Examples Of Religious Freedom Being Trampled Or Threatened

[Analytics]

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 did a quick Google search to find details about the "organizational and individual sponsorship" you say the BSA lost over this.  Ironically, the first article that came up was a couple years old and had the opposite message.  It described how UPS, the United Way, the Merck Company Foundation, and the Intel Foundation all stopped supporting scouting because they discriminated against gays.  http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/01/boy-scouts-verizon-protest-lgbt

[Zakuska]

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

 

The OP is looking for examples.... not some grand sweeping govermental action...

 

Farm couple sued for discrimination say they were 'set up'

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/06/farm_couple_sued_for_discrimination_say_they_were_set_up_.html#ixzz3gAtuJxMh 

 

A family who own a farm in upstate New York that hosts weddings on occassion was successfully sued by a lesbian couple when the owners said that their Christian beliefs would be violated if they hosted a ceremony for that particular couple.

 

The court awarded the plaintiffs $3,000 for "pain and suffering."  But the farm couple – Cynthia and Robert Gifford – say that the lesbians recorded their conversation, demonstrating that they knew in advance that their request to have the farm host the wedding would be turned down.

How can there be "pain and suffering" if the plaintiffs knew full well the outcome of their request?

 

Good question!??

 

 

 

 

In a brief filed Thursday, attorneys for Cynthia and Robert Gifford argue that the state’s ruling violates the First Amendment, but they also criticize the same-sex couple for what they describe as an “orchestrated set-up.”

“The evidence, however, indicates that Respondents were aware of the Giffords’ beliefs and chose specifically to call and record Mrs. Gifford for the purposes of documenting the Giffords’ policy,” said the brief filed by attorneys with Alliance Defending Freedom.

“Such an orchestrated set-up can hardly form the basis for ‘mental anguish’ and suffering,” said the brief, which was submitted to the New York Supreme Court.

 

The argument illustrates a common complaint among Christian business owners: They are deliberately sought out by gay couples even though most photographers, bakers and florists would be happy to provide services for same-sex weddings.

 

“The gay community is constantly attacking the church as if the church were singling them out. However, it is the other way around; the gay community is singling out the church,” Patricia L. ****son said in a Nov. 2 article in American Thinker. “How else do you explain gay couples running straight to Christian business owners as soon as their state lifts the ban on same-sex marriage?”

Gay couples differ on the matter. Some say they would avoid such businesses, and others appear to seek them out in an effort to combat discrimination.

 

An attorney for the Giffords said it’s clear that some cases are “driven by activism.”

 

“I think in many of these cases, they know or at least suspect that these are folks with religious objections,” said Alliance Defending Freedom senior counsel Byron Babione. “We think that’s the case here, and we think that’s an uncontested fact.”

 

He argued that the decision of Ms. McCarthy and Ms. Erwin, who took the McCarthy name when they married, to contact and record the Giffords knowing they would object to hosting the ceremony is relevant because “it’s important for the court to understand the context.”

 

Christian based businesses are being targeted by the LGBT to extort money.

 

Something they claimed would NEEEVER happen.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Zakuska

[CV75]

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?

 

"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. 

[KevinG]

 

I did a quick Google search to find details about the "organizational and individual sponsorship" you say the BSA lost over this.  Ironically, the first article that came up was a couple years old and had the opposite message.  It described how UPS, the United Way, the Merck Company Foundation, and the Intel Foundation all stopped supporting scouting because they discriminated against gays.  http://www.motherjones.com/mojo/2013/01/boy-scouts-verizon-protest-lgbt

 

Those are the big financial donors that the Scout Executives deal with.  Most of them have not climbed back on board with the BSA to start donating again since changes were made.  

 

On the ground where most of the monetary and more importantly material and volunteer support has been slashed.  A large number of church sponsors here in the South have stopped supporting Scout units and have moved to other organizations for their youth like Heritage Scouts.    Many of our local Council's long time leaders hung up their uniform and stopped supporting the organization.

