Examples Of Religious Freedom Being Trampled Or Threatened

[jwhitlock]

You are right.  I don't know you and I suspect that  you are probably a good and decent person IRL. If you ever visit Payson, I would be happy to buy you lunch.  But to be honest, your on line persona has leanings to the extreme.  There is no global gay conspiracy.  These people just want to be treated as equals. Why the bitterness?  What other people do or don't do, including getting married, does not impact my rights or the rights of any church.  

  

Being a active member for over 40 years, I think you and I might share some common ground.  I know very well the "us versus them" mentality that is part of the LDS culture. I was raised in it, and I didn't find real peace until I finally let go of that mind set.  Live and let live.  Love is the key.

 

I've never said that there is a global gay conspiracy. I've tried to be careful not to give that impression in what I post - even as I'm aware that some are going to interpret it that way no matter what I say.

 

What I do understand is that there are people out there who are going to push what I consider a radical gay agenda, which includes reducing freedom of religion as much as possible.

 

Most gays, like most people, simply want to live normal lives. I recognize that. They don't get involved in all the gay agenda hoopla, just like most straight people don't get involved in other issues. They just aren't that interested. Those aren't the people I'm worried about, I wish them well, and hope that they find all the happiness they can.

 

It's the vocal minority that I'm concerned about. Vocal activist minorities often have more influence than their numbers would indicate, especially if they can convince the courts that their version of discrimination is occurring. They're the ones that I'm reading about, who want religions punished, who want to marginalize religious beliefs, who want to radically change the face of society to eliminate moral standards and gender differences.

 

Again, the majority of gays aren't that concerned about it and I recognize that. That's not where my comments are targeted.

 

Most gay marriages are not going to impact us. Though I don't agree with SSM, it's the way it is, and I'll work with it as much as I need to. However, there are going to be some gay activists who are going to make it an issue in relation to the church - just as there are those gays who want to make BSA adult leaders an issue for churches. It's just a small minority of gays who want to do so. Most gays aren't that concerned about scouting. But that small minority, with their claims of discrimination, is unduly influencing the courts to move towards curtailing religious freedoms.

 

To be sure, radical gays aren't the only ones fighting to marginalize religion.  Radical atheists are doing the same thing (again, most atheists aren't really that interested in conflict). Radical religious groups are shooting themselves in the foot. Some government entities and politicians are clearly unsympathetic to religious freedom.

 

I don't have any particular bitterness about it. I'm more of an interested observer who is using this board as a forum to tune my views. This thread has helped me to do so.

 

I don't have an us versus them mentality. I live on the East coast where there's a lot more diversity. I've known what it's like to live in a racially polarized society since I was affected by forced busing with desegregation back in the 1970's. I recognize the danger of stereotyping general groups of people and I don't do that with gays. I try to speak in terms of gay activists or radical minorities, but I still get generalized accusations thrown back at me anyway.

 

The reason I may seem extreme at times to you is because I see very clear dangers to what is happening now. History has a strange way of repeating itself, and I see clear indications of things happening now that led to disastrous results in the past. There is significant polarization and frustration on all sides in our society and the gay rights steamroller is not making that any better (and I recognize that there are also other things pushing the polarization).

 

Anyway, that's a long answer to your post. I did appreciate the tone of your response, though I didn't agree totally with what you said. Hopefully this explains things a little better, at least for you.

[tagriffy]

Quite a jaundiced view of history you have there. Nothing good comes out of Christianity, does it. Glad I was able to coax that out of you; I wonder if most of the people who have taken your side on this thread would concur with your characterization. I suspect that they might.

 

However, what you say above is simply false in tone and in actuality. It's a stereotype, and an invalid one at that. I'm sure that you would be up in arms if anyone here talked about all gays in that same way, but we don't really do that, do we. We tend to be very specific in targeting where the real problems are. We try not to fall into the trap that you and yours often try to set of characterizing all homosexuals in a certain way.

