Examples Of Religious Freedom Being Trampled Or Threatened

[jwhitlock]

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.

 

Thanks for the insight into your perspective. As long as he's slamming SSM opponents, you don't particularly care how he does it.

[jwhitlock]

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.

 

Actually, it speaks volumes to the fact that no one saw the need to respond to the clearly false strawmen he used.

[jwhitlock]

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:

 

 

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.

 

Do you have some kind of false impression that I consider our legal system to be composed solely of sound, well thought out rulings that need to be respected no matter what we think about them?

 

I work in the real world. I understand what is "legal" and I'm content to let those who live in the alternate reality of the legal system to play their games. I don't have to respect those games.

 

You keep coming back to the fact that the legal gods have spoken, as if that should end all discussion on it. You certainly weren't playing that tune when sodomy laws were being upheld by the courts.

 

Feel free to continue with the world to justify your activities based on the legal and political support you get. I'll continue to understand what those actions really are, based on their real effect in the real world.

[Daniel2]

You make it sound like gay people are forcing BSA to do something. BSA is making these changes voluntarily. 

 

Another great post, Gray. 

 

jwhitlock and others seem to be ignoring the fact that BSA already won the ability to discriminate in their ranks at SCOTUS, and Obergefell (which is solely about the right to marry) didn't erase BSA vs. Dale. 

 

And most seem to blame gay groups for causing BSA to change, while ignoring the reality that BSA, themselves--which currently has NO gay leaders on the inside--are choosing to make this change. 

 

The vast majority of any internal or external pressure the BSA is experiencing is coming from straight allies (unless one believes that the gay 3% of the population has that much power and influence, in and of themselves, without any straight input...). 

 

BSA is changing because the majority of straight individuals in America is no longer comfortable with this type of private discrimination.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Daniel2

[thesometimesaint]

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

[tonie]

This is not only false, but offensive.

And I suspect that you intended both.

Are you willing to explain why a worthy male who admits ssa should not be called as a Scout Leader.

[CV75]

None of this will affect churches. Relevance?

Again, the Boy Scouts are not a church.

Gordon College is not a church.

Why on earth would you limit the exercise of religious freedom to church organizations?

[jwhitlock]

Are you willing to explain why a worthy male who admits ssa should not be called as a Scout Leader.

 

Are you willing to quit being offensive in your posts? That may be popular with some who are MINO, but your self-congratulatory rants and offensive characterizations of those who don't agree with you are pretty much a turn-off to normal people.

 

It's not particularly productive responding to you otherwise.

[jwhitlock]

Another grat post, Gray.  jwhitlock and others seem to be ignoring the fact that BSA already won the ability to discriminate in their ranks at SCOTUS, and Obergefell (which is solely about the right to marry) didn't erase BSA vs. Dale.  And most seem to blame gay groups for causing BSA to change, while ignoring the reality that BSA, themselves--which currently has NO gay leaders on the inside, are choosing to make this change.  The vast majority of any internal OR external pressure the BSA is experiencing is coming from straight allies (unless one believes that the gay 3% of the population has that much power and influence, in and of themselves, without any straight input...).  BSA is changing because the majority of straight individuals in America is no longer comfortable with this type of private discrimination.

 

Not only do I disagree with this characterization of the situation, but it also ignores a great deal of what has been said on this thread concerning the BSA situation and how any further changes in its policy can only be construed at pandering to political correctness at the expense of its foundational religious demographic.

[california boy]

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.

I love these kinds of posts. They are so wacky that it only destroys any credibility that the religious radicals have. Thanks for posting

You do realize that gay people come from families? They have parents and siblings just like straight children. If they totally destroy families then where will they come from? What motivates them to want to destroy families. Can you give me some insight into how you came up with this idea? Because I have read a lot about one of the main reasons gays fight for marriage is to create their families with the same legal protection your family enjoys

And if you could, tell me about how gays plan to recruit in grammar school? Exactly how will they be taking children's innocence away?

Give us more. I love your posts

[Daniel2]

Do you have some kind of false impression that I consider our legal system to be composed solely of sound, well thought out rulings that need to be respected no matter what we think about them?

I certainly don't have any kind of "false impression" that you "consdier our legal system to be composed solely of sound, well thought out rulings," which is exactly why I prefaced my last post with, "while some [i was including you, here, in case that wasn't clear to you] may disagree with the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell..."

While you may not "respect" the ruling, at a minimum you are legally required to comply with the reality of the ruling, unless and until you seek redress and are granted relief from abiding by it.

I work in the real world. I understand what is "legal" and I'm content to let those who live in the alternate reality of the legal system to play their games. I don't have to respect those games.

Again, you don't have to "respect" the ruling, but you're in denial if you believe you aren't living in the same "reality of the legal system," or that the rest of us are living in some "aternate reality." Attempt to break any law, and you will discover you are very much subject to the same legal reality as the rest of us in the United States.

(I am chuckling at the idea that some defendant could attempt to get away with murder by telling a judge and jury that he lives in 'an alternate reality of the legal system' and he refuses 'to play their games.' Such an individual would still be subject to the same laws as everyone else, regardless of his own views or lack of respect).

