Colorado Baker Wins

[David Dennison 18946]

1 minute ago, Johnny Sack said:

Congress in 1964 had zero, and I mean zero, intent to cover sexual orientation with Title VII.  That is such a far fetched argument.  Again, SCOTUS will get the final say on this.

You and I both know how that is going to go down. Everyone who follows this does. It's not if but when. The Anthony Kennedy out front should have told you. Even one of the other four lunatics will probably side with gay rights on this particular issue, most likely Roberts.

[Pig Bellmont 8738]

It’s only a matter of time. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation will not survive SC review unless Trump or Rs can change the current makeup of the Court. Hobby Lobby’s got nothing to do with it. 

[jimmyjazz 46130]

Just now, Pig Bellmont said:

It’s only a matter of time. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation will not survive SC review unless Trump or Rs can change the current makeup of the Court. Hobby Lobby’s got nothing to do with it. 

That's a different argument.  As it stands right now, sexual orientation is not a protected class.

[hayden_horn 11365]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

That's a different argument.  As it stands right now, sexual orientation is not a protected class.

(but he's right, you know)

[jimmyjazz 46130]

Agreed that it will survive SCOTUS, and it should.  

[David Dennison 18946]

Just now, jimmyjazz said:

That's a different argument.  As it stands right now, sexual orientation is not a protected class.

But it will be. The Court has signaled as much in previous rulings.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 hours ago, hayden_horn said:

everyone ignored my post saying the exact same thing all the way back on page 3:

 

whaddaya want ?  A cookie ?  This site is all about more pages and poo flinging.  If we solved everything on page one how much fun would that be ?  and that  couldn't be good for ad sales...

[troph 24905]

It’s only a matter of time. Discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation will not survive SC review unless Trump or Rs can change the current makeup of the Court. Hobby Lobby’s got nothing to do with it. 

I hope you’re right. You should be right, but the next 12 months will be a dogfight in state legislatures. More laws codifying the right to discriminate because of sincerely held religious beliefs will be on the books all over, including here in Texas. Hobby lobby is the primary basis and constitutional argument and from there the courts will have more to decide. I suspect we’ve got quite a number of cases that will have to make their way through.

[EastTexan 662]

On June 4, 2018 at 8:26 PM, jimmyjazz said:

If the modern right wasn't so chock full of racists we wouldn't need to do this.

On cue.

[ChickenSandwich 9852]

2 hours ago, EastTexan said:

On cue.

Hypocrisy has been removed from the vocabulary 

[BabaYaga 15320]

3 hours ago, EastTexan said:

On 6/4/2018 at 8:26 PM, jimmyjazz said:

If the modern right wasn't so chock full of racists we wouldn't need to do this.

On cue.

You could set your watch to it....

[jimmyjazz 46130]

If y'all wouldn't serve up hanging curve balls over the plate we wouldn't need to indulge your need to be offended.

[lemonlime 5503]

19 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

No.  I'm no lawyer or Constitutional scholar, but I have not seen ANY legitimate argument that sexual orientation is now a protected class.  You are saying it is now equivalent in this regard to gender, race, etc.  No way.

It's not a protected class under federal law.  At least not yet.  Many states, including Colorado, have made it a protected class pursuant to state law.

Edited June 6, 2018 by lemonlime

[JBJ 3665]

For that matter all protected classes are statutory.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

1 minute ago, JBJ said:

For that matter all protected classes are statutory.

Engrish prease.

[EastTexan 662]

4 hours ago, jimmyjazz said:

If y'all wouldn't serve up hanging curve balls over the plate we wouldn't need to indulge your need to be offended.

It's all you got. 

[David Dennison 18946]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Engrish prease.

Civil Rights Act of 1964

[JBJ 3665]

1 hour ago, Onboard 2.0 said:

Engrish prease.

I was actually responding to the chain of posts up a bit. 

Protected classes are statutory.  Equal employment, housing, public accomodations, etc are all statutory.  Mostly via the CRA, but states have their own versions as well.

There's nothing in the constitution that calls out specific categories to be protected, but the 14th does cast an umbrella of protection against discriminatory laws.

Edited June 6, 2018 by JBJ

[Dahobbs 17682]

42 minutes ago, JBJ said:

I was actually responding to the chain of posts up a bit. 