 

So you've demonstrated that there are two sets of rules that you want to play be. One for gays (they get anything they want) and one for Christians (they need to be beaten and murdered). That's nowhere more evident than in the fact that when we talk about letting religiously sponsored BSA troops choose leaders according to their own standards, and not as mandated by the BSA or gay rights groups, you characterize it as whining and trampling on other people's rights.

 

I wonder if the others on this thread agree with you, or whether they consider your views as on the fringe?

 

Except I never said nothing good comes out of Christianity. I acknowledged the bad that has come out of Christianity, everything else is your distortion and has nothing to do with what I said.

[california boy]

I've never said that there is a global gay conspiracy. I've tried to be careful not to give that impression in what I post - even as I'm aware that some are going to interpret it that way no matter what I say.

What I do understand is that there are people out there who are going to push what I consider a radical gay agenda, which includes reducing freedom of religion as much as possible.

Most gays, like most people, simply want to live normal lives. I recognize that. They don't get involved in all the gay agenda hoopla, just like most straight people don't get involved in other issues. They just aren't that interested. Those aren't the people I'm worried about, I wish them well, and hope that they find all the happiness they can.

It's the vocal minority that I'm concerned about. Vocal activist minorities often have more influence than their numbers would indicate, especially if they can convince the courts that their version of discrimination is occurring. They're the ones that I'm reading about, who want religions punished, who want to marginalize religious beliefs, who want to radically change the face of society to eliminate moral standards and gender differences.

Again, the majority of gays aren't that concerned about it and I recognize that. That's not where my comments are targeted.

Most gay marriages are not going to impact us. Though I don't agree with SSM, it's the way it is, and I'll work with it as much as I need to. However, there are going to be some gay activists who are going to make it an issue in relation to the church - just as there are those gays who want to make BSA adult leaders an issue for churches. It's just a small minority of gays who want to do so. Most gays aren't that concerned about scouting. But that small minority, with their claims of discrimination, is unduly influencing the courts to move towards curtailing religious freedoms.

To be sure, radical gays aren't the only ones fighting to marginalize religion. Radical atheists are doing the same thing (again, most atheists aren't really that interested in conflict). Radical religious groups are shooting themselves in the foot. Some government entities and politicians are clearly unsympathetic to religious freedom.

I don't have any particular bitterness about it. I'm more of an interested observer who is using this board as a forum to tune my views. This thread has helped me to do so.

I don't have an us versus them mentality. I live on the East coast where there's a lot more diversity. I've known what it's like to live in a racially polarized society since I was affected by forced busing with desegregation back in the 1970's. I recognize the danger of stereotyping general groups of people and I don't do that with gays. I try to speak in terms of gay activists or radical minorities, but I still get generalized accusations thrown back at me anyway.

The reason I may seem extreme at times to you is because I see very clear dangers to what is happening now. History has a strange way of repeating itself, and I see clear indications of things happening now that led to disastrous results in the past. There is significant polarization and frustration on all sides in our society and the gay rights steamroller is not making that any better (and I recognize that there are also other things pushing the polarization).

Anyway, that's a long answer to your post. I did appreciate the tone of your response, though I didn't agree totally with what you said. Hopefully this explains things a little better, at least for you.

This is about the most sane and rational post I have ever read from you. If I could I would give you rep points for it. But I am on my cell phone and it looks like that option is not available.

I agree that the majority of the conflicts come from radicals on both sides. You have laid out the gay activists that concern you. Let me lay out the religious activists that concern gays.

Those that want to be able to break the law and discriminate against gays.

Those who have done so much to keep us from having equal protection under the laws that grant us that protection.

Those who would deny us the right to marry

Those who accuse all gays as being untrustworthy to lead a scout troop simply because we are gay.

Those who can only see bad from the gay population and not acknoedge all the amazing things that we have done to benefit and uplift mankind. Kinda like those who only see the evil done by religion.

