Civil Rights Commission Against Religious Freedom

[Billy_Kinetta]

If what the Commissioner is true (and we have plenty of posters who here do just this with code words), then "discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance" must be combatted.

Compost, sassy, onyx, etc., are walking examples of the truth of this.

I reserve my right to be as intolerant as I see fit, and I will combat you right back. I have no tolerance for Democrats.

No one is saying you can't be intolerant

And yet you choose to combat my intolerance with your own.

Be a slave, or starve. Got it.

What part of "Congress shall make no law" is unclear to you? What part of "the free expression thereof" confuses you?

I don't recall seeing "except for" in the Amendment. You?

<<What part of "Congress shall make no law" is unclear to you? What part of "the free expression thereof" confuses you?>> Hey, billy! The assumed part where your right to swing your arms ends at my nose.

Whence comes the right to force association with or ideas upon a majority that isn't interested? Whence comes the right to force work from individuals who choose not to perform such work? How is such force not slavery? Whence comes the right to suppress one belief held by a majority in favor of another? And while the Constitution protects the minority from the majority, whence comes the right of the minority to lord over the majority?

Thank you for the opportunity to use "whence" annoyingly often.

If you do not understand, then please take a course on the subject.

I have. Several, in fact.

Care to proceed?

Either you did not or you did but failed.

Irrelevant. Care to proceed?

 

[Seawytch]

Yeah, you guys are all about freedom of religion, as long as the religion is christianity.

The Civil Rights Commission wants all religions to be included.

Also, they don't want any religion controlling the running of the country or interfering with anyone's Constitutional/legal rights.

Too much of a concept for some of you.

All religions are included. Or they were, the Commission is attempting to exclude Christians by claiming they are phobics. You are OK with one group of people being picked out and vilified ?

Did you read the report or did you only read what your silly right wing news source told you the report said?

Can you cite the page from this two hundred plus page report that "vilifies" or "excludes" Christians?

 

[Compost]

If what the Commissioner is true (and we have plenty of posters who here do just this with code words), then "discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance" must be combatted.

Compost, sassy, onyx, etc., are walking examples of the truth of this.

JakeStarkey, provide examples of these code words and proof of what these code words mean. Failure to do so is an indication of your own flagrant bigotry.

You have not shown that such is this case. I can't disprove anything until you offer evidence. You have not done so. Failure to do is that you do not understand the discussion.

Read what you said. "..and we have plenty of posters who here do just this with code words" ... "Compost, sassy, onyx, etc., are walking examples of the truth of this"...

JakeStarkey, you are not discussing. You are making unfounded accusations. The evidence is your own words.

Either back up your statements or stop making accusations against individuals here.

 

[Compost]

They hear code words and dog whistles.

A new report by the United States Commission on Civil Rights supports the majority on the federal commission, who say that efforts to protect religious liberty and freedom are really a way for individuals and entities to discriminate against people who don’t share their beliefs.

“The phrases ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance,” Martin Castro, chairman of the commission, said in a statement included in the 296-page report.

Civil Rights Commission: ‘Religious Liberty,’ ‘Religious Freedom’ Code Words for Intolerance, Homophobia, and ‘Christian Supremacy’

because it's true.

your point?

Prove that it's true.

 

[JoeB131]

Matthew 19:4-6, "And He answered and said, 'Have you not read that He who created them from the beginning made them male and female, 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 “So they are no longer two, but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let no man separate.'”

so where does that say, "homos bad".

Ole Joe thinks Jesus was going against the Bible and was OK with men poking each other's rectums? LOL

I don't think Jesus actually existed. But the thing is, the GOSPEL writers didn't put homophobic things into his mouth.

I think I find it amusing that homophobes often get pretty graphic in describing the gay sex... kind of like vegetarians who can't stop talking about steak.

 

[JoeB131]

Does not sound very polite to me.

Being at liberty to make mistakes is fundamental in a civilized society.

no problem, as long as you understand, mistakes have consequences.

I take it you support government enforced equality measures?

within reason. actually, I don't think they go far enough.

 

[JoeB131]

Be a slave, or starve. Got it.

What part of "Congress shall make no law" is unclear to you? What part of "the free expression thereof" confuses you?

I don't recall seeing "except for" in the Amendment. You?

Individuals have a right to practice whatever bronze age superstitions they want to, but they still have to obey the law.

