Originally posted by damecourt:
Originally posted by 1Clemzunfan:
Originally posted by blue_62:
Originally posted by CuWrX8314:
... both laws are beyond ... disturbing. I could at least rationalize a wedding photographer or caterer not wanting to be apart of same-sex marriage ceremony. I get it......but your everyday run of the mill businesses that serve the public?
Its pure bigotry plain and simple.
All of these new "laws", though I agree with them in principle, are quite disturbing. Not because I disagree with their intent, but rather the implications: we need new
laws to protect what is already protected by the Constitution.
The First Amendment is quite clear:
"Congress shall make
no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"
These businesses have the RIGHT to discriminate. Call it bigotry all you want to. If I disagree with their practices or views, I will not do business with them. I WON'T, however, demand that they be forced to go against their convictions.
If Massachusetts wants to legalize gay marriage, they can go right ahead and do so. But don't ram their choice down the throats of South Carolina, Georgia, and California.. a few of the vast majority of states whose citizens wanted man-women marriage as the sole standard.
I don't think you understand the quote you highlighted. You highlighted "no law" and skipped ahead to "prohibiting the free exercise (of religion)". The part you skipped over is just as important. That part basically means that you can't establish laws and enforce them based on a particular religious belief either. In other words, unlike ISIS who wants to create a government based strictly on Muslim religious laws, in the US we do not force laws on the people based on the religious beliefs of only some people. There is a reason that separation of church and state is the corner stone of our democracy. Any law that allows one group of people to infringe upon another groups rights in the name of religion does not fit both sides of the intent of your quote above. To allow discrimination and removal of basic civil rights of one group in the name of the religious views of another group goes against everything in the constitution. What the constitution guarantees is religious freedom to practice whatever religion you choose
so long as it doesn't infringe on the basic constitutional rights of others who may have a different opinion. The constitution does not give religious groups a blank check to operate in whatever way they see fit contrary to your assertion.
I am a religious person. I am a Christian. I fully believe in religious freedom to worship as I choose. However, I also do not believe that one should be able to legislate others into conforming their lives to meet my religious views. To be able to do so would jeopardize my own religious freedom. The problem with too many religious groups, including many Christians, these days is that they want to use government and legislation to drive the moral behavior and social practices of others. They want to force others, through legislation, to conform to their religious views. That's not how I want to drive people to conform to my religious beliefs. Is someone who is forced to convert through law really a convert? No. That's not how Jesus evangelized either. The jews wanted him to be their political leader and lead a political revolution and he refused. You can not lead someone to God through legislation and politics.
I fully support laws that allow people to excersice their religious freedom. However, any law that also allows one to use their religion to deny the basic civil rights of another individual is a flawed law. If a florist doesn't want to serve everyone and participate in a gay wedding, I fully respect that decision. However, if they feel their religion doesnt allow them to participate in a gay wedding, they need to find another career that doesn't put them in a position to have to participate in that ceremony. The constitution gives them the freedom to choose a career that doesn't jeopardize their beliefs, it doesn't guarantee them the freedom to choose a career and assert their religious views as a way to strip others of their basic rights. Any law that allows some of us to discriminate against others is no constitutionally based law in my mind. What if a doctor refused to deliver the baby of an unwed mother because he doesn't believe in sex outside of marriage? Should that doctor be able to deny basic medical care to someone they feel is participating in a practice their religion does not condone? No. Why? There is no U.S. law that prevents sex outside of marriage or child birth outside of marriage. If that doctor feels he can't participate in a child birth outside of wedlock because his religion doesnt condone it, that is fine and that is his perogative, but he needs to find another career that doesn't put him in a position to make that choice if it is that important to him. Because if he remains a doctor and denies medical care to that woman based on his religious belief he may be doing right in the name of his religion, but he has also broken the law of the land and must live with the consequence.
This post was edited on 4/2 11:14 AM by 1Clemzunfan
Other than misspelling the words exercise and prerogative, this is awesome.
"I don't think you understand the quote you highlighted. You highlighted "no law" and skipped ahead to "prohibiting the free exercise (of religion)". The part you skipped over is just as important. That part basically means that you can't establish laws and enforce them based on a particular religious belief either".
I guess the Puritans and other Christians who came here and set up a society based on Judeo-Christian values were wrong and therefore the establishment and enforcement of those laws is invalid? Okay, got you.
"In other words, unlike ISIS who wants to create a government based strictly on Muslim religious laws, in the US we do not force laws on the people based on the religious beliefs of only some people."
Really? Tell that one to the valedictorian whose First Amendment rights to express Jesus Christ as the foundation of her life and has the microphone pulled due to the religious beliefs of the atheist/humanists activists.
"There is a reason that separation of church and state is the corner stone of our democracy"
Seriously? THE corner stone? And maybe it is just me, but I thought we were established as a CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC rather than a democracy, which is a system of government the Founders rightfully despised. .
"Any law that allows
one group of people to infringe upon another groups rights in the name of religion does not fit both sides of the intent of your quote above.