And then there are those who curse us blaming every natural disaster on us that God is going to destroy the world now that this country is beginning to acknowledge that just because you are gay does not mean We are not citizens entitled to protection of our civil rights and free from discrimination in the public sector

[Bobbieaware]

This is about the most sane and rational post I have ever read from you. If I could I would give you rep points for it. But I am on my cell phone and it looks like that option is not available.

I agree that the majority of the conflicts come from radicals on both sides. You have laid out the gay activists that concern you. Let me lay out the religious activists that concern gays.

Those that want to be able to break the law and discriminate against gays.

Those who have done so much to keep us from having equal protection under the laws that grant us that protection.

Those who would deny us the right to marry

Those who accuse all gays as being untrustworthy to lead a scout troop simply because we are gay.

Those who can only see bad from the gay population and not acknoedge all the amazing things that we have done to benefit and uplift mankind. Kinda like those who only see the evil done by religion.

And then there are those who curse us blaming every natural disaster on us that God is going to destroy the world now that this country is beginning to acknowledge that just because you are gay does not mean We are not citizens entitled to protection of our civil rights and free from discrimination in the public sector

The dangers that lie in the future do not revolve so much around gays in general but in Satan and his plan to totally destroy the family. The recent Supreme Court redefinition of the family is just one step -- albeit a very important one -- in the long march toward that ultimate diabolical goal. Although Satan is surely feeling some satisfaction with the recent definition of marriage, he knows there are more hurdles to cross before he has succeeded in destroying the sacredness of the traditional mother/father family.

One of those hurdles that still needs to be crossed will be the wholesale indoctrination of young school children into the accepting the LGBTQ agenda. The Savior said that if anyone offends the children by destroying their innocence it will be better for them to have a millstone fastened around their necks and be drowned in the depths of the sea. Yet the most radical and politically active of those in the LGBTQ movement will not be satisfied until the innocence of God's earthly spirit children has been destroyed by that indoctrination which is already beginning to take place. It these smug radicals would have the decency to leave the children alone, I would have some respect for them. But for them nothing less than the destruction of childhood innocence will do. The radicals are the ones who drive the agenda and have the determination and tenacity to make things happen, but they will not escape the judgement of God.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Bobbieaware

[CV75]

"No, no one is compelled to say it."

What if it changed to "under Brahma" or "under Satan"? How would most Christians react? and how would they react if you tell them "no one is compelled to say it"

 Get real: this is like asking, "What if the Hokey Pokey really is what it's all about?"

 

"No, no one is compelled to adopt God as their Deity, and everyone uses money printed and minted by the government."

but if that phrase is removed, that somehow becomes an attack on religion  

The confused and the angry with their own confusion have found that to be a "controversy" for 45+ years… I take it you’re not an accommodationist.

 

Your meme is like the Scumbag Steve meme where he was a Christian trying to shove religion down everyone's throat... Discovered Reddit and is now trying to shove atheism down everyone's throat... Can you use your own words (slowly, now!)?

Edited July 17, 2015 by CV75

[Gray]

Except where they come into conflict, and then claimed gay rights must always take precedence.

 

That is, of course, where all this is headed.

 

Nope. But I don't know of any area where gay rights are coming into conflict with religious rights. Both can be preserved without stepping all over either.

 

Of course, in order for this to be so, some privilege is lost. Just as white privilege was curtailed when equal rights were recognized for blacks, and male privilege was curtailed when equal rights were recognized for women. 

Edited July 17, 2015 by Gray

[jwhitlock]

This is about the most sane and rational post I have ever read from you. If I could I would give you rep points for it. But I am on my cell phone and it looks like that option is not available.

I agree that the majority of the conflicts come from radicals on both sides. You have laid out the gay activists that concern you. Let me lay out the religious activists that concern gays.

Those that want to be able to break the law and discriminate against gays.

Those who have done so much to keep us from having equal protection under the laws that grant us that protection.

Those who would deny us the right to marry

Those who accuse all gays as being untrustworthy to lead a scout troop simply because we are gay.

