Jeff Sessions has created a religious liberty task force to “protect & promote religious liberty”

[martybegan]

No, it’s a minority of people and doesn’t include anyone who has actual power.

sure. tell that to the females who want birth control but cannot get it even though they should thru their work related health ins.

or the woman who had to go to another pharmacy to get a 'script to expel the already dead 'baby' in her uterus.

or the person who needed a 'script for hormones & had to go somewhere else for it.

or the people who were legally & constitutionally able to get a marriage license & were denied.

the power shifted from the establishment clause to a state sanctioned religious doctrine.

all chasms start with a crack.

No one has a right to birth control

No one has a right to free or subsidized abortion

No one has a right to prescription drugs

Gay marriage is legal

Still waiting for proof that religion is being forced on anyone.

Everyone has a right to control his or her own fertility.

Every woman has a right to an abortion.

How is religious liberty infringed upon currently?

Anyone

High School Coaches fired for taking a knee in prayer on the field. Teachers wearing crosses at school.

Muslim taxi drivers being forced to transport the blind with their guide dogs.
Muslims being denied permits to build mosques.

Somehow I suspect that the religious liberty task force will not be out there protecting the Muslims 'religious freedom'.......but evangelicals can take heart that they will have their own special police force protecting them.

No, they have the responsibility to control their own fertility. No one has a right to an abortion, or birth control pills. I dare you to try to show where it is written that they do..

Everyone has a right to control their own fertiliity- and that includes the right to use contraception and the right to an abortion
Roe v. Wade.
Griswold v. Connecticut

And yet the constitution is explicit on the people being able to keep and bear arms, but of course progs like you find a way to ignore actual text in the document while relying on the opinions of 5 of 9 unelected lawyers......

Consistency isn't a strong point for lefty twats....

 

[Syriusly]

sure. tell that to the females who want birth control but cannot get it even though they should thru their work related health ins.

or the woman who had to go to another pharmacy to get a 'script to expel the already dead 'baby' in her uterus.

or the person who needed a 'script for hormones & had to go somewhere else for it.

or the people who were legally & constitutionally able to get a marriage license & were denied.

the power shifted from the establishment clause to a state sanctioned religious doctrine.

all chasms start with a crack.

No one has a right to birth control

No one has a right to free or subsidized abortion

No one has a right to prescription drugs

Gay marriage is legal

Still waiting for proof that religion is being forced on anyone.

Everyone has a right to control his or her own fertility.

Every woman has a right to an abortion.

How is religious liberty infringed upon currently?

Anyone

High School Coaches fired for taking a knee in prayer on the field. Teachers wearing crosses at school.

Muslim taxi drivers being forced to transport the blind with their guide dogs.
Muslims being denied permits to build mosques.

Somehow I suspect that the religious liberty task force will not be out there protecting the Muslims 'religious freedom'.......but evangelicals can take heart that they will have their own special police force protecting them.

Actually the whole Muslim taxi drivers and dogs thing gives a good example of the concept of PA vs. contracted service.

If a taxi pulls up to a taxi stand, they are assuming any person can enter their car, i.e a public space. Then they can be told to "take the damn dog" or "you can't deny the guy with the bottle of scotch".

However the same taxi service that operates on an "will call basis", that properly denotes the restrictions it places on its services, i.e, no dogs, we don't transport alcohol, that would be OK to me.

It might be okay with you- but it would be in violation of the law.

Meanwhile- I am predicting that this new Super Friends group to defend religious liberty is not going to be running to defend the rights of Muslim taxi drivers to refuse to transport guide dogs for the blind, or to defend the rights of Muslims to build Mosques in America.

Arguing "the law is the law" isn't arguing the why of the law or how it is applied, which is what should actually be discussed.

We have had these discussions before.

Personally I think laws requiring the accommodation of the handicapped are fine.

