Respect for Marriage Act passes with Bi-partisan support.

[Leftfield 2,598]

7 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

So, if they do side with her, how would you react?

I would disagree.

[CoffeeTiger 5,108]

https://www.kansascity.com/news/politics-government/article269761882.html

Before Rep. Vicky Hartzler became a member of Congress, she was the face of the movement in Missouri to ban gay marriage. She traveled across the state in 2004, urging Missourians to add an amendment to the state constitution defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

Eighteen years later, as Congress prepared to enshrine same-sex marriage into federal law on Thursday, Hartzler broke into tears.

Long an advocate for traditional social conservatism, the western Missouri congresswoman spent one of her final days in office watching her colleagues deliver a final blow against the anti-same sex marriage position she had longed advocated. Hartzler, who has been in Congress since 2011, will leave in January after an unsuccessful campaign for U.S. Senate.

 

lol You love to see it. 

[homersapien 11,372]

6 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

I would guess they believe a marriage is between a man and a woman.  That would be their basis for refusing service.  You, do course, would not agree.

Likewise, the very foundation for slavery, then Jim Crow,  was the sincere belief blacks were not equal to whites.

[arein0 955]

2 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

The first sentence will be settled by the SCOTUS, I have no dog in the fight.

Your hypothetical is interesting. This is actually happening today.  If you are against a child that says he/she is really a she/he you are chastised and not taken seriously in any discussion of transing children and that is not a religious belief, it is pure ideology.

You do have a dog in the fight. You are arguing that it is okay to discriminate against others based on religious beliefs.

I brought up a hypothetical that was based on historical events. Remember Nazi Germany and the Aryan Race? By allowing discrimination against others for religious beliefs, you are setting up precedent that religious freedoms take precedence over all.

It is the same thing with Freedom of Speech, you can say whatever you want, but as soon as you verbally assault or threaten someone's lively hood, you are getting into trouble.

Nobody is saying you cant practice whatever religion you follow, but you still cant discriminate or murder (human sacrifices) someone based on religious beliefs.

How is this that hard to understand?

[homersapien 11,372]

4 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

I can see the business owners right to present rules based on their faith.  In today’s world, it is unpopular to believe in your convictions if it is not what the mob decides is correct.

Segregation and racism in general was once justified on the basis of religious belief:

https://www.religiousstudies.pitt.edu/resources-social-action/religion-race-and-racism-very-brief-introduction

"As educators in religion, we are mindful of the ways in which religion has a long, complicated, and interconnected relationship with the legacy of racism. Religions, religious institutions, and the academic study of religion have been (and continue to be) utilized to uphold white supremacy and justify racism and ethnic discrimination. Religion is neither practiced nor studied in a vacuum. Rather, it is always informed by social contexts and social conditions. Hence, religion often functions as a mirror of society’s broader assumptions and attempts to divide and discriminate, whether that be based on race, ethnicity, class, social status, nationality, religion, (dis)ability, gender, or sexuality.

The continued oppression and marginalization of African-Americans is preceded by centuries of religious speculation about the human status of Black and Indigenous people by European colonialists and theologians. The concept of a hierarchy of human races was developed throughout the long sixteenth century by white Christian Europeans who then used it to justify the enslavement of Africans and their colonialist endeavors against the indigenous peoples of the Americas. This concept was preceded by (among many events) the papal bull Dum Diversas (1452), which granted divine authority to Spain and Portugal to capture Africans and subject them to lifetime servitude; by the forced conversion or expulsion of Jews and Muslims in Spain and Portugal; by Columbus’s declaration that the inhabitants of Hispaniola were a “people without religion” and subsequent enslavement and torture of the Taino people (1493); and by the Valldolid trial (1552), which debated whether people of color were barbarians that could be “civilized” by Christian conversion, or worse, people without souls irreparably damned. White supremacy was used to justify enslavement by many of the most powerful Christian leaders in America, including Rev. Cotton Mather, Rev. Jonathan Edwards, Rev. George Whitfield, Bishop John Carroll, and Rev. Robert Lewis Dabney, not to mention 12 of America’s Presidents who owned slaves and had varying levels of commitment to Christianity. Racist assumptions were read back into sacred texts, most prominently in the so-called “curse of Ham,” and they led to the development of the “slave Bible,” a version of the text enslavers gave to slaves (when they were allowed to read) that redacted references to liberty and freedom from slavery. Religious institutions like Princeton University and Georgetown University materially benefited from the exploitation of Black bodies. Almost every major denomination had rules about whether Black people could be in religious buildings and policed efforts by Black people to have freedom of religious assembly. White supremacy was preached from the pulpit by the tens of thousands of clergymen that were members of the KKK. Denominations such as the Southern Baptist Church, the Methodist Episcopal Church, South, and the Southern Presbyterian Church owe their existence to support for slavery. White mobs scheduled lynchings on Sunday afternoons so the entire town could attend as a form of entertainment, and did so on the lawns of Black churches as a form of intimidation and domestic terrorism. Throughout the twentieth century, religious leaders were at the forefront of supporting Jim Crow, segregation, and anti-miscegenation laws. And white supremacist assumptions undergird the religio-political mythologies of the Doctrine of Discovery, the “City on a Hill,” Manifest Destiny, and American Exceptionalism."

