Examples Of Religious Freedom Being Trampled Or Threatened

[jwhitlock]

It depends upon your perspective.  If you are an anarchist who believes the government has no legitimate authority and that taxes are literally a form of robbery, then sure, there is a difference.  In that case, all taxes are theft, and receiving a rebate from the thief doesn’t change the fact that they did in fact rob you.

 

On the other hand, if you believe that we live in a legitimate republic governed by a valid social contract and Constitution, then taxes aren’t theft—they are simply the way that we the people have collectively and legitimately decided to fund our government.  In that case, Gray is exactly correct.

 

Anarchist? Nice well poisoning.

 

But let's take a look at your second statement.  Legitimate republic? Questionable. Valid social contract? Nope. Constitution? Ignored by the current "legitimate republic".

 

It's still my money that was taken from me without my consent. To then turn around and "give" it back to me with all kinds of strings attached and then claim I'm getting a "benefit" is quite the con game.

 

This is interesting. I'm going to be able watch SSM supporters actually try and rationalize tax exemptions as a "benefit"! Let's see what else this can be spun as.

[tagriffy]

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. 

 

That's absurd. Forbidding homosexual men from being Scoutmasters because they might become attracted to one of the young men and sleep with them. Convicting someone when a crime hasn't even been committed? By way of contrast, the Girl Scouts do allow lesbians to serve as troop leaders. Shouldn't they have the same concern that a homosexual woman may have sex with a younger woman simply because she is attracted to the individual?

Edited July 17, 2015 by tagriffy

[tagriffy]

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.

 

That wasn't the point in the Ward case. Eastern Michigan University set its curriculum based on standards set by the American Counseling Association. Once Ward completed her education and obtained her license and hung her sign on the door, she would be completely free to choose her clients. Ward chose to be in EMU's program, and therefore she agreed to follow their curriculum. And that curriculum included serving all clients in affirming, nonjudgmental ways. If she couldn't do that, then she shouldn't been in the program in the first place. It's not like there aren't plenty of institutions she could have gotten her degree at without having to worry about having to serve gay persons.

[tagriffy]

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.

 

And?

[tagriffy]

 

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

 

 

That will be an interesting case. The wrinkle here is that Pemberton would be employed by the National Health Services, not the Church. A Church that is the official church of the country, whose supreme governor is the monarch, whose bishops are appointed by the Prime Minister, and whose canon law has to be approved by Parliament. No matter how that case turns out, we Americans can just sit back with the popcorn and laugh our you-know-whats off.

 

Getting back to the point though, the Church of England is not a "private organization." It is a public institution whose administration ultimately falls into the hands of the the British government. It does not have freedom of religion to begin with, certainly not in the same sense the Episcopal Church has freedom of religion here in the United States. So however this case turns out, it is not likely to have any bearing on how similar cases should be settled here.

[tagriffy]

 

  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. 

 

Just to add another log to the fire, all Americans also have the right to boycott any church for any reason.

[california boy]

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.

When I was speaking of discrimination as not being an American value, I was speaking of discrimination based on race, religion, sex, age, and increasingly sexual orientation. This is the type of unlawful discrimination covered by the civil rights laws. I thought that was apparent. Evidently it was not. Are we clear now?

[rockpond]

Tonie's rants are basically the pro-gay equivalent of fringe Christian fundamentalism. I wanted to see if you, as a pro-gay supporter, would distance yourself from that kind of stuff.

You didn't.

That's all that I needed to understand.

You asked if I agreed with one post. I did. I car speak to everything Tonie has written that you consider to be a "rant".

I asked you what you thought was incorrect about Tonie's post. You responded with a vague ad hominem. Why don't you tell me, substantively, what you disagree with.

[tagriffy]

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 

 

 

Quote

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.

Quote

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

Good question!??

 

 

Yes. Good question. I would have awarded it as punitive damages. Was that option not available?

 

 

 

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

 

Something they claimed would NEEEVER happen.

 

There is a flip-side here: Christian-based businesses are setting themselves up to be targeted. And there is a simple solution to that problem: FOLLOW THE LAW!

 

The fact is that being in business is not a right. It is a privilege that is granted on the condition that business owners follow the law. If aren't going to follow the law, then they deserve everything they get.

[tagriffy]

 

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

 

 

 

No, it doesn't. The Bible has nothing to say about the subject one way or the other. As with abortion, those who say the Bible prohibits euthanasia have to make leaps and bounds to get there.

[tagriffy]

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.

 

Religious people are not being forced against their conscience. They chose to go into business, and therefore they agreed to follow the laws that pertain to running a business. Again, the solution is simple: either follow the law or stop running a business.

[tagriffy]

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/

 

Church of England. Pretty much, that says it all. See post #455.

