This is where these States are headed, The officers who raided Lebedev’s
home were investigating a possible violation of a controversial Russian law that
makes it a criminal offense to “insult the feelings of religious
@ConservativeUtahIsBest"So are you saying that Homosexuals are a
completely different race then the rest of us?"No. I'm
trying to draw a clear parallel. If refusing to bake a cake for an interracial
marriage is racist, then refusing to bake a cake for a same-sex marriage is
@ConservativeUtahisBest"One may even wonder why you would try to
open a business in Utah County if you had an issue with Mormons. That idea just
doesn't seem logical. I don't like Mormons, so I am going to open a
business in Utah County and not sell to them. That is just asking for failure.
Your claim has nothing to do with this article".When all else
fails and empty rhetoric goes nowhere begin with Faux News tactics and flat out
mislead. When did I state that I "had problems with Mormons"? On the
contrary dear confused poster I have several family members which are of the
Mormon faith. Unfortunately it is well known your extremist, obstructionist,
anti-equality faction has no answers to give if the prosecution and deliberate
discrimination effects themselves or their particular religious group. After all
that is why you had no intellectual response to offer. Instead you chose to
dismiss a very elementary point which several readers were able to comprehend.
Apparently you believe the treatment your Mormon ancestors unfortunately
experienced prior to settling Utah was acceptable. Correct?
I think this is a more delicate issue than most of us want to believe. On the
one hand we have honest people who want to follow their faith and who don't
want be put in a position of being forced to go against said faith. On the other
hand, we have honest people who are in the LGBT community, who may even
participate in the same faiths as the first group, who just want to purchase
goods and services like any other person without consideration for the gender of
their significant other. Many of the laws listed in this article appear to
balance the rights and responsibilities of both parties. Many, but not all. Some
really are bigotry and need to be rejected/repealed.
@Vanceone --"Examine the law proposed in California. And tell me
how that law is "Oppressing gays" and so forth."Please
be more specific. The only thing I could find about a "religious
freedom" law being proposed in CA posted within the last month has to do
with banning official state travel to pro-discrimination states."you LGBT types are openly calling for religions to be forced to solemnize
gay weddings, aren't you?"Nope. What you keep forgetting is
that ministers are ALREADY protected against having to perform gay weddings. No
additional law is needed for that.
Simple question: Examine the law proposed in California. And tell me how that
law is "Oppressing gays" and so forth. Please, tell me how that law is
"anti-gay." Or the law in Alaska, Kansas, or Louisiana. Some of you have said these are all anti-gay bills and are discriminatory
against LGBT and must be overturned.Since these bill say that
ministers don't have to solemnize gay weddings or student religious groups
can actually only accept members of those religions: Are they anti-gay? If
they are.... then you LGBT types are openly calling for religions to be forced
to solemnize gay weddings, aren't you? And thus, religious liberty is
indeed under attack if a bill saying a priest does not have to conduct a gay
wedding is deemed "anti gay" and discriminatory and must be
@Jimbo Low--"I think bigger than this issue is the legislating
from the bench."You seem to have conveniently forgotten that the
1964 Civil Rights Act (Pub.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) was a
piece of federal legislation democratically passed by both houses of the US
Congress. (In fact, it passed by quite large margins -- House 290-130, Senate
73-27.)You know, the guys who have the JOB of legislating for our
country.Hmmm.And, of course, you *still* haven't
answered my simple questions:Should those black college kids have
gone to a different diner to eat?And should Maurice Bessinger's
black customers have been satisfied with service through his drive-thru window,
or did they deserve to eat inside his restaurant with the white folks, despite
Bessinger's sincerely held religious beliefs against integration?
@Jimbo Low--"I think bigger than this issue is the legislating
from the bench."You seem to have forgotten that the 1964 Civil
Rights Act (Pub.L. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241, enacted July 2, 1964) was a piece of
federal legislation democratically passed by both houses of the US Congress. (In
fact, it passed by quite large margins -- House 290-130, Senate 73-27.)You know, the guys who have the JOB of legislating for our country.Hmmm.
