For Those Who Support Religious Liberty

[provoman]

Religion is a choice. Religion is a very personal choice. Those involved with a religion surely know someone who made the choice to leave the religion for another or leave religion altogether.  Religion is liberty a choice that many hold dear.

I suggested in another threat the State of Utah should show its commitment to religious liberty by removing religion as a protected class from anti-discrimination laws. By removing religion as protect class, the State of Utah would acknowledge that religious liberty to discriminate against another based on religious beliefs or practices will be respected.

Yet, when discussions of religious liberty arise, there is a stingy clinging to one’s own protected status while using religion to deny equal access to goods and services, etc. This contradiction of “Protect me because of my religion, but no protection for you because of my religion” isn’t really a basis for defending religious liberty.

The defense of religious liberty needs to address the contradiction and one-sided nature of the arraignment. Why should your own choice of religion override the religious liberty and religious choice of another?

[thesometimesaint]

Depends on whose ox is getting gored.  

[mfbukowski]

43 minutes ago, provoman said:

 

Religion is a choice. Religion is a very personal choice. Those involved with a religion surely know someone who made the choice to leave the religion for another or leave religion altogether.  Religion is liberty a choice that many hold dear.

I suggested in another threat the State of Utah should show its commitment to religious liberty by removing religion as a protected class from anti-discrimination laws. By removing religion as protect class, the State of Utah would acknowledge that religious liberty to discriminate against another based on religious beliefs or practices will be respected.

Yet, when discussions of religious liberty arise, there is a stingy clinging to one’s own protected status while using religion to deny equal access to goods and services, etc. This contradiction of “Protect me because of my religion, but no protection for you because of my religion” isn’t really a basis for defending religious liberty.

The defense of religious liberty needs to address the contradiction and one-sided nature of the arraignment. Why should your own choice of religion override the religious liberty and religious choice of another?

I think there are category errors here.

Gay people are not exercising "religious rights" in being gay, so it appears to me that your argument fails.

No one has asserted that their religion requires them to be gay, that I know of.

Another interesting implication of the post is that if religion is a choice, and the same as being gay, then gayness is also a choice.

No. I don't think this will fly

Edited April 14, 2016 by mfbukowski

[provoman]

1 hour ago, provoman said:

 

Why should your own choice of religion override the religious liberty and religious choice of another?

MFB please address the question above not your own pet topics?

 

It is not a sturdy foundation to demand protection of religious liberty while dening another same.

 

Do you agree that business should be able, without fear of the law, put up signs that read "No Mormons Allowed; will be prosecuted as tresspassers"

 

[ERayR]

44 minutes ago, provoman said:

MFB please address the question above not your own pet topics?

 

It is not a sturdy foundation to demand protection of religious liberty while dening another same.

 

Do you agree that business should be able, without fear of the law, put up signs that read "No Mormons Allowed; will be prosecuted as tresspassers"

 

Included in this do you also agree that they should put up signs that say "Nobody That Uses the Name provoman Allowed"?

[CV75]

2 hours ago, provoman said:

 

Religion is a choice. Religion is a very personal choice. Those involved with a religion surely know someone who made the choice to leave the religion for another or leave religion altogether.  Religion is liberty a choice that many hold dear.

I suggested in another threat the State of Utah should show its commitment to religious liberty by removing religion as a protected class from anti-discrimination laws. By removing religion as protect class, the State of Utah would acknowledge that religious liberty to discriminate against another based on religious beliefs or practices will be respected.

Yet, when discussions of religious liberty arise, there is a stingy clinging to one’s own protected status while using religion to deny equal access to goods and services, etc. This contradiction of “Protect me because of my religion, but no protection for you because of my religion” isn’t really a basis for defending religious liberty.

The defense of religious liberty needs to address the contradiction and one-sided nature of the arraignment. Why should your own choice of religion override the religious liberty and religious choice of another?

Removing protected class status at the state level would not affect the constitutional protections for religion, which cover a lot more than simply changing denominations or faith systems. At any rate, my choice of religion does not impact anyone else’s choice of religion; that is an example of one thing that special protection enforces.

Not all “discrimination” is religiously-based, nor fits the legal definition, so protected classes and special protections for recognized fundamental elements and principles of a society are a good thing that need to complement each other; thus the need for compromise through good-faith public processes where there’s a rub to be found.

