SEN. NANCY JACOBS THINKS "RELIGIOUS FREEDOM" PERMITS A BUSINESS TO TURN AWAY SELECTIVELY MEMBERS OF THE PUBLIC

The following e-mail exchange was prompted by a Feb 9 2011 article in the Baltimore Sun:  


http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/maryland/politics/bs-md-gay-marriage-hearing-senate-20110208,0,1140373.story


************************


Senator Jacobs,

I read in the Sun paper this morning (Feb 9 2011, article about testimony on Religious Freedom and Civil Marriage Protection Act) that you think a confectioner ought to be able to turn away members of the public, who are gay.

Do you also think a business - any business - ought to be able turn away a customer who is Jewish?

You are speaking the language of hate.

I look forward to your response, which I will publicize - including a non-response.

*******************************

Mr. Cook,

Thank you for taking the time to write me. 

Unfortunately the Sun newspaper has misattributed part of their story to me and took the other attribution out of context in which I asked the question. 

Let me preface my response by noting that you are certainly entitled to your beliefs and I sincerely appreciate you sharing them with me—even in disagreement.  I do not believe my language is hateful.  I believe, taken in context, it brought up a very serious issue that goes to the core of the freedom of religion.  Let me explain.

First, of course I do not believe a business should turn down a Jewish customer in most circumstances.  In fact, I think businesses would be crazy to turn down any business in these troubled economic times. 

With that said, in keeping with your example regarding the Jewish faith, I would say its fine for a Rabbi to refuse to perform a wedding for a Protestant/Muslim/Atheist/etc couple and vice versa.  At issue is the question of whether a religious-oriented business (wedding officiate, wedding confectioner, photographer, etc) should be mandated to take on commercial enterprise that fundamentally goes against the foundations of their faith and beliefs.  In these situations, I do believe that the business-owner’s freedom of religion plays a pivotal role in their selection of clientele and in these limited situations I think it is acceptable.  (As noted in the story, state law already prohibits hotels, motels, bars and restaurants from refusing clientele based on sexual orientation). 

Additionally, as I’m sure you’re aware; there are instances where some organizations and businesses do work with select clientele beyond just religious beliefs.  For instance, I’m sure you’re familiar with 55+ communities or ladies night at bars. 

In regards to the second example cited by the Baltimore Sun about the hypothetical court clerk, that was asked by another senator on our committee.  I do not know why the Sun attributed the quotation to me.

While I realize you may not see eye-to-eye with me, I value you taking the time to write me.  The free exchange ideas is the bedrock of our democracy and I welcome civil disagreement with the same gusto I accept agreement.

Sincerely,

Nancy Jacobs  


********************


COMMENT: The free practice of religion extends to the clergy prerogative to solemnify or to decline to solemnify a marriage by conducting a religious ceremony. 


But the practice of religion does not permit the government to invoke a gender test upon citizens and to forbid from marrying those citizens who fail a test of their gender. 


The courthouse must remain open to all citizens, without any citizen being subjected to an inquiry into gender.


During the era of slavery and segregation, private businesses invoked personal and religious privilege, what today might be called a "conscience exception," to deny freedom and public services to African-American citizens. 


The analogy to improper denial of state services, not the analogy to a clergy privilege, is the way to think about whether citizens ought to be free to marry, without regard to gender. 


A gender prohibition to marry, based on a state inquiry into gender, is unfair in principle and unenforcible in practice. 

Baltimore Sun Opinion Writer Affiliated with a Hate Group

On February 1 2011, the Baltimore Sun opened its Opinion page to a column by Peter Sprigg, of the Family Research Council. (Marriage's public purpose: raising children - baltimoresun.com )


Why? 


The Baltimore Sun did not tell its readers that the Family Research Council has been identified by the Southern Poverty Law Center as a hate group.


Why not?


The Southern Poverty Law Center, has this to say (emphasis added) about Peter Sprigg:


" [. . .] anti-gay propagandists at FRC include Peter Sprigg, senior fellow for policy studies, who joined the organization in 2001. Sprigg authored a 2010 brochure touting “The Top Ten Myths about Homosexuality.” In the brochure, Sprigg claimed that ex-gay therapy works, that sexual orientation can change, that gay people are mentally ill simply because homosexuality makes them that way, and that, “Sexual abuse of boys by adult men is many times more common than consensual sex between adult men, and most of those engaging in such molestation identify themselves as homosexual or bisexual.” He also claimed that “homosexuals are less likely to enter into a committed relationship” and “less likely to be sexually faithful to a partner.” Sprigg’s sources are a mixture of junk science issued by groups that support ex-gay therapy and legitimate science quoted out of context or cherry-picked, a tactic long used by anti-gay groups to bolster their claims about gay people. Several legitimate researchers, like NYU’s Judith Stacey (a source Sprigg uses), have issued public statements condemning the practice and requesting that anti-gay groups stop misrepresenting their work.