 

[Syriusly]

sure. tell that to the females who want birth control but cannot get it even though they should thru their work related health ins.

or the woman who had to go to another pharmacy to get a 'script to expel the already dead 'baby' in her uterus.

or the person who needed a 'script for hormones & had to go somewhere else for it.

or the people who were legally & constitutionally able to get a marriage license & were denied.

the power shifted from the establishment clause to a state sanctioned religious doctrine.

all chasms start with a crack.

No one has a right to birth control

No one has a right to free or subsidized abortion

No one has a right to prescription drugs

Gay marriage is legal

Still waiting for proof that religion is being forced on anyone.

Everyone has a right to control his or her own fertility.

Every woman has a right to an abortion.

How is religious liberty infringed upon currently?

Anyone

High School Coaches fired for taking a knee in prayer on the field. Teachers wearing crosses at school.

Muslim taxi drivers being forced to transport the blind with their guide dogs.
Muslims being denied permits to build mosques.

Somehow I suspect that the religious liberty task force will not be out there protecting the Muslims 'religious freedom'.......but evangelicals can take heart that they will have their own special police force protecting them.

No, they have the responsibility to control their own fertility. No one has a right to an abortion, or birth control pills. I dare you to try to show where it is written that they do..

Everyone has a right to control their own fertiliity- and that includes the right to use contraception and the right to an abortion
Roe v. Wade.
Griswold v. Connecticut

And yet the constitution is explicit on the people being able to keep and bear arms, but of course progs like you find a way to ignore actual text in the document while relying on the opinions of 5 of 9 unelected lawyers......

Consistency isn't a strong point for lefty twats....

Well I guess they aren't 'progs' like me, because I actually support the right to own guns.

As far as relying on the opinions of '5 of 9 unelected lawyers'- which is a rather funny way of identifying the Supreme Court- gun owners don't have any problem with those lawyers not being elected when they tell states they can't forbid gun ownership.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Sessions said the task force, which he will chair, is to help implementation of the religious liberty memo he signed in last October.

the story is on the website of The Washington Examiner.

Mah rite to blow fuckers up whenever I likes.

 

[martybegan]

No one has a right to birth control

No one has a right to free or subsidized abortion

No one has a right to prescription drugs

Gay marriage is legal

Still waiting for proof that religion is being forced on anyone.

Everyone has a right to control his or her own fertility.

Every woman has a right to an abortion.

High School Coaches fired for taking a knee in prayer on the field. Teachers wearing crosses at school.

Muslim taxi drivers being forced to transport the blind with their guide dogs.
Muslims being denied permits to build mosques.

Somehow I suspect that the religious liberty task force will not be out there protecting the Muslims 'religious freedom'.......but evangelicals can take heart that they will have their own special police force protecting them.

Actually the whole Muslim taxi drivers and dogs thing gives a good example of the concept of PA vs. contracted service.

If a taxi pulls up to a taxi stand, they are assuming any person can enter their car, i.e a public space. Then they can be told to "take the damn dog" or "you can't deny the guy with the bottle of scotch".

However the same taxi service that operates on an "will call basis", that properly denotes the restrictions it places on its services, i.e, no dogs, we don't transport alcohol, that would be OK to me.

It might be okay with you- but it would be in violation of the law.

Meanwhile- I am predicting that this new Super Friends group to defend religious liberty is not going to be running to defend the rights of Muslim taxi drivers to refuse to transport guide dogs for the blind, or to defend the rights of Muslims to build Mosques in America.

Arguing "the law is the law" isn't arguing the why of the law or how it is applied, which is what should actually be discussed.

We have had these discussions before.

Personally I think laws requiring the accommodation of the handicapped are fine.

Which would only be an issue with a point of sale taxi transaction. A Muslim cab company that does call hails and explicitly says no dogs or no booze should be allowed.

Just like a muslim women cab company that only drives women should be allowed, as a will call service, not street pickup.

And does handicap accomodation do so far as to require ALL street hail or other cabs to be vans instead of sedans?

