Examples Of Religious Freedom Being Trampled Or Threatened

[tonie]

Gray havent you realized how many experts on the gay agenda/gay juggernaut this board has.

And you are correct, the thread has been very much lacking of vialable examples.

Ohios civil rights law, would be a law too far. As it could be used (ultimately unsuccessfully) to abridge religious sermons. And by ultimately unsuccessful, the intitial court proceedings to final appeal and court if last resort resolution.

But so many of examples fail, because no rights were abridged nor were any religious rights threatened.

[rockpond]

I quoted Scouts for Equality as an -->example<-- of the pressure put on the BSA from a gay activist standpoint. Your statement of what I think is nothing more than your overactive imagination at work.

Insert whatever "gay activist" group you think is pressuring the BSA. My statement is still correct.

This vote by the BSA exec committee was not about pressure from gay rights groups, it was about money. The BSA wants money from organizations who increasingly don't want to give it to groups who discriminate against the LGBT community.

The BSA has every legal right to restrict members and leaders as they see fit (SCOTUS has even reaffirmed it). But they may have to financially support themselves without outside donations. Apparently they are unwilling to take that step.

[tagriffy]

You're missing the larger point. The BSA can do anything they want, and if they want to force religious organizations out by eliminating their moral standards and instead cater to gays, then they can do it - even though it would be stupid in the extreme.

 

The marginalization of religions is not just being done through "criticism". It's being done through legal and regulatory means. Freedom of religion is being eliminated where it is perceived to conflict with the new "morality". The situation with the BSA simply indicates that those attacking religious freedom to eliminate it are going to use discrimination as the legal means to force total compliance, including religious belief, with accepting homosexuality.

 

It's not "criticism". It's a full fledged attack aimed at eliminating religious freedom based on our new political correctness. Activists such as those in scouts for equality are not going to stop until they force - through any legal or regulatory means possible - churches to completely accept homosexuality.

 

That SSM supporters dismiss that as not being an attack on religious freedom is troubling.

 

I would say you're the one who is missing the larger point. Freedom of religion gives you the right to believe and exercise your faith. It does not give you the right to violate other people's rights. If you are violating someone's rights, you can expect they will use any legal means to remedy the situation. You don't have to accept homosexuality, but you do have to respect a homosexual person's rights. And if you won't respect their rights, then you deserve to be marginalized.

[tagriffy]

Yes, gay activists are forcing the BSA to change. They're doing it through charges of discrimination, which result in government agencies curtailing BSA activities. You also have, for instance, the California judicial system labeling the BSA as a discriminatory organization and requiring its judges to terminate any ties with the BSA or lose their seats.

 

Your post above is pretty disingenuous. 

 

That's because the BSA was a discriminatory organization. BSA v. Dale essentially classed the BSA as a private association free to choose its qualifications for membership. That doesn't mean anyone else has to do business with them.

[tagriffy]

There you go parroting the "discrimination" rationalization. In the case of what scouts for equality is doing, the word is being misapplied as justification to try to force religious groups to embrace homosexuality,

 

The fact is that the BSA policy change is an attempt at compromise. But that's not what gay activists want. They don't want compromise.

 

That's the whole point about what's interesting with the BSA situation. It is a clear indication that gay activists are not willing to live with any compromise at all, and are going to push "discrimination" as superseding religious freedom.

 

And they're going to define what "discrimination" means and then try to get the courts and government to enforce their definition.

 

That's also the main lesson with what happened in the SCOTUS decision.

 

It wasn't being misapplied at all. To discriminate against someone is to unjustly single them out for prejudicial treatment regardless of merit. That is exactly what was happening in the BSA with regard to LGBT persons.

 

You may well be right the activists didn't want a compromise and will continue fighting until the policy is applied across the organization. Just as surely there were people on the other side who didn't want to compromise and will fight to reverse the policy, or failing that, keep the compromise in place. At the end of the day, though, the BSA sets its own standards and it is up to both sides to do decide whether they are going to accept them.

[tagriffy]

Gates himself indicated that the BSA was changing because if increasing legal and regulatory pressure.

 

Characterizing this as if the BSA "just decided to change" is misrepresenting the situation. It's about pressure that gay activist groups like Scouts for Equality are exerting and that pressure uses "discrimination" as its cry, with all the legal and regulatory support that they can muster. They are indeed forcing change, and it's not just about "respect". If it was, I wouldn't (and don't) have a problem - because there would be mutual respect.

 

There isn't that mutual respect with Scouts for Equality and other groups looking to force not only the BSA, but their chartered religious organizations to change.

 

Once again, the BSA was still still free to go its own way if it wanted to. It is free to choose whom to accept or reject for membership. That does not mean others have to patronize it. And if they chose not to patronize it because of its discriminatory policy, that's their right. Again, you are confounding right with privilege.

