Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Religious Freedom Forum Fireside

rockpond

By rockpond
in General Discussions

Recommended Posts

tonie Experienced

tonie

Posted
Posted

What is it with you two? Read. Post. #78.

 

 

Well, you asked me to comment on "Reynolds v. US"... look it up! http://www.oyez.org/cases/1851-1900/1878/1878_0 and Wikipedia as well.

 

REYNOLDS v. UNITED STATES

Question: Does the federal anti-bigamy statute violate the First Amendment's free exercise clause because plural marriage is part of religious practice?

 

Conclusion: No. Chief Justice Morrison R. Waite, writing for a unanimous court, held that the statute can punish criminal activity without regard to religious belief. The First Amendment protected religious belief, but it did not protect religious practices that were judged to be criminal such as bigamy. Those who practice polygamy could no more be exempt from the law than those who may wish to practice human sacrifice as part of their religious belief.

 

This gets to the whole idea I've mentioned all along, that some religious practices are restricted in the public interest. See. Post. #44. where I first mentioned it.

 

 

So how did the ruling from Reynolds protect religious freedom? Your posistion is that religious freedom is restricted to protect religious freedom.

Rob Osborn Grand Master

Rob Osborn

Posted
Posted

Should a market be forced by law to be closed on Sundays? My family doesn't shop on Sunday's. My Seventh Day Adventist neighbors don't shop on Saturday. Which should the law require to close?

 

Should a market be forced by law to not sell beer and cigarettes? I live in California booze and tobacco products are available for sale to any shopper who wants them. If those industries depended upon me to keep them in business they wouldn't last long.

My point is to show that private industry should be able to only do business within their religious beliefs if they so choose to. There is no difference between a market that is closed on Sundays versus a wedding photographer that only does marriages between a man and a woman.

rockpond Grand Master

rockpond

Posted
  • Author
Posted

My religious beliefs say that a gay couple should not have the same rights as a marriage between a man and a woman.

 

My religious beliefs say that they should.  So how do you suggest we make it so that both of us have maintain our religious freedom?

1
Rob Osborn Grand Master

Rob Osborn

Posted
Posted

My religious beliefs say that they should.  So how do you suggest we make it so that both of us have maintain our religious freedom?

It comes down to electing leaders that best represent our own religious beliefs in hope that they maintain laws that protect the family and institution of marriage between man and woman. This is paramount. Religious freedom is founded upon morals. The problem is in our now politically correct world that we have to redefine morals to include the immoral. This is Satans plans and thus why I fight against things like SSM. This is not about your fight for religious freedom but rather your fight "from" religion in censoring any and all who want true morals.

thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

My point is to show that private industry should be able to only do business within their religious beliefs if they so choose to. There is no difference between a market that is closed on Sundays versus a wedding photographer that only does marriages between a man and a woman.

 

Private industry has no such rights as determined by the Civil Rights Laws. But bigots still want to discriminate.

SEE http://www.msnbc.com/politicsnation/1-in-10-americans-still-support-discrimination

 

No one is stopping a photographer from taking any pictures of marriages the couple and the photographer agree to. What the photographer can't legally do is have a business license from the government and refuse to comply with the public accommodations laws.

rockpond Grand Master

rockpond

Posted
  • Author
Posted

It comes down to electing leaders that best represent our own religious beliefs in hope that they maintain laws that protect the family and institution of marriage between man and woman. This is paramount. Religious freedom is founded upon morals. The problem is in our now politically correct world that we have to redefine morals to include the immoral. This is Satans plans and thus why I fight against things like SSM. This is not about your fight for religious freedom but rather your fight "from" religion in censoring any and all who want true morals.

 

But see, you are defining religious freedom by your OWN set of religious beliefs.  My religious beliefs teach me that it IS moral to allow marriage equality.  So why should religious freedom only be reflective of the beliefs that you agree with?  How would that be religious freedom for me and those that believe similarly?

california boy Grand Master

california boy

Posted
Posted

People in private business should be able to discriminate based on their own beliefs. People shouldnt be forced to accommodate and support causes/people and practices that go against their religious beliefs. Religious freedom/freedom of religion is manifest in all aspects of peoples lives. If a photographer doesnt want to photograph a gay couple then under their religious freedom they shouldnt have to. Find someone else. This is precisely how our religious freedom is getting destroyed.

You are talking about repealing the clvil rights acts.  Do you really think the church should go after repealing the civil rights act??

california boy Grand Master

california boy

Posted
Posted

It comes down to electing leaders that best represent our own religious beliefs in hope that they maintain laws that protect the family and institution of marriage between man and woman. This is paramount. Religious freedom is founded upon morals. The problem is in our now politically correct world that we have to redefine morals to include the immoral. This is Satans plans and thus why I fight against things like SSM. This is not about your fight for religious freedom but rather your fight "from" religion in censoring any and all who want true morals.

 

So you think your religious freedoms should be put up to popular vote?  And what if popular vote required all churches to marry SSC?  Popular vote may be strong enough to require Mormons to marry SSC in their temples.  You would be ok with that??

 

You do realize this idea goes completely against the constitution.  So does discriminating against gay couples by bakers, photographers and inn keepers. 

Rob Osborn Grand Master

Rob Osborn

Posted
Posted

Private industry has no such rights as determined by the Civil Rights Laws. But bigots still want to discriminate.