 

[martybegan]

No one has a right to birth control

No one has a right to free or subsidized abortion

No one has a right to prescription drugs

Gay marriage is legal

Still waiting for proof that religion is being forced on anyone.

Everyone has a right to control his or her own fertility.

Every woman has a right to an abortion.

High School Coaches fired for taking a knee in prayer on the field. Teachers wearing crosses at school.

Muslim taxi drivers being forced to transport the blind with their guide dogs.
Muslims being denied permits to build mosques.

Somehow I suspect that the religious liberty task force will not be out there protecting the Muslims 'religious freedom'.......but evangelicals can take heart that they will have their own special police force protecting them.

No, they have the responsibility to control their own fertility. No one has a right to an abortion, or birth control pills. I dare you to try to show where it is written that they do..

Everyone has a right to control their own fertiliity- and that includes the right to use contraception and the right to an abortion
Roe v. Wade.
Griswold v. Connecticut

And yet the constitution is explicit on the people being able to keep and bear arms, but of course progs like you find a way to ignore actual text in the document while relying on the opinions of 5 of 9 unelected lawyers......

Consistency isn't a strong point for lefty twats....

Well I guess they aren't 'progs' like me, because I actually support the right to own guns.

As far as relying on the opinions of '5 of 9 unelected lawyers'- which is a rather funny way of identifying the Supreme Court- gun owners don't have any problem with those lawyers not being elected when they tell states they can't forbid gun ownership.

Because the 2nd amendment is explcit.

And since I am a Strict Constructionist that is the end of that for me.

 

[PredFan]

No, it’s a minority of people and doesn’t include anyone who has actual power.

sure. tell that to the females who want birth control but cannot get it even though they should thru their work related health ins.

or the woman who had to go to another pharmacy to get a 'script to expel the already dead 'baby' in her uterus.

or the person who needed a 'script for hormones & had to go somewhere else for it.

or the people who were legally & constitutionally able to get a marriage license & were denied.

the power shifted from the establishment clause to a state sanctioned religious doctrine.

all chasms start with a crack.

No one has a right to birth control

No one has a right to free or subsidized abortion

No one has a right to prescription drugs

Gay marriage is legal

Still waiting for proof that religion is being forced on anyone.

Everyone has a right to control his or her own fertility.

Every woman has a right to an abortion.

How is religious liberty infringed upon currently?

Anyone

High School Coaches fired for taking a knee in prayer on the field. Teachers wearing crosses at school.

Muslim taxi drivers being forced to transport the blind with their guide dogs.
Muslims being denied permits to build mosques.

Somehow I suspect that the religious liberty task force will not be out there protecting the Muslims 'religious freedom'.......but evangelicals can take heart that they will have their own special police force protecting them.

No, they have the responsibility to control their own fertility. No one has a right to an abortion, or birth control pills. I dare you to try to show where it is written that they do..

Everyone has a right to control their own fertiliity- and that includes the right to use contraception and the right to an abortion
Roe v. Wade.
Griswold v. Connecticut

No, they do not. Except in their decision to abstain or not. You still have not shown where it is stated that they have the right. RvW only protects women from government interference.

Learn something, take a class, learn to think then maybe you can discuss something in an intelligent manner.

 

[Syriusly]

Everyone has a right to control his or her own fertility.

Every woman has a right to an abortion.
Muslim taxi drivers being forced to transport the blind with their guide dogs.
Muslims being denied permits to build mosques.

Somehow I suspect that the religious liberty task force will not be out there protecting the Muslims 'religious freedom'.......but evangelicals can take heart that they will have their own special police force protecting them.

Actually the whole Muslim taxi drivers and dogs thing gives a good example of the concept of PA vs. contracted service.

If a taxi pulls up to a taxi stand, they are assuming any person can enter their car, i.e a public space. Then they can be told to "take the damn dog" or "you can't deny the guy with the bottle of scotch".

However the same taxi service that operates on an "will call basis", that properly denotes the restrictions it places on its services, i.e, no dogs, we don't transport alcohol, that would be OK to me.

