How to protect religious freedom and conscience rights

[Terry Sampson]

There is no compromise for those on the left! The American Constitution guarantees freedom of association, something these liberals wish to suppress.

Starting with YOUR freedom of speech in particular.

 

[columbus]

I am LGBT, but basically hate my own,

Too bad Jesus didn't teach you any better than that.

I can sorta understand why someone who doesn't understand what it's like to be gay can be homophobic. The Bible isn't very clear on the subject, I expect that Jesus was as homophobic as the next guy. Back in the day...

You don't have the excuse of being ignorant. You have no such excuse for your hate.
Tom

 

[QuestioningMind]

Hey everyone. I am not sure if this is the right forum for this question so if I am putting it in the wrong forum, I apologize.

Anyway, lately, there have been some problems in the United States with laws against discrimination and religious freedom or conscience rights. Basically, these laws say that you cannot discriminate against someone because of sexual orientation or gender identity among other things. However, these laws are causing the religious freedom and conscience rights of Christians and others to be violated by forcing such people to provide services for same-sex weddings. If they don't comply and provide the services, they are found in violation of the law.

My question is this. Isn't there some sort of compromise where religious freedom and conscience rights can be protected while minimizing the amount of discrimination that would take place against minorities or is it just simply a fact that religious freedom will have to be sacrificed in order for these laws to take effect? Why can't Christians and those with sincere moral or religious convictions against same-sex marriage be exempted from these laws? After all, it's not like your average gay couple is going to have a hard time finding a baker to bake their wedding cake for them if one baker on the corner refuses to bake the cake for their wedding. There are plenty of places they can go to.

I really don't see the problem here. No one is forcing people to run businesses open to the public. But if you CHOOSE to open such a business THEN you should be prepared to follow the rules established for running such a business, one of which is you must be prepared to serve the entire public. If for some reason you follow a religion that does not allow you to serve the entire public that's a shame... but take it up with your religious leaders, don't pretend as if it's society that is persecuting you.

 

[SomeRandom]

I think He would have done.

Jesus was a conservative Jew in 1st century Judea. That was a very homophobic society, and I see no reason to think that Jesus differed with the prevailing norms on that subject. There's certainly nothing in the NT suggesting that He did.
Tom

I would think the son of God would be above such petty high school drama like behaviour. But okay.

 

[columbus]

I would think the son of God would be above such petty high school drama like behaviour. But okay.

So,
You invent a Jesus in your own image.

Where have I heard of that before?
Tom

 

[SomeRandom]

So,
You invent a Jesus in your own image.

Where have I heard of that before?
Tom

I’m just going by what is told to me by all the Christians around me. Always talking about his teachings about mercy, compassion, treating people with kindness and what have you.
I’m not Christian so it doesn’t really make that much difference to me. He could be a punk rebel and that’d be cool with me.

 

[columbus]

I’m just going by what is told to me by all the Christians around me.

You must not live where I live.
Around here Jesus's love and mercy mostly get brought up when Christians are feeling persecuted.

The rest of the time it's Trump and the Prosperity Gospel and such. How important it is to protect This Christian Nation from socialism and brown people and over taxation and gay marriage. The morals that really matter....

The ones Jesus talked about all the time.
Tom

 

[SomeRandom]

You must not live where I live.
Around here Jesus's love and mercy mostly get brought up when Christians are feeling persecuted.

The rest of the time it's Trump and the Prosperity Gospel and such. How important it is to protect This Christian Nation from socialism and brown people and over taxation and gay marriage. The morals that really matter....

The ones Jesus talked about all the time.
Tom

“Persecuted.” They wish.
I live in Australia. Sure when the plebiscite happened the nasties came crawling out of the woodworks and some so called “Christians” threw temper tantrums like spoilt toddlers.
But I haven’t really heard of any wedding businesses refusing gay couples wedding cakes or whatever since the legalisation. (That just strikes me as wholly unprofessional, personally. Just do your job or find another one.)
The Churches and Synagogs and what have you are free to refuse to recognise same sex weddings if that is what they believe in. So we tend to leave them be.

 

[columbus]

But I haven’t really heard of any wedding businesses refusing gay couples wedding cakes or whatever since the legalisation.

Like I said, you clearly don't live where I live.

I live in the state where Mike Pence spent years and tons of money trying to get marriage inequality amended in the state Constitution. He was governor at the time, and Trump's party dominated the legislature.

When that became politically inexpedient, our governor(now Trump's vice president), got RFRA passed. That was a law clearly making it legal to discriminate against anybody, as long as it was for "sincerely held religious beliefs".

That's the Christian world I live in. Don't tell me it's about Jesus's love and peace. Christians don't believe in that, they believe in Trump/Pence and Make America Great Again.

Maybe Australians are different. I can't help but notice that Ken Ham moved here, just down the road from me.
Tom

 

[SomeRandom]

Like I said, you clearly don't live where I live.

I live in the state where Mike Pence spent years and tons of money trying to get marriage inequality amended in the state Constitution. He was governor at the time, and Trump's party dominated the legislature.

When that became politically inexpedient, our governor(now Trump's vice president), got RFRA passed. That was a law clearly making it legal to discriminate against anybody, as long as it was for "sincerely held religious beliefs".

That's the Christian world I live in. Don't tell me it's about Jesus's love and peace. Christians don't believe in that, they believe in Trump/Pence and Make America Great Again.
Tom

Reminds me of the quote
How’s it go
“I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.”