 

This is no different.  Time for the religious to change.

Edited December 8, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,372]

6 hours ago, I_M4_AU said:

That runs up against the 1st amendment that the government will not make laws prohibiting the free exercise of religion, doesn’t it?

Again, I don’t necessarily hold with the baker or web designer, but it is an interesting question about religious and free speech rights and which will prevail.

Did the civil rights act prohibit the "free exercise of religion?

Should one's religious beliefs trump someone else's basic civil rights as a citizen?

[PUB78 1,358]

4 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Did the civil rights act prohibit the "free exercise of religion?

Should one's religious beliefs trump someone else's basic civil rights as a citizen?

Yes, find another baker, florist or wedding planner.

[homersapien 11,372]

3 hours ago, arein0 said:

So just to be clear. You think it is okay to discriminate against others as long as it "follows their religious beliefs"

So hypothetically if later on down the road some creates the religion of hate and it gets a big following. Say their scripture says that only black hair and green eyed people should be allowed to live. Would it be okay for one of the followers to refuse service or kill anyone that isnt black haired and green eyed?

Well, religious beliefs that don't comport with some version of Christianity don't actually qualify as valid religious belief. 

(Just ask many native Americans.) 

[homersapien 11,372]

2 hours ago, Didba said:

I generally don't like the idea that a person's service they are providing is a form of "speech" and their providing services to someone is "endorsing" the other person's beliefs.

 

Exactly. 

I can understand why a pastor might object to performing a marriage ceremony for homosexuals, but if someone is advertising and providing a professional service to the general public for pay, then refusing to provide that (legal) service to a homosexuals because you disapprove of homosexuality is clearly discrimination.

 

Edited December 8, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,372]

2 hours ago, icanthearyou said:

It would be a much better world if "christians" would spend less time practicing the customs, traditions of Christianity and, spend more time actually following Jesus.

Mark Chapter 7

They aren't Christians, they are pharisees. 

[autigeremt 6,610]

3 minutes ago, homersapien said:

They aren't Christians, they are pharisees. 

Not for you to judge....but actions do speak  

[I_M4_AU 7,814]

9 minutes ago, homersapien said:

Likewise, the very foundation for slavery, then Jim Crow,  was the sincere belief blacks were not equal to whites.

You do know slavery has been around since the beginning of time, right?  Do you think they might have found passages in the Bible that they could interpret as aligning with their cause as slavery in this country happened early on (1600’s) and didn’t have to justify it until the 1800’s?

Do you know very many people in the modern world that sill hold to this thinking?  Do you believe because some religious leaders have gotten things wrong with their interpretations, that all religious interpretations are not to be believed?

[homersapien 11,372]

16 minutes ago, PUB78 said:

Yes, find another baker, florist or wedding planner.

So, to clarify, you think basic civil rights are in conflict with (your) religion.

Why am I not surprised?

(Thanks for playing)

[Leftfield 2,598]

3 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

Do you believe because some religious leaders have gotten things wrong with their interpretations, that all religious interpretations are not to be believed?

No, but on the flip side, because they've been wrong with their interpretations in the past, do you believe they can be wrong about others?

[Leftfield 2,598]

20 minutes ago, PUB78 said:

Yes, find another baker, florist or wedding planner.

Honest question: have you read the entire thread?

[homersapien 11,372]

40 minutes ago, autigeremt said:

Not for you to judge....but actions do speak  

But I do have a right to my opinion which includes calling a spade a spade.  I also have a right to support basic civil rights for my fellow citizens.

I am OK with letting Jesus judge them when/if the time comes.  WWJD?

Edited December 8, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,372]

41 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

You do know slavery has been around since the beginning of time, right?  Do you think they might have found passages in the Bible that they could interpret as aligning with their cause as slavery in this country happened early on (1600’s) and didn’t have to justify it until the 1800’s?

Do you know very many people in the modern world that sill hold to this thinking?  Do you believe because some religious leaders have gotten things wrong with their interpretations, that all religious interpretations are not to be believed?