Those who can only see bad from the gay population and not acknoedge all the amazing things that we have done to benefit and uplift mankind. Kinda like those who only see the evil done by religion.

And then there are those who curse us blaming every natural disaster on us that God is going to destroy the world now that this country is beginning to acknowledge that just because you are gay does not mean We are not citizens entitled to protection of our civil rights and free from discrimination in the public sector

 

The church has shown a willingness to work with gay groups in compromises that protect the rights of both religion and gays. I support that work fully. The majority of LDS and gays also appear to be supportive of the kind of compromise that the church is presenting. I think it's a positive step.

 

However, it can all be destroyed by those on both sides who seek no compromise. While I tend to concentrate on the dangers of the agendas of radical gay activists, I also recognize the problems of Westboro Baptist types on my side - and I fully repudiate their actions. It think most Christians also repudiate their actions.

 

The goal here is not to deal in absolutes. The twin absolutes on both sides are gay radicals who demand full access to everything and that religious practice be subject to the litmus test of discrimination, and the religious who refuse any accommodation at all with gays.

 

I want the discussion to be more about compromise.  While there are certain things I do oppose (SSM being one of them), my opposition is always based on the conflict I see that occurs and will occur with religious freedoms. I want the concept of discrimination to be eliminated from the discussion because it is too vague and can be interpreted far too subjectively. I want to see more accommodation in society for things that are common sense. For instance, as Cinepro mentioned (even though his analogy stunk), why would a gay man really want to be scoutmaster in an LDS scout troop? It would probably just be an exercise in frustration and life is just too short to deal with those kinds of things, so don't even go there. Yet there will be some gays who will want to make it an issue.

 

Anyway, I think the church is working hard to find the right balance and compromise on this, and I am fully supportive of the spirit of what it's trying to do. I don't support SSM, but it is the law of the land, so I'm willing to leave it alone as long as it leaves me alone.  Unfortunately, I think that the more radical elements on both sides are going to define what actually happens, and that means there's going to continue to be conflict.

[Analytics]

Are you actually telling us that the flexibility needed by a bishop should come from the BSA, and not from God and those He has called to lead His church??

 

The kind of rationalization you're doing here in the name of misplaced discrimination boggles the mind.

 

I'm telling you what the activists at Scouts for Equality want--a simple BSA-wide anti-discrimination policy.  Such a policy wouldn't force anybody to do anything, other than not discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation.

 

 

According to them, how do religious organizations discriminate against gay adults? By not accepting them as scout leaders.

 

How would religious organizations not (according to them) "discriminate" against gay adults? By accepting them as scout leaders.

 

And if a church "agreed" to accept gays as leaders, but never actually let them work on that position? How long do you think that they would plant a gay adult in there and have them ask to be a scout master?  

 

Scout leaders aren't "accepted" by sponsoring organizations.  They are appointed by them.  Scouts for Equality really wants two things.  First, a simple policy that says scouts don't discriminate: they want scouting to have an official policy that reflects their morals.  Second, they want the very best person willing and able to be a scout master to be chosen.  There is no right or expectation that adult volunteers will be placed in troops.  The expectation is that the best willing volunteer is chosen.  So how long would it take before there was a plant?

 

It would take a very, very long time.  Here's what would happen for such a "plant" to successfully have any sympathy with the BSA and with society in general:

 

A gay adult male is an active member of a ward.  Pays his tithing.  Celibate.  Temple recommend holder.  His is an eagle scout himself.  He is well liked and respected by the adults and youth of the ward.  Squeaky-clean background check.  Probably married to a woman, in fact.  Again, the perfect Mormon gay man, and is otherwise would be the perfect scout master.

 

The ward in question has an opening for scoutmaster, but the bishop can't find a heterosexual who will accept the calling.  The calling is open for months.  The perfectly qualified, well-liked, well-respected gay Mormon eagle scout volunteers to be scout master.  Most of the parents of boys in the troop nominate him, in fact.  But the bishop doesn't extend the calling and doesn't give any specific reason as to why.

