Consistent Conservatism

[Ringo84]

Hmmm, apparently someone hasn't informed the Government in New Mexico about that.

How “Human Rights” Commissions Erode Religious Freedom

Separation of Church and State has nothing to do with quote-unquote "state censorship". Separation prevents the church from overstepping its boundaries by attempting to control the government (religious tyranny), and prevents the government from overstepping its boundaries by attempting to control the church ("nanny government").

Now, I don't know what this so-called "Human Rights commission" is about, but I think we can all agree that the state shouldn't control the church and the church shouldn't control the state. Especially conservatives, who are always railing against "big government" or "nanny government".
Ringo

 

[oldbetang]

Separation of Church and State has nothing to do with quote-unquote "state censorship".

Actually, the case itself demonstrates that it does.

Separation prevents the church from overstepping its boundaries by attempting to control the government (religious tyranny), and prevents the government from overstepping its boundaries by attempting to control the church ("nanny government").

The New Mexico case is clearly an example of government overstepping its boundaries as per separation of church and state.

Now, I don't know what this so-called "Human Rights commission" is about, but I think we can all agree that the state shouldn't control the church and the church shouldn't control the state. Especially conservatives, who are always railing against "big government" or "nanny government".
Ringo

Especially conservatives?? What is that supposed to mean? That it isn't so bad when liberals violate the separation of church and state?

 

[Ringo84]

Actually, the case itself demonstrates that it does.

One isolated case in New Mexico does not prove that.

The New Mexico case is clearly an example of government overstepping its boundaries as per separation of church and state.

Then New Mexico should step back. I don't favor complete separation, but I do think that church and state should be separate.

Especially conservatives?? What is that supposed to mean? That it isn't so bad when liberals violate the separation of church and state?

You're putting words into my mouth. The concept of a separation between church and state is conservative because it prohibits big government and "nanny" government. Yet some conservatives are the ones who denounce separation most vociferously, which I find unconservative.
Ringo

 

[MerchantofMenace]

Separation of Church and State has nothing to do with quote-unquote "state censorship". Separation prevents the church from overstepping its boundaries by attempting to control the government (religious tyranny), and prevents the government from overstepping its boundaries by attempting to control the church ("nanny government").

And how does it do that, exactly? Does it prevent churches from organizing people to protest? Does it prevent them from supporting legislation?

Does the government allow human sacrifice? If not then it has violated the separation of church and state by preventing people from sacrificing themselves for religious reasons? Then there's the Branch Davidians. The government in no sense of the word left them alone. Then there's the Mormons.

Then New Mexico should step back. I don't favor complete separation, but I do think that church and state should be separate.

So they should be separate, but not totally separate? Where do we draw the line? Regulating some strange people in the Desert? The nuts in Texas? People that worship space aliens from a comet? A death cult that follows the teachings of a pedophile? Human sacrifice? What is your rationale for that line?

You're putting words into my mouth. The concept of a separation between church and state is conservative because it prohibits big government and "nanny" government. Yet some conservatives are the ones who denounce separation most vociferously, which I find unconservative.
Ringo

But, you don't think church and state should be separate.

 

[Ringo84]

And how does it do that, exactly?

Our Constitution forbids the government from imposing itself on the church and prevents the church from imposing itself on the government.

In other words: the church can't establish its beliefs in government and force the rest of us to tow their theological line. The government can't control the church.

Does it prevent churches from organizing people to protest? Does it prevent them from supporting legislation?

No. "Church", in this case, is the church institution: the Baptist church. The Islamic church. The Buddhist church. Separation of Church and State is not meant to prevent Christians from being involved in government affairs.

Does the government allow human sacrifice? If not then it has violated the separation of church and state by preventing people from sacrificing themselves for religious reasons? Then there's the Branch Davidians. The government in no sense of the word left them alone. Then there's the Mormons.

The government doesn't control the church institution as long as the church's beliefs don't violate the law. Sacrificing people likely breaks the law, which means that there's not a "wall of separation" protecting such practices.

So they should be separate, but not totally separate?

Right. Total separation would disallow Christians from holding office or voting. It'd also disallow the church from weighing in on important ethical issues. That's an extreme form of separation that few people - if any - advocate.

