Religious Freedom and Liberty: A Trojan Horse?

[Revoltingest]

The problem is that it creates a special exemption on the basis of religious beliefs.

To avoid that, & also improve the law, it should be more general, ie,
sex offenders have a right to reasonable (if somewhat restricted) access to public accommodations.

 

[ether-ore]

I do not think that gay men and lesbians are asking the LDS to marry them. They're concerned with discrimination in the private market and by government officials. I do not see why religious groups should be given any pass on following laws of general application, simply because they believe in strange supernatural things. That includes exemptions from drug laws, discrimination in public accommodation, etcetera. Just a few days ago, sex offenders sued using Indiana's religious freedom act, arguing that their need for religious services on churches that had schools trumped laws prohibiting sex offenders from accessing schools.

The LDS church supports non-discrimination and accommodation in the housing and job markets for homosexuals. It simply wants to reserve the right not to support homosexuality within it own domain; that is within its churches, temples, and privately church owned schools and businesses. LDS doctrine prohibits homosexual activity within its own culture and for it to do otherwise by acquiescing to the homosexual community's demands, would be to contradict its own tenants. But then that is the goal however much it is denied.

 

[Curious George]

The problem is that it creates a special exemption on the basis of religious beliefs. The question is not one of evading discrimination laws in this particular case, but equal application of the law. Serious sex offenders cannot use certain facilities....unless they are religious sex offenders, in which case they are given a special pass. People can possess or use peyote, unless they are religious users of peyote, in which case they are given a special pass.

I certainly agree that many of our sex offender registration and travel restriction laws are ridiculous and require reform. Some of them strike me as unconstitutional infringements on liberty. And legislatures and courts should weigh those issues. But what is being protected here is a special right not accessible to everyone. I cannot use peyote without running afoul of the Controlled Substances Act, but a person who believes that peyote should be used for sacraments can use the controlled substance without risking criminal prosecution.

The churches can prohibit entry for pretty much anyone. I have no objection to that. But if they decide to run a school and we have a law that prohibits sex offenders from accessing school property, I see no reason to exempt them.

What?

It's the same principle: Special religious exemption from a law of general application.

No, it is not. It is a reasonable objection that highlights a overbroad aspect of a law. That the law is not sufficiently narrowly tailored seems to point out that it is unconstitutional. I am all for keeping sex offenders ( or specific sex offenders off school property) but this law should be changed such that it is only applicable to instances for a certain duration before until a certain duration after school.

This is not special religious exemption, this is basic 1st amendment. Preventing a theist sex offenders from attending church would be akin to forcing an atheist sex offender to go to church. I understand that rights (even freedom of religion can be limited, but what reason can you offer that such a limitation be placed on people? Allowing individuals to realize their religion or lack thereof is not akin to discrimination by a entity that offers public accommodations.

 

[Midnight Rain]

They can be great for families.
- Walking distance to schools.
- Many friends close by.
Don't buy into that Realtor nonsense that you need a detached house. They're just looking to collect a commission.

A decent 3 bedroom apartment that is at least 1100 square feet usually runs between 12-24k a month. A house of the same usually rents for about 9-18 depending on area and neighborhood. Usually renting a home is more expensive but you get way more space for cheaper or the same price. I also like having a yard and such. Crime rates tend to be lower. And during the short period of time I lived in an apartment I could hear my neighbors having sex. I can't say I've ever had that happen with a house. Though I suppose this is preferences again.

This is often (not always) true. But you must add in maintenance, utilities, property taxes, special assessments, insurance, force majeure losses, yard work, & when you sell....commissions, transfer taxes, survey, etc.

True. My policy is that if you are buying a house it should be a house you have for a very long time. I wouldn't buy a house unless this was your planned forever home. Or if it was a steal on the price. There are things you can do to up the value of your home and if you know how to fix things yourself you can save a ton of money. After the initial investment of a law mower you don't really have much you need to spend on yardwork unless you want an amazing yard. I have a huge yard so I don't bother. The grass grows and I have some gardens but that is about it. I spend about 15 bucks or so every few moths to get a few gallons of gas to put in the lawnmower/weedwacker and thats about it. If you own you can do as much or as little as you want.

Taxes are the only thing that are a ***** about owning. I can attest to this. There are things you can do to write off this tax sometimes. If you have any kind of home business, even if you don't really do much with it, you can write it off as work space and that can lower it.

One area where home ownership makes sense is if one builds it oneself.
You get equity for untaxed labor.
Other than that, I find home ownership useful for special needs owners, eg, on-site businesses, extreme luxury, huge machinery collection.

I agree with building a house. If you have the money and land outright it is usually cheaper and if done correctly it will last for decades and decades without "surprise" issues that you didn't find in your initial inspection. And I think it comes down to a difference in preferences. For about the same if not cheaper you can live in a house rather than a nice apartment. You can't live in a decent house for the price of a ****ty apartment but who wants that? Duplexes are a mid way point that can also be nice. If you build one you can live in one side and rent the other.