Protected classes are statutory.  Equal employment, housing, public accomodations, etc are all statutory.  Mostly via the CRA, but states have their own versions as well.

There's nothing in the constitution that calls out specific categories to be protected, but the 14th does cast an umbrella of protection against discriminatory laws.

Another way of saying it: the Constitution regulates the actions of government, and statutes passed by government (i.e., laws) regulate the acts of citizens (and corporations). There is some overlap, but roughly speaking this is accurate. Or, the Constitution makes it unlawful for government to discriminate against citizens, and laws make it unlawful for citizens to discriminate each other.  

[scottsins 1969]

5 minutes ago, Dahobbs said:

Another way of saying it: the Constitution regulates the actions of government, and statutes passed by government (i.e., laws) regulate the acts of citizens (and corporations). There is some overlap, but roughly speaking this is accurate. Or, the Constitution makes it unlawful for government to discriminate against citizens, and laws make it unlawful for citizens to discriminate each other.  

I always think of protected classes as being synonymous with "suspect classifications", rooted in SCOTUS precedent (which is rooted in the 14th Amendment).

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

3 hours ago, JBJ said:

I was actually responding to the chain of posts up a bit. 

Protected classes are statutory.  Equal employment, housing, public accomodations, etc are all statutory.  Mostly via the CRA, but states have their own versions as well.

There's nothing in the constitution that calls out specific categories to be protected, but the 14th does cast an umbrella of protection against discriminatory laws.

Thanks, that's I was looking for.

[Dahobbs 17682]

2 hours ago, scottsins said:

I always think of protected classes as being synonymous with "suspect classifications", rooted in SCOTUS precedent (which is rooted in the 14th Amendment).

Right, the statement that protected classes are entirely statutory is an oversimplification. As it relates to citizen actions against other citizens, protected classes are statutory. As to it relates to government against citizens, the answer is different and is ultimately driven by the 14th amendment. 

[Pig Bellmont 8738]

Welp, looks like we may not wait all that long to find out how courts are interpreting the case

[Neonmoon 38130]

But but but did they take into account the fact that writing in cursive is an artistic expresssion? 

 

[DixonHur 11368]

'No Gays Allowed': Tennessee store owner puts sign back up after SCOTUS ruling

 

[Gil Bang 26018]

On 6/4/2018 at 1:03 PM, TahoeHorn said:

When the GOP took over the Coroner's office here in 2010 the new Coroner had a meeting I attended to discuss his new policy to end the good ol' boy practices of sending the bodies without instructions to various funeral homes.  The Black funeral homes protested vigorously.  They wanted Black bodies sent to Black funeral homes and White bodies sent to White funeral homes.  The argument was that they'd end up there anyway and the Coroner was just adding to the cost of relocating the bodies once the families of the deceased showed up and specified what they wanted.  The corner was advocating a "blind" process" which did not give any funeral home an economic advantage (as was the case when Dem Coroners ran things).

(Our Coroner gets $10K per year, and gets his livelihood from a funeral home.  It is a lot of work, particularly on Friday and Saturday nights. You do the math.) 

WTF does that mean?  The darkies shoot and stab each other on weekends?  

On 6/4/2018 at 3:02 PM, Johnny Sack said:

Race is different because 99 percent of us have no idea on someone’s sexual preference when serving them in the marketplace

Do you even "gaydar" bro?

 

On 6/4/2018 at 11:42 AM, DixonHur said:

Sorry to break it to you, but this already happens...a lot...it's just more subtle.

Some of you guys act like 90% of the country are racists and/or homophobs.  As for small towns, yeah, some suck, but I find most to be much more racially inclusive than cities.  People seem less scary if you actually know them. 

Plus, for purely economic reasons, many who are racists/homophobs would continue to suck it up, so they can make a profit.  Pretty hard to make a living selling cake, etc. to only evangelical, straight, white males.

 

I'll be that you're a white, straight guy

 

On 6/4/2018 at 1:59 PM, GringoSalado said:

I sincerely doubt that, but IANAL.

 

Meanwhile the state actor being paid to be a bigot is a worse problem IMO than a private baker doing so. I'm not forced to do business with the bigoted baker.

I anal?  OK bro. 