 

If something like that were to happen, and the Mormon parents of the scouts in that troop made a stink about it, some national people might show up and say the ward was discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation.  But in order for them to have any success at getting sympathy, it would need to be clear that most of the parents were on their side, and that the real victims are the boys because they aren't getting the best scout master.

[tonie]

jwhitlock

You do realize, don't you, that the CHURCH officiall pronounced that worthy individuals may be extended callings? So why wouldn't a worthy male be eligible for to serve as a Scout Master........

that's right, in your mind and apparently many others here, he should be regarded as a pedophile because he admits same-sex attraction.

Despite his admission to ssa, he is Temple Worthy and otherwise a worthy Priesthood holder.

And if ssa males should be kept away from males,

Then heterosexual males should be kept away from females; thus raising the necessity for a Female Priesthood bearers.

Edited July 17, 2015 by tonie

[CV75]

I don't know of any area where gay rights are coming into conflict with religious rights.

Well, now you can!

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/explaining-religious-freedom-and-lgbt-rights

1. What examples do we have of the loss of such freedoms?

Examples include religious universities facing threats of losing their accreditation because the school’s religious beliefs run contrary to popular opinion. Some companies face legal consequences or boycotting because the owner guides the company using religious principles.  Business and community leaders have been bullied and forced to step down because of their support of traditional marriage. Judges in California can no longer be members of the Boy Scouts of America because of the organization’s stance on gay leaders. Many religious individuals are now being shamed and silenced because their beliefs are no longer popular or in accord with what is considered politically acceptable.

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/religious-freedom-and-fairness-for-all

 

We already have examples. Where same-sex marriage has been legalized in some states, for instance in Idaho and New Jersey, gay rights advocates have brought lawsuits and administrative proceedings in an attempt to force religious denominations to make their religious properties and facilities available to celebrate same-sex weddings.  

 

Further, according to the brief, if the Supreme Court also designates sexual orientation as a class deserving special protection, like race, then “religious believers could find their speech, association, and free-exercise rights diminished or denied in a variety of contexts, such as public education, employment, public accommodations, and professional certification.”

 

Such restrictions are already happening. California judges will soon be banned from joining the Boy Scouts or any other nonreligious youth group that espouses traditional morality. The accreditation of Gordon College is being challenged because its honor code prohibits “sexual relations outside of marriage and homosexual practice.” A counseling student in Michigan was expelled from her program when she respectfully requested that a gay client be referred to one of numerous other counselors in the nearby area. A pluralistic society that shows true respect and fairness for everyone would not compel or coerce these individuals and entities to betray their religious beliefs and conscience.

[Storm Rider]

jwhitlock

 

You do not realize, don't you, that the CHURCH officiall pronounced that worthy individuals may be extended callings?  So why wouldn't a worthy male be eligible for to a Scout Master........that's right, in your mind and apparently many others here, he should be regarded as a pedophile because he admits same-sex attraction.

 

Despite his admission to ssa, he is Temple Worthy and otherwise a worthy Priesthood holder.   

 

And if ssa males should be kept away from males, then heterosexual males should be kept away from females; thus raising the necessity for a Female Priesthood bearers.

 

Tonie, is it appropriate for young, heterosexual men to take girl scouts on camping trips with no female adults present?  Why not?  Are all heterosexual men pedophiles simply because they admit they like females?  When you put that silly logic you bandy about in a different light it crumbles into the stupid position it is.

 

The objective is to not increase the probability of creating problems for individuals.  Same sex attraction is just that same sex attraction.  A straight man is not going to have sex with a young man because there is no sexual attraction.  A homosexual man MAY have sex with a younger man simply because he is attracted to the individual.  It just makes sense to remove the probability; it is not condemning a gay man because he is gay in the same way that we don't condemn a straight man taking girls out on a camping trip; what we do is minimize his interaction with girl scouts. 