The law says if you open a business, it has to provide the same services to people regardless of color, creed, gender or sexual orientation.

If you can't do that, you shouldn't operate a business.

 

[RamblerBR]

It isn't a constitutional issue. If you don't want to bake a cake for gay people, your solution is to close down your bakery. You have a religion, your business does not.

This shit was resolved legally 50 years ago when some racist cracker decided Jesus hated black people as much as they did (without any biblical foundation) and tried to use that as an excuse not to serve them.

The courts slapped them down hard like they are slapping them down hard now.

Not to worry, in another 20 years, all the churches are going to treat their stance on gays the way they treat their stance on racism, slavery and witch burning. Something they will claim was a "misunderstanding' of the bible.

So, if you are in a deli that is owned by a Muslim/Islamist and you demand he make you a ham sandwich, the owner cannot refuse to make you one? And, if he still refuses, you can sue him and he can be forced to serve you?
Further, since the Muslim/Islamist religion condemns homosexuality even more than the Christians, if a gay couple want a wedding and the bakery is owned by a Muslim/Islamist, they can be forced to bake one?

 

[Compost]

Yeah, you guys are all about freedom of religion, as long as the religion is christianity.

The Civil Rights Commission wants all religions to be included.

Also, they don't want any religion controlling the running of the country or interfering with anyone's Constitutional/legal rights.

Too much of a concept for some of you.

All religions are included. Or they were, the Commission is attempting to exclude Christians by claiming they are phobics. You are OK with one group of people being picked out and vilified ?

Did you read the report or did you only read what your silly right wing news source told you the report said?

Can you cite the page from this two hundred plus page report that "vilifies" or "excludes" Christians?

See page 122 on the remarks of Chairman Castro that were quoted in the OP. Not all the committee agrees with Castro, happily. Thanks for the silly remark on the news source that links the actual report. The report itself is a tedious read, but you might enjoy the Peaceful Coexistence Reports at the end of each segment.

 

[frigidweirdo]

They hear code words and dog whistles.

A new report by the United States Commission on Civil Rights supports the majority on the federal commission, who say that efforts to protect religious liberty and freedom are really a way for individuals and entities to discriminate against people who don’t share their beliefs.

“The phrases ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance,” Martin Castro, chairman of the commission, said in a statement included in the 296-page report.

Civil Rights Commission: ‘Religious Liberty,’ ‘Religious Freedom’ Code Words for Intolerance, Homophobia, and ‘Christian Supremacy’

The Sun Dance was banned by the US. Polygamy was banned by the US. Things that the majority said were in the best interests of the people to ban, and that the "religious rights" of those who wanted to practice them were not so important.

Basically you have people who would ban Burkas, not only that claim many reasons for them to be banned that simply aren't based in reality, and would ban many other religious things from people, but when their own religion comes into play, they'll scream as loud as they can that "religious rights" should not be touched.

And it's not just on religious rights. Anything they want they'll claim its protected, anything they don't like they'll claim it's in the public's interest to ban.

 

[frigidweirdo]

It isn't a constitutional issue. If you don't want to bake a cake for gay people, your solution is to close down your bakery. You have a religion, your business does not.

This shit was resolved legally 50 years ago when some racist cracker decided Jesus hated black people as much as they did (without any biblical foundation) and tried to use that as an excuse not to serve them.

The courts slapped them down hard like they are slapping them down hard now.

Not to worry, in another 20 years, all the churches are going to treat their stance on gays the way they treat their stance on racism, slavery and witch burning. Something they will claim was a "misunderstanding' of the bible.

So, if you are in a deli that is owned by a Muslim/Islamist and you demand he make you a ham sandwich, the owner cannot refuse to make you one? And, if he still refuses, you can sue him and he can be forced to serve you?
Further, since the Muslim/Islamist religion condemns homosexuality even more than the Christians, if a gay couple want a wedding and the bakery is owned by a Muslim/Islamist, they can be forced to bake one?

The first is a no. If the deli doesn't serve ham to anyone, then it isn't discriminating against anyone by not serving to you something it doesn't serve to anyone else.

The second, if they open a public shop, yes, they have to serve those people they may not agree with.

 

[Wry Catcher]

They hear code words and dog whistles.

A new report by the United States Commission on Civil Rights supports the majority on the federal commission, who say that efforts to protect religious liberty and freedom are really a way for individuals and entities to discriminate against people who don’t share their beliefs.