Proponents of religious freedom are not pointing to protected class but to the special protections of the constitution. This is why suggestions to remove protected class are not credible in serious political debate. It is not a contradiction to say, “Protect me in my exercise of religion because it is my constitutional right,” and “Let’s be consistent in the criteria for granting protected class status because that is what social justice is all about,” and “Let’s be sure (or at least agree for practical purposes) that the two principles complement each other.”

[thesometimesaint]

36 minutes ago, ERayR said:

Included in this do you also agree that they should put up signs that say "Nobody That Uses the Name provoman Allowed"?

Does a person using the name Provoman fall within a race, creed, color, religion, national origin, sex, or increasingly sexual orientation?

[Daniel2]

3 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

I think there are category errors here.

Gay people are not exercising "religious rights" in being gay, so it appears to me that your argument fails.

No one has asserted that their religion requires them to be gay, that I know of.

Another interesting implication of the post is that if religion is a choice, and the same as being gay, then gayness is also a choice.

No. I don't think this will fly

Couple of thoughts....

In religions which bless the marital unions of same-sex couples, gays and lesbians are exercising their religious freedoms when entering into the religious rite of marriage in their houses of worship and sanctified by their clergy members.  Such religions certainly preach and promote that gays and lesbians should be true to their sexual orientation just as much as other religions may condone heterosexual relationships.  My own experience with Unitarian Universalism reflects both of the preceding sentences.

I'm not sure how you made the leap from "if religion is a choice" then "gayness is also a choice."  That is not the case at all.  Science has found no evidence that individuals can change their sexual orientation from 'gay' to 'straight' or from 'straight' to 'gay.'

In fact, just the opposite is true--findings indicate attempts to change orientations are highly unsuccessful and that homosexual or heterosexual orientations are immutable.

Edited April 14, 2016 by Daniel2

[mfbukowski]

2 hours ago, provoman said:

MFB please address the question above not your own pet topics?

 

It is not a sturdy foundation to demand protection of religious liberty while dening another same.

 

Do you agree that business should be able, without fear of the law, put up signs that read "No Mormons Allowed; will be prosecuted as tresspassers"

 

LOL

The question is logically contradictory and cannot be answered as stated.  I have already said that.  If you are not able to see logical contradictions there is not much I can help you with.  We have no basis for discussion.

BEING GAY IS NOT RELIGIOUS LIBERTY.  No one is denying gay people religious liberty!!!

I am a libertarian.

People discriminate against Mormons all the time.  I have been discriminated against. I really do not care if they discriminate against me- they have numerous times.  People are jerks.  That is called "life".

I believe in the golden rule, others do not.  Deal with it.

We are not here to be coddled and protected and enabled by the government.  We are here to create our own worlds- not to be babied by people who think they know better what I need than I do.

Edited April 14, 2016 by mfbukowski

[mfbukowski]

1 hour ago, Daniel2 said:

Couple of thoughts....

In religions which bless the marital unions of same-sex couples, gays and lesbians are exercising their religious freedoms when entering into the religious rite of marriage in their houses of worship and sanctified by their clergy members.  Such religions certainly preach and promote that gays and lesbians should be true to their sexual orientation just as much as other religions may condone heterosexual relationships.  My own experience with Unitarian Universalism reflects both of the preceding sentences.

I'm not sure how you made the leap from "if religion is a choice" then "gayness is also a choice."  That is not the case at all.  Science has found no evidence that individuals can change their sexual orientation from 'gay' to 'straight' or from 'straight' to 'gay.'

In fact, just the opposite is true--findings indicate attempts to change orientations are highly unsuccessful and that homosexual or heterosexual orientations are immutable.

Ok, well these are good rational points, that make sense and is far different than the post in question.  Perhaps though I did not make myself clear.

My point was the structure of the argument.  It was HIS idea that "religion is a choice"- for many that in itself is highly debatable.  If someone born Muslim leaves, it is a big deal.

Many, having been raised in a particular religion, simply cannot leave it.  Speaking of "epigenetics", if such a thing is "real" religious programming is certainly in some cases as persistent as any kind of programming or addiction.

But remember that was his point- which I was opposing.

I further do not think that homosexuality in itself is a choice.  I cannot imagine anyone taking on the pain and confusion and the condemnation of many members of society that gay people are subjected to, voluntarily.

I think that homosexual behavior IS a choice.  The fact is that many people can and do choose to remain celibate for their lifetimes, as seen in some Eastern and Western religions, and others who are not even religious may be "asexual"- really being indifferent to sex of any kind.  The human body can certainly survive without ever having had sex, as surprising as that may be to some.