Where do we draw the line? Regulating some strange people in the Desert? The nuts in Texas? People that worship space aliens from a comet? A death cult that follows the teachings of a pedophile? Human sacrifice? What is your rationale for that line?

As I said above: if the practices or beliefs of a church break the law, those practices or beliefs should be regulated by the government to prevent people getting hurt.

But, you don't think church and state should be separate.

I don't?
Ringo

 

[MerchantofMenace]

Our Constitution forbids the government from imposing itself on the church and prevents the church from imposing itself on the government.

In other words: the church can't establish its beliefs in government and force the rest of us to tow their theological line. The government can't control the church.

Where does it say that?

No. "Church", in this case, is the church institution: the Baptist church. The Islamic church. The Buddhist church. Separation of Church and State is not meant to prevent Christians from being involved in government affairs.

But a religious organization is made up of followers of that religion. If you want to separate church and state, you have to ban all religious people from involvement with politics, because what individuals can do, a group of individuals can do. And the net effect is that you have the church making laws.

The government doesn't control the church institution as long as the church's beliefs don't violate the law. Sacrificing people likely breaks the law, which means that there's not a "wall of separation" protecting such practices.

So, basically, the government can not control the religious institution as long as the government decides not to control the religious institution, and it seems to be an arbitrary standard, because there's lots of sources of law, but what it boils down to, is that the government cannot control the religious institution as long as all the legislative bodies and administrative agencies don't pass statutes, rules, or regulations to outlaw what religious people do.

Ergo it exists at the sufferance of the government.

As I said above: if the practices or beliefs of a church break the law, those practices or beliefs should be regulated by the government to prevent people getting hurt.

So essentially, separation of church and state exists as long as the religions don't violate the law, but the law changes at the ponderous whim of the government. Which means that from the government to the church, it means that, according to your system, the separation exists only because there's no law that makes things the religious do illegal, and since religions are made up of individuals, there's no practical way to separate church from state in the church to the state relationship because you can't separate the individual from the state and prohibit the individual from becoming involved with the state.

I don't?
Ringo

I saw a don't when there was only a do.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

Hmmm, apparently someone hasn't informed the Government in New Mexico about that.

How “Human Rights” Commissions Erode Religious Freedom

That story had absolutely nothing to do with Ringo's quoted post and is obviously a red herring.

 

[Ringo84]

Where does it say that?

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion". No Religion can be established in this country.

But a religious organization is made up of followers of that religion. If you want to separate church and state, you have to ban all religious people from involvement with politics,

We have had church and state separation in this country since its founding. In all that time, there has never been a need to ban Christians from office simply to preserve Jefferson's "wall of separation". To say: either we have separation or we have Christians involved with their governmentis a false choice.

So, basically, the government can not control the religious institution as long as the government decides not to control the religious institution,

No. The government can't control the religious institution because such control would be unconstitutional.

is that the government cannot control the religious institution as long as all the legislative bodies and administrative agencies don't pass statutes, rules, or regulations to outlaw what religious people do.

The government can't impose control over religious institutions because that's the way our Constitution was structured. To violate such rules would be to violate the basic structure of our country.

So essentially, separation of church and state exists as long as the religions don't violate the law, but the law changes at the ponderous whim of the government. Which means that from the government to the church, it means that, according to your system, the separation exists only because there's no law that makes things the religious do illegal, and since religions are made up of individuals, there's no practical way to separate church from state in the church to the state relationship because you can't separate the individual from the state and prohibit the individual from becoming involved with the state.

This is what I hear you saying
Ringo: As long as the church doesn't violate the law, the government can't regulate the church
Merchant: But the government makes the rules, which means that can change at any time.

That's an interesting argument. In all the time I've debated this issue, I've never seen that particular point being raised. I'll give you points for originality.

The government can't override the basic tenets of our Constitution. Those laws don't change because they form the basic structure of our government. If we had established rules in the Constitution but the government refused to follow those rules, we'd have anarchy.

I saw a don't when there was only a do.

I don't know where you get that idea, as I am strongly in favor of a Separation of Church and State.
Ringo

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

One isolated case in New Mexico does not prove that.

