• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is religious freedom actually possible

Is religious freedom actually possible?

  • Yes

    Votes: 27 58.7%
  • No

    Votes: 12 26.1%
  • Maybe

    Votes: 5 10.9%
  • I didnt bother reading the post so yes

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • I didn't bother reading the post so no

    Votes: 2 4.3%

  • Total voters
    46
I don't care if you're gay and nor does libertarianism. If you support forcing people into service for others and ignoring the right of property owners to control access and use of their property you're a faux libertarian.

This liberal actually agrees with you. Libertarianism is based on a set of assumptions that, if accepted, lead to an inflexible dogma, and damn the consequences. But you are right, there is no libertarianism without acceptance of those assumptions, and their logical conclusions.
 
Lots of luck with that. Most of humanity begs to differ.

I know Goshin, I know.

Whether it will eventually happen one day is anyone's guess. In the meantime I am revealing my position on religion and what kind of "freedom" it provides to its followers. It is a neverchanging, dull, fictional stories establishment with no evidence to support its claims, that keeps on repeating over and over again in centuries, constantly trapping people into dogma.

Compare that to statements based on evidence built on ever changing studies that matches the always changing reality, life, and chaos - science. Innovation, change, and light are here for you to enlighten yourself and be free instead.
 
This liberal actually agrees with you. Libertarianism is based on a set of assumptions that, if accepted, lead to an inflexible dogma, and damn the consequences. But you are right, there is no libertarianism without acceptance of those assumptions, and their logical conclusions.

Lets call them principles, damn. :D I really have no way to know if brothern knows it or not, but by supporting people being forced into service he supports involuntary servitude and that is no small violation of the non-aggression principle, but the most fundamental of violations that shows a clear disagreement with the very foundation of the philosophy itself.

As for the consequences, if you are going to be libertarian you have to accept that freedom has consequences and sometimes people will do things that you find disagreeable, stupid, or even hateful, but that doesn't mean they are in violation of anyones rights, and it doesn't mean the state should act.
 
So ive done some thinking in the time since i last created a thread and this is one of the questions that has come up in my mind often. Now many of you will say yes and not bother to read this and others of you will say no and still not read this. So here is what i am going to do. im going to keep typing and hope someone bothers to read this.

So lets start off with an example. Personally im a supporter of gay/lesbian/bi rights, but consider how many religions exist out there that condemn homosexuality. And no this is not just rapping on Christianity. People groups in Islam,Judaism, im pretty sure Hinduism and Buddhism too, all put it down. And yet, if the gay rights activists are to be believed, then being gay/lesbian/bi is not a choice but a way of life chosen for them like being strait or homophobic is for the rest of us. Now, if all of those religions say put it down, and the government and the rest of the world is saying go screw your religion and let it happen, is religious freedom actually happening?

Again, i personally support gay rights, but i also believe in Christ as my savior. So if someone could clear it up for me without becoming a heated debate over why everyone hates me for bringing this up, it would be much obliged.

I understand your thinking but you have it backwards. Where you would have a point is if the government was requiring you to have gay sex.

Nor does your thinking limit to religion, but everything. For example, many people think eating meat is evil. Is allowing people to eat meat then refusing those people their beliefs? You can fully believe being gay is wrong, sinful, sends a person to hell or whatever other beliefs you have. But the government forcing people to live and be punished in enforcement of your beliefs is a different matter.

The other question is why does Christian so focus on gay rights issues? Why not on adultery? Or fornication? Or theft? Or violence? Or heresy? Or any of the other "shalt nots?"
 
Where an issue of religion (or ideology) comes into play is in terms of commerce - the duty to engage in actions you think are evil if you want to participate in the economic system.

For example, the lawsuit against the baker who wouldn't do a cake for a gay wedding. That would be an example of the OP's topic.

Is it political correctness being now required and contrary to beliefs? Although obscure, there are religions that have racial aspects. If you had a business making signs and someone wanted a bunch of KKK and racists signs saying "N....ers Are Demons" - could you refuse? And if you did, isn't that religious discrimination?
 
Freedom of Religion can be held up as easily as any other right. It's one restriction is the one restriction on all rights, you cannot infringe upon the rights of others in the exercise of your own. Seems pretty darn straight forward.

Actually it is more than that. You can be compelled to participate, not just infringe.
 
We as a society have decided that specific "freedoms of conscious" do not deserve tolerance.

A business may not refuse service based on a person’s race, religion, sex, or other "protected characteristics."

So then a sign painter couldn't refuse to make signs for the Westboro Church to protest service members burials.

What about an actor being hired to do a commercial condemning Muslims on a religious level as satanic on behalf of another religion? Would refusing be "religious discrimination?"
 