It might be okay with you- but it would be in violation of the law.

Meanwhile- I am predicting that this new Super Friends group to defend religious liberty is not going to be running to defend the rights of Muslim taxi drivers to refuse to transport guide dogs for the blind, or to defend the rights of Muslims to build Mosques in America.

Arguing "the law is the law" isn't arguing the why of the law or how it is applied, which is what should actually be discussed.

We have had these discussions before.

Personally I think laws requiring the accommodation of the handicapped are fine.

And does handicap accomodation do so far as to require ALL street hail or other cabs to be vans instead of sedans?

Good question. I suspect not- but I am certainly not going to go look

 

[Syriusly]

sure. tell that to the females who want birth control but cannot get it even though they should thru their work related health ins.

or the woman who had to go to another pharmacy to get a 'script to expel the already dead 'baby' in her uterus.

or the person who needed a 'script for hormones & had to go somewhere else for it.

or the people who were legally & constitutionally able to get a marriage license & were denied.

the power shifted from the establishment clause to a state sanctioned religious doctrine.

all chasms start with a crack.

No one has a right to birth control

No one has a right to free or subsidized abortion

No one has a right to prescription drugs

Gay marriage is legal

Still waiting for proof that religion is being forced on anyone.

Everyone has a right to control his or her own fertility.

Every woman has a right to an abortion.

How is religious liberty infringed upon currently?

Anyone

High School Coaches fired for taking a knee in prayer on the field. Teachers wearing crosses at school.

Muslim taxi drivers being forced to transport the blind with their guide dogs.
Muslims being denied permits to build mosques.

Somehow I suspect that the religious liberty task force will not be out there protecting the Muslims 'religious freedom'.......but evangelicals can take heart that they will have their own special police force protecting them.

No, they have the responsibility to control their own fertility. No one has a right to an abortion, or birth control pills. I dare you to try to show where it is written that they do..

Everyone has a right to control their own fertiliity- and that includes the right to use contraception and the right to an abortion
Roe v. Wade.
Griswold v. Connecticut

No, they do not. Except in their decision to abstain or not. You still have not shown where it is stated that they have the right. RvW only protects women from government interference.

Learn something, take a class, learn to think then maybe you can discuss something in an intelligent manner.

LOL- poor little ignorant Trumpkin.

I can lead you to the facts, I can't make you actually think.

 

[Syriusly]

Everyone has a right to control his or her own fertility.

Every woman has a right to an abortion.
Muslim taxi drivers being forced to transport the blind with their guide dogs.
Muslims being denied permits to build mosques.

Somehow I suspect that the religious liberty task force will not be out there protecting the Muslims 'religious freedom'.......but evangelicals can take heart that they will have their own special police force protecting them.

No, they have the responsibility to control their own fertility. No one has a right to an abortion, or birth control pills. I dare you to try to show where it is written that they do..

Everyone has a right to control their own fertiliity- and that includes the right to use contraception and the right to an abortion
Roe v. Wade.
Griswold v. Connecticut

And yet the constitution is explicit on the people being able to keep and bear arms, but of course progs like you find a way to ignore actual text in the document while relying on the opinions of 5 of 9 unelected lawyers......

Consistency isn't a strong point for lefty twats....

Well I guess they aren't 'progs' like me, because I actually support the right to own guns.

As far as relying on the opinions of '5 of 9 unelected lawyers'- which is a rather funny way of identifying the Supreme Court- gun owners don't have any problem with those lawyers not being elected when they tell states they can't forbid gun ownership.

Because the 2nd amendment is explicit.

And since I am a Strict Constructionist that is the end of that for me.

Do you have a right to a rpg? How about a ground to air missile launcher?

All considered to be 'arms'.

All currently restricted in the United States.

Who should decide whether the current laws are constitutional or not?

 

[PredFan]

No one has a right to birth control

No one has a right to free or subsidized abortion

No one has a right to prescription drugs

Gay marriage is legal

Still waiting for proof that religion is being forced on anyone.