I never stated that sexual orientation could be changed.  What I do know is that there ARE homosexuals who DECIDED to get married to someone of the opposite gender, and then DECIDED they were so unhappy they could not live like that.

THOSE certainly were decisions they made.  No one else made those decisions for them- though they may have felt pressure to go in those directions.

I usually mean exactly what I say- but of course language is ambiguous.  But putting words in my mouth really doesn't advance the discussion- and then time is wasted, as in this post, re-stating what I DID say as opposed to what was never in a post to begin with.

The point that homosexuals could have a religious right to BE homosexual as an exercise of their religion is an interesting point.

But I think there is a huge difference between a religion condoning a behavior and a religion requiring the same behavior. 

Muslims are required to make a pilgrimage to Mecca, if healthy and financially able.  If I prevented that somehow I can see how that would be a violation of religious rights.

Mormons are not required to have heterosexual intercourse as part of the religion- so that is quite a different case than "condoning" heterosexual intercourse.

Let's assume that Mormons were suddenly able to be homosexual or not- Mormon temple marriage in this imaginary universe is now acceptable.

Let's suppose that an Evangelical does not want to make a wedding cake for a now condoned LDS gay marriage.  

I still think it would be a violation of his religious liberty to force him to do so.  Yes, in our imaginations, homosexual relations are now condoned, as they are in your church, but that has nothing to do with forcing anyone ELSE to behave or not behave in any way whatsoever.

The problem is FORCING someone ELSE, not a member of the church in question, against his will, to actually violate his religious beliefs, as I would be if I prevented somehow a Muslim from making his pilgrimage. 

So condoning a certain sexual behavior has nothing to do with forcing SOMEONE ELSE to condone it.  One can imagine, going into the past, where religious rape may have been condoned within a religion.

I cannot imagine being forced to manufacture, perhaps, instruments used in these rituals.  Yes the example is extreme, but that was deliberate to make the point.

Or selling a knife which you know will be used for human sacrifice.

Does a weapon dealer have a right NOT to sell such an instrument to be used for religious human sacrifice?

I think certainly proponents of gun control would argue quite the opposite, while yet condoning forcing someone forced to facilitate a gay wedding.

YES the examples are extreme- but I think they are on point.

Perhaps forcing a doctor to perform a late term abortion would be a more direct example- same principle, for someone who's religion permitted and condoned abortion.

The question is whether or not you can force someone, against his religious convictions, to facilitate a behavior to which he is morally opposed.

Surely you see the difference?

[CV75]

2 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Couple of thoughts....

In religions which bless the marital unions of same-sex couples, gays and lesbians are exercising their religious freedoms when entering into the religious rite of marriage in their houses of worship and sanctified by their clergy members.  Such religions certainly preach and promote that gays and lesbians should be true to their sexual orientation just as much as other religions may condone heterosexual relationships.

Entering the marriage covenant is not being true to one’s sexual orientation (whatever that is) – that can be done outside of marriage. True, some religions might possibly condone sexual relationships outside of marriage (can you describe which ones those are? And if so, what is the special / unique significance of marriage within those religions?).

For all the religious systems I'm familiar with, entering the marriage covenant is participating in the institution God (or a substitute thereof) established in the beginning (or at least anciently) for the purpose of bringing to pass the immortality and eternal life of His children (or a reasonable social construct protecting individual mortal and communal life of the whole).

[Wanderer7]

Is the issue at hand religious or property? If I own some kind of property, and I decide to sell this piece of property, shouldn't I be able to sell it to whomever I want? If I decide not to sell it to you for religious reasons or fashion taste, what does it matter? Why should you have a right to force me to sell something to you that doesn't belong to you? How is that different than holding up a family at gunpoint, taking their TV, and leaving 300$ behind?

[The Nehor]

I am not worried about the law. I am worried about society. I have some concern that in 10 to 20 years being Mormon will make me a social outcast even if my freedom is still protected. Then again, I also think it might be good for us too so....whatever.

[Rivers]

If I go to a bakery owned by Jehovah's Witnesses and they refuse to make me a birthday cake, is that an exercise of religious liberty? Or is it discrimination against someone who is part of a church that condones birthdays?

[Stargazer]

12 hours ago, provoman said:

Do you agree that business should be able, without fear of the law, put up signs that read "No Mormons Allowed; will be prosecuted as tresspassers"

 

The government should not be permitted to discriminate based on anything at all, except for criminal history.