That assumes that Jesus was actually real and that anything described in the Bible actually happened.

Are you even aware of what the topic is?
 
So ive done some thinking in the time since i last created a thread and this is one of the questions that has come up in my mind often. Now many of you will say yes and not bother to read this and others of you will say no and still not read this. So here is what i am going to do. im going to keep typing and hope someone bothers to read this.

So lets start off with an example. Personally im a supporter of gay/lesbian/bi rights, but consider how many religions exist out there that condemn homosexuality. And no this is not just rapping on Christianity. People groups in Islam,Judaism, im pretty sure Hinduism and Buddhism too, all put it down. And yet, if the gay rights activists are to be believed, then being gay/lesbian/bi is not a choice but a way of life chosen for them like being strait or homophobic is for the rest of us. Now, if all of those religions say put it down, and the government and the rest of the world is saying go screw your religion and let it happen, is religious freedom actually happening?

Again, i personally support gay rights, but i also believe in Christ as my savior. So if someone could clear it up for me without becoming a heated debate over why everyone hates me for bringing this up, it would be much obliged.

its possible but only to a point and that point is being able to control what you do personally based on your religion but not being able to forcibly control what other people do or what happens to them based just on your religion

acting to prevent gay rights based on your religion alone goes over that line

taking away your employees access to contraceptives through their company's health care plans based on your religion alone goes over that line

saving some one from being murdered because your religion says don't kill is ok because your freedom goes out the window when your using it to take away the freedom of others any way

though preventing abortion based on your religion alone would still be a no no if a fetus is only a person based on your religion
 
I have had freedom of religion so far in my life. As a follower of Rev. Martin Luther I am not required to witness, and I very rarely do. If I did I would mention that the passage "It is an abomination unto God to lie with a man as you would lie with a woman", is obviously directed at heterosexual men. A homosexual man would never lie with a woman, so they are not the intended audience.

Study the ancient Greeks, Plato, Socrates etc.

You will find that that Bible passage was needed to keep heterosexual men from wasting seed with other men. I'm sorry to say it was a very common practice back then.
 
You can't discriminate against gays or females or racial minorities. Aww shucks. Such a hard life.

You seem to have a closed, intolerant mind. No matter. It would have been nice if you thought for 5 seconds.
Of course, you can discriminate and people do it all the time. They just change their business model. The cup cake makers who did not want to sell to gays simply closed shop and became a private seller. The Boy Scouts is another example.

Unlike you, apparently, I have faith in mankind and believe that these things work themselves out over time. In the meantime, there is not reason to run roughshod over people. Or be condescending.
 
So then a sign painter couldn't refuse to make signs for the Westboro Church to protest service members burials.

What about an actor being hired to do a commercial condemning Muslims on a religious level as satanic on behalf of another religion? Would refusing be "religious discrimination?"
It's why we have courts and well defined Civil Rights legislation, joko.

You seem to have a closed, intolerant mind. No matter. It would have been nice if you thought for 5 seconds.
Of course, you can discriminate and people do it all the time. They just change their business model. The cup cake makers who did not want to sell to gays simply closed shop and became a private seller. The Boy Scouts is another example. Unlike you, apparently, I have faith in mankind and believe that these things work themselves out over time. In the meantime, there is not reason to run roughshod over people. Or be condescending.
You're out of touch with reality if you've convinced yourself that you're going to sway anyone's opinion into allowing racism and discrimination.
 
It's why we have courts and well defined Civil Rights legislation, joko.


You're out of touch with reality if you've convinced yourself that you're going to sway anyone's opinion into allowing racism and discrimination.

I don't really care about convincing anyone. The Constitution says what it says. The Supreme Court validated the right of the Boy Scouts to discriminate. The Universal Declaration of Human Rights guarantees freedom of conscience. The photographer who refuses to take pictures of a SS wedding is as intolerant as the SS couple that sues the photographer. Perhaps you would think differently if some African American gun dealer refused to sell a gun to some white man with racist tattoos despite everything else being legal. I would support the gun dealer while you would support the racist.
 
It's why we have courts and well defined Civil Rights legislation, joko.
.

Yes but there are areas where civil rights and other BOR issues may conflict with how some religious person wishes to practice their religious freedom....that was a point I was trying to make....

Is the OP asking if someone can have complete religious freedom within the US under our Constitution?
 
Yes but there are areas where civil rights and other BOR issues may conflict with how some religious person wishes to practice their religious freedom....that was a point I was trying to make.... Is the OP asking if someone can have complete religious freedom within the US under our Constitution?
What's "BOR"? Anyway, that's how I interpreted the question and why the answer is no.