"In 2004, Sprigg and FRC Senior Research Fellow Timothy Dailey co-authored the 2004 book Getting It Straight: What the Research Shows About Homosexuality. In it, they repeat claims that gay men “commit a disproportionate number of child sex abuse cases,” that homosexuals are promiscuous, and that lesbians exhibit “compulsive behavior.” Much of the book’s content can also be found in separate articles put out by the FRC.

"In March 2008, Sprigg responded to a question about uniting gay partners during immigration by saying, “I would much prefer to export homosexuals from the United States than import them.” He later apologized, but in February 2009, he told Chris Matthews, “I think there would be a place for criminal sanctions on homosexual behavior.” “So we should outlaw gay behavior?” Matthews asked. “Yes,” Sprigg replied."





Questions for Mary J Corey, Baltimore Sun Vice President for Content (mary.corey@baltsun.com )


1. Why did the Baltimore Sun give op ed space to someone who is affiliated with a hate group?


2. Why did the Baltimore Sun permit Mr. Sprigg to identify himself with the Family Research Council, without advising Sun readers about this groups's decades' long record of hateful rhetoric? 




For more information about the Family Research Council, visit the Southern Poverty Law Center webasite and search "Family Research Council." www.splcenter.org

A SOLUTION LOOKING FOR A PROBLEM - photo ID to vote

A GOP freshman delegate in Annapolis is proposing a requirement that voters show a government-issued photo ID in order to vote. 


For details, check out an article from MarylandReporter.com.


Delegates debate requiring photo ID to vote – MarylandReporter.com

Is voter fraud a big prob in Maryland? Nope.

Is voter fraud a big prob around the country? Nope.

Then what problem is Frederick County Delegate Kathy Afzali's, proposed bill intended to solve?

Well, there are a lot of racial minorities voting in Maryland, and nationally, and in growing numbers. 

Lots of these folks don't vote for the GOP, which is increasingly taking on the appearance of a hate group. 

Just as GOP elected officials don't like immigrants, or women or gays, they don't like voters who will not vote for them, under any circumstances.

This is the "problem" that Delegate Afzakli has discovered, and wants to solve by turning away voters, who are inclined against pulling the lever for her Party. 

And no wonder. 

IF MEXICO CAN PROVIDE UNIVERSAL MEDICAL COVERAGE, SO CAN THE USA

Six years ago, the government of Mexico moved to provide universal health coverage for its citizens, at a cost of $12 billion a year. Mexico is not there yet, but is getting there.


If our neighbors countries, north and south, can do this, so can the US.


Here is a link to a NY Times piece, with more details. 


Mexico’s Universal Health Care Is Work in Progress - NYTimes.com

Il Cairo

Il Cairo

POSTED ON FACEBOOK BY ALLISON WEST. THANKS, ALLISON

A CALL FOR TRANSPARENCY BY MPPI, WHICH IS ANYTHING BUT TRANSPARENT

Is it OK to use one's media megaphone to do a favor for your boss?


Happens all the time. Case in point:


A Baltimore Sun columnist, Marta H. Mossburg, in a column today (Dec 7 2010) invited the public to attend a conference in Annapolis, sponsored by her other employer, the Maryland Public Policy Institute. 


Interesting that the conference is to focus on "transparency" when the Maryland Public Policy Institute is anything but transparent about its own funding. 


According to the MPPI website today, Robert Ehrlich sits on the MPPI board. Does this right-wing millionaire put money into MPPI - so it can bash the Democratic majority Maryland legislature?


Here are some questions that are not likely to be addressed by the MMPI-sponsored transparency conference - or in any other venue run by MPPI:   

Who gives the biggest dollars to MPPI?


Why does MPPI push only right wing and libertarian solutions to fiscal matters?


Why does MPPI hire people, such as Ms. Mossburg, with no discernible qualifications to propose economic solutions to Maryland's budgetary challenges?


In its call for transparency, why does MPPI ignore the lack of transparency in the private sector, of, say, "Tea Party" front outfits who are, rumor has it, wholly funded by right wing billionaires?

THE STATE OF SOCIETY TODAY - DECEMBER 2010

Here is an important statement about the state of our society today.

This thirteen minute speech by Senator Bernie Sanders is worth your thirteen minutes.

Then, we ought to get angry and get in touch with our Washington DC elected officials. Let them know how you feel.   

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H5OtB298fHY&feature=player_embedded