And I would support a business's right to discriminate against Mormons.  

[The Nehor]

39 minutes ago, Rivers said:

If I go to a bakery owned by Jehovah's Witnesses and they refuse to make me a birthday cake, is that an exercise of religious liberty? Or is it discrimination against someone who is part of a church that condones birthdays?

Considering the Jehovan's Witnesses celebrate no holiday they would have to be an abject idiot to open a bakery and offer to make cakes for special events. I would say if they offer the service they have to offer it to everyone. They could choose not to and that would probably be the wise choice in this case. I doubt most would have a problem with it. I got Watchtower and Awake a lot on my mission and read them out of boredom at times. The counsel at the time seemed to be to let things like that just slide as it was not an endorsement.

Incidentally one of the most messed up marriages I have ever seen was on my mission and was between a returned missionary LDS woman and a dedicated Jehovah's Witness. She desperately wanted to go to the temple and would beg us to teach her husband....all the time. He was a nice guy and we would talk to him but every lesson was ruined by her alternately breaking down and begging him to join the LDS church and angry diatribes at him. I don't know how the guy put up with her.....

[Stargazer]

11 hours ago, Daniel2 said:

Couple of thoughts....

In religions which bless the marital unions of same-sex couples, gays and lesbians are exercising their religious freedoms when entering into the religious rite of marriage in their houses of worship and sanctified by their clergy members.  Such religions certainly preach and promote that gays and lesbians should be true to their sexual orientation just as much as other religions may condone heterosexual relationships.  My own experience with Unitarian Universalism reflects both of the preceding sentences.

I'm not sure how you made the leap from "if religion is a choice" then "gayness is also a choice."  That is not the case at all.  Science has found no evidence that individuals can change their sexual orientation from 'gay' to 'straight' or from 'straight' to 'gay.'

In fact, just the opposite is true--findings indicate attempts to change orientations are highly unsuccessful and that homosexual or heterosexual orientations are immutable.

Maybe I am weird, but I believe I could choose to be gay.  And I am definitely not bisexual -- male genitalia kind of creep me out.  But perhaps all that means is that I could change my behavior, not that I would stop being straight.  As you are well aware, gay men have chosen to participate in heterosexual relationships. 

I do think that there may come a time when sexual orientation could become mutable.  Medical science is ever advancing, after all.  One day, perhaps, neuroscience may find a way.

 

[thesometimesaint]

1 hour ago, Rivers said:

If I go to a bakery owned by Jehovah's Witnesses and they refuse to make me a birthday cake, is that an exercise of religious liberty? Or is it discrimination against someone who is part of a church that condones birthdays?

If that bakery owned by a Jehovah's Witness normally makes and sells birthday cakes to the public. They can not refuse to make or sell that cake to you based on their or your religion.

[thesometimesaint]

16 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

Maybe I am weird, but I believe I could choose to be gay.  And I am definitely not bisexual -- male genitalia kind of creep me out.  But perhaps all that means is that I could change my behavior, not that I would stop being straight.  As you are well aware, gay men have chosen to participate in heterosexual relationships. 

I do think that there may come a time when sexual orientation could become mutable.  Medical science is ever advancing, after all.  One day, perhaps, neuroscience may find a way.

Medical science can do that right now. But it is such an invasion of personal rights and professional ethics that such a provider would quickly find themselves in jail. Homosexuality has nothing to do with whats going on between your legs, but whats going on between your ears.

[Stargazer]

37 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

Medical science can do that right now. But it is such an invasion of personal rights and professional ethics that such a provider would quickly find themselves in jail. Homosexuality has nothing to do with whats going on between your legs, but whats going on between your ears.

That's news to me.  I'd CFR this, but I think you're confused about what I was saying.  I hadn't heard that there was a way to medically convert someone from being gay to being straight.  And yes, I do know that sexual orientation means what is going on between the ears.

If there were a way to do it, such as an efficacious pill one could take, then it would seem to be perfectly ethical to provide the pill to those who requested it.  

[thesometimesaint]

18 minutes ago, Stargazer said:

That's news to me.  I'd CFR this, but I think you're confused about what I was saying.  I hadn't heard that there was a way to medically convert someone from being gay to being straight.  And yes, I do know that sexual orientation means what is going on between the ears.

