In the case of Star Trucking (employer versus employee) the authors of Title VII justify the law based on the burden to the employer being small. I would argue that in the case of the bakery (business versus customer) the business owners religious-based request is a small burden to the customer, therefore the bakery should be accommodated.

“By which you seem to mean bend over and accept the irrational and the unjust. No thanks.”

I used to be confident that the system could be fixed from within. But it is just too corrupt, too broken.

Every year that passes, what little hope I have left for fixing the system short of violent revolution/civil war grows ever weaker.

On the other side, it seems that things will have to get a lot worse before there is any hope for a successful revolution.

“The law as it exists today is largely inconsistent, self contradictory and unjust.”

That is the problem I was getting to and the point I was trying to make.

“Wake up and learn to deal with it.” By which you seem to mean bend over and accept the irrational and the unjust. No thanks.

” I do see that as an attempt to justify the disparity of the results in similar, if not identical situations.”

No, it’s not an attempt to justify the disparity, just an attempt to explain why the disparity exists.

Buy it or not as you will.

Stephen,

You are coming from a position where you think the law is/should be consistent and/or just. While I used to believe that to, and would love to see the law be like that, I realized more than a decade ago that neither of those things is achievable in the real world.

The law as it exists today is largely inconsistent, self contradictory and unjust. Wake up and learn to deal with it.

“Why is one religious objection valid under law and another not?”

Because that’s the way the law was written. I’m sorry, but no matter how much you want it, there is no better answer.

“The particular mechanism or legislators who produced one law vs the other is a technicality and does not explain how both sides of the contradiction can be claimed to represent justice.”

It is what it is, I never claimed it represents justice.

I am sorry MattS, but when you dismiss objections by saying “[t]hat’s because the two different situations are covered by different laws, written at different times and authored by different sets of lobbyists and congressmen.” I do see that as an attempt to justify the disparity of the results in similar, if not identical situations.

In each case you have a protected class that demands a cake. The government does not allow the owner to “force” an employee to bake a cake over their moral objections. The government then turns around and forces the owner to bake that same cake over the same moral objections. The only difference in the government’s actions is the person. That doesn’t qualify to me for being “different situations.” (See Stephen Macklin’s post below for a further breakdown of the issue.)

Frankly, I think you are grasping when you say that no one read the bill (it is somewhat short). Furthermore, the author of Article VII was one of the authors of the Civil Rights Bill.

I am just not buying what you are laying down.

“That’s because the two different situations are covered by different laws, written at different times and authored by different sets of lobbyists and congressmen.”

Totally irrelevant to the question I posed and generally.

The question I posed dealt with the same individual, with same religious beliefs, and the same religious objection to certain activities. In the case where the individual is working for someone else the law requires the objection be accommodated and penalizes and employer for not doing so. In the case where the individual is working for themselves there is no accommodation for their religious objection and in fact they face fines for failing to comply.

Why is one religious objection valid under law and another not? The particular mechanism or legislators who produced one law vs the other is a technicality and does not explain how both sides of the contradiction can be claimed to represent justice.

“It is just really difficult for me to buy into the idea of what you are saying in order to justify the government forcing people to be treated differently in the workplace.”

If you think I am trying to justify it, you have very badly misunderstood my comments. I am just describing how we got here.

“It is hard for me to conceive that the House and Senate had that great of a turnover in the 1964 elections.”

Turn over is not necessary. Not every member of the either house is involved in writing every bill. In point of fact, different sections of a single act can be written by different groups actively working at cross purposes.

Do you have any evidence that the groups that wrote those two different sections were exactly the same down to the last member? To me, that actually seems rather unlikely.

Many legislators seem to vote without ever reading what they are voting on. Unless the authors of Title 7 were exactly the same people who wrote the section on public accommodations, assuming that the authors of title 7 had any idea what was in the section on public accommodations seems to me to be a bit of a stretch.

“Furthermore, it is hard to say that 9 months was a “different time” as compared to say, the time between 1964 and now.”

In politics anything that crosses an election boundary might as well be forever. Politicians will change their stances based on changes in public opinion.

That’s because the two different situations are covered by different laws, written at different times and authored by different sets of lobbyists and congressmen.

This is not the first time you have put this forth. The requirement to sell to protected classes is part of the 1964 Civil Rights Act which was passed in December 1964.

Title VII, which is the accommodations for workers was passed 9 months later and is part of the Civil Rights Act.

It is hard for me to conceive that the House and Senate had that great of a turnover in the 1964 elections. Furthermore, it is hard to say that 9 months was a “different time” as compared to say, the time between 1964 and now.

It is just really difficult for me to buy into the idea of what you are saying in order to justify the government forcing people to be treated differently in the workplace.

1.If they have regular jobs on top of being legislators then they have more in common with the rest of us.

2. By moving legislatures back to part time, and reducing the pay to below levels at which it can be a career, you reduce the constant drive to add new laws on top of the existing laws.