Reasoning Behind Recent Spate of RFRAs (1 Viewer)

What many people are missing is the reason why suddenly now a number of states are rushing to enact RFRAs (Religious Freedom Restoration Acts).

The current spate of RFRA enactments is a subtextual message to the SCOTUS judges who will be deciding the matter in June that 1) no, there is no long-standing reasonable and customary tradition of the oxymoronic "gay marriage"/"same-sex marriage" upon which to base any related decisions, and, in fact, obviously, it's just the opposite, and 2) with the religious texts of the three social religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) clearly stating that homosexuality is a sin against God, and, because there is a considerable majority of people in America who adhere to one of these three religions, a SCOTUS decision on the matter affirming the oxymoronic "gay marriage"/"same-sex marriage" will be a threat to religious freedom and justice.

Since the matter is upon the SCOTUS now, the RFRAs are coming out now.

This is a very relevant and strong message, that, in truth, there is no such thing as "gay marriage", "same-sex marriage", or, "traditional marriage". All three terms are distortions of reality. There's only "marriage", and, it simply means "between a man and a woman as husband and wife".

In the case of Memories Pizza, they have stated that they will allow a gay customer to come in to their establishment and eat, but, they won't cater a gay .. wait for it .. .. wedding.

Yes, the difference is the presence of what these religious practitioners experience as a religious sacrament.

That's where the line is being drawn here.

If a known homosexual comes into the Muslim's restaurant and wants to order a meal, and, there is no religious sacrament being either consecrated against the owner's religion or desecrated of the owner's religion, the argument is that the owner's refusal to serve the homosexual is unacceptable and constitutes non-religious discrimination.

But, if the owner considers, in this case, "marriage", to be a sacrament of their religion, and, of course, marriage means "between a man and a woman as husband and wife", then for the owner, as a caterer or whatever to participate in the function of the wedding between two people of the same sex is a desecration of the owner's religion's sacrament "marriage", and, thus, the owner has every religious liberty-justice right to refuse.

Some say that these RFRAs are in case the SCOTUS erroneously sides in favor of the oxymoronic "gay marriage"/"same-sex marriage", that those who are adherents of religions in opposition will not be forced to participate or actively condone desecration of their own religious sacraments.

Also ..

.. Those of us who know history, we know that marriage, which is and always has been "between a man and a woman as husband and wife" by definition, predates any of these religions by thousands of years. But, these three social religions have included marriage in their religious texts, and they've done so in a way that has made marriage a religious sacrament in these religions. Our constitution allows them to have done that and to continue to do that. That's part of the freedom of religion aspect in America. Indeed, marriage has been a religious sacrament in the three social religions long before the late 1950s and early 1960s when gay activists began the multi-generation brainwashing agenda by having the oxymoronic terms "gay marriage" and "same-sex marriage" repeated over the air waves to the degree people actually thought the terms were something real.

So what the RFRAs do is set a protection standard for those who respect their religious sacraments, that they won't have to be compelled to participate in or actively condone behavior that desecrates their religious sacrament.

Thus if a person who is a known Satanist enters a Christian's restaurant, and he sets out Satanic sacraments on the table, his behavior, of using sacraments that are a direct affront to the owners, is arguably grounds for him to be asked to leave. Remember, Jesus, God, and Satan, are all religious symbols underlying the religious sacraments. The Satanist's behavior is thus an attack on the owner's religion and its sacraments, and, in American, ownership being nine tenths of the law, they say, the owners have the religious right to refuse service in their ownership space.

But, if the known Satanist enters the Christian's restaurant and does not do anything behavior-wise religiously, then the argument is he must be served. Same with a gay couple in a Christian's restaurant where that Christian respects the Christian's religious sacrament of marriage.

Yes, some argue that the very presence of a Satanist in a Christian's establishment is a religious affront, and some say that a gay couple entering a Christian's establishment is provocative and the owner has the right to refuse service with respect to the owner's religion.

There are gray areas here.

The Bible's Old Testament says that homosexuals should be stoned. But, attempt that and you'll be rightly hauled off for attempted murder. Why? Due process violation.

