Can The Govt FORCE You To Promote A Choice That Goes Against Your Religion? The Fight Continues...

[emilynghiem]

Have you ever heard of Slippery Slope Disorder?

You seem to have a bad case of it

Dear rightwinger:
That is already happening with pushing for same sex marriage.
Even before it went through the courts, the cases of forcing business owners
TOO FAR and not just expecting them to sell and serve customers but
to COMPEL SPEECH and PUNISH them by govt if they didn't comply
were already happening, cases were decided on the side of fining photographers
for defending creative freedom to make artistic decisions about their own work.

The bullying and political retribution over the LGBT policies has escalated also.

It does not matter whose beliefs are proven or not proven.
If you oppose the LGBT side, you have no right to your beliefs equally as those beliefs.

Says the President of the United States whose threats to pull federal funding
from schools led to lawsuits from several states arguing these are private matters
not authorized to give to federal controls.

This is already escalating rightwinger
So the slippery slope is happening

 

[emilynghiem]

You seem to have a bad case of denying the reality of legal precedent.

I have decades of legal precedent behind me. It is you who lacks legal footing



.

Dear rightwinger
The LGBT push for marriage equality and bathroom policies under threat of penalty by executive order
is UNPRECEDENTED.

This is like the right to life agenda pushing their beliefs through govt at all costs, regardless of objections,
and penalizing anyone for contesting this because of unintended consequences affecting the equal rights and beliefs of others.
Never mind that their views of life beginning other than "at birth" remains faith based.

Homosexual and transgender orientation has NOT been proven or disproven
to be either a behavior, that is not protected, or "not a choice but determined at birth".

Thus both sides are faith based.

rightwinger the precedent you are breaking is called "separation of church and state"
used to strike down abortion laws favoring right to life beliefs and arguments,
and used to keep schools from pushing prayer and God on students (where these remain private choices to exercise).

Your LGBT arguments are reversing and violating previous barriers
to Govt respecting the beliefs and creeds of others equally.

So fine, if you want to set that precedent, let's see if the
right to life Christians figure it out to tag their beliefs into the bill with LGBT and fight for equal protection!

 

[mdk]

Sorry I can't approve your liquor license. Doing so would violate my religious beliefs.

Sorry I can't process your child public school admittance. She was born out of wedlock. Doing so would violate my beleifs.

Sorry I can't approve your concealed weapons permit. Doing so would violate my religious beliefs?

Get the point yet, Silhouette?

Sorry, I can't approve your license, please go see the other clerk at the next window.

The child born out of wedlock has nothing to do with the out of wedlock act itself. "Sorry, I can't hold the the flashlight while you two unmarried people get it on out here in the dirt". That would be reasonable objection.

Sorry I can't approve your concealed weapons permit, go see the clerk at the next window.

Davis wouldn't allow any of the clerks to do so. None. That is the problem. I don't care which clerk stamps the paper. If the whole office refuses? Nope. Won't work either. At least one person has to provide the service. Get it yet? No, of course you don't.

 

[rightwinger]

OK Emily, mediate for me

You own a beautiful banquet hall overlooking a lake. I am a gay and would like to rent your hall for my wedding. No other facility in town comes close to the beauty and quality you provide.
I go to rent for my wedding and you tell me you won't rent to gay weddings

Mediate

You can use the facilities but we mutually agree on choice of contractors who can provide
the services you want without forcing anyone to attend against their will.

If there are other customers competing for that space at the same time,
it will go to the highest bidder and/or who imposes the least cost.

We would also need to agree on the insurance rates or cost of hiring added security
to make sure there is no damage to the property since the regular people may not be there.

NOTE: if there is any publicity that the place is being used for same sex weddings,
we agree on how this is presented to the public to avoid making unwelcome political statements.

If we cannot agree on the wording and this causes issues,
this conflict is covered in the mediation/arbitration waiver required for all customers to sign
with management: ie if there are any conflicts that arise, these will be resolved by
mediators chosen by the customers, under the agreement to reach a consensus
and to avoid legal actions and costs; otherwise in case of unresolved dispute
the parties either agree to part company and refrain from conducting business,
or agree to arbitration by an arbiter chosen by the company where decisions are final.

My views on free speech and equal protections is that both sides agree in advance on the rules of communication and resolving conflict. If we can't agree to resolve things amicably by consensus,
then that is grounds for refraining from business relations, because my Constitutional beliefs
and standards are based on consent of the governed and resolving conflicts by mediation and consensus.