You've been bushified into believing an argument that is wholly baseless. The New Mexico case was not about separation of Church + State because the bigots that own photography business violated public accomodation law. Their objection to taking the pictures based on religion did not qualify it as a Church versus State debate. The photography business is not a Church so it is not allowed to discriminate and the 1st Amen is about being able to worship without State interference. Now, if the gay couple had gone to a church and demanded the church take pictures then the State would have ruled against the gay couple because Churches are not a business that fall under public accomodation law.

 

[oldbetang]

That story had absolutely nothing to do with Ringo's quoted post and is obviously a red herring.

It is absolutely germane with the subject of separation of church and state. It is an example of the government trampling on the religious rights of the woman photographer. By forcing her to provide a service that goes against her own religious beliefs , the government is violating the separation of church and state concept that Ringo claims to support.

 

[MerchantofMenace]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion".

In this context, respecting means about. Which means that Congress cannot make laws about religion.

No Religion can be established in this country.

I think all those churches that are established represent evidence that a religion can in fact be established in this country.

We have had church and state separation in this country since its founding.

From the Massachusetts State Constitution:

Article II. It is the right as well as the duty of all men in society, publicly, and at stated seasons to worship the Supreme Being, the great Creator and Preserver of the universe. And no subject shall be hurt, molested, or restrained, in his person, liberty, or estate, for worshipping God in the manner and season most agreeable to the dictates of his own conscience; or for his religious profession or sentiments; provided he doth not disturb the public peace, or obstruct others in their religious worship.

It sounds like that state in this country required people to be religious. They didn't annul that provision until 1917.

We, the people of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, grateful to Almighty God for the civil and religious liberty which He hath so long permitted us to enjoy, and looking to Him for a blessing upon our endeavors to secure and to transmit the same, unimpaired, to succeeding generations, do ordain and establish this Constitution of government.

From Rhode Island.

It doesn't really seem like we've had separation of church and state in this country since it's founding, especially since the origins of that phrase and legal doctrine come from a letter written in 1802 by Thomas Jefferson. As I recall, the United States Constitution was adopted in 1787, and that led to the establishment of the United States as we know them today.

In all that time, there has never been a need to ban Christians from office simply to preserve Jefferson's "wall of separation".

Separation of church and state cannot exist in the relationship of the church to the state if members of the church are allowed to hold public office, because it allows individuals from the church to infiltrate the government. You either have to ban all religious people from public office or allow the breach of separation between church and state.

The government can't impose control over religious institutions because that's the way our Constitution was structured. To violate such rules would be to violate the basic structure of our country.

So the government can't impose control over religious institutions? Or can the government impose control over religious institutions if their beliefs break the law?

You just got finished telling me this:

The government doesn't control the church institution as long as the church's beliefs don't violate the law. Sacrificing people likely breaks the law, which means that there's not a "wall of separation" protecting such practices.

So can the government impose control on religious institutions or not? You seem to be contradicting yourself here, because in one sentence, you say that the government can't impose control over religious institutions, but yet in another sentence, you seem to be advocating that the government form some kind of police force to monitor people's beliefs(!!!) so that they don't violate the law.

This is what I hear you saying
Ringo: As long as the church doesn't violate the law, the government can't regulate the church
Merchant: But the government makes the rules, which means that can change at any time.

You've pretty much got it.

I don't know where you get that idea, as I am strongly in favor of a Separation of Church and State.
Ringo

I got an extra n't.

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

It is absolutely germane with the subject of separation of church and state. It is an example of the government trampling on the religious rights of the woman photographer. By forcing her to provide a service that goes against her own religious beliefs , the government is violating the separation of church and state concept that Ringo claims to support.

No, not even close. The problem here is not just using an unbelievably biased source for the story but seeking so desperately to find a case that when the word "religion" popped it was believed a case had been found. It's like seeing the word "corn" then trying to make it exactly the same as corn on the cob, canned corn, creamed corn, cornfield, corny, popcorn (all flavors), corn bread, and corn muffin.

From the WND-like source:

"Apparently this is what the Huguenins got for advertising in the Yellow Pages and holding a New Mexico business license—which, in the opinion of the HRC, made their photography business subject to the same public accommodation laws regulating diners, motels, or pool halls."