@Jimbo Low"bigger than this issue is the legislating from the
bench. At some point we Conservatives will realize that all this
"legislating" is nothing more than a feel-good exercise that will be
"struck down" by some "brilliant" liberal legal mind"."The only way to really take back the Constitution is to hold judges
responsible, legally, for their rulings". "Ignore the
actual law as a judge and you are put away--that is really the only way
legislating anything will have any power of law. Judges need to be knocked of
their thrones and be subject to the law they are commissioned to uphold".In other words. If Judges do not agree with the extremist, delusional,
obstructionist, anti-science, anti-equality, anti-women, anti-immigration,
modern day high-jacked Republican party rhetoric it's "legislation from
the bench". Liberals such as myself continue thanking states such as Utah
and Mississippi for leading the way in equality for all rather a select chosen
few the Christian far right deem worthy. Furthermore. You may desire a more in
depth education on the subject matter prior to posting. Many
"conservative" Judges have also agreed with equality for all citizenry.
I think bigger than this issue is the legislating from the bench. At some point
we Conservatives will realize that all this "legislating" is nothing
more than a feel-good exercise that will be "struck down" by some
"brilliant" liberal legal mind.The only way to really take back
the Constitution is to hold judges responsible, legally, for their rulings. If a
Judge such as Robert Shelby ignores the law (no matter how high he believes his
own convictions are) and rules how he whims--he needs to be convicted by the
law. Ignore the actual law as a judge and you are put away--that is really the
only way legislating anything will have any power of law. Judges need to be
knocked of their thrones and be subject to the law they are commissioned to
@ConservativeUtahisBest@liberal Living..."How would
I feel? I would be fine by that. If I needed your product I would most likely
get it from another person that sells the same stuff. If you don't want to
sell to me then it is your choice. Whether or not your business last or not
depends on if people come in to buy your product. If people don't buy it
then you probably wouldnt' last too long. But that choice wouldn't
bother me".Excellent. You engaged in the typical anti-equality
extremist, obstructionist rhetoric I knew one would. Notice you used "most
likely". Furthermore. You're implying that one would have other
"options" finding another outlet that sells the same product/service.
What if my company was the only source of the needed product/service? We both
know you would be extremely insulted and rightfully so. Not to mention the
inability in finding a source for the hypothetical product you desire/need. In
closing. These are the type of ideals/beliefs which separate us from other
countries. Based upon your posts/statements obviously you favor the identical
treatment your Mormon ancestors experienced prior to settling in Utah. Correct?
@Husker1 --"There is a huge difference between refusing service
to homosexuals and refusing service to blacks from a religious perspective.
"Not to Maurice Bessinger. What gives you the right to judge his
religious beliefs? He deserves as much freedom of religion as you do, right?@ConservativeUtahisBest --"If I needed your product I
would most likely get it from another person that sells the same stuff."And **still** nobody has answered my simple question:Should
those black college kids at the lunch counters have gone to a different diner to
@ConservativeUtahisBestIt's nice you feel that way.However, as there is not a single serious effort in this country, at local,
state or federal level, to rescind existing non-discrimination protections for
religion, it seems you are in the minority.When that changes
I'll believe people are serious about "religious liberty".@Husker1Eh, I'm not in the habit of telling people whether there
religious beliefs are sufficiently sincere. Whether that sincere belief is that
they won't donate blood (7th Day Adventists), that they won't accept a
driver's license (Amish), that they need Saturdays off for the Sabbath
(Jews), that they need their break times to line up with prayer times (Muslim),
that they won't socially mingle with black people (1960s Southern Baptist)
or that they won't be the pediatrician for the daughter of a gay couple
(Michigan, 2010s, unspecified Christian denomination).I'm more
concerned with whether you enjoy the protection of non-discrimination laws while
protesting that others get the same.
@Frozen FractalsSo are you saying that Homosexuals are a completely
different race then the rest of us?
@liberal on Planet UtahOne may even wonder why you would try to open
a business in Utah County if you had an issue with Mormons. That idea just
doesn't seem logical. I don't like Mormons, so I am going to open a
business in Utah County and not sell to them. That is just asking for failure.
Your claim has nothing to do with this article.
To those of you who support these laws:1. Should people have a
religious right (if this is what their religion believes, obviously it's
much rarer these days than in the 60s) to refuse to photograph or provide
services for an inter-racial marriage if they are opposed to it?2.
Would it be racist of someone to bake a birthday cake for a white woman or a
black man but not a wedding cake for a marriage between the two of them?
@liberal Living On Plane UtahHow would I feel? I would be fine by
that. If I needed your product I would most likely get it from another person
that sells the same stuff. If you don't want to sell to me then it is your
choice. Whether or not your business last or not depends on if people come in
to buy your product. If people don't buy it then you probably
wouldnt' last too long. But that choice wouldn't bother me.