I will equally include your free speech, right to petition, and exercise of your beliefs within the
context of equal protections; and that means not compromising any of my rights either.

So out of respect for both parties, we either resolve all issues to the satisfaction of both parties,
or agree to conduct business with other people we are compatible with. This helps preserve civil relations.

Nothing is easy with you is it?

A simple transaction. Rent the place and gays get the same terms as everyone else

Dear rightwinger
1. You are the one labeling the persons as gays.
I did not.
2. I am separating the business relations
from the activities but you are not.

Don't blame your labels on me that you keep imposing.

READ what I said:
I said I would rent the place to the customers (you called them gays making a distinction)

I said I would let the services and ACTIVITIES be conducted
by people who CONSENT to those and not force them on anyone unwillfully.

So that is separating the ACTIVITIES from customers.

READ what I wrote.

So...you own a business

You only let the services you conduct be done by those who consent to serve (you are a very generous employer)
You live in a Bible Belt city and three quarters of your employees refuse to be involved in a gay wedding.

What do you do?

Dear rightwinger
1. I would ask fellow churches in other areas like Houston to help. My friend Ray Hill who is a gay atheist knows tons of people who would love the contract work. My friend Jeff Smith is setting up a staffing network for transgender and LGBT friendly temps in order to give them job opportunities and chance to prove and improve their skills.

rightwinger there are TONS of ex inmates who can't find work.
I would go through church groups to screen which ones they can bring on with proper supervision so
no guests feel uncomfortable with ex gang members, ex drug dealers, or ex prostitution sex workers
including LGBT youth abused on the streets because they couldn't find jobs except selling themselves to traffickers

2. Again, if we can't resolve these issues in time,
the mediation/arbitration waiver we signed up front
would give us the option of either arbitrating or foregoing the contract
to prevent legal expenses and actions

I happen to have lots of friends in Houston trying to place jobs for LGBT and people with records
who are going through church groups, nonprofits, even the city to find work.

There are plenty of people we could hire, and just ask help to set up a way to make this work.

I'm glad you brought this up rightwinger
since mediation and matching clients to service providers is such a sensitive matter,
it DOES take time to resolve all the details. I better contact Jeff again to speed up setting up the network he envisions. We should offer these job placement services on a national level so nobody gets stuck in the position you describe. Many people would love to work those jobs!

Emily.....I really enjoy your posts and I really do love you but sometimes you make me laugh

Gays can have ex-inmates at their weddings

Since you are such an enlightened employer and want to make both your customers and employees happy why do you stop at gay weddings?

You are in the Bible Belt deep in Dixie. Many of your employees are strict baptists and they tell you that not only do they object to gay weddings but they object to interfaith weddings, atheists, interracial weddings and weddings where the bride is obviously pregnant

How far are you willing to go to accomodate your employees religious beliefs?

 

[emilynghiem]

Have you ever heard of Slippery Slope Disorder?

You seem to have a bad case of it

LGBT Strategy: Use slippery slope by incremental shoehorning. All the while deny slippery slope exists. Ridicule anyone who brings up "the slippery slope" until they stop talking about it. Continue riding slippery slope to legal victory after legal victory.

Some of the that ridicule is well deserved. Like claiming how pastors will be thrown in jail for speaking out aganist gays and how churches will be forced to marry homos aganist their wishes. It is hair on fire bullshit used to frightened the people that already have an axe to grind when it comes to queers. People such as yourself.

Fortunately mdk the Pastors in Houston organized legal and community support to fight off a flawed bathroom ordinance pushed by the previous Mayor elected with LGBT dollars from California even though she was supposed to represent Houston, Texas. The worst they suffered was the Mayor threatened to subpoena their sermons from churches, which too many people contested as overreaching.

Like Dr. King might have done, many of these Pastors actually offered to send the Mayor their sermons FREELY hoping to help her with what they saw as a problematic condition.

Unfortunately the ordinance passed by NC that went too far in barring transgender people from restrooms
will likely have the opposite backlash effect, as with DOMA that went too far and was struck down.

If a bill is unconstitutional, that is not civil obedience to govt authority, and is also against Christian duty.
Since both sides beliefs are faith based and not proven,
it is equally unconstitutional to impose laws that endorse one side and penalize the other,
regardless which side.

 

[emilynghiem]

Emily.....I really enjoy your posts and I really do love you but sometimes you make me laugh

Gays can have ex-inmates at their weddings

Since you are such an enlightened employer and want to make both your customers and employees happy why do you stop at gay weddings?