How stupid! Yes, if you have a business and business license your business is subject to the public accomodation law! It doesn't matter if the business is "small" or if you advertise in the yellow pages. Let's apply your interpretation the State violated the bigot's 1st Amen Right to similar forms of bigotry:

"My religion forbids me from providing services to womyn"

...to African Americans."

...to obese people."

...to unmarried couples living together."

By your interpretation it means all discrimination should be legal under the 1st Amen. Since anti discrimination laws exist your position also means the right to worship freely means anyone can do anything under the defense of Religious freedom. If this bigot should be allowed to ignore existing laws based on her religion it means anyone can ignore any law based on their religion.

So yes, clearly the cited story has nothing to do with what Ringo was saying.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

Do you consider your abortion position to be politically liberal, moderate, or conservative?

I tend to lean toward a stance that is in total opposition to elective abortion. However, that is not to say that I am totally closed from and non-receptive to arguments that are pro-abortion, so long as these arguments are sensitive to and considerate of certain key points in the matter - such as the individuality of the fetus.

I am aware that in this thread you are attempting to position elective abortion under the cloak of privacy in a framework of consistent conservatism that is respectful to such privacy. The issue of elective abortion, however, is more deeply complex that it transcends normal pre-held conceptions of privacy and its protection. That is why the individuality of the human pre-nate is significant and holds implications for the matter. In no Court room of justice is privacy considered a viable justification for the performance of harm by one individual upon another. Just because an action occurs within the privacy of one's own house does not make the action morally or legally correct. Which leads back to the scenario I presented earlier with the fetus who was injured by its mother during pre-natal development and was later born with a neurological defect. Was the mother morally justified in harming the human pre-nate under the rationalization of privacy? Another scenario: a woman does not want an abortion. She simply wants to vent all her frustration on her unborn child and to see it suffer when born. Is her action morally justified under privacy? Are all actions performed in private therefore moral simply because they occur outside the public eye?

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

I tend to lean toward a stance that is in total opposition to elective abortion. However, that is not to say that I am totally closed from and non-receptive to arguments that are pro-abortion, so long as these arguments are sensitive to and considerate of certain key points in the matter - such as the individuality of the fetus.

I see that as a Liberal position because womyn's autonomy and bodies are completely disregarded which creates an unreasonable intrusion by the government.

I am aware that in this thread you are attempting to position elective abortion under the cloak of privacy in a framework of consistent conservatism that is respectful to such privacy. The issue of elective abortion, however, is more deeply complex that it transcends normal pre-held conceptions of privacy and its protection. That is why the individuality of the human pre-nate is significant and holds implications for the matter. In no Court room of justice is privacy considered a viable justification for the performance of harm by one individual upon another. Just because an action occurs within the privacy of one's own house does not make the action morally or legally correct. Which leads back to the scenario I presented earlier with the fetus who was injured by its mother during pre-natal development and was later born with a neurological defect. Was the mother morally justified in harming the human pre-nate under the rationalization of privacy? Another scenario: a woman does not want an abortion. She simply wants to vent all her frustration on her unborn child and to see it suffer when born. Is her action morally justified under privacy? Are all actions performed in private therefore moral simply because they occur outside the public eye?

Think we've been over part of this already. The analogy to privacy in a home, or any geographical location dehumanizes womyn and objectifies them instead of respecting the obvious, that they are people; not addresses. There is no "cloak" of privacy because that is what we are wrestling about. It seems your entire position rests on the premise the fetus is an indiviual. The application of "personhood" is then paramount for formulating a reasonable argument for disregarding the invasion into womyn's bodies. Think as men we are mostly infinitely complacent on the idea of choice because we know we will never ever have to make that decision, thus as eternal benchwarmers we can Monday morning quarterback till we take a dirt nap. There is nothing in a man comparable to pregnancy but let's suppose for a moment this argument of protecting the fetus is used to intrude on men's bodies. Sperm is a necessary component for fertilization so what if the government said all male ejaculations may only be done within guidelines set by the State. (No need to dismiss this on technical medical reasons because the purpose is to try and get men to envision what it would be like to have the State force itself between our legs.)