If there were a way to do it, such as an efficacious pill one could take, then it would seem to be perfectly ethical to provide the pill to those who requested it.  

It involves serious psychotropics, aversion "therapy" crossing the line into torture, and coercive psychotherapy. Not nice stuff

[Stargazer]

30 minutes ago, thesometimesaint said:

It involves serious psychotropics, aversion "therapy" crossing the line into torture, and coercive psychotherapy. Not nice stuff

I agree.

I was talking about something for which we don't even have a theory for.  Like, what is the cause of homosexuality?  Which I'm pretty sure we don't yet know.  And then finding some kind of treatment that would reverse the cause.  What you're talking about is like the old days when teachers tried to force left-handed children to be right-handed.

Edited April 15, 2016 by Stargazer

[thesometimesaint]

True. We don't know the cause, if there is only one. Myself I lean towards a combination of genetic, and environmental influences. But only time will tell if I'm right. We do know sexual orientation is established pretty early in life, nearly always between ages 2 and 5 years old.

[Daniel2]

17 hours ago, mfbukowski said:

Ok, well these are good rational points, that make sense and is far different than the post in question.  Perhaps though I did not make myself clear.

My point was the structure of the argument.  It was HIS idea that "religion is a choice"- for many that in itself is highly debatable.  If someone born Muslim leaves, it is a big deal.

Many, having been raised in a particular religion, simply cannot leave it.  Speaking of "epigenetics", if such a thing is "real" religious programming is certainly in some cases as persistent as any kind of programming or addiction.

I don't believe it's very debatable that "religion is a choice."  I don't see how it could be viewed otherwise.

The examples you provided of very Orthodox religions of one's birth definitely demonstrate the obvious and self-evident difficulty and challenging nature involved in leaving one's religion of birth.

However, the notion of "difficulty for some" isn't the same and doesn't qualify as "immutability." 

And religious affiliation can clearly be changed.  To argue otherwise would be to demonstrate that the entire premise of the LDS Church's missionary program is futile.

I'm not certain exactly what you're suggesting in the last sentence, but I'm unaware of any credible literature (that is, fact-based, peer-reviewed studies) demonstrating or even suggesting a link between 'epigenetics' and 'religious programming' or 'affiliation' as related to any sort of 'persistent programming or addiction.'  Do you have any evidence of such, and if so, can you please share....?

 

Quote

I further do not think that homosexuality in itself is a choice.  I cannot imagine anyone taking on the pain and confusion and the condemnation of many members of society that gay people are subjected to, voluntarily.

 

I am glad we agree on this point.

 

Quote

I think that homosexual behavior IS a choice.  The fact is that many people can and do choose to remain celibate for their lifetimes, as seen in some Eastern and Western religions, and others who are not even religious may be "asexual"- really being indifferent to sex of any kind.  The human body can certainly survive without ever having had sex, as surprising as that may be to some.

I never stated that sexual orientation could be changed.  What I do know is that there ARE homosexuals who DECIDED to get married to someone of the opposite gender, and then DECIDED they were so unhappy they could not live like that.

THOSE certainly were decisions they made.  No one else made those decisions for them- though they may have felt pressure to go in those directions.[/quote]

Most behaviors are chosen--especially the choice to pursue engaging in romantic or (consensual--i.e. non-coercive) sexual relations with another person.  In fact, it's somewhat redundant to even say so, given that "consensual" is obviously related to "choice."

Yes, all people routinely and regularly choose to engage in or refrain from romantic and sexual behaviors in contrast to our innate romantic and/or sexual drives at reoccurring intervals throughout our lives.  If I were to assume that you (and everyone else) is like me; we ALL experience attractions to fleeting strangers we may find attractive on a regular basis, and whom we choose not to pursue some sort of romantic or sexual conquest, regardless of what our libido may suggest (in other words, we regularly pass by people who may briefly catch our eye as 'attractive' throughout our normal daily lives... scantily clad joggers, athletes and the gym, bathers on the beach, or even an attractive person at work, the grocery store, church, or elsewhere). 

And yes, some people who are gay choose to enter into heterosexual marriages because of personal beliefs and convictions regarding the superiority of heterosexuality over homosexuality, either because of social, cultural, religious, or personal motivations.

That being said.... "choice" in regards to protected classes isn't necessarily the determining factor in legislation aimed at promoting equality and eliminating social and commercial discrimination. 