 

I am not in agreement with them, and I don't see the Scouts being harmed long term by being more inclusive.  But the way this was done (essentially pressure from corporations and organizations that were unaffiliated or loosely affiliated with Scouts) left a bad taste in a lot of volunteer Scouter's mouths.  And it is the volunteers who run the Scouts.  Donations are nice, but they do not lead, teach and raise boys into men.

[TheSkepticChristian]

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

 

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.

 

It is simply unfair to Buddhists, Atheists, Hindus, Jehovah's Witnesses.

 

If it changed to "one nation under Lord Brahma" or "in Lord Brahma we trust" many Christians would be furious. 

 

and what if the Christian Flag in a police station was replaced by a Satanic Flag? Many would be furious too. 

 

and what about Blue Laws in the USA? 

 

and what about Eutanasia ? It is illegal in most states and countries because the Bible says it is a sin. 

 

[thesometimesaint]

The OP is looking for examples.... not some grand sweeping govermental action...

 

Farm couple sued for discrimination say they were 'set up'

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/06/farm_couple_sued_for_discrimination_say_they_were_set_up_.html#ixzz3gAtuJxMh 

 

 

 

Good question!??

 

 

You can sue almost almost anyone for any reason here in the US. They are still private torts. If it is successful is another question far beyond my ability to answer.

 

As to it being a setup it probably was. But so was Loving v Virginia.

[Zakuska]

You can sue almost almost anyone for any reason here in the US. They are still private torts. If it is successful is another question far beyond my ability to answer.

 

As to it being a setup it probably was. But so was Loving v Virginia.

 

And that makes it right?

 

One of the Arguments being peddled around by the snake-oil-salesmen LGBT during California's Prop. 8... When Religious People voiced concerns that stuff like this would happen.  They were told and assured it never would... yet we see that was a lie. Here it is happening almost every day a new instance of Religious People being forced against their conscience. Lesbians and Gays specificaly targeting... calling around, recording phone calls, until they find a backery or venue to object on religious grounds so they can pay for their weddings.

 

Note: This thread is to document each of those "individual" torts, where religious freedoms are co-opted.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Zakuska

[CV75]

It is simply unfair

[Zakuska]

Aother example from the UK:

 

Gay Couple Is Suing To Force A Church To Hold Their Wedding

Read more at http://conservativebyte.com/2015/06/gay-couple-is-suing-to-force-a-church-to-hold-their-wedding/

 

The radical gay agenda will use this to force many conservative churches to shut their doors.
Check it out:

A wealthy gay couple has decided to launch a lawsuit to force their church to perform their wedding. The Drewitt-Barlows, a millionaire couple from the U.K, stated, “We’ve launched a challenge to the government’s decision to allow some religious groups to opt out of marrying same-sex couples.”

Both attend St. John the Baptist church, a branch of the Church of England, and have been in a civil partnership since 2006.

Barrie Drewitt-Barlow said that he and his partner Tony, “feel we have the right as parishioners in our village to utilize the church we attend to get married.

“It is no reflection on our local church, who have been nothing but supportive towards us. We understand their hands are tied by a higher group of people within the church.”

Read more at http://conservativebyte.com/2015/06/gay-couple-is-suing-to-force-a-church-to-hold-their-wedding/

[thesometimesaint]

And that makes it right?

 

One of the Arguments being peddled around by the snake-oil-salesmen LGBT during California's Prop. 8... When Religious People voiced concerns that stuff like this would happen.  They were told and assured it never would... yet we see that was a lie. Here it is happening almost every day a new instance of Religious People being forced.

 

I said nothing about right or wrong. If I commit a civil(Not criminal) wrong against you what legal recourse should you have to redress your grievance?

 

But the question remains how do we curtain your right to practice your religion as you please without infringing on the rights of others to practice their religion as they please?

 

Prop 8 specifically redefined legal marriage as only between a man and a woman when California state law already provided for all the same rights, duties, privileges, and responsibilities to couples regardless of sexual orientation.

[Gray]

The OP is looking for examples.... not some grand sweeping govermental action...

 

Farm couple sued for discrimination say they were 'set up'

Read more: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2015/06/farm_couple_sued_for_discrimination_say_they_were_set_up_.html#ixzz3gAtuJxMh 

 

 

 

Good question!??

