Religious Freedom? Do Americans Still Have It?

Good point Dog. If we are going to grant more religious freedoms (or keep the ones we have, depending on your point of view), will different faiths go too far? Allow Jewish male circumcison on newborns, then it should be legal on young Islamic girls. Or what do you do with newly created faiths like the one in Indiana that consider pot a sacramental part of their faith.

Progressives are not against all religions; just Christianity. Because it condemns their behavior.
The Progressives then disguise their arguments as "liberty", but in truth the Progressives are the most restrictive bunch of people that exist.
They want to control what you think, say, and do. A sale of an item is an activity. The Progressives say that you must participate in that activity without choice. They say you must buy (Obamacare) and they say you must sell, no matter who asks for the service or product. THAT is control, now.

Something the Dog Said wrote: 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.

Funny you should mention the 5th chapter of Matthew's Gospel in your reply Dog, for it is there that we find Christ saying that if anyone thinks that he came to abolish the Law or the Prophets that they are mistaken, he is there to fulfill them. Is there, anywhere, in the Bible, Old Testament or New, an affirmation of "marriage" between two of the same sex? There are numerous affirmations of marriage between a man and a woman, but can you cite even a single passage that affirms God's blessing on "marriage" between two men or two women? Nope, can't do it because it doesn't exist. I can cite for you Christ affirming a marriage between a man and a woman though, when He references Genesis in the Gospels of Matthew (chapter 19) and Mark (chapter 10) and repeats what is found there about God making them male and female and a man leaving his parents to be united with his wife and the two of them becoming one flesh. Any such language about a man leaving his parents and uniting with another man and the two of them becoming one flesh in there Dog? Nope, won't find it because it doesn't exist. Not in Matthew 19 or anywhere else in the Old or New Testament.

Your noting that Christ never said anything directly in opposition to homosexuality is a non-starter from the get go. Neither did He say anything directly regarding kidnapping being wrong. By the so-called logic you are trying to employ here that would mean we should be accepting of it because Christ didn't specifically say it was bad. Problem with that line of so-called reasoning is that Jesus spoke of such things in general, Matthew 15:19, where He stated that sexual immorality, which is exactly what homosexual acts were viewed as at the time, were one of the evil thoughts that came out of the hearts of man along with murder, adultery, theft, slander and bearing false witness. So, while you might be technically correct, that is quite a different thing than being factually correct. Jesus did, in fact, address homosexuality in His teachings even if it was not mentioned specifically.

FWIW, I agree that those who are divorced shouldn't be allowed to remarry in the Church. That is a specific prohibition dictated by Christ. It is for this reason that the Catholic Church will not allow the marriage of a divorced person, or recognize a civil one performed outside of the church. Nor does the Church recognize as valid any marriage conducted outside of ones conducted by deacons or priests, even those held in Protestant churches, unless a dispensation has been sought and granted ahead of time. Later a couple may come to the Church seeking a convalidation, but even then an annulment of any previous marriage is necessary and a ceremony involving a deacon or priest is held before the marriage is officially recognized by the Catholic Church as being valid.

Banning participation isn't an option, for exactly the reasons you mentioned earlier. Christ welcomed sinners, sought them out in fact, so that they could hear the Word, abandon their sinful ways, be forgiven their sins and move forward with their lives. There are many sins not specifically addressed in the Bible by Christ, homosexual acts are but one of them.

Printsmith, thank you for proving my point on the hypocrisy of so called "conservative christians". First, there is nothing in the teachings of Christ that he condemned homosexuality or gay marriage. He did affirm that man and woman may marry (but did not teach that only a man and woman could marry) but unless there was immorality involved, there could be no divorce. He even went on to teach that marrying a divorced woman would constitute adultery which he did expressly condemn. Yet nowhere have any of these "conservative christians" invoke their "religious freedom" in refusing to serve a marriage of divorcees. The spokesperson for the bigoted pizzaria in Indiana even stated that they would have no problem in doing so. You cite the sermon on the mount for support that Christ condemned homosexuality. There are only four citations in the bible expressly condemning homosexual acts of which I am aware, 2 in Leviticus and 2 by Paul citing Leviticus. Well, Christ certainly was not teaching from Paul. So you using Christ's extoration in the sermon on the mount that " “Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them." But then he went onto command that "For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. 19 Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven, but whoever practices and teaches these commands will be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