After all, just to name a few:

• Interracial couples could certainly CHOOSE to marry someone of their own race, rather than marry someone of a different race.
• Women could certainly CHOOSE to have different jobs which are traditionally (but, in my view, misogynistic-ly) considered to be better-suited for traditionally-held 'feminine' qualities.
• Immigrants from other countries could certainly CHOOSE to stay in their country of national origin (no matter how difficult), or at least CHOOSE jobs in the U.S. economy which are less-preferential so those who are natural-born U.S. citizens get first pick of the 'best' job opportunities.
• Individuals with disabilities could certainly CHOOSE only to work for companies who's facilities are already able to accommodate their disabled situation, rather than expect companies to adopt policies or make cost-incurring adaptations to their facilities 'just' to accommodate their disabled-ness.

But promoting equality and eliminating social and commercial discrimination isn't a matter of pointing out that any protected class could "CHOOSE" something else.

It's about promoting equal opportunity and treatment for all, regardless of the inherent, immutable characteristics that make up our selves.

For example, civil marriage rights for interracial couples and gay (same-sex) couples didn't 'take away' the civil marriage rights of straight (opposite-sex) couples OR mixed-orientation (opposite-sex marriages between a straight person and a gay person).  It preserved ALL such couples' personal autonomy and freedom to marry the person of their choice.

 

Quote

I usually mean exactly what I say- but of course language is ambiguous.  But putting words in my mouth really doesn't advance the discussion- and then time is wasted, as in this post, re-stating what I DID say as opposed to what was never in a post to begin with.

 

In all candor and seriousness: it was not my intent to 'put words in your mouth' or imply you said something you didn't.  That's why my previous post began with, "A couple of thoughts."  I meant that in the spirit and along the lines of, "These thoughts may or may not be exactly relevant to the discussion, but in light of some of the things being said, I think it's helpful to remember the following..."  Obviously, I didn't say all of that, though, so I can appreciate that you may have read a different intent, as if I was trying to refute specific points you were making.  I appreciate your response and the opportunity to clarify my original intent.

 

Quote

The point that homosexuals could have a religious right to BE homosexual as an exercise of their religion is an interesting point.

But I think there is a huge difference between a religion condoning a behavior and a religion requiring the same behavior. 

Muslims are required to make a pilgrimage to Mecca, if healthy and financially able.  If I prevented that somehow I can see how that would be a violation of religious rights.

Mormons are not required to have heterosexual intercourse as part of the religion- so that is quite a different case than "condoning" heterosexual intercourse.

While you may feel there's a big difference and I think there is room for discussion about the differences between 'a religion condoning a behavior and a religion requiring the same behavior,'  when it comes to the role of government, I would not be (and am not) comfortable with secular law deciding which religions' doctrines are preferable and worthy of protection based on any perceived differences between 'condoning' vs. 'requiring.'  In other words, though I can appreciate that you might find the distinction personally and religiously significant, when it comes to discussing what part the law should play when it comes to 'protecting religious freedom,' I don't believe the difference is legally significant.  

 

Quote

Let's assume that Mormons were suddenly able to be homosexual or not- Mormon temple marriage in this imaginary universe is now acceptable.

Let's suppose that an Evangelical does not want to make a wedding cake for a now condoned LDS gay marriage.  

I still think it would be a violation of his religious liberty to force him to do so.  Yes, in our imaginations, homosexual relations are now condoned, as they are in your church, but that has nothing to do with forcing anyone ELSE to behave or not behave in any way whatsoever.

I guess this is where we see things differently.  I don't believe public accommodations laws "force" business owners to do something that violate their religious beliefs, regardless of whatever the behavior or protected class in any given situation is.

What you see is "violating someone's religious liberty to do something against their will."  What I see is "enforcing the laws of commerce," which are entirely optional, given that any business owner that doesn't want to operate according to the law governing that particular type of business is entirely free to choose a different line of business.

Let me put it this way: would we allow a seasoned physician who's recently converts to Christian Science (a Faith that rejects the use of traditional medicine) to continue his work as a hospital physician, while refusing to treat some of his patients with certain conditions, in accordance with what his recently-embraced, but deeply-held religious beliefs require?

While an extreme example, I hope that illustrates the point I am making: there are rules governing different areas of public life.  Religion cannot be used as an excuse to supersede those laws.  Religion isn't a work-around to avoid following the law, nor should it be used as a "get out of jail fee!" card. 