If the religious freedom conflicts with basic human rights -- no, the religious freedom is not possible.
 
Are you even aware of what the topic is?

Yup, are you aware that I was responding to what someone had written?
 
What's "BOR"? Anyway, that's how I interpreted the question and why the answer is no.

If the religious freedom conflicts with basic human rights -- no, the religious freedom is not possible.

The Bill of Rights.
 
..... Is it logical that simply because I have a business I surrender my freedom of thought and conscience? The person can simply go to someone else. It is illogical to demand that I do something simply because I started something that I did not have to start. A person does not become a slave to some "societal standards" simply because he wants to sell a product. It is wrong to force people to do commerce with each other.

When you have a business the government regulates where it can be located, the type of building you can use, the type of sign you display, how you can fire and hire people, the minimum wage, how you dispose of waste, and fire and other safety requirements. You are also required to document your income and expenses to pay your taxes and get deductions. If you have a restaurant, you will be inspected to make sure that the food is protected properly from spoilage and contamination, that the employees wash their hands and wear proper clothing and hair nets etc, that you have pests under control, provide access to the disabled, have accessible restrooms and much more.

Out of all these regulations and requirements, none of which are loved by conservatives-libertarians, the one mentioned most often as onerous and unfair is the requirement that employees and customers are not subject to racial, religious etc. discrimination by business. Ironically, while advocating for allowing discrimination in public accommodations, they also argue that such discrimination would not happen very much, if at all, because people have changed since the Jim Crow days and it would harm the business.

My opinion is that the harm from business discrimination against potential employees, employees and customers outweighs the harm from being "forced" to tolerate undesirable races, religions etc in one's business. I don't believe that such discrimination will be as rare as claimed. These days it is as likely to be directed at Muslims and gays as blacks, but the tendency to ignorantly, irrationally and/or arbitrarily discriminate has not been sufficiently eliminated yet. For evidence, just look at all the racism and bigotry expressed on this forum and other public fora.

Also, I am willing to recognize the damage that it would cause to society and vulnerable people, something the conservative-libertarians ignore or downplay. In small towns, isolated and rural areas, just one or two discriminatory businesses could keep a significant portion of the population from getting a job, shopping, getting a place to live etc. without leaving town. Businesses have the ability to oppress people in their daily lives as much or more than government, especially in these days of a handful of mega-corporations, malls and big box retail dominating retail and services. Addressing government discrimination while allowing business discrimination requires tolerating discrimination and the hardship and oppression it will impose on unpopular minorities and society as a whole.
 
Last edited:
So ive done some thinking in the time since i last created a thread and this is one of the questions that has come up in my mind often. Now many of you will say yes and not bother to read this and others of you will say no and still not read this. So here is what i am going to do. im going to keep typing and hope someone bothers to read this.

So lets start off with an example. Personally im a supporter of gay/lesbian/bi rights, but consider how many religions exist out there that condemn homosexuality. And no this is not just rapping on Christianity. People groups in Islam,Judaism, im pretty sure Hinduism and Buddhism too, all put it down. And yet, if the gay rights activists are to be believed, then being gay/lesbian/bi is not a choice but a way of life chosen for them like being strait or homophobic is for the rest of us. Now, if all of those religions say put it down, and the government and the rest of the world is saying go screw your religion and let it happen, is religious freedom actually happening?

Again, i personally support gay rights, but i also believe in Christ as my savior. So if someone could clear it up for me without becoming a heated debate over why everyone hates me for bringing this up, it would be much obliged.

I voted yes but If you mean the freedom to force your religious views on others then NO. That is not freedom it is tyranny.
 
When you have a business the government regulates where it can be located, the type of building you can use, the type of sign you display, how you can fire and hire people, the minimum wage, how you dispose of waste, and fire and other safety requirements. You are also required to document your income and expenses to pay your taxes and get deductions. If you have a restaurant, you will be inspected to make sure that the food is protected properly from spoilage and contamination, that the employees wash their hands and wear proper clothing and hair nets etc, that you have pests under control, provide access to the disabled, have accessible restrooms and much more.

Out of all these regulations and requirements, none of which are loved by conservatives-libertarians, the one mentioned most often as onerous and unfair is the requirement that employees and customers are not subject to racial, religious etc. discrimination by business. Ironically, while advocating for allowing discrimination in public accommodations, they also argue that such discrimination would not happen very much, if at all, because people have changed since the Jim Crow days and it would harm the business.

