Musing on Religious Freedom Laws

[PoliticalChic]

This nation was never instituted as a theocracy.

That being said....it's the 'freedom' portion of any law that counts.

There are two elements that pertain.
The first is participation.....

....the second is liberty.

1. Any merchant should have to provide whatever he is in business to sell to whomsoever asks for same, follows protocol (e.g.,,,,no shirt, no service rules, etc.) and is ready to pay the going price.
a. If you are a bakery.....bake the darn cake. What the customer does with it is not your business.
b. But...if you are a photographer, and have to go to the venue, and be a participant to any degree....you are free to decline.


2. Liberty, freedom. Judging the loss of liberty between a customer who has to go down the street to another merchant, and a shop owner who 'really did build that'.....it is clear who loses his liberty in having to acquiesce to every individual who feels offended.
A store owner can decide who he sells to....and suffer the economic loss if he chooses not to sell to a portion of the population.
The state doesn't own his services...and should stay out of the interaction.



These are economic functions, political functions, and should not be altered by any appeals to religion, social engineering or totalitarian state machinations.


At least, not if this is the America of the Founders.....

 

[Sonny Clark]

This nation was never instituted as a theocracy.

That being said....it's the 'freedom' portion of any law that counts.

There are two elements that pertain.
The first is participation.....

....the second is liberty.

1. Any merchant should have to provide whatever he is in business to sell to whomsoever asks for same, follows protocol (e.g.,,,,no shirt, no service rules, etc.) and is ready to pay the going price.
a. If you are a bakery.....bake the darn cake. What the customer does with it is not your business.
b. But...if you are a photographer, and have to go to the venue, and be a participant to any degree....you are free to decline.


2. Liberty, freedom. Judging the loss of liberty between a customer who has to go down the street to another merchant, and a shop owner who 'really did build that'.....it is clear who loses his liberty in having to acquiesce to every individual who feels offended.
A store owner can decide who he sells to....and suffer the economic loss if he chooses not to sell to a portion of the population.
The state doesn't own his services...and should stay out of the interaction.



These are economic functions, political functions, and should not be altered by any appeals to religion, social engineering or totalitarian state machinations.


At least, not if this is the America of the Founders.....

Our freedom, liberties, rights, and justice, are all very closely connected, and overlap each other in almost all circumstances. It's very difficult, if not impossible, to separate the four. Without real and true justice to ensure and guarantee our freedom, liberties, and rights, all would be either very restricted, or null and void of meaning. There has to be some consequence for denying one their freedom, liberty, or rights. When considering the meaning of liberty, it actually means "permission". We have permission to exercise our rights, and to live as a free people. Our rights, guaranteed by the Constitution, are enforced by the judicial branch of government. We have the liberty to exercise our freedom to cross state lines without permission. We have the liberty ( permission ) of practicing our religion, as well as the freedom to do so.

The judicial branch of government ensures freedom, rights, and liberty. But, in some cases and certain circumstances, all are subject to restrictions. For example, our freedom can be denied while awaiting trial, even though we may be innocent, and found innocent once we stand trial. Our rights can be restricted in certain ways, as they apply to speech, the press, and some religious beliefs and practices. So, in reality, we have restricted freedom and restricted rights. Those restrictions greatly affect our liberty ( permission ) to exercise both. In other words, we are bound by those parameters set forth by the restrictions.

 

[Moonglow]

 

[BreezeWood]

At least, not if this is the America of the Founders.....

.
the separation between church and state and organized commerce for support of individual rights is still not without flaws.

.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Musing on Religious Freedom Laws"

'Muse' on the fact that 'religious freedom' laws have nothing to do with 'religious freedom.'

That such laws are unnecessary and partisan as no religion is 'under attack.'

That such laws are unwarranted because religion is in no need of 'restoration.'

And that such law are a ridiculous 'solution' to a problem that doesn't exist.

 

[PoliticalChic]

At least, not if this is the America of the Founders.....

.
the separation between church and state and organized commerce for support of individual rights is still not without flaws.

.

Please elucidate.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Seems I've created a 'free fire zone' of a thread.


Not one of the posts, ostensibly in response to the OP, responded to the OP.

But....sure glad you guys were able to get that stuff off your chests.

 

[Abishai100]

The Art of Asterix

How much does the proverbial 'court of public opinion' create real world ripples in the legal halls?

Satanism is a controversial religion advocating a nihilistic rebelliousness against the authority of a Christian God through intricate or private serious rituals apparently meant to signify an appreciation of the machinating Devil's Advocate.

Satanism has been persecuted or more generically lampooned in the mainstream media, but its followers seem very regular (and private), if clandestine.

If we don't feel intellectually concerned that so many modern American youths read vigilantism-fantasy comic books, what warrants extra cultural/legal focus on 'alternative' religons that challenge our agreed-upon notions/norms about 'lifestyle privatization' in the higher but more eccentric realms of intellectual rigor?

In other words, maybe the new harlot of Babylon is Poison Ivy (DC Comics), a fictional super-nemesis in the world of Batman who engages in anti-humanist schemes of eco-terrorism in an eerily brooding Gotham City. It seems that in our modern age of high-speed idea exchange (i.e., Internet), intellectual property considerations seep into everyday culture.

Therefore, a good question seems to be, "Why shouldn't legal documents be made more readily available to the public on the Internet today?"

 

[G.T.]

What was liberty in the eyes of the founders, many of which practiced cognitive dissonance in fighting the tyranny of the British Government while tyrannically owning.....literally OWNING people.

Men with this half cocked vision should be codified in history as divine? Not really. Another fat fail for humanity.

But with 60% now favoring gay marriage......up from 27% in 1996..........humans get better and better. Life rules.

 

[Gadawg73]

Women and blacks did not share the same liberties as men when this nation was founded.

What was liberty in the eyes of the founders, many of which practiced cognitive dissonance in fighting the tyranny of the British Government while tyrannically owning.....literally OWNING people.

Men with this half cocked vision should be codified in history as divine? Not really. Another fat fail for humanity.

But with 60% now favoring gay marriage......up from 27% in 1996..........humans get better and better. Life rules.

The "60% now favoring gay marriage" is not fact. Fact is 60% or more do not care if gay folk get married. We are not mother hen busy bodies so bored with our lives we need to stick our business into the private lives of 2 consenting adults of the same sex that happen to fall in love with each other. Gay marriage has no effect whatsoever on my or any other heterosexual marriage. If folks oppose gay marriage, fine, they do not have to marry a gay person.

 

[G.T.]

Women and blacks did not share the same liberties as men when this nation was founded.

What was liberty in the eyes of the founders, many of which practiced cognitive dissonance in fighting the tyranny of the British Government while tyrannically owning.....literally OWNING people.

Men with this half cocked vision should be codified in history as divine? Not really. Another fat fail for humanity.

But with 60% now favoring gay marriage......up from 27% in 1996..........humans get better and better. Life rules.

The "60% now favoring gay marriage" is not fact. Fact is 60% or more do not care if gay folk get married. We are not mother hen busy bodies so bored with our lives we need to stick our business into the private lives of 2 consenting adults of the same sex that happen to fall in love with each other. Gay marriage has no effect whatsoever on my or any other heterosexual marriage. If folks oppose gay marriage, fine, they do not have to marry a gay person.

Nope, actually, the polling is that 60% "support" it, not 60% "are indifferent."

The "indifferents" actually fall within the other 40%.