 

 

 

 

 

Christian based businesses are being targeted by the LGBT to extort money.

 

Something they claimed would NEEEVER happen.

 

Who promised that Christian business owners would never be sued if they broke the law? 

[Gray]

And that makes it right?

 

One of the Arguments being peddled around by the snake-oil-salesmen LGBT during California's Prop. 8... When Religious People voiced concerns that stuff like this would happen.  They were told and assured it never would... yet we see that was a lie. Here it is happening almost every day a new instance of Religious People being forced against their conscience. Lesbians and Gays specificaly targeting... calling around, recording phone calls, until they find a backery or venue to object on religious grounds so they can pay for their weddings.

 

Note: This thread is to document each of those "individual" torts, where religious freedoms are co-opted.

 

CFR please, on the section I colored green. 

 

And are you under the impression that religious people have blanket immunity from lawsuits? What other special privileges should religious folks get? Free butlers provided by the government? First in line for movie tickets?

Edited July 17, 2015 by Gray

[Gray]

Aother example from the UK:

 

Gay Couple Is Suing To Force A Church To Hold Their Wedding

Read more at http://conservativebyte.com/2015/06/gay-couple-is-suing-to-force-a-church-to-hold-their-wedding/

 

 

Read more at http://conservativebyte.com/2015/06/gay-couple-is-suing-to-force-a-church-to-hold-their-wedding/

 

If you want to talk about UK law, you might start a new thread 

Edited July 17, 2015 by Gray

[TheSkepticChristian]

 

 

I am a Christian. Are Atheists trying to put "in no God we Trust" in the dollar bill? Are Hindus trying to put "one nation under Lord Brahma"? 

Are Jehovah's Witnesses trying to put, "In Jehovah we trust"? 

 

It is simply not fair to others. Opinions are fine, it is a free country. 

[jwhitlock]

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.

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).

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.

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.

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.

 

 

A few observations:

 

Instead of using murder to support your argument, it would be better to use something more applicable to what we're talking about here. I am fully aware that the legal system has the power to force compliance with whatever it wants. I simply do not accept it as right. I view it as an abuse of power.

 

There is very little in our legal system that has to do with the Constitution anymore. We have a legal and political system that has taken over power in this country, and the Constitution and the People are being ignored.

 

What you're talking about is rights and privileges under our legal system which has usurped the Constitutional authority of the People. It really has nothing to do with what the Constitution or the Bill of Rights or the 14th amendment really say. What we have now is judges and politicians who interpret things under the "authority" of their legal system and then pass them off in the guise of "Constitutional guarantees" - which they really have nothing to do with.

 

Of course, this has been going on for quite some time in different guises. Typically the legal system institutes preferences as part of the "correction", which is what is happening now with gay rights. These are typically destructive and polarizing and generally negative in their effect. But the legal system continues to use them anyway.

 

There are gay activists out there who want to silence the debate. It's fascinating to read about Massachusetts and how things have worked out there since gay marriage was legalized. It's not been a resounding success.

 

So again, whether something is legal doesn't make it right. Just because the legal system is redefining religious rights to be subject to discrimination litmus tests doesn't mean that we aren't losing religious freedoms. It's pretty clear that we are losing them.

[tonie]

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?

As you stated "read for understanding". I stated "many here", this board is not the Church. Individuals in this discussion or similiar recent discussions have promoted statistics to exclude individuals from Scout postions.

Edited July 17, 2015 by tonie

[Zakuska]

CFR please, on the section I colored green. 

 

And are you under the impression that religious people have blanket immunity from lawsuits? What other special privileges should religious folks get? Free butlers provided by the government? First in line for movie tickets?

 

CFR please, on the section I colored green. 

 

And are you under the impression that religious people have blanket immunity from lawsuits? What other special privileges should religious folks get? Free butlers provided by the government? First in line for movie tickets?

CFR?  That would be one of the longest running threads of this boards previous encarnation. The Prop 8 thread.  It was all over that thread by proponents of Prop. 8.

 

People voicing concerns were laughed to scorn.

 

Im not under any impression at all. I am concerned that Christians are being forced out of the public square because they refuse to kow-tow to the 3% minority.

