I support the seemingly-exaggerated response of Salesforce. In a risk of starting a religious flame war, I don't understand those of faith who discriminate against anyone else for any reason. Jesus called on His believers to love your neighbors as you love yourself. "There are no commandments greater than these" (from Mark 12)
I don't understand how forcing people to do business, under penalty of law, is promoting "tolerance."
I also don't understand creating these laws and then creating loopholes for pet causes. People are either free to associate and disassociate or they are not.
Because we as a society decided a while ago that if a business offers a service to "the public" that means everyone in the public. Not just the members of the public you happen to like.
I also don't understand why things like homosexuality are orders of magnitude more important than all the other sins named in the Bible -- and often far more clearly and unambiguously.
You don't see Christians protesting outside credit card companies because they engage in usury, or against companies that make their employees work on Sundays, or for policies to help the poor, or anything else like that.
Ultimately what it comes down to is that ideology/religion is the cart, not the horse. People have prejudices and preconceived notions, then they cherry pick from their ideology of choice to rationalize them. People think gays are icky and weird, so they cherry pick from the Bible to support discrimination against them. But usury is profitable so they ignore those parts.
Or how about the most obvious one, killing ie. wars. Conventional American Christianity and the military are very closely tied; how that disconnect is ignored is beyond me.
A more accurate translation of the commandment would be "you shall not murder." Conservative Judaism is also pretty big into the military, and pretty much every major religion makes a distinction between murder and justified killing.
e: Just to be more clear, this isn't me coming up with my own justification. The Hebrew word "ratsakh" used in the commandment specifically refers to murder or manslaughter and isn't used in the context of killing in war.
Even without cherry picking, in this instance, when the Bible/God/Jesus declares it the greatest commandment, you'd think they would pay a little more attention to it.
Interestingly, it seems these things change over time. There was a time usury was seen as a scourge and homosexuality was not seen as something to counter, people were just left alone. I'm thinking eight to ten centuries ago. Usury was seen as pretty vile, but that seems to have changed over the past few centuries. Why? I have no idea, except societies change over time but don't know what brings about that change in sentiment... Some times forward sometimes regressive sentiments.
Can we assume with the acceptance of interracial marriage in the 70's through the 90's, the acceptance of gay marriage between the 90's and now, and the beginnings of the acceptance of drug decriminalization/legalization now are signs the US is tilting "liberal/progressive" (or whatever the opposite of conservative is)?
I think you have to look at what motivated laws like this. In one famous example in Arizona, an anti-discrimination law penalized a wedding photographer who refused to work a same-sex wedding. It's not that people want the right to not serve gay people at Chick-fil-a.
yes, there are people that want to the right to not serve gay people at chik-fil-a.
Substitute the word 'same-sex' with 'black' in that famous example you mention and it should become obvious why laws like that are needed (and were needed 50 years ago).
A wedding photographer photographs weddings, eh? It is quite sensible for said photographer to turn down requests for photographing non-weddings, and holds to a certain widespread classic & religious definition of what a wedding is. Now many find a reason to press for legislation [re]stating that it's the proprietor who gets to decide what the definition s/he adheres to on common religious grounds, not what others say it is.
"It is quite sensible for said photographer to turn down requests for photographing non-weddings, and holds to a certain widespread classic & religious definition of what a wedding is."
And now you've discriminated and are subject to lawsuits. As has already happened in a number of cases.
People used to not think marriages between people of different skin colors weren't actual weddings either. Do you think that a Catholic photographer would agree to work a Lutheran wedding?
Maybe sales force will also stop selling to customers in Russia, China, in Africa too to ensure principles aren't broken... And people aren't discriminated against.
Unfortunately I think he's grandstanding and this is simply symbolic. Which is fine, but he doesn't really mean it. It's a ploy.
I agree that this is more PR than it is principled stand. However, I disagree that the two situations are equivalent. In this case, IN is part of the country that SalesForce is headquartered in and they have employees who live and work in IN. Companies have some responsibility for their conduct in all the areas they do business, but it makes sense that they would be most focused on those areas where they do business and live and work.
Salesforce isn't embargoing customers in Indiana, it's just no longer sending staff or running programs for customers in the state. They're not going to stop the locals buying their product.
in Africa too
Africa is not one homogenous mass of religious backwardness.
As someone from Indiana, and a person of faith, I've followed this fairly closely.
To call the response "seemingly-exaggerated" is an understatement. Frankly, I wonder if Mr. Benioff has even read the bill that Gov. Pence signed today, or whether he's relying on the rhetoric of those who oppose it, who claim it will inevitably lead to discrimination. What the bill actually says is that the state government can't (with some exceptions) enact a law that curtails religious freedom.