[tagriffy]

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/

 

Based on the CBC report, this is not going to be a clear-cut case. The all-gender bathroom probably may answer the student's needs depending on the exact setup, but I fail to understand why she needs to be escorted. The big problem is that the school had no formal policy, and that makes the decision seem arbitrary. But it is also that same lack of policy that makes this hard to classify as a religious freedom case. Also, the article notes there is a precedent here, and that is likely to become part of the discussion.

[tagriffy]

I'm not so sure about that.  I hope you are correct.

 

Supreme Court Justice Robert's confirmed that the recent decision could affect tax exempt status of those churches who refuse to perform or recognize gay marriages.  There are many pundits who are arguing that this should be the case.  

 

But, as it has been noted time and again, tax exemptions are not a right.

[Analytics]

Anarchist? Nice well poisoning.

 

But let's take a look at your second statement.  Legitimate republic? Questionable. Valid social contract? Nope. Constitution? Ignored by the current "legitimate republic".

 

It's still my money that was taken from me without my consent. To then turn around and "give" it back to me with all kinds of strings attached and then claim I'm getting a "benefit" is quite the con game.

 

This is interesting. I'm going to be able watch SSM supporters actually try and rationalize tax exemptions as a "benefit"! Let's see what else this can be spun as.

 

Anarchist is a perfectly descriptive word.  In any case, the specific details of how much you feel morally justified in killing IRS agents to defend your property against their alleged thievery is besides the point.  The point is that to the extent that taxes represent a legitimate liability, legitimate offsets of that liability--whether in the form of a tax exemption, tax deduction, tax credit, or cash payment--are equal. 

[tagriffy]

No BYU is not a Church, and that is not the point.  It is a Church sponsored institution that reserves the right to admit and govern students based on LDS principles.  That is ultimately an expression of free speech and religion.  

 

BYU is still directly tied to the Church, and that might just be a distinction that makes a difference. Down here in Phoenix, Grand Canyon University cut its formal ties to the Southern Baptist Convention. If similar cases were tried against both universities, it is quite possible they would result in different decisions. If so, that would probably mean a religious university would have to maintain a formal tie to a Church in order to stay solidly on religious freedom grounds. Would that create an undue burden on the university?

[tagriffy]

Not really. My state is already exerting control of who can serve in Primary by demanding background checks. Since the way they've implemented those checks does nothing to really halt abuse, there's something else involved.

 

I've always thought that a hefty dose of paranoia about the government and special interest groups is a good thing. I've seen nothing recently to change that. 

 

I asked about this previously back in post #217, and either you didn't answer or I somehow missed your response.

 

How, exactly, does requiring background checks as a condition for working with children a threat to religious freedom? And now with particular regard to serving in Primary, how does the requirement threaten the LDS Church's religious liberty? Last I knew, it isn't exactly an article of faith that Primary workers not have background checks done.

[jwhitlock]

When I was speaking of discrimination as not being an American value, I was speaking of discrimination based on race, religion, sex, age, and increasingly sexual orientation. This is the type of unlawful discrimination covered by the civil rights laws. I thought that was apparent. Evidently it was not. Are we clear now?

 

Some more examples of discrimination.

 

We don't allow old people to be commercial pilots. We don't allow those under the age of 14 to be married.

We don't allow gays with HIV to give blood.

We don't allow white actors to play Martin Luther King (that's a repeat).

We don't allow two women to be listed as biological parents on a birth certificate (whoops - a judge just ruled that was permissible).

Mormons don't allow Catholic priests to bless the sacrament. Catholics don't allow Mormons to celebrate the Mass.

We don't allow brain injured disabled people to drive.

 

Plenty of discrimination based on age, race, religion, sex, disability and sexual orientation. I can think up some more, if you'd like.

 

Some discrimination is common sense. It needs to be that way. Other discrimination obviously needs to be eliminated.

 

But quite a lot of discrimination is based on situations, or subjective perspectives. Some is right and some is wrong. It's a very grey area. If a gay rights organization wants to sponsor a scout troop and will not allow Mormons in leadership positions, they can do that. If a Mormon sponsored troop doesn't want to have a gay man as a scout master, the also can do that. Are they both forms of discrimination? Yes. Should both groups be punished for discrimination either legally or by the BSA cutting ties due to pressure from opponents to either group? No.

 

Discrimination based on age, race, religion, sex, disability or sexual orientation is not nearly as cut and dried as some want us to think. Those taking a hard line stance that any type of discrimination, even if it makes sense, should not be tolerated in those categories are basically pursuing a course that will ultimately be destructive of society.

 

When someone's "rights" override safety, privacy, health, or other valid concerns, or when they arbitrarily override the fundamental rights of others, we have a major problem.

[tagriffy]

That is the same argument that SSM supporters are using in saying the government should exert control over Churches.  Of course we all know that not taking something away is not the same as giving something to.

 

Tax exemptions are not forced on Churches either. If they don't like the conditions attached to receiving a tax exemption, they can simply pay their taxes like everyone else.

[CV75]

Freedom of religion does not protect you from being sued. The issue is going to come down to whether those churches have become public accommodations.