SEE http://www.msnbc.com/politicsnation/1-in-10-americans-still-support-discrimination

 

No one is stopping a photographer from taking any pictures of marriages the couple and the photographer agree to. What the photographer can't legally do is have a business license from the government and refuse to comply with the public accommodations laws.

Civil rights laws are turning unconstitutional. Private industry should be protected by the law for their own individual religious reasons to do or not do business with whom they choose to do business with. Call it what you want but individuals and private business do have the right, or should have the right, to choose who they do business with based on their religious beliefs. Its unconstitutional for government to police the private sector into forcing others beliefs on everyone.

thesometimesaint Grand Master

thesometimesaint

Posted
Posted

Civil rights laws are turning unconstitutional. Private industry should be protected by the law for their own individual religious reasons to do or not do business with whom they choose to do business with. Call it what you want but individuals and private business do have the right, or should have the right, to choose who they do business with based on their religious beliefs. Its unconstitutional for government to police the private sector into forcing others beliefs on everyone.

 

Incorrect. Civil Rights Laws have consistently been added to the Constitution and affirmed by Presidents, Congress, and the Supreme Court as applying to businesses.

Rob Osborn Grand Master

Rob Osborn

Posted
Posted

But see, you are defining religious freedom by your OWN set of religious beliefs.  My religious beliefs teach me that it IS moral to allow marriage equality.  So why should religious freedom only be reflective of the beliefs that you agree with?  How would that be religious freedom for me and those that believe similarly?

In our type of government coupled with the Constitution, it only works in a morally sound society. It is not made for an immoral society. We elect leaders based off of their religious/moral convictions and beliefs. That is important. We must have morals in society. Often those morals are based off of ones religious background. Its the way it is and the way it should be. The problem you propose is that if we just throw out morals from legislation then it leads t the problem of legislating immorality which in the end would wrongfully protect immoral acts in society. For instance- suppose that you have a bad set of judges who are immoral in their lives and conduct and they see fit to legislate bringing pornographic videos, magazines, etc, into the public school teaching system. What then protects my children from being exposed to material I see as "filth"?

The problem you see is that we do have morals and we must have such defined in society. Homosexuality is still, in large part, considered "immoral" when people act in such manners in society. People can elect different leaders that best represent their beliefs but it still remains paramount that in general, the basic morals of society should still be upheld.

Rob Osborn Grand Master

Rob Osborn

Posted
Posted

You are talking about repealing the clvil rights acts.  Do you really think the church should go after repealing the civil rights act??

We should stand hard and fast in upholding morality in society. If that means legislating laws that protect such then of course- YES.

Rob Osborn Grand Master

Rob Osborn

Posted
Posted

Incorrect. Civil Rights Laws have consistently been added to the Constitution and affirmed by Presidents, Congress, and the Supreme Court as applying to businesses.

Yes, but the way that laws are being made in defining things it is be coming unconstitutional in things like defining "marriage".

The Nehor Grand Master

The Nehor

Posted
Posted

Civil rights laws are turning unconstitutional. Private industry should be protected by the law for their own individual religious reasons to do or not do business with whom they choose to do business with. Call it what you want but individuals and private business do have the right, or should have the right, to choose who they do business with based on their religious beliefs. Its unconstitutional for government to police the private sector into forcing others beliefs on everyone.

So if hotels and restaurants were all to decide to exclude black people, Mormons, and blueeyed people you would agree that that is their right?

Rob Osborn Grand Master

Rob Osborn

Posted
Posted

So if hotels and restaurants were all to decide to exclude black people, Mormons, and blueeyed people you would agree that that is their right?

We could debate every little ticky-tack item but the main point is that private business should be able to choose whom they do business with. Call it bigotry or whatever, we may not all agree with individuals preferences, but- it IS their right, protected by the constitution.

The Nehor Grand Master

The Nehor

Posted
Posted

We could debate every little ticky-tack item but the main point is that private business should be able to choose whom they do business with. Call it bigotry or whatever, we may not all agree with individuals preferences, but- it IS their right, protected by the constitution.

Actually the constitution offers no such right.

You basically want to undo the whole Civil Rights movement.

Rob Osborn Grand Master

Rob Osborn

Posted
Posted

Actually the constitution offers no such right.

You basically want to undo the whole Civil Rights movement.

No, I do not want to see the government police everyone into forced tolerance for immorality.

Rob Osborn Grand Master

Rob Osborn

Posted
Posted

Joseph Smith:

 

We claim the privilege of worshiping Almighty God according to the dictates of our own conscience, and allow all men the same privilege, let them worship how, where, or what they may.

Yep. And if the majority in a Christian based community decide to erect a 10 commandment monument they should be allowed to do so.

tonie Experienced

tonie

Posted
Posted

Yep. And if the majority in a Christian based community decide to erect a 10 commandment monument they should be allowed to do so.

 

In the United States, has Christian based group been singled out and prohibited from doing so, while other religions were permitted to erect monuments?

Rob Osborn Grand Master

Rob Osborn

Posted
Posted

In the United States, has Christian based group been singled out and prohibited from doing so, while other religions were permitted to erect monuments?

The importance of having a faith based community comes into play here in our democracy. Generally, we allow that which we deem as useful and moral in publicly owned places. Having a satanic group erect a monument which represent such a small minority nad which runs counter to known morality is not the answer and why we decide not to erect such filth.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...