To allow discrimination and removal of basic civil rights of one group in the name of the religious views of another group goes against everything in the constitution"
Let me get this straight. Our Founders set up our system of government at a time when the vast majority of the citizens were either Christians or had a biblical worldview. They gave us a Constitution in which the God-given rights expressed in the First Amendment could compel a faithful,believing citizen to go against their convictions as long as unconstitutional "laws" and decisions by judicial decree superseded said Amendment. Gotcha.
"
What the constitution guarantees is religious freedom to practice whatever religion you choose so long as it doesn't infringe on the basic constitutional rights of others who may have a different opinion. The constitution does not give religious groups a blank check to operate in whatever way they see fit contrary to your assertion.
What the constitution guarantees is religious freedom to practice whatever religion you choose so long as you aren't proclaiming your faith in public as your Savior commanded since a school graduation is state-funded and people shouldn't have their "constitutional rights" of not having to hear such offensive chatter denied.
"I am a religious person. I am a Christian.
I fully believe in religious freedom to worship as I choose. However, I also do not believe that one should be able to legislate others into conforming their lives to meet my religious views."
Problem is, much legislation IS moral and had/has a religious/values aspect about it. Should the "Love your neighbor" aspect of social services thereby cause all forms of welfare be out of the hands of the State?
"
To be able to do so would jeopardize my own religious freedom. The problem with too many religious groups, including many Christians, these days is that they want to use government and legislation to drive the moral behavior and social practices of others."
Yeah, because Secular Humanists/etc. don't do anything like that. They would never even dream of using the government to forcefully oppose the morally repugnant rights of a Christian to the point of commanding them to disregard or abandon their convictions.
"
They want to force others, through legislation, to conform to their religious views. That's not how I want to drive people to conform to my religious beliefs. Is someone who is forced to convert through law really a convert? No. That's not how Jesus evangelized either. The jews wanted him to be their political leader and lead a political revolution and he refused. You can not lead someone to God through legislation and politics"
"They want to force others, through legislation, to conform to their hatred of Christianity."
In all honesty, I don't believe in forcing others to conform to my beliefs because I CAN'T. The political arena is not the place a Christian places his faith. However, we ARE commanded to be salt and light, and part of that command is to stand up and contribute to society in a Godly fashion. For example, gladiator games and abuse of slavery was widespread in the Roman Empire. Christian influence had huge impacts on the lessening of both. I don't TRUST in the political process to change society. I believe the way society changes is for the individuals in it to hear and believe the Gospel.
"I fully support laws that allow people to excersice their religious freedom. However,
any law that also allows one to use their religion to deny the basic civil rights of another individual is a flawed law."
Yeah, because a gay wedding cake is such a basic civil right these days. I mean, how dare that First Amendment for rearing its ugly head. To think we have a right to religion when gays need cakes and flowers. What is next? The right to due process or something foolish as that?
"If a florist doesn't want to serve everyone and participate in a gay wedding, I fully respect that decision. However, if they feel their religion doesnt allow them to participate in a gay wedding, they need to find another career that doesn't put them in a position to have to participate in that ceremony."
Unreal. Find another career? How about find another florist? Is that so hard to do?
"The
constitution gives them the freedom to choose a career that doesn't jeopardize their beliefs, it doesn't guarantee them the freedom to choose a career and assert their religious views as a way to strip others of their basic rights. "
What Article or Section did you find that particular guarantee? So the Constitution doesn't give a Christian the right to become and Evolutionary Biologist since that career may jeopardize their beliefs? I don't know if I read you clearly there....nor do I understand how requesting the services of a person who disagrees with my lifestyle and forcing that said business to do business with me anyway(and contrary to their First Amendment rights), is a "basic right".
"Any law that allows some of us to discriminate against others is no constitutionally based law in my mind. What if a doctor refused to deliver the baby of an unwed mother because he doesn't believe in sex outside of marriage?
Should that doctor be able to deny basic medical care to someone they feel is participating in a practice their religion does not condone? No. Why? There is no U.S. law that prevents sex outside of marriage or child birth outside of marriage. If that doctor feels he can't participate in a child birth outside of wedlock because his religion doesnt condone it, that is fine and that is his perogative, but he needs to find another career that doesn't put him in a position to make that choice if it is that important to him. Because if he remains a doctor and denies medical care to that woman based on his religious belief he may be doing right in the name of his religion, but he has also broken the law of the land and must live with the consequence"
Wow. What a softball. Talk about flawed logic. So, according to your interpretation of the Law of the Land, an abortionist can repent and become a Christian, and that doctor should be FORCED to provide medical care in the form of an abortion if requested, or "live with the consequence". Or find another career. Got you.
Where your logic breaks down, sir, is the example you give is flawed. No Christian doctor should have a problem delivering a baby as you describe. The baby is innocent. For that matter, most(myself included) would never turn away the mother you describe though we disagree with her lifestyle choices. You see, delivering the baby is a morally neutral ACT at worse. If that Doctor was UPHOLDING THE LIFESTYLE of the couple involved in some fashion, such as providing a place to shack up for their act, then you have a different story.
The florist/wedding cake person is not the same situation. Those people are being asked to TAKE PART in an ACT they deem to be morally wrong: a gay marriage ceremony. That is vastly different from the "dilemma" you proposed.
. 