Edited July 17, 2015 by Storm Rider

[thesometimesaint]

All religions, with the possible exception of the Unitarian-Unilateralist flavor discriminate.  They are all solely voluntary private organizations and can establish whatever rules for membership/participation they want.

[tonie]

Well, now you can!

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/explaining-religious-freedom-and-lgbt-rights

• What examples do we have of the loss of such freedoms?

Examples include religious universities facing threats of losing their accreditation because the school’s religious beliefs run contrary to popular opinion. Some companies face legal consequences or boycotting because the owner guides the company using religious principles. Business and community leaders have been bullied and forced to step down because of their support of traditional marriage. Judges in California can no longer be members of the Boy Scouts of America because of the organization’s stance on gay leaders. Many religious individuals are now being shamed and silenced because their beliefs are no longer popular or in accord with what is considered politically acceptable.

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/religious-freedom-and-fairness-for-all

Accredidation is not a religious right or religious freedom.

We already have examples. Where same-sex marriage has been legalized in some states, for instance in Idaho and New Jersey, gay rights advocates have brought lawsuits and administrative proceedings in an attempt to force religious denominations to make their religious properties and facilities available to celebrate same-sex weddings.

Are you referring to the "public accommadations" to which non-discrimination laws apply?

Otherwise CFR, to your claim about Idaho and New Jersey.

Further, according to the brief, if the Supreme Court also designates sexual orientation as a class deserving special protection, like race, then “religious believers could find their speech, association, and free-exercise rights diminished or denied in a variety of contexts, such as public education, employment, public accommodations, and professional certification.”

Has happenened and will continue to happen.

Such restrictions are already happening. California judges will soon be banned from joining the Boy Scouts or any other nonreligious youth group that espouses traditional morality. The accreditation of Gordon College is being challenged because its honor code prohibits “sexual relations outside of marriage and homosexual practice.” A counseling student in Michigan was expelled from her program when she respectfully requested that a gay client be referred to one of numerous other counselors in the nearby area. A pluralistic society that shows true respect and fairness for everyone would not compel or coerce these individuals and entities to betray their religious beliefs and conscience.

Again accredidation is a religious right or religious freedom.

Professional licensing associations can set their terms.

I agree that a counselor should be permitted to chose her clients. Lawyers can refuse clients, on such right of refusal is the clients conduct.

No one should expect a person who has been trained to council heterosexual couples to know or be innately able to provide effective counseling to a same-sex couple.

[thesometimesaint]

Accredidation is not a religious right or religious freedom.

Are you referring to the "public accommadations" to which non-discrimination laws apply?

Otherwise CFR, to your claim about Idaho and New Jersey.

Has happenened and will continue to happen.

Again accredidation is a religious right or religious freedom.

Professional licensing associations can set their terms.

I agree that a counselor should be permitted to chose her clients. Lawyers can refuse clients, on such right of refusal is the clients conduct.

No one should expect a person who has been trained to council heterosexual couples to know or be innately able to provide effective counseling to a same-sex couple.

 

Actually we are trained to counsel hetero and homosexual clients according to their needs not our desires.

[Kenngo1969]

No, accreditation is not a religious right or a religious freedom, but it is an imprimatur to which those responsible for bestowing things that are government benefits often look to determine the potential recipient's suitability for those benefits.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Kenngo1969

[Zakuska]

All religions, with the possible exception of the Unitarian-Unilateralist flavor discriminate.  They are all solely voluntary private organizations and can establish whatever rules for membership/participation they want.

 

And these "private organizations" are being sued persecuted and trampled upon for discriminating and setting their own rules.

 

Priest Who Married Same-Sex Partner Sues Church For Sexual Discrimination

 

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/16/priest-who-married-same-sex-partner-sues-church-for-sexual-discrimination/#ixzz3gAM9aKSg

Edited July 17, 2015 by Zakuska

[jwhitlock]

jwhitlock

You do realize, don't you, that the CHURCH officiall pronounced that worthy individuals may be extended callings? So why wouldn't a worthy male be eligible for to serve as a Scout Master........

that's right, in your mind and apparently many others here, he should be regarded as a pedophile because he admits same-sex attraction.