It's also important to keep in mind the morality of abortion is wholly irrelevent in this discussion because we are exploring what necessary conditions must exist to justify the State regulating the activities of our personal bodies. It may be argued the immorality of killing the fetus is enough of a justification but the first obvious hurdle is to prove the fetus is an individual that meets State requirements. A fetus is not recognized as a Citizens by the State so even if it is proven the fetus is an individual that doesn't satisfy the justification of State invasion unless the State recognized the fetus as a Citizen in all aspects of life.

 

[DieHappy]

Think as men we are mostly infinitely complacent on the idea of choice because we know we will never ever have to make that decision, thus as eternal benchwarmers we can Monday morning quarterback till we take a dirt nap.

You're employer can require you to submit to a colonoscopy. Is that some sort of invasion?

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

You're employer can require you to submit to a colonoscopy. Is that some sort of invasion?

Since iam my own employer, no, it means I would be telling myself to get a Couricoscopy. (Sorry, but everytime I see that word now I see her 12 mile wide smile on the morning show talking about her...umm...special medical video and pics.) If you're referring to some type of Law can we have some more info?

 

[oldbetang]

No, not even close. The problem here is not just using an unbelievably biased source for the story but seeking so desperately to find a case that when the word "religion" popped it was believed a case had been found. It's like seeing the word "corn" then trying to make it exactly the same as corn on the cob, canned corn, creamed corn, cornfield, corny, popcorn (all flavors), corn bread, and corn muffin.

From the WND-like source:

"Apparently this is what the Huguenins got for advertising in the Yellow Pages and holding a New Mexico business license—which, in the opinion of the HRC, made their photography business subject to the same public accommodation laws regulating diners, motels, or pool halls."

How stupid! Yes, if you have a business and business license your business is subject to the public accomodation law! It doesn't matter if the business is "small" or if you advertise in the yellow pages. Let's apply your interpretation the State violated the bigot's 1st Amen Right to similar forms of bigotry:

"My religion forbids me from providing services to womyn"

...to African Americans."

...to obese people."

...to unmarried couples living together."

By your interpretation it means all discrimination should be legal under the 1st Amen. Since anti discrimination laws exist your position also means the right to worship freely means anyone can do anything under the defense of Religious freedom. If this bigot should be allowed to ignore existing laws based on her religion it means anyone can ignore any law based on their religion.

So yes, clearly the cited story has nothing to do with what Ringo was saying.

The public accomodation law is itself an abomination. No one should be forced to provide any non-emergency or non-life sustaining services to anyone, be they obese, unmarried couples, or made-up entities like "womyn" . The Huguenins are being punished for exercising their right to not provide a service that conflicts with their religious sensibilities. By forcing them to provide a service that they do not even advertise for, the government is breaching the wall of separation as well as the standard of common decency.

 

[Ringo84]

In this context, respecting means about. Which means that Congress cannot make laws about religion.

That's only half the story. "No establishment of religion" means that no religious beliefs - whether they're Muslim, Baptist, Catholic or Pastafarian - can be established by law. Neither can the government show preference to a certain religion or set of religious beliefs.

I think all those churches that are established represent evidence that a religion can in fact be established in this country.

Except that there are no established religions in this country; not even one. And that's the way it should be.

It sounds like that state in this country required people to be religious. They didn't annul that provision until 1917.

The Massachusetts Constitution has no bearing on what can or can't be established in federal government.

It doesn't really seem like we've had separation of church and state in this country since it's founding, especially since the origins of that phrase and legal doctrine come from a letter written in 1802 by Thomas Jefferson.

That's not true. Read my signature line. James Madison's first draft of the Bill of Rights:

"The civil rights of none shall be abridged on account of religious belief or worship, nor shall any national religion be established, nor shall the full and equal rights of conscience be in any manner, or on any pretence, infringed."

Source: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/01.html


Jefferson's An Act For Religious Freedom, which was passed in 1786, influenced the discussion on religious freedom.

[T]hat no man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinion in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no way diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

Source: http://www.geocities.com/ldjandl/thesis/articles_dobbs_freedomofreligion.html#E


The Virginia Declaration of Rights from 1776 also influenced the debate over religious freedom. George Mason, considered to be one of the fathers of the Bill of Rights, wanted to change part of the Declaration's wording to the following:

. . . all men have an equal, natural and unalienable right to be the free exercise of religion, according to the dictates of conscience; and that no particular sect or society of christians ought to be favored or established by law in preference to others.