“The phrases ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance,” Martin Castro, chairman of the commission, said in a statement included in the 296-page report.

Civil Rights Commission: ‘Religious Liberty,’ ‘Religious Freedom’ Code Words for Intolerance, Homophobia, and ‘Christian Supremacy’

Damn commission, if only they allowed total religious freedom we could solve global warming forever, a simple sacrifice of young virgin girls would satisfy the gods and allow for perfect weather conditions. Imagine no more hurricanes, tornadoes, lightning strikes causing fires, etc. for simply choosiness a half dozen or so young girls to protect the earth / our planet. We could even sacrifice a few more to prevent earthquake and volcano disasters.

 

[JoeB131]

So, if you are in a deli that is owned by a Muslim/Islamist and you demand he make you a ham sandwich, the owner cannot refuse to make you one? And, if he still refuses, you can sue him and he can be forced to serve you?

Well, no, because he doesn't offer ham sandwiches to ANYONE. Therefore he is not discriminating. It's not a service he provides.

When you say, "I'll sell a hotel room to a white but not a black", that's discrimination.

When you say, "I'll bake a cake for a straight couple but not a gay couple." that's discrimination.

When you say, "I'm not selling ham sandwiches to anyone because we don't sell pork products here." That's not discrimination.

Further, since the Muslim/Islamist religion condemns homosexuality even more than the Christians, if a gay couple want a wedding and the bakery is owned by a Muslim/Islamist, they can be forced to bake one?

If they are offering the same service to straights, then yes, they should offer the same service to gays.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They hear code words and dog whistles.

A new report by the United States Commission on Civil Rights supports the majority on the federal commission, who say that efforts to protect religious liberty and freedom are really a way for individuals and entities to discriminate against people who don’t share their beliefs.

“The phrases ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance,” Martin Castro, chairman of the commission, said in a statement included in the 296-page report.

Civil Rights Commission: ‘Religious Liberty,’ ‘Religious Freedom’ Code Words for Intolerance, Homophobia, and ‘Christian Supremacy’

The Commission is correct to identify the fact that many on the religious right, and social conservatives in general, are hostile to settled, accepted Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

It is a fact beyond dispute that far too many religious fundamentalists and social conservatives seek to codify Christian dogma in secular law in violation of the Framers’ mandate that church and state remain separate.

It is a fact beyond dispute that far too many religious fundamentalists and social conservatives seek to disadvantage religious minorities in violation of the First Amendment, Muslim Americans in particular.

And it is a fact beyond dispute that far too many religious fundamentalists and social conservatives advocate violating just, proper, and Constitutional laws – such as public accommodations laws – predicated on the lie that those measures ‘prohibit religious liberty,’ when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

‘Commissioner Peter Kirsanow also criticized the six-member majority's conclusions.

“Religious liberty and anti-discrimination laws come into conflict in many different ways and there is no fair way to say that one set of concerns is 'preeminent' and the other set is not,” Kirsanow said.’

Wrong.

Anti-discrimination laws are perfectly just and Constitutional, where the Supreme Court has held that requiring citizens to follow such laws in no way ‘violates’ religious liberty or the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment (see Employment Division v. Smith (1990)).

That as a conservative and Republican appointee Kirsanow is ignorant of – or has contempt for – settled and accepted Constitutional jurisprudence comes as no surprise.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If what the Commissioner is true (and we have plenty of posters who here do just this with code words), then "discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance" must be combatted.

Compost, sassy, onyx, etc., are walking examples of the truth of this.

I reserve my right to be as intolerant as I see fit, and I will combat you right back. I have no tolerance for Democrats.

No one is saying you can't be intolerant

And yet you choose to combat my intolerance with your own.

Reporting for slicing my comment out of context and for false punctuation, a rules violation.

Yes, run tell the teacher. It's your way when at a loss for words.

Out of context? I posted and responded to the pertinent part of your comment.

Here is the full comment, "No one is saying you can't be intolerant, but your actions in public forums are governed by public laws with public consequences. Go ahead and be intolerant."

Yes, you can be intolerant, but if you do it in public association then there may be consequences.

There may be, but that does not mean the laws insistent upon consequences for expressing one's rights pass Constitutional muster.

The existence of a law is not dependent upon its legality.