 

Quote

The problem is FORCING someone ELSE, not a member of the church in question, against his will, to actually violate his religious beliefs, as I would be if I prevented somehow a Muslim from making his pilgrimage.

 

From my perspective, ensuing a business owner complies with the laws of commerce governing his chosen line of business is entirely different than preventing a religious adherent from making a pilgrimage.

 

Quote

So condoning a certain sexual behavior has nothing to do with forcing SOMEONE ELSE to condone it.  One can imagine, going into the past, where religious rape may have been condoned within a religion.

 

Baking a cake is not condoning sexual behavior.  If a baker feels that the act of commercially providing cakes is an act of support of any given behaviors which violates his conscience, he should choose another profession.

 

Quote

I cannot imagine being forced to manufacture, perhaps, instruments used in these rituals.  Yes the example is extreme, but that was deliberate to make the point.

 

The answer is simple: choose another profession where you aren't manufacturing weapons.  When can ANY weapons manufacturer ensure the weapons they make aren't being used contrary to the purpose the manufacturer intends them to be used for....?

 

Quote

Or selling a knife which you know will be used for human sacrifice.

 

See above.

 

Quote

Does a weapon dealer have a right NOT to sell such an instrument to be used for religious human sacrifice?

 

Again, if a weapons dealer has a religious objection to killing or the act of killing offends his religious sensibilities and affiliation--he probably needs to find another job.

Certainly, if a weapons dealer is unwilling to comply with laws that govern the sale of weapons (i.e. lets say that, according to his sincerely-held religious beliefs, everyone has a God-given right to own a gun, so he refuses to comply with the appropriate background checks that laws require before selling weapons, etc.), then he should forfeit his business and ability to sell weapons. 

In fact, this is actually another great example of what I'm taking about, when it comes to the limitations of religious liberty and it's inability to be used as an excuse to avoid complying with the law.

 

Quote

I think certainly proponents of gun control would argue quite the opposite, while yet condoning forcing someone forced to facilitate a gay wedding.

 

But the example you use is exactly the OPPOSITE of what the law requires--the law emphatically prohibits the use of weapons as you describe, and, in fact, often requires background checks to discourage the type of reckless and dangerous behavior you're postulating.

So of COURSE those of us who support gun control would argue against a weapons dealer being forced to sell a weapon intended for ritual religious killing, while maintaining that public accommodations law should be upheld when it comes to bakers being forced not to discriminate in selling a wedding cake.

 

Quote

YES the examples are extreme- but I think they are on point.

 

Given what I wrote above, I find it surprising you think the examples are 'on point.'  As I mentioned, they actually illustrate that the two laws you've attempted to compare are consistently applied to protect people; both from ritual religious killing and from discrimination.

 

Quote

Perhaps forcing a doctor to perform a late term abortion would be a more direct example- same principle, for someone who's religion permitted and condoned abortion.

 

Again, the same principle applies here: a doctor who objects to abortion on religious grounds should choose employment in a medical practice and area of expertise which doesn't perform abortions. 

This doesn't seem like rocket science to me.

 

Quote

The question is whether or not you can force someone, against his religious convictions, to facilitate a behavior to which he is morally opposed.

Surely you see the difference?

 

When it comes to employment, no one is "forced, against their religious convictions, to facilitate a behavior to which he is morally opposed," simply because everyone has a choice to pursue a career that doesn't require them to face legal consequences for refusing to comply with the legal requirements for their job.

Is that distinction so hard to see....?

 

 

 

 

Edited April 15, 2016 by Daniel2

[CV75]

33 minutes ago, Daniel2 said:

 

Baking a cake is not condoning sexual behavior.  If a baker feels that the act of commercially providing cakes is an act of support of any given behaviors which violates his conscience, he should choose another profession.

Because baking and selling a wedding cake can fulfill client specifications for subject matter (which isn't really the cake) that runs contrary to the baker’s religious conscience and the menu of cake options that are in line with his conscience, I can see how forcing the issue can violate the baker’s free exercise of religion. The clients are still free to carry on with their objectionable subject matter, which isn't a cake.

Where the subject matter is gay marriage, someone whose religion finds that taboo should be able to say “no” to a request that isn’t on his menu. Someone whose religion supports gay marriage can exercise the right to marry on a legal basis, but cannot rightly (though legally in some jurisdictions) infringe on the baker’s right to free exercise of religion, because the principles of protected class and public accommodation need to be appropriately weighed with the priority special protections of the constitution.

The religious gay grooms should choose another baker!