You keep coming back to the fact that the legal gods have spoken, as if that should end all discussion on it.

No, I have said nothing of the kind, and if you believe I have, you haven't been paying attention.

In reference to the legal reality since Obergefell, I have specified that I am clearly speaking of the legal reality today regarding the right to marry. I also acknowledged that some may disagree with the decisions, but that doesn't change the legal reality. If your side eventually argues their case enough and another SCOTUS ruling overturns Obergefell, then the legal reality would also change and same sex couples would no longer have the legal right to marry.

As much as conservatives keep wanting to play the victim card by claiming gay advocates "want to silence the debate," I NEVER have said that "all discussion on it should end.' In fact, I've consistently said just the opposite. I encourage ongoing discussion on issues like these, because these discussions continue to benefit LGBT equality. An ever-increasing majoirty of people contines to see the absurdity of arguements like yours. This thread is an excellent demonstration of what I'm talking about, and I hope the discussion continues.

You certainly weren't playing that tune when sodomy laws were being upheld by the courts.

That's because back then, I was on your side. I've since changed my views.

But even given my views today, it's entirely consistent to say that prior to Lawrence, gays and lesbians did NOT have a right to engage in same-sex sexual activities, because that right hadn't yet been recognized and they were being legally prosecuted for engaging in homosexual behavior.

Feel free to continue with the world to justify your activities based on the legal and political support you get. I'll continue to understand what those actions really are, based on their real effect in the real world.

I don't "justify my activities based on the legal and political support" I get. I made peace with the justifications for "my activities" long before we had legal and political support. I seek equal legal and political protections for my marriage and family because of the principles of equality and specifically equal protection found in our shared Constitution, because, as the court said in their ruling,

The Constitution promises liberty to all within its reach, a liberty that includes certain specific rights that allow persons, within a lawful realm, to define and express their identity. The petitioners in these cases seek to find that liberty by marrying someone of the same sex and having their marriages deemed lawful on the same terms and conditions as marriages between persons of the opposite sex.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Daniel2

[Gray]

Why on earth would you limit the exercise of religious freedom to church organizations?

 

Because private clubs, schools and businesses don't have the same broad protections as churches (although private groups and schools have more leeway to discriminate than businesses). We are discussing religious freedom, right?

Edited July 17, 2015 by Gray

[Gray]

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.

 

Thanks Daniel.

 

Some people seem to be advocating that merely holding a religious belief about something should entitle you to exemption from a number of laws that other people have to follow. 

Edited July 17, 2015 by Gray

[Gray]

Read for understanding instead of denial.

 

He said that you and many others here believe that way. He never said "most in the church" feel that way. That was your addition. You seem to determined to take maximum offense, even if it requires responding to things not said to you by anyone. It seems counter productive. 

 

Just a thought. 

Edited July 17, 2015 by Gray

[TheSkepticChristian]

We believe in being subject to kings, presidents, rulers, and magistrates, in obeying, honoring, and sustaining the law.

 

but not in all circumstances, and there is a war on secularism by religious lawmakers. 

 

 

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

 

"In God we Trust"  "one nation under God" and a Christian flag in a police station is simply unfair to Hindus, Jehovah's Witnesses, Buddhists, Atheists. 

 

Like I said, if it changed to "one nation under Lord Brahma" most Christians would be furious. 

 

So there is a truly a war on religion, but it comes from Evangelical Christians. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited July 17, 2015 by TheSkepticChristian

[Daniel2]

Not only do I disagree with this characterization of the situation, but it also ignores a great deal of what has been said on this thread concerning the BSA situation and how any further changes in its policy can only be construed at pandering to political correctness at the expense of its foundational religious demographic.

So, you think that the gay 3% of the population is single-handedly (without any straight allies support) causing BSA to change...?

And that Scouts for Equality wields THAT much power and influence...??

What activities, specifically, has SFE taken that has caused such a tectonic shift? (Incidently, Zach Wahls is a straight ally, himself... which further underscores my point that straight allies are behind the internal pressure to change).

Edited July 17, 2015 by Daniel2

[KevinG]

So, you think that the gay 3% of the population is single-handedly (without any straight allies support) causing BSA to change...? 

 

And that Scouts for Equality wealds THAT much power and influence...??

 

With the threat of lawfare against the Scouts, that 3% + allies in National leadership positions does wield significant influence that is disproportionate to the general membership.  They are moving faster and further than the general membership desired, even according to their own polls and earlier decisions.

 

I believe that is one of the difficulties in seeing this change through, and supported.  The BSA lost a lot of organizational and individual sponsorship that has not been replaced in any significant fashion by liberalizing membership policies.  By pressuring the organization to fundamentally change to accommodate a small minority the net effect is the short term shrinking of the organization.  Long term I'm not sure what will happen.

 

Those are just the facts, regardless of what side of the gay scouter issue you fall on.  The BSA has sacrificed a large group of supporters who can no longer identify with their values and policies, in order to accommodate a smaller group that currently does not replace those that were lost.