Everyone has a right to control his or her own fertility.

Every woman has a right to an abortion.

High School Coaches fired for taking a knee in prayer on the field. Teachers wearing crosses at school.

Muslim taxi drivers being forced to transport the blind with their guide dogs.
Muslims being denied permits to build mosques.

Somehow I suspect that the religious liberty task force will not be out there protecting the Muslims 'religious freedom'.......but evangelicals can take heart that they will have their own special police force protecting them.

No, they have the responsibility to control their own fertility. No one has a right to an abortion, or birth control pills. I dare you to try to show where it is written that they do..

Everyone has a right to control their own fertiliity- and that includes the right to use contraception and the right to an abortion
Roe v. Wade.
Griswold v. Connecticut

No, they do not. Except in their decision to abstain or not. You still have not shown where it is stated that they have the right. RvW only protects women from government interference.

Learn something, take a class, learn to think then maybe you can discuss something in an intelligent manner.

LOL- poor little ignorant Trumpkin.

I can lead you to the facts, I can't make you actually think.

When you have facts present them, so far you haven’t. Now, go take a class or something like I told you. Dismissed.

 

[sakinago]

The only separation of church and state comes in the form of the first amendment, that states congress shall make no law concerning the establishment of religion or the free exercise thereof. So forcing someone, say a baker or a sisterhood of nuns, to do something they have religious objections too would be in violation of the first amendment. Government does not have the right to force someone’s time, money, efforts, or labor towards something they have religious objections too (obviously as long as they are not physically harming or stealing from someone in the process).

The bolded is what conservatives like yourself seem to always forget. When a school (in the form of a teacher, or the establishment itself is setting up prayer) it is, in fact, establishing a religion. Everyone present has to be subject to hearing that prayer, whether or not they believe in it. Especially if/when students or attendees aren't allowed to leave during that prayer.

Want to test whether or not my statements are true, just have a Muslim prayer be done instead, and just that, and see the feedback from your peers, if not from you yourself.

When it comes to the baking thing, that's a very sticky subject, because at least two rights are clashing which each other, 1. the right of the customer to have services rendered to them that's being offered to the general public, and 2. the right of the business owner to practice their personal chosen religious beliefs as they fit.

To deny this fact, is to be dishonest to the core.

There are also a few cases of townships or municipalities giving religious folks the run-around, or denying them access to their land. Usually in the form of going against Orthodox Jews, who do not drive on the sabbath, so they worship out of the rabbis house and they all live within walking distance. They’ll be denied permits for expansion, or be told they don’t have the “parking space” necessary for their establishment, which is silly because they do not drive there.

Jews have already proven they don't get the Sabbath, but that's neither here nor there.

So there is no such thing as “freedom from religion” other than government forcing you to participate in some sort of religious ceremony. So can a teacher or whatever religion pray in front of their class, yes, can they order the class to pray with them, no. Can a lawmaker cite the Bible or whatever as rationale for a yes or no vote on whatever law, yes, as long as the law doesn’t prevent or force someone to behave in a way against their own religious (or non-religious) beliefs.

You're wrong. There is freedom from religion. The USA is a secular nation, setup by mostly Christians. Not a Christian nation. BIG DIFFERENCE. The Constitution and it's Amendments states that to be the case, which you yourself quoted above.

Remember the supreme courts decision (I think it was 7-2) over the Colorado baker and the gay wedding cake never touched on whether or not they had to back the cake (or be subject to 135,000$ fine). The decision stated that there was clear, and malicious bias against the bakers over their religion from the state prosecution. That is another example of violation against religious freedom from the state.

I haven’t heard many cases of religious freedom violations coming from the right, outside of DOMA, at least not any I can think of. Do you mind educating me?

Don't care about this part.