You are in the Bible Belt deep in Dixie. Many of your employees are strict baptists and they tell you that not only do they object to gay weddings but they object to interfaith weddings, atheists, interracial weddings and weddings where the bride is obviously pregnant

How far are you willing to go to accomodate your employees religious beliefs?

That's what I'm saying, rightwinger!

There ARE workers available who CAN work those gay weddings and
still meet the Christian companies consent and work standards.

I'm saying this can work.

As for accommodations, yes, I will strive to satisfy both the Customers and the Employers/Employees religious beliefs because these are all citizens, and under the Fourteenth Amendment, they all retain equal Constitutional protections
which I consider to be human rights.

So as long as you have issues for which you want to petition to redress grievances until consensus is reached,
yes, I support your freedom of speech and press to do so. The main restrictions humans have is emotionally, financially, and timewise we run short. So if we can work out a timeline and a safe environment to reduce those pressures, and network to maximize and organize resources among us,
most people can work out their issues. The emotions get the worst of us, and the timing is often a huge barrier.

One of the worst barriers to flow of resources is political and social segregation, that could be used to organize in teams instead of divide, where we fail to cross over to work with other groups and help solve each other's problems.

 

[mdk]

Have you ever heard of Slippery Slope Disorder?

You seem to have a bad case of it

LGBT Strategy: Use slippery slope by incremental shoehorning. All the while deny slippery slope exists. Ridicule anyone who brings up "the slippery slope" until they stop talking about it. Continue riding slippery slope to legal victory after legal victory.

Some of the that ridicule is well deserved. Like claiming how pastors will be thrown in jail for speaking out aganist gays and how churches will be forced to marry homos aganist their wishes. It is hair on fire bullshit used to frightened the people that already have an axe to grind when it comes to queers. People such as yourself.

Fortunately mdk the Pastors in Houston organized legal and community support to fight off a flawed bathroom ordinance pushed by the previous Mayor elected with LGBT dollars from California even though she was supposed to represent Houston, Texas. The worst they suffered was the Mayor threatened to subpoena their sermons from churches, which too many people contested as overreaching.

Like Dr. King might have done, many of these Pastors actually offered to send the Mayor their sermons FREELY hoping to help her with what they saw as a problematic condition.

Unfortunately the ordinance passed by NC that went too far in barring transgender people from restrooms
will likely have the opposite backlash effect, as with DOMA that went too far and was struck down.

If a bill is unconstitutional, that is not civil obedience to govt authority, and is also against Christian duty.
Since both sides beliefs are faith based and not proven,
it is equally unconstitutional to impose laws that endorse one side and penalize the other,
regardless which side.

If your faith prohibits you from doing your goverment than perhaps it is time to find another job. Why should any citizen have to pass your religious test to get a service provided by the government? They shouldn't.

A business is a whole different story, but when it comes to a civil service...Hell no.

 

[emilynghiem]

Sorry I can't approve your liquor license. Doing so would violate my religious beliefs.

Sorry I can't process your child public school admittance. She was born out of wedlock. Doing so would violate my beleifs.

Sorry I can't approve your concealed weapons permit. Doing so would violate my religious beliefs?

Get the point yet, Silhouette?

Sorry, I can't approve your license, please go see the other clerk at the next window.

The child born out of wedlock has nothing to do with the out of wedlock act itself. "Sorry, I can't hold the the flashlight while you two unmarried people get it on out here in the dirt". That would be reasonable objection.

Sorry I can't approve your concealed weapons permit, go see the clerk at the next window.

Davis wouldn't allow any of the clerks to do so. None. That is the problem. I don't care which clerk stamps the paper. If the whole office refuses? Nope. Won't work either. At least one person has to provide the service. Get it yet? No, of course you don't.

Dear mdk didn't this get resolved by changing it where HER name wasn't the signatory?
If someone else signed it, then she was no longer responsible. She agreed to follow
state written laws not the ruling of the court. So until the state law was changed, she was adhering to that.
She didn't believe in putting a court ruling biased by belief over a state law biased by belief.
Since these were both biased by creed and neither fully constitutionally, they were equally contested
and not fully resolved constitutionally. following one meant violating the other, so that needed to be resolved first.

 

[emilynghiem]

Have you ever heard of Slippery Slope Disorder?

You seem to have a bad case of it

LGBT Strategy: Use slippery slope by incremental shoehorning. All the while deny slippery slope exists. Ridicule anyone who brings up "the slippery slope" until they stop talking about it. Continue riding slippery slope to legal victory after legal victory.