My opinion is that the harm from business discrimination against potential employees, employees and customers outweighs the harm from being "forced" to tolerate undesirable races, religions etc in one's business. I don't believe that such discrimination will be as rare as claimed. These days it is as likely to be directed at Muslims and gays as blacks, but the tendency to ignorantly, irrationally and/or arbitrarily discriminate has not been sufficiently eliminated yet. For evidence, just look at all the racism and bigotry expressed on this forum and other public fora.

Also, I am willing to recognize the damage that it would cause to society and vulnerable people, something the conservative-libertarians ignore or downplay. In small towns, isolated and rural areas, just one or two discriminatory businesses could keep a significant portion of the population from getting a job, shopping, getting a place to live etc. without leaving town. Businesses have the ability to oppress people in their daily lives as much or more than government, especially in these days of a handful of mega-corporations, malls and big box retail dominating retail and services. Addressing government discrimination while allowing business discrimination requires tolerating discrimination and the hardship and oppression it will impose on unpopular minorities and society as a whole.

You are so right. Every time I hear "people have changed" I remember Alan Greenspan in the days before the Bank deregulation in 2000. He went on and on about how those old laws were not needed and bankers would NEVER behave like they did in the 1920's. 7 years later the entire financial system collapsed much like it did way back when. Will we never learn?
 
When you have a business the government regulates where it can be located, the type of building you can use, the type of sign you display, how you can fire and hire people, the minimum wage, how you dispose of waste, and fire and other safety requirements. You are also required to document your income and expenses to pay your taxes and get deductions. If you have a restaurant, you will be inspected to make sure that the food is protected properly from spoilage and contamination, that the employees wash their hands and wear proper clothing and hair nets etc, that you have pests under control, provide access to the disabled, have accessible restrooms and much more.

Out of all these regulations and requirements, none of which are loved by conservatives-libertarians, the one mentioned most often as onerous and unfair is the requirement that employees and customers are not subject to racial, religious etc. discrimination by business. Ironically, while advocating for allowing discrimination in public accommodations, they also argue that such discrimination would not happen very much, if at all, because people have changed since the Jim Crow days and it would harm the business.

My opinion is that the harm from business discrimination against potential employees, employees and customers outweighs the harm from being "forced" to tolerate undesirable races, religions etc in one's business. I don't believe that such discrimination will be as rare as claimed. These days it is as likely to be directed at Muslims and gays as blacks, but the tendency to ignorantly, irrationally and/or arbitrarily discriminate has not been sufficiently eliminated yet. For evidence, just look at all the racism and bigotry expressed on this forum and other public fora.

Also, I am willing to recognize the damage that it would cause to society and vulnerable people, something the conservative-libertarians ignore or downplay. In small towns, isolated and rural areas, just one or two discriminatory businesses could keep a significant portion of the population from getting a job, shopping, getting a place to live etc. without leaving town. Businesses have the ability to oppress people in their daily lives as much or more than government, especially in these days of a handful of mega-corporations, malls and big box retail dominating retail and services. Addressing government discrimination while allowing business discrimination requires tolerating discrimination and the hardship and oppression it will impose on unpopular minorities and society as a whole.

While I agree with your first paragraph I believe that you misstate the issue in the 2nd paragraph. I am certainly not saying that this is an onerous problem. Quite the opposite, I would believe that any business would do better if they served all of the community and not just a section and almost all businesses would not have a problem complying.

And I understand Hamiltonian evolution and the needs of people to separate into us and them based on ethnic background. We discriminate for many other reason such as height, weight, speech impediments, and many other reasons that have not yet found their way into laws and protected classes. I am not opposed to laws in some cases in which there are very limited avenues for some goods or services. It seems to me rather silly to go after one photographer or one bakery out of hundreds in a community based on an unwillingness to provide a service.

As you probably know, a business can get around there anti-discrimination laws. They can form a private club and restrict membership. They can go underground and operate in the shadow economy. I believe that court cases indicate this is not a problem until the club becomes so dominate that it affects everyone. The Supreme Court approved of Boy Scouts and the BSA has now voluntarily changed their policies. It is probably better when groups operate above ground.

I think that it is probably good for society to have organization that discriminate. An African American businessperson's club can help other African Americans get started. Any minority group would benefit from similar organizations. In Madison, WI, some people, concerned about rapes, formed a transportation service to provide for women at night. Of course, this is illegal and men complained and were denied service. Don't know how it ended but I would hope somehow they were able to continue.
 
Last edited:
I have no problem with private membership groups and religious organizations discriminating because they are not businesses open to the general public. I am also open to allowing discrimination by sole proprietors who do not have place of business open to the public (such as many photographers), because that would have virtually no impact on others.

The Boy Scouts were established by federal law and receives government funding, which is why they should not be allowed to discriminate unless they are willing to relinquish their government provided status and privileges.
 
Back
Top Bottom