So the RFRAs are an attempt to allow protection of one's religious sacraments to conform to due process as well. A nuance? Maybe. But, this is part of the reasoning of RFRAs.

The message to the SCOTUS is, however, quite clear: "if you erroneously appeal to the 14th Amendment (or whatever) to allow the ludicrous oxymoronic "gay marriage"/"same-sex marriage", you will create an unjustified threat against religious liberty and justice, and you simply cannot irrationally ignore the long-term traditional reasonable and customary existence and practice of these three social religions, their religious texts, and the citizen practitioners of these religions, the considerable majority of Americans".

Ontologuy said:

This is a very relevant and strong message, that, in truth, there is no such thing as "gay marriage", "same-sex marriage", or, "traditional marriage". All three terms are distortions of reality. There's only "marriage", and, it simply means "between a man and a woman as husband and wife".s.

Click to expand...

Yeah and you'd know oh so much about marriage being all of...

Ontologuy said:

I'm 16 and my girlfriend is 15.

Click to expand...

But wait I'm confused, did you have kids 6 years before you were born?

Ontologuy said:

My kids (and I include my daughter-in-law in that list) ended up a few hundred thousands of dollars in student loan debt.

Click to expand...

Ontologuy said:

What many people are missing is the reason why suddenly now a number of states are rushing to enact RFRAs (Religious Freedom Restoration Acts).

The current spate of RFRA enactments is a subtextual message to the SCOTUS judges who will be deciding the matter in June that 1) no, there is no long-standing reasonable and customary tradition of the oxymoronic "gay marriage"/"same-sex marriage" upon which to base any related decisions, and, in fact, obviously, it's just the opposite, and 2) with the religious texts of the three social religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) clearly stating that homosexuality is a sin against God, and, because there is a considerable majority of people in America who adhere to one of these three religions, a SCOTUS decision on the matter affirming the oxymoronic "gay marriage"/"same-sex marriage" will be a threat to religious freedom and justice.

Since the matter is upon the SCOTUS now, the RFRAs are coming out now.

This is a very relevant and strong message, that, in truth, there is no such thing as "gay marriage", "same-sex marriage", or, "traditional marriage". All three terms are distortions of reality. There's only "marriage", and, it simply means "between a man and a woman as husband and wife".

In the case of Memories Pizza, they have stated that they will allow a gay customer to come in to their establishment and eat, but, they won't cater a gay .. wait for it .. .. wedding.

Yes, the difference is the presence of what these religious practitioners experience as a religious sacrament.

That's where the line is being drawn here.

If a known homosexual comes into the Muslim's restaurant and wants to order a meal, and, there is no religious sacrament being either consecrated against the owner's religion or desecrated of the owner's religion, the argument is that the owner's refusal to serve the homosexual is unacceptable and constitutes non-religious discrimination.

But, if the owner considers, in this case, "marriage", to be a sacrament of their religion, and, of course, marriage means "between a man and a woman as husband and wife", then for the owner, as a caterer or whatever to participate in the function of the wedding between two people of the same sex is a desecration of the owner's religion's sacrament "marriage", and, thus, the owner has every religious liberty-justice right to refuse.

Some say that these RFRAs are in case the SCOTUS erroneously sides in favor of the oxymoronic "gay marriage"/"same-sex marriage", that those who are adherents of religions in opposition will not be forced to participate or actively condone desecration of their own religious sacraments.

Click to expand...

This is reasonable view, but I also think there are just millions of Christians out there sick and tired of being trampled on, and seeing govt increasingly shoving its finger in their eye. This is a natural response.

US Conservative said:

This is reasonable view, but I also think there are just millions of Christians out there sick and tired of being trampled on, and seeing govt increasingly shoving its finger in their eye. This is a natural response.

Click to expand...

Yes, too often the victim mentality of the left falsely blames the right and their religion.

It's hard, though, for a handful of people (homosexuals) when they read things in the Bible, things like they should be stoned if they act on their particular sex drive.

What's pathological is when every lefty with some kind of unresolved hurt suffered in their family-of-origin then suffers unconscious identification to the extreme degree they exalt homosexuals to the status of iconic crusader heroes and at the cost of their own sensibilities.