None of the above statements are relevant to my point, well, except to perhaps reinforce it.

Just as happened with religious beliefs that justified and supported slavery and segregation, it's time for people with religious "beliefs" against homosexual marriage to subordinate those beliefs to the basic civil rights of their fellow citizens  - not to mention common decency - or face the legal consequences.

It's obviously not the first time that has been necessary or required.

(Never fear, there will always be opportunities for them to legally express their hatred and disapproval for homosexuals as "required" by their religious beliefs.)

Edited December 8, 2022 by homersapien

[homersapien 11,372]

11 minutes ago, Leftfield said:

Honest question: have you read the entire thread?

Let's face it.  Some people on this forum just don't get it and never will. 

[I_M4_AU 7,814]

26 minutes ago, arein0 said:

You do have a dog in the fight. You are arguing that it is okay to discriminate against others based on religious beliefs.

No, I don’t have a dog in this fight. The only reason I am arguing is so religious freedom and free speech is not subdued in this law.  I can see their point of view and am willing to let SCOTUS figure it out.  You don’t seem to want to let the process play out.

31 minutes ago, arein0 said:

I brought up a hypothetical that was based on historical events. Remember Nazi Germany and the Aryan Race? By allowing discrimination against others for religious beliefs, you are setting up precedent that religious freedoms take precedence over all.

It is the same thing with Freedom of Speech, you can say whatever you want, but as soon as you verbally assault or threaten someone's lively hood, you are getting into trouble.

Nobody is saying you cant practice whatever religion you follow, but you still cant discriminate or murder (human sacrifices) someone based on religious beliefs.

How is this that hard to understand?

No, I am not setting up precedent that religious freedom takes precedence over all.  I am trying to argue religious freedom can not be ignored just because it is unpopular at this time.

The free speech argument; does this include the cancel culture?  I have seen several instances where people’s lively hood have been ruined because someone said something that was not liked by other people.  Is this what you mean by verbally assaulting someone?  It wasn’t settled by law enforcement, but by the mob.  Not very many people will talk freely in the public forum because what has been allowed to exist the last few years.

What do you consider practicing your religion?  Keep it to yourself in the confines of the church or at home and never disagreeing with someone that goes against your beliefs?  Do you have beliefs that are independent from what is the latest trends in social society?  Or is your thoughts restricted because you fear backlash?

I actually understand what you are saying, its sad you can’t understand any others point of view.

 

[arein0 955]

7 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

No, I don’t have a dog in this fight. The only reason I am arguing is so religious freedom and free speech is not subdued in this law.  I can see their point of view and am willing to let SCOTUS figure it out.  You don’t seem to want to let the process play out.

No, I am not setting up precedent that religious freedom takes precedence over all.  I am trying to argue religious freedom can not be ignored just because it is unpopular at this time.

The free speech argument; does this include the cancel culture?  I have seen several instances where people’s lively hood have been ruined because someone said something that was not liked by other people.  Is this what you mean by verbally assaulting someone?  It wasn’t settled by law enforcement, but by the mob.  Not very many people will talk freely in the public forum because what has been allowed to exist the last few years.

What do you consider practicing your religion?  Keep it to yourself in the confines of the church or at home and never disagreeing with someone that goes against your beliefs?  Do you have beliefs that are independent from what is the latest trends in social society?  Or is your thoughts restricted because you fear backlash?

I actually understand what you are saying, its sad you can’t understand any others point of view.

 

Is the other stance that it is okay to discriminate against others for religious reasons?

If so, I will never say that is okay. If not, please tell me what the other stance is because I only see it as okay or not okay to discriminate.

We have to treat all humans as equals. Its doesnt matter if they are Democrats or Republicans, gay or straight, black or white, blonde or ginger, blue eyed or brown eyed, male or female, bama fan or Auburn fan, married or single.

[I_M4_AU 7,814]

8 minutes ago, arein0 said:

Is the other stance that it is okay to discriminate against others for religious reasons?

If so, I will never say that is okay. If not, please tell me what the other stance is because I only see it as okay or not okay to discriminate.

We have to treat all humans as equals. Its doesnt matter if they are Democrats or Republicans, gay or straight, black or white, blonde or ginger, blue eyed or brown eyed, male or female, bama fan or Auburn fan, married or single.

You live a wonderfully virtuous life.  Do you take a stand on anything?  Are you so wishy washy that you will even allow your kids to dictate your thoughts?  Sound like he** to me.

The other stance is you are allowed to have your thoughts and convictions and those thoughts and convictions will sometimes not align with societal norms.  And that’s alright.  Religion has been squeezed into a box to the point it is irrelevant.even though it is a right in the constitution. There have been laws enacted that are contrary to freedom of religion.

