|
|
Post by stevec on Mar 28, 2015 15:58:32 GMT -6
For passing their reigious free law.
|
|
|
|
Post by passing through on Apr 11, 2015 18:21:39 GMT -6
Yes!! We need to trash the religion freedom bill of rights... It's so antiquated and we need to upgrade it to todays customs.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevec on Apr 15, 2015 17:33:03 GMT -6
Yes!! We need to trash the religion freedom bill of rights... It's so antiquated and we need to upgrade it to todays customs. That sounds like a good plan. Modern religious freedom bills have always been about exclusion and bigotry, having been created to combat same sex marriage proposals. We're not talking about lofty 17th & 18th century religious persecution and freedom issues, we're dealing with legalized bigotry in this case. I'm all for allowing people to express their bigoted views in their homes and churches, but it should end there and not be allowed to flourish in the public domain. Witch and heretic burnings were customary in Western religious circles, it's not as if we lost anything when we changed/upgraded that perspective. |
|
|
|
Post by passingthrough on Apr 25, 2015 19:41:56 GMT -6
Why stop there? Trash the whole of the Constitution!! Those framers didn't know what they were talking about... after all, we won't be bigots by excluding religion.
hmmm....
somewhere, i think we just trashed common sense along this line.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevec on May 2, 2015 6:44:25 GMT -6
Why stop there? Trash the whole of the Constitution!! Those framers didn't know what they were talking about... after all, we won't be bigots by excluding religion. hmmm.... somewhere, i think we just trashed common sense along this line. How does applying the Constitution constitute trashing the Constitution? Where in the Constitution does it say that religious institutions make the rules? Where in the Constitution does it say that Christian bus drivers can make gays sit in the back of the bus, or Christian bakers can refuse to make same sex wedding cakes? |
|
|
|
Post by stevec on May 2, 2015 7:24:29 GMT -6
Why stop there? Trash the whole of the Constitution!! Those framers didn't know what they were talking about... after all, we won't be bigots by excluding religion. hmmm.... somewhere, i think we just trashed common sense along this line. Hey, why not resurrect the Old South? The framers made that possible with Bible in hand. Common sense indicates that religion produces trash quite often and that fixing those issues hardly constitutes trashing common sense. When you get a chance, please show how modern religious freedom bills are nothing more than mean spirited attempts to justify exclusion. |
|
|
|
Post by stevec on May 2, 2015 8:33:08 GMT -6
It seems to me that Christian fundamentalists are INTERPRETING the Constitution to create exclusions, and they are losing that battle, as they should.
Prove to me that modern religious protection laws are actually designed to protect religious practices and not outdated and hurtful religious biases.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jim on May 4, 2015 13:09:02 GMT -6
It seems to me that Christian fundamentalists are INTERPRETING the Constitution to create exclusions, and they are losing that battle, as they should. Prove to me that modern religious protection laws are actually designed to protect religious practices and not outdated and hurtful religious biases. Hi Steve: The original federal religious freedom act was passed to exempt peyote ceremonies from control under the federal drug laws. Pretty clear cut example of protecting a religious practice there. Obviously though, the broad modern appeal of these laws is to exempt Christians who believe homosexuality to be sinful from discrimination actions, state-levied misdemeanor fines and so forth based upon refusal to participate in gay marriages. So, to rationally look at this, we first have to determine if there is a law that is violated by one who discriminates when offering goods or services based upon orientation. Many states have these laws, many do not. I do not believe that the federal anti-discrimination statutes are extended to gays, but I could be wrong. If there is a law or statute that is being enforced against a Christian who chooses to discriminate based upon orientation, the next step is to determine whether the act in question is a genuine religious practice. If it is, then religious freedom laws like the federal version serve an important purpose. This step of the analysis might be easy; for example, in 2015, I would expect that a federal or state religious freedom act would protect a conservative Christian minister from sanction if he or she chooses to discriminate based upon orientation when offering marriage services. On the flip side, if a mechanic, lawyer, doctor, broker etc. chooses to discriminate based upon orientation when offering their services, I would not expect the religious freedom act to apply. There is no protect-able exercise of religion when providing routine non-religious services. Sometimes it is a grey area. Should conservative Christian wedding photographers be forced by the state to closely participate, over their own genuinely held objections, in a gay marriage? I think that reasonable minds can differ here, at this point in time anyway. The trend lines are obvious. Here is the tricky part: This is currently, in 2015, a different analysis than what we apply to race cases, for example a hypothetical wedding photographer who might refuse to participate in a mixed race marriage because of religious views that were prevalent 50 or 100 years ago. In this example, society and mainstream religion have more or less preemptively said that those older religious views are illegitimate. We are headed that way with respect to orientation of course, but not quite there yet. The pace is much quicker than I would have guessed just a few years ago however. Jim |
|
|
|
Post by ken on May 4, 2015 19:49:29 GMT -6
This is definitely a hard one.
As Jim said, what would happen if two homosexuals asked a pastor or priest to marry them? Would they be forced to do it or be fined for discrimination?
Then we have "GoFundMe" who said those who are helping the baker pay the fine can no longer use their services. Is that discrimination? If not, why? If so, why is there not the same outcry?