Some of the that ridicule is well deserved. Like claiming how pastors will be thrown in jail for speaking out aganist gays and how churches will be forced to marry homos aganist their wishes. It is hair on fire bullshit used to frightened the people that already have an axe to grind when it comes to queers. People such as yourself.

Fortunately mdk the Pastors in Houston organized legal and community support to fight off a flawed bathroom ordinance pushed by the previous Mayor elected with LGBT dollars from California even though she was supposed to represent Houston, Texas. The worst they suffered was the Mayor threatened to subpoena their sermons from churches, which too many people contested as overreaching.

Like Dr. King might have done, many of these Pastors actually offered to send the Mayor their sermons FREELY hoping to help her with what they saw as a problematic condition.

Unfortunately the ordinance passed by NC that went too far in barring transgender people from restrooms
will likely have the opposite backlash effect, as with DOMA that went too far and was struck down.

If a bill is unconstitutional, that is not civil obedience to govt authority, and is also against Christian duty.
Since both sides beliefs are faith based and not proven,
it is equally unconstitutional to impose laws that endorse one side and penalize the other,
regardless which side.

If your faith prohibits you from doing your goverment than perhaps it is time to find another job. Why should any citizen have to pass your religious test to get a service provided by the government? They shouldn't.

A business is a whole different story, but when it comes to a civil service...Hell no.

Sure mdk so is this why a transgender person should just go "find another bathroom" that is gender neutral?
And not seek to change the law that is contradictory with their beliefs and practices?

That's fine, if you think the civil servant is under different standards from an individual citizen.

But you are ignoring the fact that some people's beliefs require consistency between the two.
by the Golden Rule many people like me believe in treating people as we want to be treated.

So by this standard, we believe in allowing citizens to change laws to REMOVE conflicts
that otherwise violate or exclude people by creed.

Wouldn't that be the ideal: to seek the policy that allows ALL beliefs about marriage without conflict?

ie I believe in providing gender neutral and single stalled bathrooms so nobody feels forced to change their beliefs especially not by govt.
And believe people should mediate and resolve marriage policies by state, either keeping the language so neutral it neither endorses nor bans same sex marriage, and possibly dividing benefits by party if people just cannot agree on beliefs, such as on health care and prolife prochoice funding, and if same sex marriage is the same as traditional marriage and people don't want to fund the other group's policies endorsing or banning same sex marriages, abortion, conversion therapy, etc. etc.

 

[emilynghiem]

Ah, yes...the old people are in fact churches themselves so they don't have to follow the law. Don't me believe me? Stop paying taxes and claim that you *yourself* are a church. I am sure you'll have plenty of time to craft cockamamie legal schemes to deny gays marriage while your sitting in jail for tax evasion.

For the record, Davis is neither a church nor a member of the clergy.

Can you point me to the place in the US Constitution where it says "Freedom of Church"? Or does it in fact guarantee each citizen themself freedom of religion? Is religion a building and a dude with a little white blip in his black collar? Or is it the parishioners themselves and the Word they follow in their individual hearts?

People are not churches, dip shit. Not in any state. Can you point to me where ones faith allows them to ignore the law at will? Such a standard doesn't exist which is why her appeal was denied all the way to the top. If Kim Davis went to jail being a Christian than so did Warren Jeffs. Which is silly. Davis can't use her government office to impose her faith on her fellow citizens. If she has a problem than she is free to find a different line of work.

Dear mdk
Yes, Silhouette is arguing for religious freedom of individuals.

in Hobby Lobby arguments, the owners explained that they were willing to comply with secular laws over their beliefs when it came to birth control. But when it came to specific abortifacient drugs that went TOO FAR, they argued they could not comply and would have no other choice but pay such huge fines their company could not sustain.

So given their beliefs, the mandates went TOO FAR and the court ruled in granting them the exemption
that was previously extended to religious organizations acting as employers.

This ruling is still contested as recognizing religious freedom of 'corporations'
instead of freedom of "individuals" not to be affected adversely by federal regulations
that imposed an unintended consequence affecting Individuals running companies.

 

[emilynghiem]

Two Christian Artists Who Refuse to Serve Gay Weddings Are Likely Heading to Court to Battle the Government — but There’s a Twist

Phoenix City Code 18.4(B):
"No person shall, directly or indirectly, refuse, withhold from, or deny to any person, or aid in or incite such refusal, denial or withholding of, accommodations, advantages, facilities or privileges thereof because of race, color, religion, sex, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or disability nor shall distinction be made with respect to any person based on race, color, religion, sex, national origin, marital status, sexual orientation, gender identity or expression, or disability in connection with the price or quality of any item, goods or services offered by or at any place of public accommodation."