So one must adhere to the Law as set forth in Leviticus according to your logic, right? So let's take a look at the Law as set forth in Leviticus. The first chapter is interesting, where one must personally slaughter the offering from either the herd or flock. How about the prohibition against eating fat in Leviticus 3? Or the requirement that if a leader sins unintentionally he must bring a female goat without defect to the priest in Leviticus 4? The requirement of a guilt offering of a ram in Leviticus 5? The sin offering in Leviticus 6? Or let's skip ahead to the Laws regarding food in Leviticus 11, you know, that you may only eat animals with divided hooves and chews cuds. So eating bacon, according to your logic, is a sin and one should invoke their religious freedom against those who eat bacon. Wonder if that bigoted pizzaria serves canadian bacon on their pizza or hawaiin or sausage pizzas? How may women do you know that provide sin offerings of a dove and a burnt offering of a lamb within a week after childbirth according to the law of Leviticus 12? How about violating the Lord's law in Leviticus 19 that one must not wear clothing made from two different materials? Or the violation of planting two different seeds in your field? Better let Monsanto know about that. At least if you decide to fornicate with your female slaves that are promised to another, he let's off if you sacrifice a ram. However, that prohibition against clipping your sideburns or getting a tattoo must be followed explicitly. How are your sideburns these days? Better check at King Sooper's to make sure that the fruit there is from trees that are at least five years old according to Leviticus 19. Also better cancel that rare steak as well according to Leviticus 19. How many teenagers have been put to death for cursing their parents? Better get on that according to Leviticus 20. How about that permanent ban from society for having sex with a woman during her period? Or putting to death tv pyschics? That edict about the blind and deformed being prohibited from church seems pretty harsh in Leviticus 21.

There may be two condemnations against homosexual activity in Leviticus, but there are many more than that against eating bacon. What you have done is to simply pick and choose and ignore as suits you.

I could go on with the other prohibitions in Leviticus, but the point is made. According to your logic, then Christ also invoked all of these "Laws" as well and violation of any of these would be a sin. Yet it is only the discrimination against gays (and blacks, women, jews, even catholics) that "religous freedom" have been invoked. Not even the big one, adultery, has been cited to discriminate against serving cake or pizza at marriages of divorcees.

I raised this topic just to demonstrate that these "religious freedom" laws is not about "forcing conservative christians" into sin but is about attempting to hide their bigotry behind their claims of religion.

Ahhhhh, but you forget yourself Dog. This is specifically addressed in Hebrews. A new covenant was established with the coming of Jesus, one that replaced the one entered into between God and Moses, the one contained in Exodus and codified in Leviticus.

However, the new covenant also contains prohibitions on sexual immorality, Jesus did specifically reference that in his teachings (Matthew 15:19 in case you missed it earlier in your haste). Fornication, whether between two of differing sexes or the same sex, remains a sexual immorality. And Jesus affirmed what a marriage is when he repeated the words in Genesis about a man leaving his parents, uniting with his wife and the two of them becoming one flesh, so we can include marriage in the new covenant as well based on that.

To say that Christ never mentioned homosexual acts or homosexual marriages directly, and as such never condemned them is simply an attempt to establish an affirmative conclusion through the use of a negative premise. I'm sure you recognize the fallacy inherent in such an attempt. By that same alleged reasoning we could say that kidnapping isn't condemned by Christ because he never addressed that specifically either.

And I will agree with you that if a Christian baker were aware that a divorced person was "marrying" someone else that they should refuse to bake a cake for that "wedding" too on the same religious grounds that they should refuse to bake a "wedding" cake for two homosexuals. Neither "marriage" would be valid under Christian teachings and both would be providing something for a celebration of sinful activity according to those teachings.

OK, so you have to decorate one cake, regardless of you religious beliefs. Got it.

How about if you want to build one of the world's largest telescopes, on a peak that already has plenty of telescopes (see Keck Observatory)?

HONOLULU — After more than a week of demonstrations and more than a dozen arrests, Hawaii Gov. David Ige said Tuesday that the company building one of the world's largest telescopes atop Hawaii's Mauna Kea has agreed to his request to halt construction for a week.

"They have responded to my request and on behalf of the president of the University and the Office of Hawaiian Affairs have agreed to a time out on the project, and there will be no construction activities this week," Ige said at a news conference.

Thirty Meter Telescope is constructing the telescope on land that is held sacred to some Native Hawaiians. Scientists say the location is ideal for the telescope, which could allow them to see into the earliest years of the universe.

www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/amid-controver...-AAayVbz?ocid=AARDHP

Not that it's exactly the same, but I guess science counts less than a cake in this discussion?

An interesting perspective SC, but it ignores the larger point. The larger point is that in this Union the right to worship in accordance with your own conscious is one that is specifically protected by the Constitution. The right for an individual to decide whether or not you wish to work for someone free of any outside coercive forces is another right that is specifically protected by the Constitution. Even though I may agree with the lady about going the extra mile, I cannot, in good conscious, support the trampling of the rights of someone else in the furtherance of my own beliefs.

The very idea that you have the right to hire whomever you wish irrespective of whether the other person wishes to be hired by you undermines the very foundations upon which this Union exists. Clearly a wedding cake, ordered well in advance of the event itself, that is custom made especially for you is an item that you are hiring someone to bake for you and you alone. That fact is so plainly obvious that it is ridiculous on its fact to argue otherwise.

To claim you have a right to my labor when I don't want to labor for you is to say you have the right to enslave me. Even if that is for a few hours instead of a lifetime, it is enslavement nonetheless. If you hired me to chip the slash on your property, paid me in advance for the work and I later decide I don't want to do the work you can't force me to do the work, you can't even go to court and have it force me to do the work. You would certainly be entitled to have the fee that you paid returned to you, but even if you purchase my labor in advance I cannot be made to perform that labor. Why I decide I don't want to work for you is immaterial, neither you nor the government can coerce me to labor against my will. That wasn't always the case in this Union of ours, but it is today.

