Religious Freedom? Do Americans Still Have It?

Something the Dog Said wrote: 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.

Absurd on its face. Christ would not have sanctioned a homosexual marriage, nor attended it as a guest, nor would he have contributed his labor to its celebration. To pretend otherwise is to ignore every teaching in the Bible, including those of the New Testament that speak of marriage. Marriage is defined in the Bible, it is a man and a woman becoming one flesh. That is the sole definition that exists in the Bible Dog, no others are even hinted at.

No, Jesus would not have served pizza at a homosexual marriage is asked. If asked his response would have been to affirm the wrongness of the event and to implore those assembled to give up their sinful ways and return to acts which pleased their Father in Heaven. That is how Jesus universally dealt with sinners, to point out their sins, to forgive those who were willing to put such ways behind them and move forward with their lives and to continue to implore the rest to open their eyes and see their actions for what they were so that they, too, could be forgiven, put their sinful ways behind them and move forward with their lives.

Would Jesus deny them food, shelter, clothing or comfort? Of course not, but he wouldn't have baked them a cake for their wedding either.

Fred, perhaps you could provide specifics to your claims that religious freedoms have been eroded. Can you point out any incidents where anyone in the US has been denied the ability to worship in their chosen faith? I mean really, even corporations have been accorded the rights to have religious beliefs. The original intent of the federal RFFRA was to protect the rights of religious minorities to practice the religious beliefs without interference from the government. The law was brought about due to a case where a Native American had been denied the right to use peyote as part of his religion's rituals. It was not about imposing his beliefs on everyone else.

The intent of the Indiana and Arkansas laws were to allow certain businesses to treat LGBT individuals as inferior citizens. Since the ones complaining about having to serve gays mostly if not all claim to be "christians", it is clearly based on their bigotry as Christ certainly never taught that businesses should not serve gay customers. These are the same tired claims that it was ok to discriminate against women since "the bible taught they were inferior", that it was ok to discriminate against Jews, based on their interpretation of the bible, that it was ok to discriminate against the Irish based on their interpretation of the bible, that it was ok to discriminate against blacks based on their interpretation of the bible, that it was ok to enslave blacks based on their interpretation of the bible, etc. Now it should be ok to discriminate against gays based on their interpretation of the bible.

The Constitution guarantees equal rights for all, regardless of how certain individuals choose to interpret their "bible". These particular laws are an attempt to deny certain classes of individuals their equal rights based on bigotry. Even Walmart and NASCAR agree these laws are an abomination.

That, at least, is the nonsense the activists has been spewing out since the original law was passed; which is essentially nothing more, and nothing less, than what currently exists under federal law.

The lies, and those that repeat them, leave out some very salient details along the way. The activists would have you believe that the law seeks to allow unbridled discrimination and maltreatment of anyone in the homosexual/transgender community when such is clearly not the case. The activists know this, but lie about in anyway in their never ending quest to demonize anyone who doesn't share their totalitarian views.

Fair enough SC - post has been edited and references to "left wing" removed.

ScienceChic wrote:
As one of my friends stated when this topic came up and we were discussing it in one of our Facebook groups, why can't we just respect each other and try to help each other regardless of beliefs? Their thinking was if you don't want to serve someone due to some personal belief, then why not help them find another business who would and, as the customer, not force a business who doesn't want to help you? Live and let live, be positive instead of judgmental, and helpful - wouldn't we all be happier if that's how it worked?

Sigh, I know. Too idealistic.

I agree with you SC, but there is this new sort of "gotcha" journalism that seems to want to stir up division and put people of faith (Christian faith) on the spot in order to shame them for their beliefs, but for some strange reason, I've yet to see anyone trying to shame Muslim owned businesses. It's not like these people wont sell flowers to gay people, they just don't want to be a party to a ceremony in which they don't agree. There are Christians and gays all over the world who are being murdered by religious nuts, yet so many here are focusing on hypotheticals and "what if's" trying to dig as deeply as possible into the Christian religion... and you know it always boils down to elections fueled by division.

This "journalist" is basically trying to say that these ignorant backwoods rednecks should discard their religious beliefs in order to be a part of this all inclusive secular society, otherwise they are just hateful trash. I'd love to see this same D-bag go to Muslim owned businesses and ask the same questions, but he won't because he and CNN are cowards.

PrintSmith wrote:

Something the Dog Said wrote: 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.

Absurd on its face. Christ would not have sanctioned a homosexual marriage, nor attended it as a guest, nor would he have contributed his labor to its celebration. To pretend otherwise is to ignore every teaching in the Bible, including those of the New Testament that speak of marriage. Marriage is defined in the Bible, it is a man and a woman becoming one flesh. That is the sole definition that exists in the Bible Dog, no others are even hinted at.

No, Jesus would not have served pizza at a homosexual marriage is asked. If asked his response would have been to affirm the wrongness of the event and to implore those assembled to give up their sinful ways and return to acts which pleased their Father in Heaven. That is how Jesus universally dealt with sinners, to point out their sins, to forgive those who were willing to put such ways behind them and move forward with their lives and to continue to implore the rest to open their eyes and see their actions for what they were so that they, too, could be forgiven, put their sinful ways behind them and move forward with their lives.

Would Jesus deny them food, shelter, clothing or comfort? Of course not, but he wouldn't have baked them a cake for their wedding either.

Nope, you are wrong as usual. Please provide references where Christ condemned homosexuality? Nope, he did not. Where did Christ proclaim homosexuality as a sin? Nope, he did not. What he did teach was:
A new commandment I give to you, that you love one another just as I have loved you, you also are to love one another.

The second is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.”
Further as set out in James, "have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?"

and of course as taught in Galatians:

There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus.”

Nowhere did Christ condemn homosexuality. Nor did he condemn gay weddings. The only reference he made to marriage between sexes was of course in Mattew 19 where he addressed that divorce and remarriage be sins, he also made exceptions for born eunuchs, which was defined at that time as being homosexual.

The teachings of Christ as I understand them were inclusive not exclusive. He did not teach homosexuality as a sin nor did he teach that gay marriage was a sin. The bigots would be better served if they banned service to divorcees if they are really following the teachings of Christ.

Businesses can not excuse their bigotry and discrimination through contracts such as "terms of service". Contract law does not trump constitutionally guaranteed equal rights for all. It simply comes down to those who would attempt to hide their bigotry behind claims of religious freedom versus the application of equality to all under the Constitution. Even if they can claim that bigotry is part of their religion, the clash of rights then requires a balancing, as it does in all clashes of rights. Congress had done this under the Constitutional framework with the Equal Rights Act by showing a compelling public interest in anti-discrimination laws. The Courts have found that marriage is a fundamental right, and as such must be available to all, including the LGBT community unless the state can prove a compelling reason for prohibiting it. There simply is no compelling reason for denying gays the equal protection of the marriage laws to marry another regardless of their sex.

IF one follows the "reasoning" behind these ill conceived laws, then it would be legal for muslim fundamentalists to exercise sharia law in the United States as failure to do so would be considered by them to be a sin. Others could find "religions" that condone their particular actions regardless on its effect on others.