According to the local government in Phoenix City your personal religious freedom can be overridden by the government, and you can be forced - as a Christian - to engage in activities that violate your religious beliefs. IMO that is a clear violation of the Constitution. (And you know d@mn-well the government would not try to apply this to Muslims for fear of 'offending them...but Christians are 'fair game'.)

Unlike other cases that have been in the news, though, these people / this business has NOT been sued or fined for refusing service for same-sex events....but they are probably still heading to court. Instead, 'Joanna Duka and Breanna Koski, owners of art company Brush & Nib, have filed a lawsuit against the city of Phoenix, Arizona' over the 'non-discrimination law' (above) 'that they claim violates their religious rights'.

"“Although the two young women happily create art for everyone regardless of sexual orientation, Phoenix interprets its law to require them to create art for events, like same-sex wedding ceremonies, that are completely at odds with their religious beliefs,” the lawyer wrote. “Phoenix also interprets its law to prevent them from explaining their religious beliefs and why they must create art consistent with their beliefs.”

"“Joanna and Breanna are exposing the pre-existing tension between Phoenix’s law and their constitutionally protected freedoms, between the right to speak and create freely and the government’s attempt to crush dissent and command conformity,” Scruggs continued. “And that is precisely what’s at stake.”

The company's owners are standing up for Christians / Christianity and is taking the fight to the city of Phoenix before anyone can bring the fight to them.

Go get 'em, girls!

The government can do what the fuck ever it (I) want.

- Liberal

"WE DEMAND OUR 2ND AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO CARRY GUNS IN PUBLIC."
"Well, we're the government and you aren't bringing any of your guns to the Republican convention so shut it."
"Ok, sorry if we were out of line."

- Conservative

I heard the GOP is re-thinking this decision in light of all the violent fascist liberal terrorist attacks on Conservatives / Trump Supporters.

Yes well we all hear this and that. Why would they give up their guns in the first place? Isn't the whole point of demanding '2nd amendment rights' is so you can shove it in the government's face whenever they tell you to leave your guns home?

But the gun-nerds gave them up without a whimper and agreed to a 'gun free zone' at the Republican convention. They are the thing they whine about every day, and it is oh so funny.

IsaacNewton
There was a petition for conceal and carry.
It was Secret Security that enforced the policy because of attendees requiring those policies:
================================
The Secret Service on Monday quashed the hopes of gun rights advocates who were pushing for the open carry of firearms to be allowed at this summer's Republican National Convention in Cleveland.

An online petition in support of the effort rapidly gained signatures and attention in the past week, applying pressure to pro-gun Republican officials and presidential contenders to walk the walk when it comes to guns. But on Monday, the Secret Service said that only law enforcement personnel will be allowed to carry firearms at the event.

"Title 18 United States Code Sections 3056 and 1752 provides the Secret Service authority to preclude firearms from entering sites visited by our protectees, including those located in open-carry states," Secret Service spokesman Robert K. Hoback said in a statement. "Only authorized law enforcement personnel working in conjunction with the Secret Service for a particular event may carry a firearm inside of the protected site."

Ticket or not, any unauthorized person with a gun will not be allowed into the event, he said.

Begun anonymously a week ago, the petition had collected more than 44,000 signatures as of early Monday afternoon, putting it well on its way to a goal of 50,000. Republican presidential contenders Donald Trump, Ted Cruz and John Kasich were each asked about the petition, which none directly backed.

"All that matters is what the Secret Service says," Kasich said after an event in Wisconsin on Monday. "One of the things about security that I’ve had to learn over time is that when they tell you not to do something, you don’t do it, it’s for your interest. And the Secret Service is very important in these decisions as is security around the entire convention."

 

[mdk]

Ah, yes...the old people are in fact churches themselves so they don't have to follow the law. Don't me believe me? Stop paying taxes and claim that you *yourself* are a church. I am sure you'll have plenty of time to craft cockamamie legal schemes to deny gays marriage while your sitting in jail for tax evasion.

For the record, Davis is neither a church nor a member of the clergy.

Can you point me to the place in the US Constitution where it says "Freedom of Church"? Or does it in fact guarantee each citizen themself freedom of religion? Is religion a building and a dude with a little white blip in his black collar? Or is it the parishioners themselves and the Word they follow in their individual hearts?