With all of that in mind, how is it thus permissible to say that, while generally true, when we're talking about a baker and a wedding cake that the Constitution is suspended and that the baker has lost this unalienable right and must labor against their will? If I cannot be made to labor for you to chip your slash, even when I earlier agreed to do that labor and I have been paid in advance to perform that labor, why does that same concept not apply to the baker?

PrintSmith wrote: Ahhhhh, but you forget yourself Dog. This is specifically addressed in Hebrews. A new covenant was established with the coming of Jesus, one that replaced the one entered into between God and Moses, the one contained in Exodus and codified in Leviticus.

However, the new covenant also contains prohibitions on sexual immorality, Jesus did specifically reference that in his teachings (Matthew 15:19 in case you missed it earlier in your haste). Fornication, whether between two of differing sexes or the same sex, remains a sexual immorality. And Jesus affirmed what a marriage is when he repeated the words in Genesis about a man leaving his parents, uniting with his wife and the two of them becoming one flesh, so we can include marriage in the new covenant as well based on that.

To say that Christ never mentioned homosexual acts or homosexual marriages directly, and as such never condemned them is simply an attempt to establish an affirmative conclusion through the use of a negative premise. I'm sure you recognize the fallacy inherent in such an attempt. By that same alleged reasoning we could say that kidnapping isn't condemned by Christ because he never addressed that specifically either.

And I will agree with you that if a Christian baker were aware that a divorced person was "marrying" someone else that they should refuse to bake a cake for that "wedding" too on the same religious grounds that they should refuse to bake a "wedding" cake for two homosexuals. Neither "marriage" would be valid under Christian teachings and both would be providing something for a celebration of sinful activity according to those teachings.

Since the new covenant does not condemn homosexual activity, Christ clearly did not condemn homosexual activity. You had earlier relied upon Leviticus for your claim that the Christ did condemn homosexual activity, but now you claim that Leviticus no longer applies.

So at least you do agree that the invocation of religious freedom laws to discriminate against gays is hypocritical of "conservative christians" since they refuse to similiarlly discriminate against divorcees remarrying. The pizzeria in Indiana that has stated their discrimination against gays are on record that they have no problem with serving at a marriage of adulterers. I would also note that evangical christians and conservative protestants, who make up a majority of "christian conservatives" have a much higher rate of divorce than society as a whole.

contemporaryfamilies.org/50-years-of-religious-change/
www.adherents.com/largecom/baptist_divorce.html

What was it that Christ had to say about divorce? What did he say about adulterers?

So my point is that the effort by "conservative christians" to invoke "religious freedome" is clearly and unequivocally bigotry, a desire to discriminate against gays while having no problem with adulterers which according to their religion is an even greater sin.

PrintSmith wrote: An interesting perspective SC, but it ignores the larger point. The larger point is that in this Union the right to worship in accordance with your own conscious is one that is specifically protected by the Constitution. The right for an individual to decide whether or not you wish to work for someone free of any outside coercive forces is another right that is specifically protected by the Constitution. Even though I may agree with the lady about going the extra mile, I cannot, in good conscious, support the trampling of the rights of someone else in the furtherance of my own beliefs.

The very idea that you have the right to hire whomever you wish irrespective of whether the other person wishes to be hired by you undermines the very foundations upon which this Union exists. Clearly a wedding cake, ordered well in advance of the event itself, that is custom made especially for you is an item that you are hiring someone to bake for you and you alone. That fact is so plainly obvious that it is ridiculous on its fact to argue otherwise.

To claim you have a right to my labor when I don't want to labor for you is to say you have the right to enslave me. Even if that is for a few hours instead of a lifetime, it is enslavement nonetheless. If you hired me to chip the slash on your property, paid me in advance for the work and I later decide I don't want to do the work you can't force me to do the work, you can't even go to court and have it force me to do the work. You would certainly be entitled to have the fee that you paid returned to you, but even if you purchase my labor in advance I cannot be made to perform that labor. Why I decide I don't want to work for you is immaterial, neither you nor the government can coerce me to labor against my will. That wasn't always the case in this Union of ours, but it is today.

With all of that in mind, how is it thus permissible to say that, while generally true, when we're talking about a baker and a wedding cake that the Constitution is suspended and that the baker has lost this unalienable right and must labor against their will? If I cannot be made to labor for you to chip your slash, even when I earlier agreed to do that labor and I have been paid in advance to perform that labor, why does that same concept not apply to the baker?

Of course Printsmith omits the fact which he knows is that the Supreme Court ruled exactly on this issue and found the argument that Public Accommodation laws create enslavement to be wrong. Further Printsmith knows that the government often forces behavior against the will of the individual, such as military draft, jury duty, school attendance, appearance in court upon service of a summons, etc.

The argument about the 13th amendment was tried by the bigots in the 1960s against public accommodations having to serve blacks and was found wrong then as it is now when it is being tried by those desiring to discriminate against gays.