Re: Christian Abortion Hypocrisy
Freedom from religion? As in should it be legal for someone who doesn’t want to service religious customers to refuse to do so?
Sure, why not? The reality is though, liberal state civil rights commissions do nothing about those types of complaints now so it really wouldn’t be a change
It’s not about “embracing bigotry” it is about allowing markets rather then the government to enforce social rules.
You said yourself that our Justice Department allows individuals to discriminate in your post to Minnie #127.
"Originally Posted by EMNofSeattle"
Go to the Supreme Court, what will your argument be if marriage vendors win that case? The official position of the Justice Department is that religious freedom includes a right to discriminate.
Snip~~~~the reality is your view does not comport with the constitution.
And you say that as though there are no boundaries. But we both know that there are. No matter what your religious beliefs are, at your discretion, they can't used to undermine common/statutory law. And this includes civil rights for all.
Of course you're talking about using your religious doctrine that "teaches" a tenet subscribed to in a given religion and employing those tenets in your business in a manner that allows you to discriminate "based tenets that are devised from a religious doctrine". Religions aren't empirical. That are accepted by "faith" alone. One has to have the desire to accept beliefs that is created from something that can't be experienced by our physical senses.
The question becomes: How can you become a living example of your beliefs, your faith, if you will, and not infringe on the rights of your fellow citizens to be able to do the same? How can conflicts in beliefs be avoided in order for most all persons of varying faiths to live among each other without infringing on others fundamental "equal rights"?
The US Constitution says:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
Although the text sounds absolute,
“no law” does not always mean “no law.” The Supreme Court has had to place some limits on the freedom to practice religion in various ways. Over time, the Supreme Court developed a test to help judges determine the limits of free exercise.
For the individual, the court must determine:
1) Whether the person has a claim involving a sincere religious belief, and
2) Whether the government action places a substantial burden on the person’s ability to act on that belief.
3) If these two elements are established, then the government must prove
4) That it is acting in furtherance of a “compelling state interest,” and
5) That it has pursued that interest in the manner least restrictive, or least burdensome, to religion.
Memberships to any given religion in the US is 100% voluntary. Can you agree with this? There is no religion police to make sure that you aren't violating your religion's tenets or doctrine. The worst that can happen is that one is ex-communicated from their church of choice - if the powers that are, within a church or organization - decide that a person has, in someway, disgraced the church (or organization).
But what amazes me the most is that you can take two members from the same church, sit them down and engage them in a discussion about scriptures or doctrine taught by their church - and you'll suddenly get disagreements about the interpretations of whatever scripture or tenet is the subject of discussion. What this means is that religious doctrine is so malleable, in the fundamental interpretations, that anybody can make up an entirely different, and debatable meanings, about what an individual's understandings of a given religion's teachings - that they virtually become varying fabrications of each individual who subscribes to the same doctrine and teachings.
Being self-will-run-riot feels good. I get that. But life for societies get really difficult when each person believes that they are entitled to exercise their individual interpretation of what they've learned from the religion of their choice, which may claim to be the "definitive moral standards for all persons everywhere".
Using religion as an excuse to discriminate or or engage in conduct that's aimed at systematically excluding people that you disagree with their beliefs or their immutable characteristics - is bigotry, at the very least. And I apply this to the business world as well as in a person's private life.
Would it make life easier for you if America returned to the pre-1964 civil rights era and allowed the treatment of people to be fundamentally based on individual beliefs?