Source: http://www.geocities.com/ldjandl/thesis/articles_dobbs_freedomofreligion.html#C

Certainly sounds like the Separation of Church and State to me. By the time Jefferson wrote his Danbury Baptist letter in 1801, the concept of a separation between church and state was not a new concept.

Separation of church and state cannot exist in the relationship of the church to the state if members of the church are allowed to hold public office, because it allows individuals from the church to infiltrate the government. You either have to ban all religious people from public office or allow the breach of separation between church and state.

We have (theoretically) government of/by/for the people. So we all have a stake in government. That is, we are, in a sense, a part of "the state."

More to the point: Church state separation implies and requires that the state maintain a neutral stance toward religion, neither favoring nor penalizing it. What you're describing is a hostile stance toward religion--any religion. It would mean only atheists could hold public office.

When people argue against separation of church and state, what are they saying? That church and state should be co-joined? They don't know, or don't consider history. In Medieval times Popes and Kings competed for temporal powers. There were problems when either one became too powerful.

My spiritual forebears, the early Baptists and the separatist movement whence they came, understood that the church is both a human organization (political, you might say, and fallible) and a divine organism (the body of Christ). Christians can and should let their faith inform their perspective on political issues. BUT--when religious groups don't understand the proper boundaries between church and state, they open themselves up to corruption.

So the government can't impose control over religious institutions? Or can the government impose control over religious institutions if their beliefs break the law?

You just got finished telling me this:

So can the government impose control on religious institutions or not? You seem to be contradicting yourself here, because in one sentence, you say that the government can't impose control over religious institutions, but yet in another sentence, you seem to be advocating that the government form some kind of police force to monitor people's beliefs(!!!) so that they don't violate the law.

That's not what I said. You're either not listening or deliberately trying to obfuscate the issue for argument's sake.

Your black-and-white approach to this issue is like saying that someone's free speech is being violated when a person is sued for slander. It's not free speech when that speech breaks the law by threatening someone or slandering someone's good name. That's not "monitoring" speech but keeping it within reasonable limits.

When a church practices child sacrifice, or marrying children, or marrying more than one person at a time, that church is breaking the law, and separation protection doesn't apply in that case. How much more clear can I be on that point?

You've pretty much got it.

The First Amendment hasn't changed since it was ratified, so your fear of the government simply changing the rules is unfounded.
Ringo

 

[RealDealNeverstop]

The public accomodation law is itself an abomination. No one should be forced to provide any non-emergency or non-life sustaining services to anyone, be they obese, unmarried couples, or made-up entities like "womyn" . The Huguenins are being punished for exercising their right to not provide a service that conflicts with their religious sensibilities.

Your opinion of public accomodation laws is wholly irrelevent to this disussion. The business violated those laws so it was not a contention of Church v State.

By forcing them to provide a service that they do not even advertise for, the government is breaching the wall of separation as well as the standard of common decency.

What is this? WND Part Deux? They do adverise for photography:
http://www.elanephotography.com/

How about not making things up out of thin air? As for the "wall of separation" garbage...please. Yes, fully expect no more responses from me on this because it's painfully clear the bigots broke public accomodations laws. One may not like those laws but who gives a rat's rear? It doesn't issue a license to make stuff up and try to turn this into a C + S thing.

 

[oldbetang]

Your opinion of public accomodation laws is wholly irrelevent to this disussion. The business violated those laws so it was not a contention of Church v State.

We don't know that the business violated any law. However, any law that would force that photographer to provide a service that went against her religious principles would be itself in violation of the separation of church and state.

What is this? WND Part Deux? They do adverise for photography:
http://www.elanephotography.com/

Where in there do they advertise photography service for same-sex commitment ceremonies?? Where?

How about not making things up out of thin air? As for the "wall of separation" garbage...please. Yes, fully expect no more responses from me on this because it's painfully clear the bigots broke public accomodations laws. One may not like those laws but who gives a rat's rear? It doesn't issue a license to make stuff up and try to turn this into a C + S thing.

The only bigots in this case are the anti-Christian ones who have been harassing those poor photographers.