@Husker1;Thou shalt not bear false witness.There is not
one single scripture that says doing business with "sinners" is against
your "sincerely held religious beliefs". Not a single one. Quite the
opposite rather. Jesus himself COMMANDED his followers to treat others in the
manner they would like to be treated themselves. ALL others. He didn't
qualify his commandment with a footnote or anything else. ALL Others. If you
think refusing to bake a wedding cake for an LGBT couple is following that
commandment, you're sadly mistaken.
@Husker1"If a gay couple try to order a cake from a bakery and
the baker refuses to bake the cake because he does not want to support or
endorse the homosexual lifestyle in any way, how is this "forcing others to
believe as they do"?"Simple stuff, really. When the baker
opened the business they had to get a secular license to provide a secular
service in accordance with the secular civil, criminal, and business laws
mandated by the secular license issuing authority: the state. By refusing to
provide a service that they would provide to others without a
"Leviticus" religious test they are imposing their religion onto the
marketplace. Religious protection laws have one purpose: to make others
"live" by the majority religion or recognize that they will not be
served until such time as they do "live" by the majority religion.
@ContrariuserThere is a huge difference between refusing service to
homosexuals and refusing service to blacks from a religious perspective. There
are verses in both the Old Testament and the New Testament that speak against
homosexuality. Using those verses, a Christian can prove they are being forced
to go against their religious beliefs and support what they consider to be
sinful behavior. On the other hand, there are no Scriptures that speak on the
separation of races or the superiority of whites over blacks. Therefore, a
Christian who claims integration is a violation of his religious beliefs has no
proof from his own Scriptures to support that statement.
Liberal On Planet Zion(Prior to this comment being moderated into
oblivion please keep in mind this identical post was approved regarding another
anti-equality article on 5/5/16 entitled "Mississippi Governor signs law
allowing service denial to gays")Attention to those which oppose
equality for all regardless of sexual orientation: How is this for a
hypothetical situation?I'm adopting a new policy effective
immediately throughout all my businesses. It's against my personal beliefs
that Mormons wear garments and my religion doesn't agree. Therefore I
cannot offer any of my services to this group. My most sincere apology. Is this
a solid business policy? How would this policy make you feel? How long will my
businesses throughout Utah County last? Elsewhere, I'm not too concerned.
@Rationaldeas--"But if homosexuals get denied service from the
first wedding business they visit, they have been wronged...."Yet again -- should those black college kids have gone to another diner to eat
lunch?Oddly enough, you guys never manage to answer that
question.@Husker1 --"The bakers beliefs, as
supported by his religious Scriptures, are being trampled on."You and Rationaldeas keep forgetting the example of Maurice Bessinger.Yet again:Mr. Bessinger was a devout Baptist. He was happy
to serve blacks in the drive-thrus of his restaurants, but he refused to serve
them **inside** the restaurants. He argued that the Civil Rights Act
violated his freedom of religion because "his religious beliefs compel him
to oppose any integration of the races whatever." He said integration
"contravenes the will of God" and the Civil Rights Act constitutes an
interference with the "free exercise of the Defendant's religion."
He stated that "it is really a constitutional right — whether a man
has the right to run his business without governmental interference". Does any of this sound familiar?Should SCOTUS have ruled in
his favor?Hint: they didn't. He lost -- 8-0.
@RJohnson "It is those claiming to have the "true
religion" that are wishing to "force others to believe as they
do."If a gay couple try to order a cake from a bakery and the
baker refuses to bake the cake because he does not want to support or endorse
the homosexual lifestyle in any way, how is this "forcing others to believe
as they do"? The baker is not asking the gay couple to become Christian.
He is not proselytizing in any way. In fact, it is the gay couple who is
forcing the baker to believe as they do.The bakers beliefs, as
supported by his religious Scriptures, are being trampled on.
"Obviously, it is way more than just a wedding, and way more than just a
cake. It is social acceptance and approval. "------Yet, cake bakers MUST supply a cake to an inter-racial couple. They do not
have a choice, even if they do not accept or approve of mixing of the races.