In the 20 or so other states that have very similar laws model after the 1993 federal Religious Freedom Act, the courts have ruled in the cases that have been brought forward that it isn't an excuse by the private sector to discriminate. (One assumes that no Salesforce personnel are allowed to travel to those states, either...)
You can love your neighbor as you love yourself, and still not condone or participate in or approve of activities that contradict your faith, just as on a purely secular level you might like an individual but find some of their behavior distasteful.
> You can love your neighbor as you love yourself, and still not condone or participate in or approve of activities that contradict your faith, just as on a purely secular level you might like an individual but find some of their behavior distasteful.
First, loving someone while saying one of the facets of their identity is wrong is... a weird definition of love, at the very least.
Second, that isn't what's at issue. What's at issue is whether someone's personal distaste should translate into a denial of service in the public sphere.
Thank you for calling it a religious freedom law instead of an anti-gay law as most media outlets, since the law never mentions homosexuality, but only reaffirms our Constitutional right to Freedom of Religion.
Potential solution: Out of religious freedom cellular carriers stop offering politicians mobile phone service. Say, it is against their morals/religion to promote the communication of bigots.
45 comments
[ 2.0 ms ] story [ 88.8 ms ] threadI also don't understand creating these laws and then creating loopholes for pet causes. People are either free to associate and disassociate or they are not.
You don't see Christians protesting outside credit card companies because they engage in usury, or against companies that make their employees work on Sundays, or for policies to help the poor, or anything else like that.
Ultimately what it comes down to is that ideology/religion is the cart, not the horse. People have prejudices and preconceived notions, then they cherry pick from their ideology of choice to rationalize them. People think gays are icky and weird, so they cherry pick from the Bible to support discrimination against them. But usury is profitable so they ignore those parts.
e: Just to be more clear, this isn't me coming up with my own justification. The Hebrew word "ratsakh" used in the commandment specifically refers to murder or manslaughter and isn't used in the context of killing in war.
Even without cherry picking, in this instance, when the Bible/God/Jesus declares it the greatest commandment, you'd think they would pay a little more attention to it.
>People think gays are icky and weird
http://research.vtc.vt.edu/news/2014/oct/29/liberal-or-conse...
People with stronger disgust response tend to be conservative.
"Progress occurs one funeral at a time."
Substitute the word 'same-sex' with 'black' in that famous example you mention and it should become obvious why laws like that are needed (and were needed 50 years ago).
And now you've discriminated and are subject to lawsuits. As has already happened in a number of cases.
Just sayin...
Unfortunately I think he's grandstanding and this is simply symbolic. Which is fine, but he doesn't really mean it. It's a ploy.
Kind of like the legislation?
In a democratic country that is supposed to uphold human rights, public acts such as these can have a strong positive impact.
In an autocratic country such as china, the impact would be zero. Often, limited engagement can have a better impact.
in Africa too
Africa is not one homogenous mass of religious backwardness.
To call the response "seemingly-exaggerated" is an understatement. Frankly, I wonder if Mr. Benioff has even read the bill that Gov. Pence signed today, or whether he's relying on the rhetoric of those who oppose it, who claim it will inevitably lead to discrimination. What the bill actually says is that the state government can't (with some exceptions) enact a law that curtails religious freedom.
In the 20 or so other states that have very similar laws model after the 1993 federal Religious Freedom Act, the courts have ruled in the cases that have been brought forward that it isn't an excuse by the private sector to discriminate. (One assumes that no Salesforce personnel are allowed to travel to those states, either...)
You can love your neighbor as you love yourself, and still not condone or participate in or approve of activities that contradict your faith, just as on a purely secular level you might like an individual but find some of their behavior distasteful.
First, loving someone while saying one of the facets of their identity is wrong is... a weird definition of love, at the very least.
Second, that isn't what's at issue. What's at issue is whether someone's personal distaste should translate into a denial of service in the public sphere.
http://www.cnn.com/2015/03/25/politics/mike-pence-religious-...
Tweets from Marc Benioff (CEO of Salesforce):
https://twitter.com/Benioff/status/581108959337136129
https://twitter.com/Benioff/status/581118618127101953
It's a free society. They made there choice now you make yours. Take your business elsewhere.
http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Society/2015/0324/Indiana-relig...
Apparently, it gives business owners the right to discriminate against customers who they feel go against the owner's religious faith.
https://iga.in.gov/legislative/2015/bills/senate/101#