 

 

On 6/4/2018 at 4:39 PM, TahoeHorn said:

I think we're all acutely aware of who on this board is guilty of calling people names and insulting posters' morality, and who refrains from that.  When I see Poster A act ugly toward Poster B, accusing him of acting ugly while Poster B is being polite ... well, I just chuckle at the irony.

One of the things that made Martin Luther King, Jr successful, I think, was that he was always a class act.  I think that sells.  Contrast that with, say, Yassir Arafat.  I think his cause had a lot of merit (although not as much) but I have much less sympathy for the cause because of the tactics. 

The gay rights movement in general made their case in a positive way.

I think the Gandhi model of protest works.  I think acting like an ass and insulting the audience you're trying to sell does not.

I wonder if there is anybody on this board who is both a more likely convert to the cause of opposing Trump, or a more useful ally.  If there is the list is short.  Yet the opponents of Trump go out of their way to insult me and act ugly.  That's fine.  I'm entertained.  And maybe they understand that this isn't real life and nobody is selling anybody.  But the emotion is so raw I wonder if they do.  And if they did why they'd act ugly.

Any theories?

You're too busy worrying about your precious judges to oppose Trump.  You march in lockstep with Trump every minute of every day.  I'll concede that you might find him distasteful, but you still kiss his ass. 

On 6/4/2018 at 6:37 PM, Sgt Hulk said:

So you think its acceptable to force a business that has no interest in you the customer to accommodate you,.  You are fine with providing said business your hard earned money that you work for knowing they dislike you or have beliefs against you?  Instead of allowing the market to put them out of business you would rather keep their lights on with your money?  IF they want to site religious beliefs and they are free to do so thank god, (see what i did there)  then allow their beliefs to lose on sales and money its a free market.  

So, there's one gas station open in town and they have a "no niggers" sign in the window.  The vacationing black family in the minivan realizes that their gauge reads below 1/4 tank.  

On 6/5/2018 at 4:02 AM, troph said:

Arthur Jones - a holocaust denier and outspoken white nationalist received 20,000 votes in the outskirts of Chicago in his uncontested bid for the Republican nomination for Congress. He will likely lose as the district is heavily Democratic. Yet he still received 20,000 votes and is on the ballot.

Brisket has reason to be alarmed.
 

Chicago burbs is a jewie as it gets.  

 

Scary as shit. 

[Guest]

On 6/6/2018 at 5:41 AM, troph said:

 

More laws codifying the right to discriminate because of sincerely held religious beliefs will be on the books all over, including here in Texas. 

 

This is an interesting post. It seems that with religious rights and LGBT rights there is a zero-sum game where one coalition is going to feel like their rights are impeded and curtailed, if the other is allowed to live as they believe they should be allowed to live life. None of these answers are easy, but they are at least interesting conundrums to think about.

[David Dennison 18946]

Can someone point me to the chapter and verse in the Bible that says to discriminate against homosexuals?

[jimmyjazz 46130]

2 minutes ago, David Dennison said:

Can someone point me to the chapter and verse in the Bible that says to discriminate against homosexuals?

I think it's somewhere between the part about menstruating kangaroos and banging the exhaust pipe on the Corvair in your uncle's garage.

[Mole 4333]

1 hour ago, David Dennison said:

Can someone point me to the chapter and verse in the Bible that says to discriminate against homosexuals?

Perhaps 1 Cor 5:11 - But now I am writing to you that you must not associate with anyone who claims to be a brother or sister but is sexually immoral or greedy, an idolater or slanderer, a drunkard or swindler. Do not even eat with such people.

Although earlier in the chapter "sexually immoral" specifically addresses incest. I'm not sure if there's a good argument that this later "sexually immoral" person is speaking more broadly. And yes, Trump checks several of these boxes and seems pretty unrepentant about it, so Evangelical pastors kissing up to him is pretty loathsome. He also claims to be a believer.

On that note, 1 Cor 5:9-10 says, I wrote to you in my letter not to associate with sexually immoral people— not at all meaning the people of this world who are immoral, or the greedy and swindlers, or idolaters. In that case you would have to leave this world. 