Has the government violated the Bill of Rights by changing Freedom of Religion to Freedom from Religion? Certainly the Declaration of Independence was had God included and it is from that document that the Constitution was framed.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevec on May 5, 2015 12:05:50 GMT -6
Jim,
For the record, I would not condone fining or penalizing a minister for refusing to provide services or church facilities for SSM's. From that perspective it is a religious issue, and a fairly good one to protect.........................with the exception of Ken perhaps. It would be fun to see his picture in the national news so I can say, I know that guy!!!!!
|
|
|
|
Post by stevec on May 5, 2015 12:07:45 GMT -6
Ken,
I'll get back to your post later, I'm on my way out the door.
|
|
|
|
Post by stevec on May 5, 2015 15:41:43 GMT -6
This is definitely a hard one. As Jim said, what would happen if two homosexuals asked a pastor or priest to marry them? Would they be forced to do it or be fined for discrimination? Then we have "GoFundMe" who said those who are helping the baker pay the fine can no longer use their services. Is that discrimination? If not, why? If so, why is there not the same outcry? Has the government violated the Bill of Rights by changing Freedom of Religion to Freedom from Religion? Certainly the Declaration of Independence was had God included and it is from that document that the Constitution was framed. Clergy should be allowed to discriminate, I have no problem with that - it's a religious issue .............not you though, I'd like to visit you in jail, that would be fun - don't you think?  Bakers, florists, photographer, etc, are in the private sector. It's a financial transaction in the private sector, not a religious one. My wife and I were turned away by several rabbis when we were trying to make arrangements for marriage, because I wasn't Jewish. It didn't bother me, but they ticked off my wife, and she still harbors some resentment 36 years later. It hurts, don't you get that? I need to research the GoFundMe issue before I comment. No, the government has not altered the Bill of Rights to reflect freedom from religion. Has the government told you to worship a god other than the one you're familiar with? |
|
|
|
Post by ken on May 5, 2015 19:42:47 GMT -6
This is definitely a hard one. As Jim said, what would happen if two homosexuals asked a pastor or priest to marry them? Would they be forced to do it or be fined for discrimination? Then we have "GoFundMe" who said those who are helping the baker pay the fine can no longer use their services. Is that discrimination? If not, why? If so, why is there not the same outcry? Has the government violated the Bill of Rights by changing Freedom of Religion to Freedom from Religion? Certainly the Declaration of Independence was had God included and it is from that document that the Constitution was framed. Clergy should be allowed to discriminate, I have no problem with that - it's a religious issue .............not you though, I'd like to visit you in jail, that would be fun - don't you think? Bakers, florists, photographer, etc, are in the private sector. It's a financial transaction in the private sector, not a religious one. My wife and I were turned away by several rabbis when we were trying to make arrangements for marriage, because I wasn't Jewish. It didn't bother me, but they ticked off my wife, and she still harbors some resentment 36 years later. It hurts, don't you get that? I need to research the GoFundMe issue before I comment. No, the government has not altered the Bill of Rights to reflect freedom from religion. Has the government told you to worship a god other than the one you're familiar with? Always willing to start a jail ministry. Peter and Paul had one too!  I would basically agree with your position on bakers, florists etc, yet I would still agree that there are times when they should be exempt. Birth control should be one of them for religious reasons. Especially since you can get birth controls almost for free anyway. I belief SCOTUS had it right on that one. Yes... things hurt. I'm sure the baker is hurt too. Christians are hurt too. Seems to be a nondiscriminatory life gift. Yes... the government said I can't worship God but must worship the new god of secularism (man). It said Freedom of Religion and not Freedom FROM religion. They use to hold services in Congress without a problem. At this time, the Chaplain still opens sessions with prayer. I'm sure that Freedom FROM Religion will eat that up too some day. |
|
|
|
Post by stevec on May 5, 2015 23:16:03 GMT -6
Clergy should be allowed to discriminate, I have no problem with that - it's a religious issue .............not you though, I'd like to visit you in jail, that would be fun - don't you think? Bakers, florists, photographer, etc, are in the private sector. It's a financial transaction in the private sector, not a religious one. My wife and I were turned away by several rabbis when we were trying to make arrangements for marriage, because I wasn't Jewish. It didn't bother me, but they ticked off my wife, and she still harbors some resentment 36 years later. It hurts, don't you get that? I need to research the GoFundMe issue before I comment. No, the government has not altered the Bill of Rights to reflect freedom from religion. Has the government told you to worship a god other than the one you're familiar with? Always willing to start a jail ministry. Peter and Paul had one too! I would basically agree with your position on bakers, florists etc, yet I would still agree that there are times when they should be exempt. Birth control should be one of them for religious reasons. Especially since you can get birth controls almost for free anyway. I belief SCOTUS had it right on that one. Yes... things hurt. I'm sure the baker is hurt too. Christians are hurt too. Seems to be a nondiscriminatory life gift. Yes... the government said I can't worship God but must worship the new god of secularism (man). It said Freedom of Religion and not Freedom FROM religion. They use to hold services in Congress without a problem. At this time, the Chaplain still opens sessions with prayer. I'm sure that Freedom FROM Religion will eat that up too some day. From my perspective, the government hasn't forced people to worship any new secular god, they are simply making/interpreting laws that draw a line in the sand between hurtful religious practices and people who need relief from those practices. God could take the stand in any courtroom, yet has chosen not to do so. On the other hand, SSM proponents have made the legal effort, so they are reaping the rewards up to this point*. *(matching your freedom from religion red herring with one of my own) |
|
|
|
Post by stevec on May 5, 2015 23:27:31 GMT -6
Ken,
Would you like to comment on GoFundMe's following statement on the issue?
“After careful review by our team, we have found the ‘Support Sweet Cakes By Melissa’ campaign to be in violation of our terms and conditions. The subjects of the ‘Support Sweet Cakes By Melissa’ campaign have been formally charged by local authorities and found to be in violation of Oregon state law concerning discriminatory acts. Accordingly, the campaign has been disabled.”
|
|