 

[columbus]

Reminds me of the quote
How’s it go
“I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your Christ.”

I wonder how Ghandi likes burning in Hell.
Tom

 

[SomeRandom]

I wonder how Ghandi likes burning in Hell.
Tom

Ahh, there’s that wholesome Christian love I keep hearing about

 

[columbus]

Ahh, there’s that wholesome Christian love I keep hearing about

I am a very good student.
I learned a lot about Christian beliefs as a child.
Tommy

 

[SomeRandom]

I am a very good student.
I learned a lot about Christian beliefs as a child.
Tommy

Well it shows

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There is no compromise for those on the left!

Reasonable accommodation is warranted when a right is infringed, but in the types of cases @ZooGirl02 is describing, no rights are being infringed.

The American Constitution guarantees freedom of association, something these liberals wish to suppress.

Come again?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

I think He would have done.

Jesus was a conservative Jew in 1st century Judea. That was a very homophobic society, and I see no reason to think that Jesus differed with the prevailing norms on that subject. There's certainly nothing in the NT suggesting that He did.
Tom

It is possible the centurion's servant Jesus healed a gay lover. And this would fit, whether true or not, the larger theme of Jesus going around doing what he did for people, no questions asked when it came to sin and he certainly wasn't turning people away over them. However, it does also need stated (for some who feel otherwise) that says not an endorsement of homosexuality from Christ. He certainly never approved of adultery even though he saved the life of an adulteress.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I believe the problem lies in ‘who decides’?

Who decides what is moral or immoral, good or bad, right or wrong and whether it should be a human right or not?

Who’s rightful domain is it to make this call. The government, the people, the practitioner?

For people who don’t believe in God they believe that it is their right to force one and all to comply with their wishes. I believe live and let live should be exercised here each respecting the right of the other to follow their own path in life.

Just as atheists should not be forced to go to church on Sundays so too should religionists not be forced to provide same sex marriages against their beliefs.

Forcing religionists to do so is religious discrimination and persecution so those who want a same sex marriage should go to those organisations who agree with it not force and coerce religionists to go against their own beliefs.

Live and let live.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I think there is no reason why people should not have right to decide to whom they sell things.

There is a very good reason: equality.

You can not allow businesses to determine the rights of customers in a society based around equality and human rights.

And I think it is interesting that this is problem in the case of sexual orientation, but not for example in case of poor, "ugly" and not well-dressed people. Why it is accepted that there are many places that don’t accept people who have not much money, or who are not good looking or well dressed?

First, name any place that refuses to serve people because they are either poor or ugly. I'm fairly certain that isn't accepted anywhere.

Secondly, modes of dress has a variety of overlapping issues, such as public health, public decency laws, and the comfort and security of other customers. Further, a person cannot just go home and "put on" a different sexuality.

Even then, a business has to justify the reasons why they deny service to a person. A gas station cannot refuse to serve you just because you're wearing a tacky Hawaiian shirt.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

For people who don’t believe in God they believe that it is their right to force one and all to comply with their wishes.

As this thread plainly proves, it is often the religious who wish to use businesses to enforce their views and standards on others. There are no atheist special interest groups looking to enact laws that give atheists special status and rights above religious groups, but there are a lot of religious groups who seek to have religious tenets enshrined in law, or lobbying government for the right to use businesses to actively discriminate against groups they believe deserve less rights than them.

I believe live and let live should be exercised here each respecting the right of the other to follow their own path in life.

Live and let live would mean businesses not discriminating against people due to sexual orientation.

Just as atheists should not be forced to go to church on Sundays so too should religionists not be forced to provide same sex marriages against their beliefs.

That depends entirely on whether or not they choose to work in a field that provides marriages. As private institutions, churches are not required to provide anything, but if a particular religious person expect to work in a legally-recognized field, they must abide by the laws of that field. If you provide marriage licenses, and this is something that you are contractually obligated by your business to do, then you are required to do so for all people who legally meet the requirements of that license, and cannot deny service based on your personal beliefs.

Forcing religionists to do so is religious discrimination and persecution so those who want a same sex marriage should go to those organisations who agree with it not force and coerce religionists to go against their own beliefs.

It is not discrimination to expect religious people to obey the law. It is not discrimination to not allow religious groups the unique right to unjustly discriminate against people who they dislike and use their businesses to do so.

If I fervently and truthfully believe that I should have the right to punch you in the face every day, is it "discrimination and persecution" to deny me the right to punch you in the face? Am I being persecuted if you try and stop me punching you in the face? I sincerely believe it's something I should be able to do, so to not let me do is persecuting me, right?

Live and let live.

Allowing religious people exclusive rights to discriminate is not "live and let live".

"Live and let live" would be the religious people realizing that their beliefs are just their beliefs and not using their businesses to discriminate against people based on those beliefs. It's "This gay person wants a marriage licence. I don't believe in gay marriage, but I am required by law not to discriminate against them, so I will grant them a license anyway and not allow my belief to influence my treatment of them in a way that is unfair and illegal".

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Just as atheists should not be forced to go to church on Sundays so too should religionists not be forced to provide same sex marriages against their beliefs.

Just as an atheist who voluntarily decides to go to a church on Sunday isn't being forced to sit through a religious service, a person who voluntarily decides to go into the wedding business isn't being forced to participate in same-sex marriages.

It's been a long-standing principle in several countries that businesses should not discriminate against their clientele... that selling goods and services to the public means selling them to the entire public.