[tagriffy]

What don't you understand about religious chartered BSA organizations also being affected by being denied public access?

 

What don't you understand about religious organizations not being required to be part of the BSA? What don't you understand about public access being a privilege, not a right?

[tagriffy]

Again, it's because you don't want to acknowledge any.

 

No, it's because there haven't been any examples of anyone's freedom of religion being violated. Lots of complaints about privileges, but no examples of any violations.

[jwhitlock]

I would say you're the one who is missing the larger point. Freedom of religion gives you the right to believe and exercise your faith. It does not give you the right to violate other people's rights. If you are violating someone's rights, you can expect they will use any legal means to remedy the situation. You don't have to accept homosexuality, but you do have to respect a homosexual person's rights. And if you won't respect their rights, then you deserve to be marginalized.

 

You're still missing the point. In defining and demanding their own "rights", gays are demanding that religious groups adjust their religious beliefs and practices to accommodate those "rights". The foundational rights of association and freedom of religious belief are being abridged by subjective claims of "discrimination", which specifically demands that religious groups adjust their policies, doctrines, practices and standards to accommodate homosexual behavior.

 

So whose rights are really being violated and abridged? Hint - it's not the steamroller for gay rights that's currently plowing through our society.

[jwhitlock]

No, it's because there haven't been any examples of anyone's freedom of religion being violated. Lots of complaints about privileges, but no examples of any violations.

 

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

[jwhitlock]

What don't you understand about religious organizations not being required to be part of the BSA? What don't you understand about public access being a privilege, not a right?

 

What don't you understand about public access being denied to individuals because of religious belief? What don't you understand about freedom of religion being a constitutionally protected right?

[jwhitlock]

Insert whatever "gay activist" group you think is pressuring the BSA. My statement is still correct.

This vote by the BSA exec committee was not about pressure from gay rights groups, it was about money. The BSA wants money from organizations who increasingly don't want to give it to groups who discriminate against the LGBT community.

The BSA has every legal right to restrict members and leaders as they see fit (SCOTUS has even reaffirmed it). But they may have to financially support themselves without outside donations. Apparently they are unwilling to take that step.

 

It's not about money. It's about political correctness and pressure from gay rights groups and government agencies.

 

The BSA knows very well that it stands to lose up to 70% of their religiously chartered units if they go to far in embracing homosexual behavior - and the significant amount of funding that comes with those units. That's not going to be made up by your corporate sponsors, much as you'd like to think so.

 

The BSA won't fold because corporate sponsors dry up. The BSA will fold because they lost sight of their original mission and decided that embracing trendy political correctness because of pressure was more acceptable than respecting their core demographic.

 

You do have an overactive imagination, don't you. And you did misrepresent what I said in your original post.

[jwhitlock]

It's probably more a result of varying perspectives on what is religious freedom and its limits. I imagine religious freedom will be better defined through the courts in the next few decades.

 

Religious freedom is already well defined. If the courts do anything, it will not be to "better" define it. It will be to limit it.

[Calm]

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

How do you define rights versus privilege? I've lived in a country where freedom of religion had not existed and some were attempting to revert it back (one man's political platform, for a time at least until his advisers convinced him otherwise, was for kicking out any nontraditional faiths...his choice of 3or4 managed to ignore some faiths that had been there for hundreds of years). If it is a right because the law gives it as a right, then why is marriage not a right if the law is what makes it supported by the goverment?

http://www.eastwestreport.org/articles/ew04304.htm

http://www.eastwestreport.org/articles/ew04303.htm

There are around 200,000 self identifying Jews in Russia as of 2010 and they've been there since probably the 7th century...but no freedom of religion for them if that candidate had come to power because they were brainwashing cultists foreignors.

Edited July 16, 2015 by calmoriah

[stemelbow]

The BSA knows very well that it stands to lose up to 70% of their religiously chartered units if they go to far in embracing homosexual behavior -

I think BSA and most other people realize it's not really about embracing or not embracing homosexual behavior (particularly since homosexual behavior mimics, in most cases, the behavior of everyone else). I think the BSA, to give them credit, realizes it's far more about embracing individual people no matter how diverse they are.

[Gray]

What don't you understand about religious chartered BSA organizations also being affected by being denied public access?

 

Not sure exactly what you're referring to, but BSA groups (even those affiliated with a particular congregation) are not religions. 

[Gray]

Again, it's because you don't want to acknowledge any.

 

Well, try me. Show me a good one. 

[Gray]

Any accusation of "discrimination" against any organization, including churches, is now used to bring the force of judicial and regulatory review of that organization. It doesn't matter if there's no real evidence of discrimination; it becomes their job to find something and punish the accused.