It ain’t just about the churches, as your next remark about the CA judges shows.

 

The Gordon College episode has already been discussed in this threat, so you're a little late here.

The fact that colleges and religious metriculates have to waste resources in such litigation is an example of the new threat, even if they win.

 

Just to add another log to the fire, all Americans also have the right to boycott any church for any reason.

Boycotting is a lesser (effective) abuse in my opinion but when well-orchestrated to undermine a business’ religious-based decisions, it is still a good example of a threat that impinges on the freedom of religious expression. There is an interoperative, synergetic and compounding effect of all the kinds of incidents, strong and weak, effective and not, discussed in this thread that acts within the broad social fabric that supresses the exercise of religious freedom of individuals. Just Google  the memes!

[jwhitlock]

Anarchist is a perfectly descriptive word.  In any case, the specific details of how much you feel morally justified in killing IRS agents to defend your property against their alleged thievery is besides the point.  The point is that to the extent that taxes represent a legitimate liability, legitimate offsets of that liability--whether in the form of a tax exemption, tax deduction, tax credit, or cash payment--are equal. 

 

Can you actually say that our current system of taxation is legitimate without cracking a smile? Any other fairy tales you'd like us to believe?

 

Would you like to point out where I claimed any justification for killing IRS agents - or even mentioned such a thing? You might want to refrain from garbage like that if you want to retain any credibility.

 

In any case, interesting spin that our current system of taxation is legitimate, rational or responsible. Since it isn't, we're back to the point of looking at our taxes being taken from us by force, for non-altruistic purposes. And that still means that any reduction in taxes, no matter how it comes via exemption, reduction or credit, is not a benefit, but getting back what was wrongly taken from us.

[tagriffy]

 

The fact that colleges and religious metriculates have to waste resources in such litigation is an example of the new threat, even if they win.

 

 

Freedom of religion does not grant protection from having to resources in such litigation, either.

 

 

Boycotting is a lesser (effective) abuse in my opinion but when well-orchestrated to undermine a business’ religious-based decisions, it is still a good example of a threat that impinges on the freedom of religious expression. There is an interoperative, synergetic and compounding effect of all the kinds of incidents, strong and weak, effective and not, discussed in this thread that acts within the broad social fabric that supresses the exercise of religious freedom of individuals. Just Google  the memes!

 

 

I see what you are saying and can even sympathize who feel so threatened. Nevertheless, the bottom line is that a legitimate exercise of my rights is never a violation of your rights. Anything less than that bottom line only winds up violating someone's rights.

 

Yes, there are interoperative, synergetic, and compounding effects to these kinds of incidents that forces us to make decisions that ideally we wouldn't make otherwise. Guess what? That's society for you. You think I'd engage in economic labor if it wasn't for the interoperative, synergetic, and compounding pressures that society places on me? Particularly for the type of employer I work for? Everyone in society goes along to get along to some extent. Everyone. Freedom of religion doesn't grant an exception to that, either.

[tonie]

I'm not so sure about that. I hope you are correct.

Supreme Court Justice Robert's confirmed that the recent decision could affect tax exempt status of those churches who refuse to perform or recognize gay marriages. There are many pundits who are arguing that this should be the case.

Chief Justice Roberts:

hard questions arise when people of faith exercise religion in ways that may be seen to conflict with the new right to same-sex marriage—when, for example, a religious college provides married student housing only to opposite-sex married couples, or a religious adoption agency declines to place children with same-sex married couples. Indeed, the Solicitor General candidly acknowledged that the tax exemptions of some religious institutions would be in question if they opposed same-sex marriage. See Tr. of Oral Arg. on Question 1, at 36–38

[filovirus]

Religious people are not being forced against their conscience. They chose to go into business, and therefore they agreed to follow the laws that pertain to running a business. Again, the solution is simple: either follow the law or stop running a business.

What about employees where something that was previously illegal and then became legal while they were employed? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/06/29/can-a-texas-county-clerk-refuse-to-issue-a-gay-marriage-license-its-complicated/

Edited July 18, 2015 by filovirus

[tagriffy]

What about employees where something that was previously illegal and then became legal while they were employed? http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/wp/2015/06/29/can-a-texas-county-clerk-refuse-to-issue-a-gay-marriage-license-its-complicated/

 

I don't think that case is going to fly. Imagine, if you will, a Muslim clerk at the DMV refusing to issue driver's licenses to women. I think it would be clear not only what the public reaction would be, but that the courts would also uphold his termination. When you work for the government, you agree to uphold the law--whether or not you agree with it. That was the main reason I never considered becoming a police officer; I knew I would have to enforce laws I could not in good conscience do.

 

BTW, I notice Paxton is promising legal support and a voice to those refusing to issue the licenses, but said nothing about the fines and penalties that will result should the clerks lose. It might be a good idea to pay as much attention to what he didn't say as they do to what he did say.

Edited July 18, 2015 by tagriffy