Essentially, Paul holds very different standards for the church. I think there's a better argument that you shouldn't bake the cake for a gay Christian, but should for a gay non-Christian. I'm inclined to believe that the Christian should bake the cake even if they don't accept gay marriage. This thinking is based on the principals in the Sermon on the Mount. If someone forces you to go one mile, go with them two miles. I think Christian bakers opposed to gay marriage shouldn't just make the cake, but make their very best cake and provide the best service possible. This would preclude all the passive-aggressive tactics suggested such as telling the customer you're donating to an anti-gay-marriage cause.

I also tend to think that generally people acting on the conscience is good for society even when I don't fully agree with their actions. So if the cake constitutes speech, I don't really mind them refusing service based on their conscience. 

 

[bad_teammate 13224]

34 minutes ago, Mole said:

I also tend to think that generally people acting on the conscience is good for society even when I don't fully agree with their actions.

I'm not sure what that means. Can you explain?

[Mole 4333]

I should have written their conscience. Basically, if a person's morals/ethics/whatever tells them they really shouldn't do something, I'm inclined to respect that and encourage it even if I would act personally differently. I see compelling people to act against what they think is right as bad for our culture. There are obviously many exceptions.

It does require an assumption of good faith on everyone's part. I have to respect that someone I disagree with isn't simply bad/evil/stupid/uneducated or even wrong; they just see things differently.

[Guest]

7 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Can someone point me to the chapter and verse in the Bible that says to discriminate against homosexuals?

The Bible doesn't matter now.  Y'all say so incessantly.

3 hours ago, Mole said:

I have to respect that someone I disagree with isn't simply bad/evil/stupid/uneducated or even wrong; they just see things differently.

This is way out of line...unpossible, even.  You must destroy all dissent.  Conform or be cast out.

Liberalism is the religion of tolerance... until it isn't.

Edited June 8, 2018 by slorch

[troph 24905]

Don’t associate with the gays in a letter to an ancient church in Corinth definitely means flood the state legislatures of secular governments in the United States with proposed legislation designed to systematically take away our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

You don’t want to be around a tranny bc the Bible told you so? Best you leave this thread bc I’m here to stay.

 

Sinner...

 

[safe sex 11747]

I should have written their conscience. Basically, if a person's morals/ethics/whatever tells them they really shouldn't do something, I'm inclined to respect that and encourage it even if I would act personally differently. I see compelling people to act against what they think is right as bad for our culture. There are obviously many exceptions.
It does require an assumption of good faith on everyone's part. I have to respect that someone I disagree with isn't simply bad/evil/stupid/uneducated or even wrong; they just see things differently.

The straightest post.

[Guest]

4 hours ago, troph said:

Don’t associate with the gays in a letter to an ancient church in Corinth definitely means flood the state legislatures of secular governments in the United States with proposed legislation designed to systematically take away our rights to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

 

You don’t want to be around a tranny bc the Bible told you so? Best you leave this thread bc I’m here to stay.

 

Sinner...

 

Harkening back to my last post about a zero-sum game, the question I have is if people in the LGBT community are aware, acknowledge and accept and are okay with the fact that with their gains in certain instances (like forcing a sincerely held belief Christian to decorate a cake) are at the expense and are eroding the religious rights of others? It’s fine if that’s the position and I think it could be reasonably argued, but I think it’s important to be honest about that by eliminating the discrimination of LGBT in many ways it’s Discriminating the ability of sincerely held believers to exercise to the best of their ability their religion.

I guess I’m just stating the obvious which is that the two lifestyles and beliefs and existences are inherently opposed, in a world where both are held up to their ideals (Christian ideals of sanctimony and living as sinless as possible vs LGBT ideal of accepting their sexuality/biology/difference, not to mention the celebration thereof)

[bad_teammate 13224]

9 hours ago, Mole said:

I should have written their conscience. Basically, if a person's morals/ethics/whatever tells them they really shouldn't do something, I'm inclined to respect that and encourage it even if I would act personally differently. I see compelling people to act against what they think is right as bad for our culture. There are obviously many exceptions.

It does require an assumption of good faith on everyone's part. I have to respect that someone I disagree with isn't simply bad/evil/stupid/uneducated or even wrong; they just see things differently.

I get what you're saying, but understanding someone's "conscience" is vague and not helpful. It makes more sense to look at the results and impacts of actions and work from there.