 

Churches remain absolutely free to discriminate against anyone they choose. No one can stop them. 

 

I didn't claim I spoke for gay groups. However, I do quote what they've said. Perhaps it would behoove you to go back and read how Scouts for Equality views religious organizations as "discriminatory".

 

You didn't quote anything from any specific person or group. 

 

No one said there was a "monolithic" group of gay activists out there. That's just a red herring on your part.

 

The definition of "discrimination" has been changed by gay activists to mean anyone or any group or any church that won't embrace homosexuality and SSM with open arms. That's a dishonest definition that, unfortunately, is being used to infringe upon religious freedom.

 

Here's what the word means:

 

1. Discrimination is treatment or consideration of, or making a distinction in favor of or against, a person or thing based on the group, class, or category to which that person or thing belongs rather than on individual merit.

 

[Gray]

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

 

Both are rights. But you seem to think religious people have a right to violate other Americans' rights. They don't.

[Kenngo1969]

Apologies if this has already been posted.  After all, it's not like the thread's originator works for the Deseret News or anything.

 

http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865632331/Religious-freedom-experts-worry-about-their-First-Amendment-rights-after-marriage-ruling.html

[Analytics]

jwhitlock, on 15 Jul 2015 - 5:26 PM, said:

I didn't claim I spoke for gay groups. However, I do quote what they've said. Perhaps it would behoove you to go back and read how Scouts for Equality views religious organizations as "discriminatory".

 

You didn't quote anything from any specific person or group. 

 

At some point, he did quote something from the group "Scouts for Equality."  "Scouts for Equality" is a group lead by eagle scouts who want the BSA to have a non-discriminatory policy that extends to sexual orientation.  If Scouts for Equality got absolutely  everything they wanted (and the LDS Church didn't drop out of scouting), then per BSA policy the LDS bishops who choose scout masters wouldn't be allowed to take sexual orientation into account when choosing scout masters.  They would still be free to continue to otherwise use their discretion.

It seems to me that the BSA is totally free to choose their policies on this matter without affecting in the least the religious freedom of groups that choose or don't choose to associate with them.

[Gray]

At some point, he did quote something from the group "Scouts for Equality."  "Scouts for Equality" is a group lead by eagle scouts who want the BSA to have a non-discriminatory policy that extends to sexual orientation.  If Scouts for Equality got absolutely  everything they wanted (and the LDS Church didn't drop out of scouting), then per BSA policy the LDS bishops who choose scout masters wouldn't be allowed to take sexual orientation into account when choosing scout masters.  They would still be free to continue to otherwise use their discretion.

It seems to me that the BSA is totally free to choose their policies on this matter without affecting in the least the religious freedom of groups that choose or don't choose to associate with them.

 

I didn't see that, thanks

[jwhitlock]

How do you define rights versus privilege? I've lived in a country where freedom of religion had not existed and some were attempting to revert it back (one man's political platform, for a time at least until his advisers convinced him otherwise, was for kicking out any nontraditional faiths...his choice of 3or4 managed to ignore some faiths that had been there for hundreds of years). If it is a right because the law gives it as a right, then why is marriage not a right if the law is what makes it supported by the goverment?

http://www.eastwestreport.org/articles/ew04304.htm

http://www.eastwestreport.org/articles/ew04303.htm

There are around 200,000 self identifying Jews in Russia as of 2010 and they've been there since probably the 7th century...but no freedom of religion for them if that candidate had come to power because they were brainwashing cultists foreignors.

 

My statement comes because there are those on this thread that are treating freedom of religion as a privilege that can be overridden by gay "rights".

[rockpond]

It's not about money. It's about political correctness and pressure from gay rights groups and government agencies.

 

The BSA knows very well that it stands to lose up to 70% of their religiously chartered units if they go to far in embracing homosexual behavior - and the significant amount of funding that comes with those units. That's not going to be made up by your corporate sponsors, much as you'd like to think so.

 

The BSA won't fold because corporate sponsors dry up. The BSA will fold because they lost sight of their original mission and decided that embracing trendy political correctness because of pressure was more acceptable than respecting their core demographic.

 

You do have an overactive imagination, don't you. And you did misrepresent what I said in your original post.

 

If the fear is in losing up to 70% of their religiously chartered units & their funding, then why vote the way they did?  What is this pressure from outside groups that overrides the ongoing concern of the organization?

[jwhitlock]

I think BSA and most other people realize it's not really about embracing or not embracing homosexual behavior (particularly since homosexual behavior mimics, in most cases, the behavior of everyone else). I think the BSA, to give them credit, realizes it's far more about embracing individual people no matter how diverse they are.

 

Which is why if the BSA changes its policy any further than it has at this point, it will send a clear message that religious belief is no longer welcome in the organization.