So, this bakers should just tell this inter-racial couple that they should go to
another baker because it is against their beliefs? That their hearts would not
be in it and they would do a horrible job?PS - Weddings are for more
than announcing that you are going to engage in sexual conduct. If that is what
you see a is wedding for, I pitty your spouse! They are a legal
commitment to each other--to be there for that person and to love a cherish them
through thick and thin. You do this in front of friends, family and relations
to show that you are serious and want them to witness this exchange of vows. To
me, that is what a wedding if for.
@Jimbo Low"So I must keep my religion in the closet."Never said such a thing. You want to hide behind your religion to
violate the rights of those you don't like, with the blessings of the
state, and then claim YOU are being persecuted when told you can't do that.
You can put your religion on public display all you choose. You CANNOT use your
religion, however, to trample on the civil rights of those you don't like.
@RationalIdeas"Homosexuals demand it; They are no more entitled to it
than any is a church."... No more entitled then a church?Seeing as religion is covered under the Civil Rights Act (1964), thus
prohibiting discrimination in employment, housing, and public accommodations on
the basis of religion in all fifty states...I find this compromise
@Jimbo Low --"So I must keep my religion in the closet...is that
what you are saying? Kind of ironic--don't you think?"No,
that's NOT what anyone is saying. What we are saying is that you may not
use *your* religion to control *our* lives. Control your own behavior, leave
ours out of it, and stop using religion as an excuse to discriminate.@ConservativeUtahisBest --"You say that religions
shouldn't be able to voice their disapproval of other lifestyles"She didn't say any such thing. If you believe she did, please quote
her specific statement.Speech is free. But actively trying to deny
rights to others is not.
Jimbo LowPLEASANT GROVE, UT@RJohnson:"What is under
attack is your insistence that YOUR religion be a part of the daily lives of the
rest of us..."So I must keep my religion in the closet...is that what
you are saying? Kind of ironic--don't you think?-----------Make it part of YOUR life! Live it to its fullest!But don't
make it part of everyone elses'. Can you live with others and serve others
that do not believe as you do? Can you truly love that person who has different
values than you? That is what is being asked of you. You would be
surprised as the respect you will garner when you respect others and do not
force them to act as you believe that they should. PS - I do not believe
that the LDS church has ever asked anyone to refrain from baking a cake or
fitting a tux to any gay couple that are getting married. Am I wrong?
Karen R.: "where you see an objectionable idea and even an agenda, others
just see a wedding."Nobody waged the legal battles they did over
"just a wedding."Supporters of homosexual "marriage"
benefits repeatedly spoke about how legal marriages were central to their
"dignity", how lack of legal "marriage" benefits contributed to
a lack of social acceptance that lead to discrimination and even criminal
violence against homosexuals.Homosexuals see a lot more than
"just a wedding".Homosexuals also see a lot more than just a
cake or flowers from one baker or florist. I visited several
photographers, bakers, and florists before finding the right fit for my
wedding.But if homosexuals get denied service from the first wedding
business they visit, they have been wronged, humiliated, and damaged beyond all
ability to recover.Someone had the audacity to tell them, "I
disagree with your choice to publicly announce you are engaging in homosexual
conduct. I won't participate in that public declaration."Obviously, it is way more than just a wedding, and way more than just a cake.
It is social acceptance and approval. Homosexuals demand it; They
are no more entitled to it than any is a church.
@RJohnson:"What is under attack is your insistence that YOUR religion
be a part of the daily lives of the rest of us..."So I must keep my
religion in the closet...is that what you are saying? Kind of ironic--don't
@Karen R. So then should we get mad at the people that stand outside
the conference center shouting at the LDS members going in that they disapprove
of their religion and their views? You say that religions shouldn't be
able to voice their disapproval of other lifestyles and yet the protestors
outside the conference center are doing just that....
@Jimbo Low"True religion virtually always been, is now, and will
forever be under attack by those wishing to force others to believe as they
do."Hardly. It is those claiming to have the "true
religion" that are wishing to "force others to believe as they do."
That is, after all, what is really behind these "Religious Freedom"
bills--forcing your religion on everyone else through force of law."Just because you reject what I call "religion" does not mean my
religion is not under attack."Your religion IS NOT under any
attack, you know it and the rest of us know it. What is under attack is your
insistence that YOUR religion be a part of the daily lives of the rest of us who
don't share your religion. Those days are long gone.