Then their victim mentality distortions can create an irrational mass attack on things like Christianity in general.

Though I don't condone such psychopathology, preferring instead that these people seek out a competent mental health practitioner for healing, science has presented that homosexuality is inculcated during gestation caused by epigenetic anomaly, and the right wing might do well to acknowledge that fact, accepting that homosexuality is simply not a choice, and perhaps devoting money to science to research a way to insure a prevention of the causes of the condition.

Still, I understand that the victim mentality of the left has an assault going on the right and the right's religion -- you have to protect yourself too.

Ontologuy said:

Yes, too often the victim mentality of the left falsely blames the right and their religion.

It's hard, though, for a handful of people (homosexuals) when they read things in the Bible, things like they should be stoned if they act on their particular sex drive.

What's pathological is when every lefty with some kind of unresolved hurt suffered in their family-of-origin then suffers unconscious identification to the extreme degree they exalt homosexuals to the status of iconic crusader heroes and at the cost of their own sensibilities.

Then their victim mentality distortions can create an irrational mass attack on things like Christianity in general.

Though I don't condone such psychopathology, preferring instead that these people seek out a competent mental health practitioner for healing, science has presented that homosexuality is inculcated during gestation caused by epigenetic anomaly, and the right wing might do well to acknowledge that fact, accepting that homosexuality is simply not a choice, and perhaps devoting money to science to research a way to insure a prevention of the causes of the condition.

Still, I understand that the victim mentality of the left has an assault going on the right and the right's religion -- you have to protect yourself too.

Click to expand...

This all stems from identity politics. Every black activist see's themselves as MLK, every feminist is a female superhero, gay activists are the same. To a hammer every problem is a nail.

The legalization of gay marriage gave homosexual people the right to marry each other over the objections of both the religious, and non-religious, who believe that marriage should remain as it has throughout human history, as the joining of one man, to one woman. Having that right to marry, should not be a licence to force the participation of those who in doing so, would violate the tenets of their religion. In other words, the obtaining of a right by one group, shouldn't result in the sacrificing of a right by another group.

But there's more...

A gay couple having a formal ceremony with food, a photographer, a cake, music, etc... is a 100% optional activity and totally unnecessary to exercise their right to become a legally married gay couple. How can anyone justify that a person be legally compelled to defy their religious beliefs and participate in an event/ceremony that has no effect what so ever on the rights of gay people to wed?

It's clear that choosing not to cater to a gay wedding based on religious grounds, is not discrimination against gay people, but discrimination against a ceremony that has been deemed sacrilegious for thousands of years. Laws have been passed so that nobodys religious rights can infringe on a homosexual's right to engage in a same-sex marriage, so why shouldn't there be laws passed that assure that a homosexuals rights to wed, doesn't infringe on anyones religious rights and beliefs?

Isn't that not only fair, but the way it should be?

Grim17 said:

The legalization of gay marriage gave homosexual people the right to marry each other over the objections of both the religious, and non-religious, who believe that marriage should remain as it has throughout human history, as the joining of one man, to one woman. Having that right to marry, should not be a licence to force the participation of those who in doing so, would violate the tenets of their religion. In other words, the obtaining of a right by one group, shouldn't result in the sacrificing of a right by another group.

But there's more...

A gay couple having a formal ceremony with food, a photographer, a cake, music, etc... is a 100% optional activity and totally unnecessary to exercise their right to become a legally married gay couple. How can anyone justify that a person be legally compelled to defy their religious beliefs and participate in an event/ceremony that has no effect what so ever on the rights of gay people to wed?

It's clear that choosing not to cater to a gay wedding based on religious grounds, is not discrimination against gay people, but discrimination against a ceremony that has been deemed sacrilegious for thousands of years. Laws have been passed so that nobodys religious rights can infringe on a homosexual's right to engage in a same-sex marriage, so why shouldn't there be laws passed that assure that a homosexuals rights to wed, doesn't infringe on anyones religious rights and beliefs?

Isn't that not only fair, but the way it should be?

Click to expand...

Of course thats fair, but this was about interjecting a false narrative, not whats fair.

I suspect they are consolation prizes for the folks who lost the gay marriage struggle.