 

I see a similar dynamic in NASCAR asking fans to take down the confederate battle emblem.  They are alienating a large part of the customer base, to appease those who probably won't come to their events even if the confederate battle emblem is banned.  Regardless of my opinion on the Confederate battle emblem, the reality is they will not see a number of former customers back, and they will not replace those numbers with new customers based on that one action alone.

[cinepro]

You answered your own question. Anyone in an LDS ward, even a non-member, could request to be an assistant scoutmaster. That's church policy. It wouldn't take long to set it up, either.

 

It absolutely could happen.

 

What would be wrong with having an openly gay Assistant Scoutmaster in an LDS troop?  Why would anyone object?  As long as they hold to the ideals and standards of the Church and the Scouting program (as is expected of all leaders, even non-LDS ones), who cares?  And if they don't follow the program, then they can be removed. 

 

I'm an employer, and I'm not allowed to discriminate against gay people, but I can still fire them if they perform poorly or commit a fire-able offense.  This doesn't mean that gay people can demand to be Scout leaders, and then do whatever they want with impunity. 

 

Frankly, I think you've created a world of paranoid delusion around this. 

Edited July 17, 2015 by cinepro

[tonie]

Are you willing to quit being offensive in your posts? That may be popular with some who are MINO, but your self-congratulatory rants and offensive characterizations of those who don't agree with you are pretty much a turn-off to normal people.

It's not particularly productive responding to you otherwise.

The Church publicly stated worthy individuals can be extended callings, so why shouldnt the male in your example be a Scout Leader.

This or other discussion devolved statistics and stereotypes.

Edited July 17, 2015 by tonie

[california boy]

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.

Like you, I xm also encouraged by the church supporting equality for gays in employment sad housing. I was also very touched with the churches donation to pride to assist youth in need of care. I hope these kinds of actions continue. It has already begun to heal some very raw feelings against the church

But I am going to disagree with your position on discrimination in the public sector. I think it is both morally and legally wrong. I also think it is against the teachings of Christ. I think the vast majority of Americans abhore discriminates If the church or religion in general push for the right to discriminate based on religious belief or any other belief Then it will only turn the public further against religion. They may win a battle but they won't win the war. Discrimination is not an American value. Most, even on this board don't think baking a cake is a violation of religious belief

[california boy]

Duplicate

Edited July 17, 2015 by california boy

[Daniel2]

With the threat of lawfare against the Scouts, that 3% + allies in National leadership positions does wield significant influence that is disproportionate to the general membership.  They are moving faster and further than the general membership desired, even according to their own polls and earlier decisions.

 

 

BSA already won its right to discriminate as a private organization at the highest court of the land, so any other lawsuits would likely be thrown out at a very low level.  Decades after the Civil Rights act and the accompanying progress advancing racial equality, the KKK still gets to set their own membership rules and regulations, and were never penalized by the government to compromise their values.

 

That being said, who out there is threatening additional lawsuits?  CFR for the lawsuits or any credible threats of lawsuits, please.  I really haven't heard of any, and I'm curious to see if there's any substance behind this idea that there's some huge impending lawsuit(s) threatening the BSA....

Edited July 17, 2015 by Daniel2

[rockpond]

Thanks for the insight into your perspective. As long as he's slamming SSM opponents, you don't particularly care how he does it.

 

Actually, I did care how he did it.  I told you I disagreed with his use of an offensive name for gay people.

 

I didn't read it as a slam.  It seemed like an accurate observation.  What do you think was incorrect about it?

[KevinG]

BSA already won its right to discriminate as a private organization at the highest court of the land, so any other lawsuits would likely be thrown out at a very low level.

 

That being said, who out there is threatening additional lawsuits?  CFR for the lawsuits or any credible threats of lawsuits, please.  I really haven't heard of any, and I'm curious to see if there's any substance behind this idea that there's some huge impending lawsuit(s) threatening the BSA....

 

Former Eagle Scout Pascal Tessier, hired by a New York scouting group, has retained lawyer David Boies in case there are objections to his employment.

[thesometimesaint]

 

but not in all circumstances, and there is a war on secularism by religious lawmakers. 

 

 

 

"In God we Trust"  "one nation under God" and a Christian flag in a police station is simply unfair to Hindus, Jehovah's Witnesses, Buddhists, Atheists. 

 

Like I said, if it changed to "one nation under Lord Brahma" most Christians would be furious. 

 

So there is a truly a war on religion, but it comes from Evangelical Christians. 

 

 

Any belief can be stretched to the breaking point. IE; All Christians believe in human sacrifice, albeit the only one that matters to the near universal majority of them is the one that happened two thousand years ago.

 

IMNTBHO In the US there are only two flags that should fly over ANY governmental property or building The American Flag, and if it is a State property or building the flag of that State, with the American Flag always on top.

 

Personally I would change the "In God We Trust" to "In God We Trust All Others Pay Cash".  

 

I don't have a problem with the EV's. They can pray to any God they want, worship any God they want, fly any flag they want over their own homes, and church buildings they want, as long as they allow me the same right.