 

[Revoltingest]

A decent 3 bedroom apartment that is at least 1100 square feet usually runs between 12-24k a month. A house of the same usually rents for about 9-18 depending on area and neighborhood. Usually renting a home is more expensive but you get way more space for cheaper or the same price. I also like having a yard and such. Crime rates tend to be lower. And during the short period of time I lived in an apartment I could hear my neighbors having sex. I can't say I've ever had that happen with a house. Though I suppose this is preferences again.

You live in a much more expensive area than I do! It sounds like NYC.
Having more space is certainly one reason that homes can cost more than apartments to buy or rent.
But taxes, utilities, insurance & maintenance ramp should be added to rent when determining total cost.
But I observe that most of us have far more space (& junk to fill that space) than we really need.

True. My policy is that if you are buying a house it should be a house you have for a very long time. I wouldn't buy a house unless this was your planned forever home. Or if it was a steal on the price. There are things you can do to up the value of your home and if you know how to fix things yourself you can save a ton of money. After the initial investment of a law mower you don't really have much you need to spend on yardwork unless you want an amazing yard. I have a huge yard so I don't bother. The grass grows and I have some gardens but that is about it. I spend about 15 bucks or so every few moths to get a few gallons of gas to put in the lawnmower/weedwacker and thats about it. If you own you can do as much or as little as you want.
Taxes are the only thing that are a ***** about owning. I can attest to this. There are things you can do to write off this tax sometimes. If you have any kind of home business, even if you don't really do much with it, you can write it off as work space and that can lower it.
I agree with building a house. If you have the money and land outright it is usually cheaper and if done correctly it will last for decades and decades without "surprise" issues that you didn't find in your initial inspection. And I think it comes down to a difference in preferences. For about the same if not cheaper you can live in a house rather than a nice apartment. You can't live in a decent house for the price of a ****ty apartment but who wants that? Duplexes are a mid way point that can also be nice. If you build one you can live in one side and rent the other.

A house works best for me too, but I understand that I'm paying & working more than if I downsized to an apartment.
And as an investment? Mine is a pretty lousy one.
It's probably worth no more than I have invested.
(Large outbuilidngs don't add value.)
And considering inflation, it's worth less than I have in it.
And so I strongly advise considering renting instead of buying.
But I gotta do what I gotta do.

 

[Midnight Rain]

You live in a much more expensive area than I do! It sounds like NYC.
Having more space is certainly one reason that homes can cost more than apartments to buy or rent.
But taxes, utilities, insurance & maintenance ramp should be added to rent when determining total cost.
But I observe that most of us have far more space (& junk to fill that space) than we really need.

This is true. But we don't really have space issues here in America so I'm not ready to downsize to my government issued cubicle yet!

A house works best for me too, but I understand that I'm paying & working more than if I downsized to an apartment.
And as an investment? Mine is a pretty lousy one.
It's probably worth no more than I have invested.
(Large outbuilidngs don't add value.)
And considering inflation, it's worth less than I have in it.
And so I strongly advise considering renting instead of buying.
But I gotta do what I gotta do.

The issue is this.
If you rent a house then you are either making someone a profit or they are loosing money. If they are loosing money they won't rent for long. If they do continue to rent it means that the rent that they charge is of at least equal value to what they have in costs. Otherwise all home owning landlords would go out of business. Do you see what I am getting at here? Short term renting can be cheaper and more convenient. But owning usually is cheaper overall but with a degree of risk.

 

[Revoltingest]

This is true. But we don't really have space issues here in America so I'm not ready to downsize to my government issued cubicle yet!

We do have plenty of space, but what concerns me is that urban sprawl is eating up wild places & leading to reduced biodiversity.
Sure, it's my personal problem to detest seeing ranchburgers, plywood mansions, new roads, Kwik E Marts, & bland expansive lawns springing up all over.
But I wager that some day more people will lament this loss.
So I urge people to consider the advantages of saving money by living with a smaller footprint.

The issue is this.
If you rent a house then you are either making someone a profit or they are loosing money. If they are loosing money they won't rent for long. If they do continue to rent it means that the rent that they charge is of at least equal value to what they have in costs. Otherwise all home owning landlords would go out of business. Do you see what I am getting at here? Short term renting can be cheaper and more convenient. But owning usually is cheaper overall but with a degree of risk.

Owning also means someone else is making a profit (presuming it's financed).
Apartments cost less to build & operate than a detached house.
- Less land per sq ft of occupiable area
- Lower utility costs because reduced envelope to volume ratio
- Lower maintenance costs because of the volume of work per address, captive staff, etc, e

Btw, you mean "losing" instead of "loosing".
I had to say it, otherwise my head would explode.

 

[Midnight Rain]

Owning also means someone else is making a profit (presuming it's financed).

Someone has to own it. Unless the government owns it. Either I live in a house for cheaper than I rent it or I rent a house for more than it would cost for me to live there.

Apartments cost less to build & operate than a detached house.
- Less land per sq ft of occupiable area
- Lower utility costs because reduced envelope to volume ratio
- Lower maintenance costs because of the volume of work per address, captive staff, etc, e

Btw, you mean "losing" instead of "loosing".
I had to say it, otherwise my head would explode.

Perhaps.