People are not churches, dip shit. Not in any state. Can you point to me where ones faith allows them to ignore the law at will? Such a standard doesn't exist which is why her appeal was denied all the way to the top. If Kim Davis went to jail being a Christian than so did Warren Jeffs. Which is silly. Davis can't use her government office to impose her faith on her fellow citizens. If she has a problem than she is free to find a different line of work.

Dear mdk
Yes, Silhouette is arguing for religious freedom of individuals.

in Hobby Lobby arguments, the owners explained that they were willing to comply with secular laws over their beliefs when it came to birth control. But when it came to specific abortifacient drugs that went TOO FAR, they argued they could not comply and would have no other choice but pay such huge fines their company could not sustain.

So given their beliefs, the mandates went TOO FAR and the court ruled in granting them the exemption
that was previously extended to religious organizations acting as employers.

This ruling is still contested as recognizing religious freedom of 'corporations'
instead of freedom of "individuals" not to be affected adversely by federal regulations
that imposed an unintended consequence affecting Individuals running companies.

I am fine with religious freedoms so long as they are not used to deny citizens services that goverment provide. Don't get it twisted, Silhouette only cares about religious freedoms if they are used to harm gay people. Period. The moment they can't be used to do so she doesn't care. She is a lame one trick pony.

 

[emilynghiem]

Gays are not trying to impose beliefs. You have right to hate gays, oppose gay marriage, oppose gay rights in every form.

You're just not allowed to act on those beliefs.

Where the conflict on limits seems to be NYcarbineer
is crossing over public and into private space

1. with same sex couples it's the difference between serving people
on site at the business location or
a. forcing attendance at gay weddings which some Christians do not believe
is anywhere the same as a traditional wedding but as Silhouette pointed out
is heresy or apostasy against their beliefs
b. forcing speech or artistic expression under penalty of law

some of these cases get into private venues that aren't about the business site
open to the public

because of the nature of freedom of speech and expression crossing
bounds between public and private, this is why I recommend mediating conflicts
so everyone protects their free speech and exercise of their beliefs equally.

2. with the bathroom policies at public schools
the schools are public but people's beliefs about
gender determined at birth or gender by spiritual identity are different

and in private spaces within public institutions
this crosses over beyond what people consent to

that is where I recommend mediation and consensus on policies
finding solutions that don't force anyone to change their beliefs under penalty of law

 

[emilynghiem]

Ah, yes...the old people are in fact churches themselves so they don't have to follow the law. Don't me believe me? Stop paying taxes and claim that you *yourself* are a church. I am sure you'll have plenty of time to craft cockamamie legal schemes to deny gays marriage while your sitting in jail for tax evasion.

For the record, Davis is neither a church nor a member of the clergy.

Can you point me to the place in the US Constitution where it says "Freedom of Church"? Or does it in fact guarantee each citizen themself freedom of religion? Is religion a building and a dude with a little white blip in his black collar? Or is it the parishioners themselves and the Word they follow in their individual hearts?

People are not churches, dip shit. Not in any state. Can you point to me where ones faith allows them to ignore the law at will? Such a standard doesn't exist which is why her appeal was denied all the way to the top. If Kim Davis went to jail being a Christian than so did Warren Jeffs. Which is silly. Davis can't use her government office to impose her faith on her fellow citizens. If she has a problem than she is free to find a different line of work.

Dear mdk
Yes, Silhouette is arguing for religious freedom of individuals.

in Hobby Lobby arguments, the owners explained that they were willing to comply with secular laws over their beliefs when it came to birth control. But when it came to specific abortifacient drugs that went TOO FAR, they argued they could not comply and would have no other choice but pay such huge fines their company could not sustain.

So given their beliefs, the mandates went TOO FAR and the court ruled in granting them the exemption
that was previously extended to religious organizations acting as employers.

This ruling is still contested as recognizing religious freedom of 'corporations'
instead of freedom of "individuals" not to be affected adversely by federal regulations
that imposed an unintended consequence affecting Individuals running companies.

I am fine with religious freedoms so long as they are not used to deny citizens services that goverment provide. Don't get it twisted, Silhouette only cares about religious freedoms if they are used to harm gay people. Period. The moment they can't be used to do so she doesn't care. She is a lame one trick pony.

Dear mdk and how many LGBT people are like Silhouette but only defending LGBT rights
and don't care if they harm or violate the beliefs of Christians or others?

This fight will never end if both sides only defend their own beliefs and not others equally.
They will continue to bully and deadlock, over and over, never satisified if the bias goes against them and for the other side. Same with abortion laws and gun laws where people are never going to change their beliefs, and can't be forced to by govt.