A white man sitting on a bench next to Quanah Parker, the last great Comanche chief, askked him how the white man was able to take all Comanche land, Quanah moved closer to the man and the man moved away.  He did this until the man fell of the bench and then said *that’s how*

[I_M4_AU 7,814]

1 hour ago, Leftfield said:

No, but on the flip side, because they've been wrong with their interpretations in the past, do you believe they can be wrong about others?

Of course they can.  Do you automatically go there?

[autigeremt 6,610]

1 hour ago, homersapien said:

But I do have a right to my opinion which includes calling a spade a spade.  I also have a right to support basic civil rights for my fellow citizens.

I am OK with letting Jesus judge them when/if the time comes.  WWJD?

Pretty much what I meant.........

[arein0 955]

10 minutes ago, I_M4_AU said:

You live a wonderfully virtuous life.  Do you take a stand on anything?  Are you so wishy washy that you will even allow your kids to dictate your thoughts?  Sound like he** to me.

The other stance is you are allowed to have your thoughts and convictions and those thoughts and convictions will sometimes not align with societal norms.  And that’s alright.  Religion has been squeezed into a box to the point it is irrelevant.even though it is a right in the constitution. There have been laws enacted that are contrary to freedom of religion.

A white man sitting on a bench next to Quanah Parker, the last great Comanche chief, askked him how the white man was able to take all Comanche land, Quanah moved closer to the man and the man moved away.  He did this until the man fell of the bench and then said *that’s how*

I am taking a stand on this topic am I not? Have I changed my stance that discrimination is not okay? That's a lot bark coming from the "I dont have a dog in this fight." Did you only start the personal attacks because you know you are in the wrong?

Nobody is saying you can't believe in whatever you believe in.

You shouldnt be able to use religion as a justification to infringe on basic civil rights. Religion's relevance / irrelevance is up to each individual person. Everyone has their own story and beliefs. Still doesnt give them the right to infringe on basic civil rights.

 

[Didba 5,256]

1 hour ago, I_M4_AU said:

You live a wonderfully virtuous life.  Do you take a stand on anything?  Are you so wishy washy that you will even allow your kids to dictate your thoughts?  Sound like he** to me.

The other stance is you are allowed to have your thoughts and convictions and those thoughts and convictions will sometimes not align with societal norms.  And that’s alright.  Religion has been squeezed into a box to the point it is irrelevant even though it is a right in the constitution. There have been laws enacted that are contrary to freedom of religion.

A white man sitting on a bench next to Quanah Parker, the last great Comanche chief, askked him how the white man was able to take all Comanche land, Quanah moved closer to the man and the man moved away.  He did this until the man fell of the bench and then said *that’s how*

The only right reserved to religion in the constitution is the right to practice your religion within reasonable bounds without interference from the government strictly based upon religion. 

The government can still make law restricting and affecting religion as long as they do not solely target religious practices or people. Laws against bigamy is a perfect example. Laws against animal cruelty are another. Laws against private businesses discriminating based upon immutable characteristics are a great example as well.

Say a business refused to make a wedding cake for an interracial couple because his religion forbade interracial marriage. Because anti-discrimination statutes forbid private discrimination based upon race the business owner could be prosecuted just like a bigamist would be for marrying multiple people.

Basically, laws that are drafted to persecute non-religious conduct and are facially neutral are still constitutional if the law also affects religious conduct, hence bigamy laws, anti-cruelty laws, anti-discrimination laws being constitutional even though they restrict religious conduct.

Check out the holding from Reynolds v. US:

"The Court upheld Reynolds's conviction and Congress’s power to prohibit polygamy. The Court held that while Congress could not outlaw a belief in the correctness of polygamy, it could outlaw the practice thereof. The majority reasoned that while marriage is a “sacred obligation,” it is nevertheless “usually regulated by law” in “most civilized nations.” Finally, the Court held that people cannot avoid a law due to their religion."

So Congress cannot outlaw homophobic beliefs arising out of religion but they can outlaw discriminatory conduct towards other citizens that arises from their religious beliefs.  Discriminating against other citizens based on immutable characteristics is not and cannot be an extension of religious practice/conduct.

There is a reason the separation of church and state is a huge deal and it needs to be kept that way.

I also noticed you referenced Hobby Lobby earlier and I don't think it controls here, as it was a dispute between employer v employee over health care benefits, whereas the web designer suit is about a Business owner suing the state over a law that makes her conduct criminal.

I, honestly, will be shocked if the Supreme Court sides with the web designer because the law just doesn't support it. It will have to be very creative or just bad.

Edited December 8, 2022 by Didba