We can't have a logical discussion with you not following the rules, Billy. I will always get you when you take a cheap shot without addressing the OP. SCOTUS will decide in the end what is appropriate discrimination in the public square. I will join you in opposing any public suppression of discrimination is personal association.

 

[Compost]

They hear code words and dog whistles.

A new report by the United States Commission on Civil Rights supports the majority on the federal commission, who say that efforts to protect religious liberty and freedom are really a way for individuals and entities to discriminate against people who don’t share their beliefs.

“The phrases ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance,” Martin Castro, chairman of the commission, said in a statement included in the 296-page report.

Civil Rights Commission: ‘Religious Liberty,’ ‘Religious Freedom’ Code Words for Intolerance, Homophobia, and ‘Christian Supremacy’

The Commission is correct to identify the fact that many on the religious right, and social conservatives in general, are hostile to settled, accepted Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

It is a fact beyond dispute that far too many religious fundamentalists and social conservatives seek to codify Christian dogma in secular law in violation of the Framers’ mandate that church and state remain separate.

It is a fact beyond dispute that far too many religious fundamentalists and social conservatives seek to disadvantage religious minorities in violation of the First Amendment, Muslim Americans in particular.

And it is a fact beyond dispute that far too many religious fundamentalists and social conservatives advocate violating just, proper, and Constitutional laws – such as public accommodations laws – predicated on the lie that those measures ‘prohibit religious liberty,’ when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

How about some actual examples of these violations that you consider fact beyond dispute?

 

[JakeStarkey]

They hear code words and dog whistles.

A new report by the United States Commission on Civil Rights supports the majority on the federal commission, who say that efforts to protect religious liberty and freedom are really a way for individuals and entities to discriminate against people who don’t share their beliefs.

“The phrases ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance,” Martin Castro, chairman of the commission, said in a statement included in the 296-page report.

Civil Rights Commission: ‘Religious Liberty,’ ‘Religious Freedom’ Code Words for Intolerance, Homophobia, and ‘Christian Supremacy’

The Commission is correct to identify the fact that many on the religious right, and social conservatives in general, are hostile to settled, accepted Establishment Clause jurisprudence.

It is a fact beyond dispute that far too many religious fundamentalists and social conservatives seek to codify Christian dogma in secular law in violation of the Framers’ mandate that church and state remain separate.

It is a fact beyond dispute that far too many religious fundamentalists and social conservatives seek to disadvantage religious minorities in violation of the First Amendment, Muslim Americans in particular.

And it is a fact beyond dispute that far too many religious fundamentalists and social conservatives advocate violating just, proper, and Constitutional laws – such as public accommodations laws – predicated on the lie that those measures ‘prohibit religious liberty,’ when in fact nothing could be further from the truth.

How about some actual examples of these violations that you consider fact beyond dispute?

Compost, go study the commission's report for examples. It's up to you to disprove them.

 

[SuperDemocrat]

They hear code words and dog whistles.

A new report by the United States Commission on Civil Rights supports the majority on the federal commission, who say that efforts to protect religious liberty and freedom are really a way for individuals and entities to discriminate against people who don’t share their beliefs.

“The phrases ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance,” Martin Castro, chairman of the commission, said in a statement included in the 296-page report.

Civil Rights Commission: ‘Religious Liberty,’ ‘Religious Freedom’ Code Words for Intolerance, Homophobia, and ‘Christian Supremacy’

You may be right that a lot of people may really find homosexuality completely immoral and it is just an argument to justify their rejection of it BUT SO FUCKING WHAT! Don't people in a free country have a right to be however they fucking want to be? The left has really found a convincing argument to impose their will onto others which is their position is moral and the opponents position is immoral and that justifies them stripping them of their rights because the average person doesn't mind it then. Why would the average person care what some prejudicial fool's rights are? And this is the argument that is used to justify the greatest removal of indidual freedom in this country by the left.

 

[JakeStarkey]

If what the Commissioner is true (and we have plenty of posters who here do just this with code words), then "discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance" must be combatted.

Compost, sassy, onyx, etc., are walking examples of the truth of this.

I reserve my right to be as intolerant as I see fit, and I will combat you right back. I have no tolerance for Democrats.

No one is saying you can't be intolerant

And yet you choose to combat my intolerance with your own.

How? You can be intolerant in private association but in public you follow the law. Not hard.