It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: Cabin
This is a question for anyone against the SCOTUS allowing gay marriage due to religious freedom issues.
Why such question?
In both of these situations, whether an individual marries someone from the same sex or whether an individual drinks alcohol or eats pork, it is in direct violation of someone´s religious beliefs, although in both situations the act itself does not harm the one (whose religious beliefs do not support it) in any direct way, besides just seeing or knowing that something which your religious beliefs do not support can be done.
So ... ?
PS. I am not follower of any religion, so I do hope no one gets offended from this question. Just asked out of curiosity, for me personally, these situations do seem similar. Personally I believe no one should be able to dictate that someone can or can´t do something (which does not directly harm the one dictating) due to their religious beliefs. Different religions can be contradictory and after all, everyone has the right to believe in they want, as long as it does not directly harm someone else.
originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: Cabin
I disagree with banning anything on religious grounds. Law should not be dependent on religion. A persons right to practice religion however, should be upheld by law, just the same as another's right not to practice religion.
I eat bacon, drink beer, and curse like a sailor. No one has the right to prevent me from doing these things, for any reason. They do however, have the right to choose not to do these things themselves. All a person has a right to control, is themselves.
originally posted by: TheBlackDog
a reply to: Cabin
I work for a Muslim owned business and they couldn't care less if I ate a bacon sandwich at work .
I think some people like to make problems from nothing.