 

15 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

I guess I’m just stating the obvious which is that the two lifestyles and beliefs and existences are inherently opposed, in a world where both are held up to their ideals (Christian ideals of sanctimony and living as sinless as possible vs LGBT ideal of accepting their sexuality/biology/difference, not to mention the celebration thereof)

Here's the thing: Christians aren't doing that. Christians refusing service are extremely selective about which sins and sinners they want to discriminate against, and the criteria for that selectivity are not religious criteria. There is no fundamental difference between the sin of homosexuality and the sin of non-belief. The sin of non-belief is worse, if anything, yet how many Christians are refusing to serve non-Christians?

The criteria for anti-LGBT discrimination are socio-political, not religious.

[Guest]

12 hours ago, David Dennison said:

Can someone point me to the chapter and verse in the Bible that says to discriminate against homosexuals?

Beyond what Mole posted, which was astute, I think the general argument is that loving someone doesn’t mean accepting them. If your sincerely held belief is that sin  (e.g. GLBT things) will lead to eternal death/destruction, accepting and encouraging it actively (e.g decorating a cake for the enablement of said sin) is not loving someone well or better than the person with the sincerely held beliefs who allow sin because it’s socially easier or path of least resistance. Sometimes loving someone isn’t easy or popular which is where the idea of tough love comes from I guess.

[Guest]

4 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I get what you're saying, but understanding someone's "conscience" is vague and not helpful. It makes more sense to look at the results and impacts of actions and work from there.

 

Here's the thing: Christians aren't doing that. Christians refusing service are extremely selective about which sins and sinners they want to discriminate against, and the criteria for that selectivity are not religious criteria. There is no fundamental difference between the sin of homosexuality and the sin of non-belief. The sin of non-belief is worse, if anything, yet how many Christians are refusing to serve non-Christians?

The criteria for anti-LGBT discrimination are socio-political, not religious.

I agree that there are no fundamental differences between sin, whether it be homosexuality or being a murderer or liar or adulterer. A good analogy here would be not wanting to decorate a cake for the wedding of an adulterer who has just left his wife for his secretary out of lust. You can still serve the adulterer and homosexual, but you aren’t going to actively encourage their sin. 

Also, not believing is not a sin in my sincerely held beliefs. In many ways it might be better for one not to know my truths and be in “sin” as opposed to knowing the truth and sinning. That’s a whole different tangent however.

[Brisketexan 105332]

12 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

Christians refusing service are extremely selective about which sins and sinners they want to discriminate against, and the criteria for that selectivity are not religious criteria. There is no fundamental difference between the sin of homosexuality and the sin of non-belief. The sin of non-belief is worse, if anything, yet how many Christians are refusing to serve non-Christians?

The criteria for anti-LGBT discrimination are socio-political, not religious.

QF mothercfucking truth.

It's not about theology or sin.  Faith is just used as a cover for social hate.  Which is, from any real perspective on the Gospels, infuriatingly ironic.

I'm with Father Martin on this one.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Martin_(priest)

 

[staboner 4986]

6 hours ago, slorch said:

The Bible doesn't matter now.  Y'all say so incessantly.

This is way out of line...unpossible, even.  You must destroy all dissent.  Conform or be cast out.

Liberalism is the religion of tolerance... until it isn't.

horseshit. you either love all people or you don't. 

intolerance of the intolerant. not this shit again man. 

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, staboner said:

horseshit. you either love all people or you don't. 

intolerance of the intolerant. not this shit again man. 

No shit.  it’s about respect for each other. I respectfully refuse to engage in a customer request with which I disagree. It’s my business decision.

 

but the butthurt over ‘required compliance with our PC agenda’ is off the chain.

 

If a business doesn’t want to meet my request, I’ll shop elsewhere.

[bad_teammate 13224]

 

9 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

Also, not believing is not a sin in my sincerely held beliefs. In many ways it might be better for one not to know my truths and be in “sin” as opposed to knowing the truth and sinning. That’s a whole different tangent however.

This is the problem with sorting through "conscience". I mean, non-belief is #1 on the Ten Commandments and is (arguably) the sole determinant of salvation. I'm not arguing against what you believe, I am happy for you to believe whatever, but 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Brisketexan said:

QF mothercfucking truth.