Despite his admission to ssa, he is Temple Worthy and otherwise a worthy Priesthood holder.

And if ssa males should be kept away from males,

Then heterosexual males should be kept away from females; thus raising the necessity for a Female Priesthood bearers.

 

This is not only false, but offensive.

 

And I suspect that you intended both.

[thesometimesaint]

 

And these "private organizations" are being sued persecuted and trampled upon for discriminating and setting their own rules.

 

Priest Who Married Same-Sex Partner Sues Church For Sexual Discrimination

 

Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2015/06/16/priest-who-married-same-sex-partner-sues-church-for-sexual-discrimination/#ixzz3gAM9aKSg

 

 

At best that is a private tort and not a governmental action on a public accommodation law.

[Gray]

Well, now you can!

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/explaining-religious-freedom-and-lgbt-rights

1. What examples do we have of the loss of such freedoms?

Examples include religious universities facing threats of losing their accreditation because the school’s religious beliefs run contrary to popular opinion. There is no right to accreditation, and private universities are not churches.  Some companies face legal consequences or boycotting because the owner guides the company using religious principles.  Companies are not churches. All Americans have the right to boycott any company for any reason. Business and community leaders have been bullied and forced to step down because of their support of traditional marriage. Religious people don't have the right to not experience backlash due to unpopular choices. Judges in California can no longer be members of the Boy Scouts of America because of the organization’s stance on gay leaders. The Boy Scouts are not a church. Many religious individuals are now being shamed and silenced because their beliefs are no longer popular or in accord with what is considered politically acceptable. Are you saying free speech should be suspended so religious people don't get their feelings hurt? None of this has the least bit to do with religious freedom.

 

http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/religious-freedom-and-fairness-for-all

 

We already have examples. Where same-sex marriage has been legalized in some states, for instance in Idaho and New Jersey, gay rights advocates have brought lawsuits and administrative proceedings in an attempt to force religious denominations to make their religious properties and facilities available to celebrate same-sex weddings.  The only cases where anything like that has been successful is where the church is partnering with the government to provide a public service, or if it's actually a business run by religious folks.

 

Further, according to the brief, if the Supreme Court also designates sexual orientation as a class deserving special protection, like race, then “religious believers could find their speech, association, and free-exercise rights diminished or denied in a variety of contexts, such as public education, employment, public accommodations, and professional certification.” None of this will affect churches. Relevance?

 

Such restrictions are already happening. California judges will soon be banned from joining the Boy Scouts or any other nonreligious youth group that espouses traditional morality. Again, the Boy Scouts are not a church. The accreditation of Gordon College is being challenged because its honor code prohibits “sexual relations outside of marriage and homosexual practice.” Gordon College is not a church. Colleges don't have a right to accreditation. A counseling student in Michigan was expelled from her program when she respectfully requested that a gay client be referred to one of numerous other counselors in the nearby area Assuming this is true, how is this related to religious freedom?. A pluralistic society that shows true respect and fairness for everyone would not compel or coerce these individuals and entities to betray their religious beliefs and conscience. What other laws do you think religious people should be exempt from following? It sounds like you're advocating for special privileges for religious people. 

Edited July 17, 2015 by Gray

[jwhitlock]

I was not intentionally misrepresenting what you said though I admit that I may have misunderstood.  I tried to re-state it very clearly in post #293 and you responded to that without correcting my misunderstanding.

 

I'm not sure how you would force religious organizations to put openly gay adults into leadership positions.  But, I think that if the BSA was to force units to register leaders who violate that organization's religious beliefs, that would definitely be a step too far for the BSA to make such a move.

 

So, rockpond, since you're a supporter of tonie's myopic rants, do you agree with his post #359 where he claims that most of us in the church view all gays as pedophiles?

[Gray]

So, rockpond, since you're a supporter of tonie's myopic rants, do you agree with his post #359 where he claims that most of us in the church view all gays as pedophiles?