When will we learn that both sides beliefs should be included equally?
If a law is truly constitutionally equal and inclusive wouldn't both sides agree it is addressing all issues?

 

[emilynghiem]

Can the government force you to choose US federal, state, and local law over Sharia Law,

or does the 1st Amendment protect Muslims from having to support laws they might in some cases prefer to replace with their own?

NYcarbineer
Yes and No.

Surprise! Shariah actually means ALL activities including giving to charity and praying 5 times a day
as Muslims commit to as part of the PRACTICE.

so NO, federal govt cannot enforce any law that would FORCE you to compromise
your religious freedom to pray and give alms to the poor as part of SHARIAH.

(Trick answer because you asked a Trick question!)

NO if you mean "Shariah" to mean forcing religious beliefs into the govt to make beliefs mandatory for the public. The regimes such as taking over govts in Nigeria and not just in Arab countries,
put their religious doctrine above DUE PROCESS OF LAWS and do not separate religious authority from govt, nor separate judicial from executive authority, so that would be unconstitutional in America to do so.

NOTE: In the case of LGBT advocacy BOTH sides complain the OTHER is pushing THEIR beliefs or creeds into GOVT! So BOTH sides are complaining of violations and discrimination, since both sides involve creeds.

I don't think anyone in America disputes this is causing conflicts to mix creeds/beliefs/shariah with govt;
the PROBLEM is they BLAME EACH OTHER'S CREEDS as being wrong to impose. The wrongs are mutual.
We need to find the solutions that are mutual.

But what if its part of the beliefs of religion that that religion should be incorporated into the government?

Exactly NYcarbineer I wish I could give you a BINGO on this but maybe winner will do.
This is the issue.
That is why we need consensus where neither side can remove their beliefs from govt.
CONSENSUS would still protect all beliefs, including those that cannot be separated from govt.

1. the LGBT believes that even though orientation is faith based and not proven genetically determined at birth like race,
they want more than just religious freedom protections, but protections SPECIFICALLY for people of THESE conditions (or "behaviors") that people can't even agree how to define without invoking beliefs that aren't proven by science.

They cannot separate their beliefs from govt, any more than the gun rights people or the health care rights or marriage rights people.

2. the Christians and Constitutionalists believe in protecting religious freedom from govt intrusion into personal matters. They cannot be forced to change their beliefs that federal govt is overreaching by taking one sides beliefs about over the others.

But the LGBT will argue the bullying and discrimination is so great, it is like the racial discrimination against Blacks and minorities and deserves ADDED protection other than what is already in the laws protecting people's CREED. Now with the bathroom policies they want to impose the policies convenient for their agenda at the expense of what is convenient for others who don't agree; instead of allowing majority rule to decide what is most convenient, they want to overrule the others instead of agreeing to neutral restrooms.

They BELIEVE that the homosexual and transgender orientation is NOT BEHAVIOR, NOT A CHOICE although this cannot be proven or disproven. (similar to right to life arguments that life begins at conception before birth, where it cannot be proven when human will is formed)

The opponents believe that it IS a choice of behavior and NOT protected, but this cannot be proven or disproven either.

BOTH sides have beliefs and both cross over from personal to public, policies from state to federal issues of Constitutional equal protections of the law.

That is why I argue since both sides have creeds and beliefs that are faith based not proven, they should be treated EQUALLY and require CONSENSUS on policies that resolve conflicts and represent/include all people's beliefs equally.

NOTE: One way of resolving this by consensus is to agree to pull marriage, benefits, health care and all social legislation out of federal govt, and manage it through states, parties or other collective means that people can defend and choose privately without conflicting with other people's beliefs and choices. Remove public funding and jurisdiction and let people manage those programs and policies in private. Either agree on public policies, or separate and keep them private.

 

[emilynghiem]

Here's a point.

Do I, as an individual have the right to discriminate? Yes or no?

As an individual...you sure do

As a business....you have to follow the law

So you can't even just answer a question.


Great, we've determined that I DO have a right to discriminate. Excellent.

Now, can you name one other right that I have to give up to own a business?

Further, can you explain to me why I should have to give up what you admit is a right, just to own a business?

Your question is answered....You just don't like the answer

Once you open a business you lose your freedom of association. You don't get to put up a sign that says "We don't serve negroes here"
You also lose your right to set your own labor rules, you lose the right to have your building any way you want, you lose the right to have a sloppy kitchen if you want one

No the question wasn't answered.