[Zakuska]

If you want to talk about UK law, you might start a new thread 

 

No need to start a new thread because the OP does not restrict "the law" to the USA. It's looking for Global examples since the LGBT is a Global Movement.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Zakuska

[KevinG]

Go to any gay rights thread from before 2014 and search slippery slope.  That is probably the best way to unearth old discussions where people concerned about churches getting sued to perform same sex marriages were scoffed at.

[Zakuska]

Candadian Example:

 

CANADIAN CATHOLIC CHURCH SUED FOR NOT LETTING BOY USE GIRL’S BATHROOM

A Canadian mom is dragging the Catholic Church before the Alberta Human Rights Commission because the Catholic school district said her son had to use the boy’s bathroom. The woman’s son thinks he is a girl and the mother goes along with it.

 

According to CBC News, “The parents knew from the beginning that something was different about their child, but last September, the youngster made it clear.”

The seven-year-old boy said, “I just told my mom that I felt like a girl.”

The mother said that was when she knew her boy “was a girl who had a penis.” Apparently the boy told his parents that he had a “girl’s heart and a girl’s brain.”

http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/05/15/canadian-catholic-church-sued-for-not-letting-boy-use-girls-bathroom/

Edited July 17, 2015 by Zakuska

[jwhitlock]

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

 

The reason that I think that discrimination should be eliminated from the debate is that it is purely subjective. We all discriminate every day. It's entrenched in society and it's absolutely necessary so that society can function.

 

We don't let children drive. That's discrimination.

We don't let men use a women's restroom when there are women using it. That's discrimination.

We don't let people under the age of 14 in most states marry. That's discrimination.

We don't let Mormons baptize people into the Methodist faith. That's discrimination.

We don't let white actors play the role of Martin Luther King in a movie. That's discrimination.

 

The list goes on forever. To say that we, as a society, need to eliminate discrimination is just false. The term needs to be done away with so that it can't be a subjective catch-all for forcing an agenda on individuals or groups.

 

Religious groups need to have the assurance that they can set their own appropriate rules for belief and practice without having subjective discrimination charges leveled at them.

 

The church has drawn its line with the BSA. According to their statement, BSA policy MUST not infringe on the ability of religious chartering organizations to run their troops with whoever they want. The arrangement the BSA has had with those groups has worked just fine for decades; now it's being mislabeled as discrimination. There is nothing inherently wrong with how religious chartering organizations run their troops. Changing that because of subjective discrimination charges is not going to reflect badly on churches, but it will make more people leery of those claiming discrimination.

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

I am a Christian. Are Atheists trying to put "in no God we Trust" in the dollar bill? Are Hindus trying to put "one nation under Lord Brahma"? 

Are Jehovah's Witnesses trying to put, "In Jehovah we trust"? 

 

It is simply not fair to others. Opinions are fine, it is a free country. 

It is freedom of religion not freedom from religion. Congress shall make no laws.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Mola Ram Suda Ram]

No need to start a new thread because the OP does not restrict "the law" to the USA. It's looking for Global examples since the LGBT is a Global Movement.

That is just Gray deflecting.

Edited July 17, 2015 by Mola Ram Suda Ram

[Gray]

CFR?  That would be one of the longest running threads of this boards previous encarnation. The Prop 8 thread.  It was all over that thread by proponents of Prop. 8.

 

People voicing concerns were laughed to scorn.

 

Im not under any impression at all. I am concerned that Christians are being forced out of the public square because they refuse to kow-tow to the 3% minority.

 

I don't recall anyone promising that Christian who opposed gay marriage could break the law with impunity. What you might be remembering is the pro-gay marriage people saying that churches won't be forced to recognize or perform gay marriage. Which is still the case and will continue to be the case. 

 

Who is forcing Christians out of the "public square"? What do you mean by public square? 

[Gray]

No need to start a new thread because the OP does not restrict "the law" to the USA. It's looking for Global examples since the LGBT is a Global Movement.

 

Well, you'll find a great many examples of religious freedom being infringed upon if you look outside of the US. Many governments have a state religion.

 

But I still maintain that is off topic.