@Furry1993:"Freedom of religion is not, ,and has never been, under any
type of attack"Probably the most sweeping, false statement purported
by those wishing to force others in their "PC imagine all the people"
world.True religion virtually always been, is now, and will forever be
under attack by those wishing to force others to believe as they do. From Cain
to the crucifiers of Christ to the mob persecuting clerks, cake bakers and
untold numbers of others--to say freedom of religion has never been under attack
is insane.Just because you reject what I call "religion" does not
mean my religion is not under attack. Your argument has always been the basis
for attack, persecution, execution, etc.. "We are not attacking freedom of
religion--these people are just not complying with__________ and therefore need
to go to prison/pay fines/be executed."
"People are perfectly free to believe as they choose, worship as they
choose, socialize as they choose in private life"The same stance
maintained in many Muslim countries, and many communist countries.Freedom to exercise your religion as long as Fury never sees it. This is the
definitive example of attacks on religion.Pakistan 65 people were
killed because they dared to meet as Christians in a state ruled by those who
have the belief "People are perfectly free to believe as they choose,
worship as they choose, socialize as they choose in private life,"15 were killed in a catholic church because they dared worship in public. A
Muslim shop keeper was killed because he dared express publicly his belief. Yes religious belief and expression is under attack.
Any argument that includes "Nobody should be forced to bake a cake" and
similar phrases should examine current law.Because the current
status quo is that, with very narrow exceptions, no one can fire, evict or
refuse service to someone because that someone is Catholic. So when you have
people asking for the right to fire, evict or refuse service to someone because
they themselves are Catholic? It's a hard pill to swallow.So
let's have a discussion about non-discrimination law in this country, if
that's your thing. But by keeping it so narrowly focused on *religious*
people serving *gay* people, you make it clear that aren't serious about
forcing *people* to serve *people*.
So, private secular businesses engaged in secular activities entirely peripheral
to a wedding have their religious free expression trampled on by having to serve
gay customers. A baker or caterer need not event attend the event; their
product is likely served well after the ceremony at an offsite reception hall.
They might as well be catering a corporate party.Meanwhile, those
passionately defending religious liberty when it comes to secular businesses
were strangely on the opposite side of the argument when it came to the free
exercise rights of actual ordained clergy in actual churches. Prior to the
Obergefelt decision, pastors and rabbis faced fines and imprisonment for
conducting sacred religious rites in accordance with the dictates of their
consciences and the tenets of their faiths. In Utah, it was a third degree
felony for clergy to solemnize holy matrimony for same-sex couples. If requiring a private business to accommodate all customers is an
infringement on religious liberty, what about the government directly
interfering with the genuinely religious things that churches do? And why
weren’t those defending the religious rights of businesses also defending
the religious rights of churches?
The hypocrisy comes in that many people who feel their religious rights are
being trampled upon in serving the LGBTQ community and treating them fairly are
people that have problems with or serve people that have committed adultery,
have challenges with porn, have committed serious crimes, struggle with
addictions, are white or blue collar criminals, and many other things. It makes more sense to treat everyone fairly, all people work to not trample
on each other's rights, and let there be a place for people that care about
religion and those that don't. When people feel compelled to get rid of one
another or to shut the door to serving those that do not agree with them, that
is something to be concerned about. When you start excluding people
where do you draw the line? If you want to go to extremes you could find a
reason not to serve most of the public for one reason or another due to the
number of ways people can be offensive or offend with their attitudes, beliefs,
values, and behavior.
Its amazing how many Americans think that running a business is a right. A
business license is a privilege, like a driver's license. If you drive on
the left side of the road claiming "religious freedom" you will lose
your privilege to drive. If you can't run a business by the rules, you
lose that privilege too.
Why have Americans become so afraid of freedom? Real freedom means being able
to do what you want while respecting other people's right to do what they
want. Compelling someone to participate in a wedding ceremony in any way that
they belive is objectionable is denying them religious freedom. We have long
recognized that by concientious objector status in the military.I am
in a marriage which some people find to be objectionable. Not only would I not
wish to force any to participate who had religious or ethical objections, I
would go out of my way to have them not participate.We have gone
from where we want tolerance to where we demand acceptance and participation.
Once your bar any "discrimination," the Jewish baker must make a
birthday cake celebrating Hitler. The black print shop owner must print
advertisements for a white supremicist. A minister, an imam or a rabbi is
forced to conduct a marriage which violates his ot her religious beliefs.How can compelling someone to violate their religious beliefs not be a
violation of the "free exercise" of religion? I support your free
exercise of religion, even if it causes me a little inconvenience.
