the sacred character of Native American burial grounds in general protected. I'm also not sorry that it didn't protect the children of John W. and Faythe A. Miller of Sugar Land, TX, from having Social Security numbers, even though the Millers' religious belief held that such numbers would burden the kids with the Mark of the Beast as prophesied in Revelation 13:16-17. But I don't quite see where the horror of bigotry, isolation, marginalization, and prejudice (all of 'em, Katie!) come into it.
I do understand how Justice Alito's opinion in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby protected the proprietors Mr. and Mrs. Green from being forced to provide their female employees with minimum standards of health insurance as defined by federal law, because they believed FALSELY that certain kinds of contraceptives cause fertilized eggs to die and are therefore abortifacients (obviously you can't judge a religious belief by whether it's true or not; for Priscilla M. Lippincott Adams, her belief that the US government uses her tax money to fund warmaking activities in contravention of her Quaker faith was entirely true, but that didn't qualify her for a RFRA exemption).
But I don't get at all how Alito protected the Greens from the horrors of bigotry. If anything, it subjected them to more bigotry than they would have had to face otherwise. I'm now totally prejudiced, for example, as I never would have been before, against Hobby Lobby. I will never pass through its doors no matter how much I long for a new Fourth of July ornament, such as a resin birdy in American Flag shorts, vest, and top hat.
As usual, but perhaps in a profounder than usual way, Brooks does not know what he's talking about, or what RFRA even is. I mean he has no clue whatever in this case. It is about protecting the "free exercise" of religion as guaranteed in the First Amendment from government intrusion. Bigotry, a common citizen-to-citizen problem, is covered for religious persons elsewhere; they are protected from discrimination in employment under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which
You know who isn't protected from bigotry and discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Gay people, who are not mentioned under any title of the Act, who face genuine horrors in daily life that include being fired from jobs that they perform well (unlike Brendan Eich, who lost his job at Mozilla because his willful opposition to marriage equality compromised his effectiveness), refused public accommodations, and bullied to death—as well as the possibility that somebody might refuse to bake them a wedding cake, which really shouldn't be the main issue.
Brooks more or less recognizes that there's a problem there, and thinks there should be absolutely no bigotry allowed, but the idea shouldn't be codified into law because that would just put folks' backs up and be impolite:
Note:
Obviously Driftglass is on this one like Donkey Kong, and Mr. Pierce asks,
 |
| From that store that I will never be able to visit because of Justice Alito and the 1993 RFRA. |
So David Brooks is out with his 112th career use of the word "amazing" in today's Times, on behalf of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, not the one just passed into law by the Indiana state government, but the old 1993 federal one:
This moderate, grounded, incremental strategy has produced amazing results. Fewer people have to face the horror of bigotry, isolation, marginalization and prejudice.Something tells me Brooksy isn't at all clear what the original RFRA did and didn't do.
I'm personally very glad that the right of Native American Church members to perform their traditional peyote ceremonies is established and the sacred character of Native American burial grounds in general protected. I'm also not sorry that it didn't protect the children of John W. and Faythe A. Miller of Sugar Land, TX, from having Social Security numbers, even though the Millers' religious belief held that such numbers would burden the kids with the Mark of the Beast as prophesied in Revelation 13:16-17. But I don't quite see where the horror of bigotry, isolation, marginalization, and prejudice (all of 'em, Katie!) come into it.
I do understand how Justice Alito's opinion in Burwell v. Hobby Lobby protected the proprietors Mr. and Mrs. Green from being forced to provide their female employees with minimum standards of health insurance as defined by federal law, because they believed FALSELY that certain kinds of contraceptives cause fertilized eggs to die and are therefore abortifacients (obviously you can't judge a religious belief by whether it's true or not; for Priscilla M. Lippincott Adams, her belief that the US government uses her tax money to fund warmaking activities in contravention of her Quaker faith was entirely true, but that didn't qualify her for a RFRA exemption).
But I don't get at all how Alito protected the Greens from the horrors of bigotry. If anything, it subjected them to more bigotry than they would have had to face otherwise. I'm now totally prejudiced, for example, as I never would have been before, against Hobby Lobby. I will never pass through its doors no matter how much I long for a new Fourth of July ornament, such as a resin birdy in American Flag shorts, vest, and top hat.
As usual, but perhaps in a profounder than usual way, Brooks does not know what he's talking about, or what RFRA even is. I mean he has no clue whatever in this case. It is about protecting the "free exercise" of religion as guaranteed in the First Amendment from government intrusion. Bigotry, a common citizen-to-citizen problem, is covered for religious persons elsewhere; they are protected from discrimination in employment under Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which
makes it illegal for an employer to discriminate against individuals because of their religion in hiring, firing, and other terms and conditions of employment, such as promotions, raises, and other job opportunities.... Title VII also requires employers to reasonably accommodate the religious practices of an employee or prospective employee, unless to do so would create an “undue hardship” upon the employer. Flexible scheduling, voluntary substitutions or swaps, job reassignments, and lateral transfers are examples of ways of accommodating an employee's religious beliefs.and discrimination in education under Title IV, and public accommodations under Title II and the Fair Housing Act, and so on.
You know who isn't protected from bigotry and discrimination under the Civil Rights Act of 1964? Gay people, who are not mentioned under any title of the Act, who face genuine horrors in daily life that include being fired from jobs that they perform well (unlike Brendan Eich, who lost his job at Mozilla because his willful opposition to marriage equality compromised his effectiveness), refused public accommodations, and bullied to death—as well as the possibility that somebody might refuse to bake them a wedding cake, which really shouldn't be the main issue.
Brooks more or less recognizes that there's a problem there, and thinks there should be absolutely no bigotry allowed, but the idea shouldn't be codified into law because that would just put folks' backs up and be impolite:
Morality is a politeness of the soul. Deep politeness means we make accommodations. Certain basic truths are inalienable. Discrimination is always wrong. In cases of actual bigotry, the hammer comes down. But as neighbors in a pluralistic society we try to turn philosophic clashes (about right and wrong) into neighborly problems in which different people are given space to have different lanes to lead lives. In cases where people with different values disagree, we seek a creative accommodation.Gosh, I guess so! If only Dr. King and President Johnson had exercised some of that deep politeness back in 1964, then we wouldn't have had all these problems over the years!
Note:
Obviously Driftglass is on this one like Donkey Kong, and Mr. Pierce asks,
"Morality is a politeness of the soul"? What kind of dog's breakfast is that?
No comments:
Post a Comment