 

That's not even close to what he said. Why the need to beat up a straw man? 

[Daniel2]

Are any of the following items a religious right?

 

The right to not allow black people into your restaurant if you have religious beliefs about that

The right not to be criticized by people who disagree with your religious views

The right for your church to get funding from private donors who don't want to give it to you based on your beliefs

The right to forbid Americans from marrying based on your religious beliefs

The right to forbid other independent religions or private groups from making rules you disagree with

 

ETA: Or how about the right to be exempt from lawsuits, be they legitimate or frivolous? 

 

Excellent post, Gray.

 

It speaks volumes to the truth of your point that no one is answering them.

 

Religious freedom is not a "get out of jail free" card one can invoke whenever an individual wishes to break a law of the United States of America.  Individuals must obey established law, regardless of their religion, and may seek redress from the government if they feel their religious freedoms are being denied them.  Even so, until they receive such redress, they are still obligated to follow the law, whether they disagree with it or not.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Daniel2

[rockpond]

So, rockpond, since you're a supporter of tonie's myopic rants, do you agree with his post #359 where he claims that most of us in the church view all gays as pedophiles?

 

For the most part I do agree with Tonie's observation in post #359.  Although, I would have preferred that he not use the term SSA as most gay people I know find that to be offensive.

[Daniel2]

Much as you want to believe it, freedom of religion is NOT a privilege. SSM is a privilege. Don't conflate the two.

 

jwhitlock, on 16 Jul 2015 - 11:02 AM, said:

I'll further clarify that SSM is a protected privilege, which puts it above the rights of others.

 

The courts seem to be taking the viewpoint that in any case involving the conflict of rights of two different groups, SSM as a protected privilege will be considered before the rights of others - even fundamental rights as stated in the Bill of Rights,

 

jwhitlock,

 

So far as the United States of America is concerned, while some may disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell, your assertions that ‘same sex marriage is a privilege, not a right’ or there’s no right to same sex marriage are simply wrong and demonstrably legally false. 

 

It is now a matter of settled law that the 14th Amendment grants same sex couples the same right to civilly marry in the United States of America that has previously been recognized for opposite sex couples. 

 

Specifically, the court declared:

 

The Fourteenth Amendment requires a State to license a marriage between two people of the same sex and to recognize a marriage between two people of the same sex when their marriage was lawfully licensed and performed out-of-State. Pp. 3–28. (pg. 1)

….

The right of same-sex couples to marry is also derived from the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection. (pg. 4)

….

The right to marry is a fundamental right inherent in the liberty of the person, and under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment couples of the same-sex may not be deprived of that right and that liberty. The Court now holds that same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry. No longer may this liberty be denied to them. Baker v. Nelson must be and now is overruled, and the State laws challenged by Petitioners in these cases are now held invalid to the extent they exclude same-sex couples from civil marriage on the same terms and conditions as opposite sex couples. (pgs. 22–23)

….

The Constitution, however, does not permit the State to bar same-sex couples from marriage on the same terms as accorded to couples of the opposite sex. (pg. 27)

….

The Court, in this decision, holds same-sex couples may exercise the fundamental right to marry in all States. It follows that the Court also must hold—and it now does hold—that there is no lawful basis for a State to refuse to recognize a lawful same-sex marriage performed in another State on the ground of its same-sex character.   [The petitioners’] plea is that they do respect [marriage], respect it so deeply that they seek to find its fulfillment for themselves… The Constitution grants them that right. (pg. 28)

 

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/14pdf/14-556_3204.pdf

 

In sum, this assertion that same sex couples have some "privilege”--not a fundamental right--to marry is rubbish. 

 

In the United States, those of us who are gay have the same legal, fundamental right to civilly marry that straight citizens have, and on the same terms.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Daniel2

[jwhitlock]

That's not even close to what he said. Why the need to beat up a straw man? 

 

Read for understanding instead of denial.