@ Rationaldeas"Nobody sane forces his supposed enemy to bake him
a cake..."I agree. But how is a gay couple to know beforehand
who holds religious objections to serving them? Are we to expect them to first
deferentially inquire into whether their business is welcome? How demeaning is
that! Would you like this to be required of you?No. It's the
business owner's belief that creates the issue, so the burden of bearing
the consequences of it falls to them. Unlike with conscientious objectors in
war time, no one is compelling them to offer the service they're selling or
to be a government employee. Further, as a condition of holding these
positions, they previously agreed to abide by ALL applicable laws. Should they
be held to their word or shouldn't they?Granted, the
consequences of certain beliefs about gay people have changed in our society,
putting some in a real bind. The same thing happened when we changed our mores
about black people. You've already acknowledged that we were right not to
accommodate those religious beliefs. SSM objectors have failed to demonstrate
that theirs about gay people are materially different.
@Rationaldeas --"you are hostile to any religious exercise that
offends you. ..."Nonsense.For instance, there's
an article on the DN right now concerning the right of Santerians to perform
animal sacrifices. Animal sacrifice greatly offends me -- yet I have commented
SUPPORTING their right to continue that religious exercise."No."Dingdingding!Correct. Bessinger lost his
court case -- just like the bakers and florists who have attempted to refuse
service to LGBT weddings."But that doesn't mean religious
(or even secular) concerns should never be accommodated."Nobody
has made this claim. Straw man."those who don't want to
live in a nation with the free exercise of religion should move."Correct. And free exercise includes ALL religious viewpoints -- not just
yours. Your religious viewpoint does NOT give you license to impinge on the
rights of others."Nobody sane forces his supposed enemy to bake
him a cake..."So should those black college kids have gone to
eat at a different lunch counter? No sane person would have "forced"
those racists to cook lunch for them -- right?"I oppose forcing
anyone to support political candidates/parties,..."Straw man.
Nobody is being forced to support anything -- only to refrain from
The funniest thing about this whole "we don't want to serve you"
brouhaha is how offended the "religious rights" activists get if you ask
them to be upfront about their beliefs. It has been suggested they
post their intention to deny services in their window for all to see (or
conversely that those who will serve all post that in their windows) and the
religious claim that will lead those they don't wish to serve to
discriminate against them. Basically, they should get to use their
religious beliefs to deny you service, but you shouldn't have the knowledge
to refuse to do business with them because of their religious beliefs. In many places businesses that have chosen to refuse service to LGBT members
of the community have found that their attitude is so unpopular other members of
the community will not support them, causing them to go out of business - not
from lawsuits, just from lack of business.
@ marxistUnderstood. I was phrasing it to match how Rationaldeas
put it. BTW, Rationaldeas, where you see an objectionable idea and
even an agenda, others just see a wedding.
@Contrariusiest: "We are hostile to discrimination, not to religion."You've repeatedly made clear you are hostile to any religious
exercise that offends you. You desire to force everyone to comport to your view
of social interactions, regardless of their personal beliefs."Should SCOTUS have ruled in his favor?"No. Neither
should the SCOTUS rule in favor of human sacrifice or honor killings, female
genital mutilation, blowing up buildings, nor similar conduct that some may
claim is required by their religious beliefs.But that doesn't
mean religious (or even secular) concerns should never be accommodated. The 1st amendment exists to protect the free exercise of religion as
much as to keep government from sponsoring a state religion. As you recently
said about the 14th amendment, I say about the 1st (and 2nd): those who
don't want to live in a nation with the free exercise of religion should
move.Nobody sane forces his supposed enemy to bake him a cake, take
his most important photos, or do other creative work for him. I
oppose discrimination for general goods and services.I oppose
forcing anyone to support political candidates/parties, church events, or
homosexual events that offend them.
@Karen R "Believers opposed to SSM see a gay couple wanting to marry as an
objectionable idea or agenda because of their freely chosen religious beliefs.
This perspective isn't the fault of the gay couple. They have no control
over what others believe. "Actually I think religionists here
'bouts who object to doing business in conjunction with a SSM are really
objecting to the individuals themselves, the homosexual or lesbian or whatever,
and want to discriminate against them because their status runs contrary to
religious dogma. THAT is what is going on. As they say, it's
time to take off the gloves. Let's all try to be honest about our beliefs.