I don't have a right to set my own labor rate, I don't have a right to build a building any way I want, I don't have a right to have a sloppy kitchen. NONE of those are rights.

So, that leaves us with the right of association. Explain to me how the government has the authority to take away that right?

And further, are you truly too stupid to understand that once you let a government take your rights, they can take any of them that they please?

The government only exists as a function of the vote of the People.

How do you want government to exist?

Consent of the governed being the authority of the People.

This is cited in the Declaration of Independence, and in
Section 2 of the Texas Bill of Rights. Do we need a
Constitutional Amendment protecting this and the
right to seek mediation and consensus on policies that
involve political and religious beliefs?

 

[mdk]

Ah, yes...the old people are in fact churches themselves so they don't have to follow the law. Don't me believe me? Stop paying taxes and claim that you *yourself* are a church. I am sure you'll have plenty of time to craft cockamamie legal schemes to deny gays marriage while your sitting in jail for tax evasion.

For the record, Davis is neither a church nor a member of the clergy.

Can you point me to the place in the US Constitution where it says "Freedom of Church"? Or does it in fact guarantee each citizen themself freedom of religion? Is religion a building and a dude with a little white blip in his black collar? Or is it the parishioners themselves and the Word they follow in their individual hearts?

People are not churches, dip shit. Not in any state. Can you point to me where ones faith allows them to ignore the law at will? Such a standard doesn't exist which is why her appeal was denied all the way to the top. If Kim Davis went to jail being a Christian than so did Warren Jeffs. Which is silly. Davis can't use her government office to impose her faith on her fellow citizens. If she has a problem than she is free to find a different line of work.

Dear mdk
Yes, Silhouette is arguing for religious freedom of individuals.

in Hobby Lobby arguments, the owners explained that they were willing to comply with secular laws over their beliefs when it came to birth control. But when it came to specific abortifacient drugs that went TOO FAR, they argued they could not comply and would have no other choice but pay such huge fines their company could not sustain.

So given their beliefs, the mandates went TOO FAR and the court ruled in granting them the exemption
that was previously extended to religious organizations acting as employers.

This ruling is still contested as recognizing religious freedom of 'corporations'
instead of freedom of "individuals" not to be affected adversely by federal regulations
that imposed an unintended consequence affecting Individuals running companies.

I am fine with religious freedoms so long as they are not used to deny citizens services that goverment provide. Don't get it twisted, Silhouette only cares about religious freedoms if they are used to harm gay people. Period. The moment they can't be used to do so she doesn't care. She is a lame one trick pony.

Dear mdk and how many LGBT people are like Silhouette but only defending LGBT rights
and don't care if they harm or violate the beliefs of Christians or others?

This fight will never end if both sides only defend their own beliefs and not others equally.
They will continue to bully and deadlock, over and over, never satisified if the bias goes against them and for the other side. Same with abortion laws and gun laws where people are never going to change their beliefs, and can't be forced to by govt.

When will we learn that both sides beliefs should be included equally?
If a law is truly constitutionally equal and inclusive wouldn't both sides agree it is addressing all issues?

Not me. I support religious freedoms so long as they can't use their power as a civil servant to deny services to their fellow citizens. You seem to think that every side is willing to agree and are willing to be equal and inclusive. I do. Many don't. That is the rub.

 

[Norman]

If it is Christianity: Of course, anything goes.

If it's Islam: Yes, but only if it relates to following the commandments of Allah. Government should fully sponsor the religion of peace.

 

[Silhouette]

I am fine with religious freedoms so long as they are not used to deny citizens services that goverment provide. Don't get it twisted, Silhouette only cares about religious freedoms if they are used to harm gay people. Period. The moment they can't be used to do so she doesn't care. She is a lame one trick pony.

Wrong. I also think it would be wrong to force a gay billboard designer to violate his faith in the Church of LGBT by requiring he print a sign that reads "Homosexuality is a sin unto God". I also think it would be wrong to force a black baker to bake a cake with hooded KKK figures saying "The Klan is the Best!".

But keep lying. It's what you do best.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

If it is Christianity: Of course, anything goes.

If it's Islam: Yes, but only if it relates to following the commandments of Allah. Government should fully sponsor the religion of peace.

This is as ridiculous as it is ignorant and wrong; an example of the hate and bigotry common to most on the right.

All religions are treated equally with regard to First Amendment jurisprudence: all religions are equally prohibited from un-Constitutional government involvement by the Establishment Clause, all religions are equally protected unwarranted government interference by the Free Exercise Clause.