Religious Freedom? Do Americans Still Have It?

I am not terribly religious right now but was raised and educated as Catholic. So striking down Indiana's and Arkansas's new laws won't affect me much. But do you think it is creating a government straightjacket for religious people? It seems to me that you are allowed to practice only a politically correct faith. Some trends I have seen include a Texas mayor wanting to review sermons before that Sunday, a California city wanting to ban Jewish circumcision, chapels forced to host weddings. The Supreme Court has been balancing religious rights for centuries, but right now I think the pendulum is moving away from religion. NPR had a story about this today and they pointed out how the Federal religious rights law signed by Clinton was very popular when passed and how many individuals had used it to keep their rights. But more and more times religious freedom is losing out to civil rights laws. It will be interesting to see what happens in the future.

It's not OK for someone to discriminate based on their religious beliefs, but it's fine for everyone else to discriminate against those same beliefs.

I've read the law. I should point out that I'm not an attorney so maybe I'm not "reading between the lines" enough, but it seems pretty innocuous to me.

The accusations that private business can refuse business based upon religious beliefs... Seems to me that private businesses should have the right to serve/turn away anyone they want anyway notwithstanding religious beliefs.

Am I missing something here??

Yes, you're missing a media driven hair trigger sense of moral outrage.

Nobody that matters wrote: Yes, you're missing a media driven hair trigger sense of moral outrage.

Well, duh. Silly me! Of course! Thanks for setting me straight!

And BTW....

Seems to me that private businesses should have the right to serve/turn away anyone they want anyway notwithstanding religious beliefs.

Agree!!

Nobody that matters wrote: It's not OK for someone to discriminate based on their religious beliefs, but it's fine for everyone else to discriminate against those same beliefs.

The intolerance of progressives. Shades of the Salem witch trials and the Spanish inquisition.

www.cnn.com/2015/04/02/living/indiana-re...-freedom-pizza-feat/

""Who's going to Walkerton with me to burn down Memories Pizza?" Jessica Dooley of Goshen tweeted, according to the Walkerton Police Department. The account has been deleted since the tweet was posted.

Detectives who investigated have recommended charges of harassment, intimidation and threats, according to Charles Kulp, assistant police chief.

The mood was a bit more subdued on the streets of Walkerton. A man stood outside Memories simply holding a sign that reads "bigots."

Jason Narducy bought $100 of pizza from another shop down the street and started handing it out, WBND reported. "Do you want some non-discriminatory pizza?" Narducy asked."

As opposed to the "tolerance" of conservative "christians"?

Cleverly called the "Sodomite Supression Act," a proposed ballot initiative in California for 2016 has taken things to a new level. It would not only criminalize sodomy but also allow those who engage in it to be killed.

The man behind the initiative is Matt McLaughlin, a lawyer from Huntington Beach. He's not speaking publicly, but his initiative states, "The people of California wisely command... that any person who willingly touches another person of the same gender for purposes of sexual gratification be put to death by bullets to the head or by any other convenient method."
www.cbsnews.com/news/california-bill-pro...ot-process-concerns/

The extreme nature of the "Sodomite Suppression Act" led many readers to question its authenticity, particularly the putative reasoning behind it. Did McLaughlin submit the initiative purely as a spoof, was he trying to make a point about a need to reform the California initiative process, or is he a virulent homophobe? These questions remain unanswered as McLaughlin has apparently been unavailable since news of his proposed measure hit the media, but the nature of one of his previous ballot proposals suggests his intent might not be a satirical one:
A Huntington Beach attorney who credits the Bible with helping him become an honor student is pushing for a state ballot measure to put the Scriptures in the hands of public school students as a literary text.

Matt McLaughlin received approval from the secretary of state's office to begin gathering signatures for the King James Bible as Textbook initiative, which would amend the Constitution to allow teachers to use the Bible in literature classes.

"Even if you don't believe its teachings, you'll agree that it includes rich usage of the English language," he said.

"That's what makes it good literature."

Under the proposal, classroom Bible reading would still be voluntary, and students could substitute another text, said McLaughlin.

Read more at www.snopes.com/politics/sexuality/sodomi...#DicBt1fySDBXCAzE.99


Americans currently have greater religious freedom than at any time in it's great history. I find it ironic that it is primarily those who claim to be fundamental christians that are alleging that the denial of their right to discriminate against others is an abridgement of their freedom of religion, that they should be able to treat certain classes of individuals as lesser human beings. This is diametrically opposed to the actual teachings of Christ, for certainly Christ would agree to serve pizza at gay wedding if he had been asked. This is bigotry masquerading behind "religion".

The arguments being made that one should be able to discriminate against the LGBT community based on some claim of religious freedom is identical in scope to the arguments made by the white supremacists now and the Jim Crow laws backers back in the 60's that their religion demonstrated that blacks were inferior races and must not be allowed to intermingle with the white race. No difference.

Freedom to practice religion as one desires has to be balanced against constitutional right of one to be treated equally as others under the law. There must be a balancing of interests, and the Supreme Court has found that the government has properly applied their power to find that it is of compelling interest to the people of the U.S that all should be treated equally and in particular that the government may find it necessary to protect certain classes of individuals that have historically suffered discrimination solely based on their class.

jf1acai wrote:

Seems to me that private businesses should have the right to serve/turn away anyone they want anyway notwithstanding religious beliefs.

Agree!!

So you believe that a restaurant should be able to deny service to blacks solely based on the color of their skin?

So you believe that a restaurant should be able to deny service to blacks solely based on the color of their skin?

Nice try to put words in my mouth, Dog.

Read the post again. I think it is quite clear, and does not require either interpretation or extrapolation.