One thing though, everyone has a right to a full life even if some object to
who they are.
Why are regressives trying to turn the nation's attention away from the
economic policy they gave us in the 1980s (which has failed miserably)? It seems
like they want to turn back the clock to the 1950s socially. Is this really the
best they can offer? And how do we know that this isn't merely a trick to
further enrich the uber rich and distract us from the economic policy that is
impoverishing millions of Americans?
@ RationalIdeas"There is a huge difference between refusing
goods and services...and declining to support an event intended to advance an
idea or agenda."Believers opposed to SSM see a gay couple
wanting to marry as an objectionable idea or agenda because of their freely
chosen religious beliefs. This perspective isn't the fault of the gay
couple. They have no control over what others believe. Should
others be required to bear the consequences of our freely chosen beliefs or
should that burden fall on us?
@Rationaldeas --"I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that
those hostile to religion are yet again trying to minimize what "the free
exercise of religion" really means."Tsk.Yet
again -- many Christians support full LGBT equality, and many Christians oppose
discrimination for any reason.We are hostile to discrimination, not
to religion."Nobody should be forced to support or advance an
idea, or participate in conduct that offends him."Soooo....
Maurice Bessinger, a very religious man who believed integration violated
Biblical edicts, should have been allowed to refuse service to blacks in his
restaurant? He was happy to serve blacks **outside** his restaurant, after all
(at the drive-thru window). He didn't oppose serving blacks, but he
"declined to support an event intended to advance an idea or agenda" --
the idea and agenda of integration.Should SCOTUS have ruled in his
favor?Hint: they didn't.
So many of these proposals have already been ruled to be on direct violation of
the Federal law and/or Contitution. It just once again goes to show the
selective morality of GOP that cares little about the constitution or the rule
"Religious Freedom". That term used to actually stand for something.
Now, it code for "blatant discrimination".
I suppose we shouldn't be surprised that those hostile to religion are yet
again trying to minimize what "the free exercise of religion" really
means. They would limit "the free exercise of religion" to merely
believing, attending church, and praying privately. Yet these are the same
folks who scream "hypocrisy" anytime they sense a believer is not being
generous and charitable on Monday after having attended church on Sunday. The
anti-religious want their cake and to eat it to.What is especially
galling is to see atheists and those hostile to religion presuming to school the
faithful on what religion or faith requires of them. That is beyond
presumptuous. Nobody should be forced to support or advance an
idea, or participate in conduct that offends him.There is a huge
difference between refusing goods and services to an individual who happens to
be homosexual, or Republican, or LDS, and declining to support an event intended
to advance an idea or agenda. Nobody should be forced to provide support to the
GOP convention, a Mormon missionary event, or a homosexual wedding.
Corrected Headline: The status of anti-gay bills from 2016 across
America".Lets at least try to be honest, please? We all know
these bills aren't truly about "religious freedom". They're
about legalizing bigotry and discrimination against LGBT citizens.
What other dark little bits of the religious conscience do these bills protect?
If a professional photographer was asked to take photos at a wedding in which
there was nudity or other behaviors very offensive to him, is he legally
obligated to provide his service?
A few things this list makes clear:1) Many believers, including
their lawmakers, really don't understand the concept of religious
freedom;2) For some it seems that one very important aspect of
practicing their religion is being able to demonstrate disapproval of another by
refusing goods and services; and3) The more believers display their
willful ignorance of and incivility towards the LGBT community (and pass this
off as "morals" and "values"), the more they expose the ugly
side of religion. IMO that's a good thing.
Nothing is being done to challenge freedom of religion. Freedom of religion is
not, ,and has never been, under any type of attack. People are perfectly free
to believe as they choose, worship as they choose, socialize as they choose in
private life, etc. Religious establishments are not being forced to do
anything, or peach anything, or perform any rites or ceremonies, that is/are
contrary to their dogma and practices. The only thing that is being challenged
is the attempts by the self-called "religious" to impose their so-called
"religious" values on civil, secular society. People have every right
to believe as they feel appropriate but, when they operate in civil, secular
society, they have the obligation to treat all sinners (and we are all sinners)
the same, regardless what the perceived sin might be.Matthew 22:21,
quoting the Savior: "Render unto Caesar the things that are Caesar's,
and unto God the things that are God's". Our Savior clearly
distinguished between religious issues and civil law. I find it sad that
today's so-called religious people cannot do the same.