Your commentary on the baking subject is mostly right. I’d object to the part where getting service from someone is in fact a right, because that “right” is not distributed on an individual basis. Example, it’s perfectly fine to refuse service to a pro-life person, but not a Muslim (who could very well be pro life themselves). It’s all dependent on what you believe, skin color, etc. If government picks and chooses who has to be served or doesn’t have to be served, it’s no longer a right, but a privelage granted by government. So either you should have the right to refuse service, or no one should have the right to refuse service. This also crosses over into a third right, which is property rights. The baking issue is a sticky incident, but not as sticky as we want to make it sound, since it’s the first freaking amendment. The bill of rights, highest law of the land, and last time I checked there’s been no amendment passed to counter the first amendment. Not to forget that it’s actually 2 established rights (property and 1A), vs one privelage granted by government (created for a good cause). And because that privelage wasn’t principly based, now we’re seeing this “sticky” situation rear it’s ugly head in the form of “robbing peters rights, to pay for Paul’s rights.” Even though Paul could’ve easily got his cake elsewhere without violating someone else’s rights, as well as destroy their business and lives in the process. Anyway, this is exactly the types of problems you run into when you grant the government positive rights. Elected officials go for brownie points whichever way the wind happens to be blowing, which is usually against those who hold a minority viewpoint. This is why Obama and Hillary before 2008 were both for things like DOMA (when government was granted the power to dictate who marries who), and strong boarders (Obama gave a senate speech in 06 I believe where he more against illegal immigration than practically anyone on the right today).

And a Muslim praying during school is an even better example. Most practicing Muslims are supposed to pray 5 times a day. If that prayer schedule happens to fall during school hours, that teacher is absolutely allowed to pray (or should be). Let me clarify what I meant by “freedom from religion”, in that you do not have the freedom to not experience someone else’s FREE excercise of religion, whether they hold government position or not. Your reading of the 1st amendment is incorrect. It is congress shall make NO law CONCERNING the establishment of religion, or the free exercise thereof. Meaning congress can’t make any laws concerning any type of religion. If a teacher is forcing students to pray, that’s a problem, if a teacher prays before the start of every class, that’s his free exercise, not him making a law or coercing religion. If government makes a law that everyone will pray before class that’s a problem. Just because you work for a government does not mean you loose the right to your free excercise of religion just because others don’t want to see it.

The point here is that freedom itself is sticky. It will cause people every which way to see and hear things they don’t like, that are hurtful, that they find offensive. It’s not ideal because humans are not ideal. However, freedom is much better than the alternative, which devolves into something like China where there are millennials who are born and raised in Beijing who have never heard of the teannemen square massacre nor have seen the footage of the lone protestor blocking the way of an entire tank column that just got done mowing down 100 or so protestors. One of the most powerful political moments in world history since MLK’s I have a dream, and they are clueless too it.

 

[martybegan]

No, they have the responsibility to control their own fertility. No one has a right to an abortion, or birth control pills. I dare you to try to show where it is written that they do..

Everyone has a right to control their own fertiliity- and that includes the right to use contraception and the right to an abortion
Roe v. Wade.
Griswold v. Connecticut

And yet the constitution is explicit on the people being able to keep and bear arms, but of course progs like you find a way to ignore actual text in the document while relying on the opinions of 5 of 9 unelected lawyers......

Consistency isn't a strong point for lefty twats....

Well I guess they aren't 'progs' like me, because I actually support the right to own guns.

As far as relying on the opinions of '5 of 9 unelected lawyers'- which is a rather funny way of identifying the Supreme Court- gun owners don't have any problem with those lawyers not being elected when they tell states they can't forbid gun ownership.

Because the 2nd amendment is explicit.

And since I am a Strict Constructionist that is the end of that for me.

Do you have a right to a rpg? How about a ground to air missile launcher?

All considered to be 'arms'.

All currently restricted in the United States.

Who should decide whether the current laws are constitutional or not?

Those are more akin to "artillery", not "arms".

Sorry, but making me wait 6 months and pay $400 or so just to keep a revolver in my own apartment is infringement, and until gun control freaks stop trying to do that, the argument over AR-15's and such is just silly.