It's not about theology or sin.  Faith is just used as a cover for social hate.  Which is, from any real perspective on the Gospels, infuriatingly ironic.

I'm with Father Martin on this one.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Martin_(priest)

 

This is your sincerely held belief, but to many, like myself, we have sincerely held belief that this is simply not the case. 

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, staboner said:

horseshit. you either love all people or you don't. 

intolerance of the intolerant. not this shit again man. 

See post about loving someone well vs encouraging sin because it feels good, is easy, and seems like love. 

[FondrenRoad 4378]

21 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

I get what you're saying, but understanding someone's "conscience" is vague and not helpful. It makes more sense to look at the results and impacts of actions and work from there.

 

Here's the thing: Christians aren't doing that. Christians refusing service are extremely selective about which sins and sinners they want to discriminate against, and the criteria for that selectivity are not religious criteria. There is no fundamental difference between the sin of homosexuality and the sin of non-belief. The sin of non-belief is worse, if anything, yet how many Christians are refusing to serve non-Christians?

The criteria for anti-LGBT discrimination are socio-political, not religious.

The big difference between sexual orientation and non-belief is that the former can often be determined from behavior.  If 2 men come in to buy a wedding cake, the baker doesn't ask if they're gay.  He just assumes it.  If 2 hetero atheists come in to buy a wedding cake, the baker doesn't know what their religious beliefs are.  So what if they're getting married at city hall. So do a lot of Christians.  In many ways, atheists are the most feared "other," but unlike race or sexual orientation, atheists can mostly go about their day allowing people to assume they believe in God.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, bad_teammate said:

 

This is the problem with sorting through "conscience". I mean, non-belief is #1 on the Ten Commandments and is (arguably) the sole determinant of salvation. I'm not arguing against what you believe, I am happy for you to believe whatever, but 

Fair enough and I think you are being very reasonable and have a point. Which further makes me think my point is validated that this is a very divisive issue that is inherently at odds, especially when talking about social/society where ideals can’t exist and compromises are made in the name of utility/utilitarianism. Which is probably always why historically religious people are always trying to break off and pilgrimage to be free to practice and not have their religious behaviors limited by a society who doesn’t believe as they do.

[Guest]

2 minutes ago, FondrenRoad said:

The big difference between sexual orientation and non-belief is that the former can often be determined from behavior.  If 2 men come in to buy a wedding cake, the baker doesn't ask if they're gay.  He just assumes it.  If 2 hetero atheists come in to buy a wedding cake, the baker doesn't know what their religious beliefs are.  So what if they're getting married at city hall. So do a lot of Christians.  In many ways, atheists are the most feared "other," but unlike race or sexual orientation, atheists can mostly go about their day allowing people to assume they believe in God.

In this case it still doesn’t matter. Sell to both the homosexuals and atheists. The man wouldn’t decorate a cake that said “marriage isn’t a covenant and God is dead” just as he wouldn’t decorate a cake encouraging same sex relations/marriage. It’s about being complicit in your encouragement of sin, not “loving” the sinner.

Edited June 8, 2018 by Guest

[jimmyjazz 46130]

Disregarding the point that, for now, homosexuality is not a federally protected class, I think it's perfectly reasonable to tell bigots who own public accommodations to deal with their discomfort and serve those whom they do not care for or shut down their business.  This is not a country founded on Christianity and if you are going to serve the public you have to serve ALL the public.  You don't have to like it, but you have to do it.

[Brisketexan 105332]

5 minutes ago, OatmealRaisinCookie said:

This is your sincerely held belief, but to many, like myself, we have sincerely held belief that this is simply not the case. 

And faith leaders in this country had a "sincerely held belief" that interracial marriage violated the laws of God.

"People of faith" in this country make it really fucking hard to defend being a person of faith in this country.  Because in the public square, having a "sincerely held belief" mostly means fighting for your right to be a dick to other people.

When I see "people of faith" fighting half as hard to pick up their cross and follow Christ, to truly care for the poor, to care for the foreigner, as they fight for the right to be dicks, then they'll have some credibility.  It's bullshit.  It's using faith as a shield for cruel social beliefs.  When you're a mean dick, and you use "but Jesus" as an excuse and shield, you're just a fucking mean dick who abuses faith for man's shallow and petty ends.