Religious Liberty?

originally posted by: Megatronus
The Christian right are so far removed from the teachings of Jesus its insulting to what he is supposed to stand for.

I got a LOT from the Pope's visit, but if one thing stood above all of it, it was the sad realization of that fact. I mean, I knew was true, but he brought it home, with love, acceptance, tolerance and humility.

The contrast of his actions and beliefs to those of the Christian right in the US is stark. They have absolutely nothing in common.

originally posted by: grandmakdw
How about the football owner

What about him?

He has NOTHING to do with religious liberty or forcing anyone to think in a particular manner. That was our topic. YOU, who are accusing "liberals" of of being intolerant of the thoughts and beliefs of others, are HIGHLY intolerant of others' thoughts and beliefs.

Now, you're bringing Donald Sterling in from left field to change the subject. Yeah, I know how you roll in these discussions.

Donald Sterling was a member of a private organization with rules. He broke the rules and was punished. He is not in an elected position, the government was not involved and neither was religion. We live in a free society with rules and laws. If you break the law, you can be punished. That's law. If you break the rules, you can be punished. That's the FREEDOM of an organization (like the NBA) to operate under their rules.

Yes, many people are politically correct, but it's rampant on both sides of the political spectrum. The right is as politically correct as the left. But I don't expect you to be able to see that from your vantage point.

Yes, the left does insure that incorrect thought even in private is punished severely if they find out about it.

I didn't realize that the NBA represented "the left".

Typical deflection. Can't argue the facts so you have to attack my spelling. Which by the way, spellchecker seems to find no issue with.

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: Megatronus

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: grandmakdw

Your hate seems to be blinding you, at what point is anyone taking anyone's Belief away?

They are not and I'm starting to realise he right wingers know this them selves. That's why they have to build their arguments on half truths and wilful ignorance of the facts.

Fact, Kym was hired to do a job. FACT, Kym not only refused to do her job, she ordered her subordinates to not do theirs either. FACT, She brought her religion into government. We are supposed to feel sorry for her because she recently started to identify with the backward beliefs of ancient goat herders. Pull the other one.

Interesting, are you in the fifth grade?
Your spelling indicates you might be.
Your cognitive reasoning is close to 7th grade.
Your insults are closer to kindergarten.

Kym was wrong, she should have been reassigned to another job, she should have requested reassignment to another job. It was her job as a government employee to do her job. If it conflicted with her religious beliefs she should ask for reassignment.
Marriage and who gets married is determined by the state now and is solely the purview of the state.

Religious ceremonies are totally optional.
Ceremonies of any kind are totally optional as one
can get married in the courthouse.
Forcing people to participate in optional activities if
they conflict with their personal religious beliefs is wrong.
Hounding them with death threats is wrong.
Hounding them with ugly emails is wrong.
Forcing their business to close or for them to lose
their jobs is wrong.
Ceremonies are private, not government affairs and
should be handled differently than a government
agency.

originally posted by: grandmakdw
Just don't force people who don't want to
perform the ceremony because they disagree
to perform the ceremony.

Yeah, that's not happening. If it were, I would be totally with you on that. But let's stick with what IS happening...

one wedding venue had to close down because
the person who did the marrying didn't believe in gay marriage
and didn't want to perform the ceremony.

Link? Really. I need to see this.

originally posted by: grandmakdw

I am extending it to what you perceive
as negative behavior.
Hurting someone's feelings happens,
get over it.

Then let's use precise language here.

1: You have the right to say "I believe gay marriage is a sin" whether it hurts someone's feelings or not.

2: You don't have the right to "behavior" or "action" that denies someone what they are legally entitled to because you believe gay marriage is a sin.

a reply to: Kali74

Maybe ..maybe not ...If you have marriage then you have divorce . Standard but not limited to is the issue of adultery which goes towards monogamy . Now we can draw up many religious scenarios but the Mormon deviant is one I will throw on the table only for consideration . A man with 2 wife's is only slightly different then one with a man and a woman as a spouse . Does or can adultery even enter into the law .To me it all becomes a slippery slope that opens up many issues that also have to have a consistency within the construct of the law .

originally posted by: grandmakdw
Speaking of beliefs, you asked who is trying to take belief away? Don't you read ATS, the people who call for the extermination of all religious people and all religions is rampant.

How are they "trying to take your belief away" by expressing THEIR belief?

What the behavior of the left says about what they believe:
You may not think that gay marriage is wrong.

You have FAILED to show that "the left" is forcing beliefs. It's BS. Anyone can think anything they want about gay marriage, racism, religion or sex. Thinking is a freedom NO ONE can FORCE or take away. What you're doing is an EXTREME case of hyperbole.

If you express that belief, you will be hounded
you will get hate mail, you will get death threats,
if that expression manages to make it's way into
the public arena.

That happens on both sides and if you deny that, you are simply lying.

What the behavior of the left says about what they believe:

For someone who doesn't want anyone messing with their beliefs, you sure are obsessed with what "the left" believes.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

Now we can draw up many religious scenarios but the Mormon deviant is one I will throw on the table only for consideration

Polygamy isn't the same as adultery. All parties consent in polygamy, and all are one, in family.

And, the Mormon deviant?

Polygamy was the norm in the Old Testament. Remember Jacob's wives, Rachael and Leah?

originally posted by: the2ofusr1
a reply to: Kali74

Maybe ..maybe not ...If you have marriage then you have divorce . Standard but not limited to is the issue of adultery which goes towards monogamy . Now we can draw up many religious scenarios but the Mormon deviant is one I will throw on the table only for consideration . A man with 2 wife's is only slightly different then one with a man and a woman as a spouse . Does or can adultery even enter into the law .To me it all becomes a slippery slope that opens up many issues that also have to have a consistency within the construct of the law .

I'm not sure quite what you're getting at.

But once again, as far as adultery and adhering to the Bible---Jesus is quoted as saying that in most cases a second marriage after divorce is a continuing state of adultery.

Kim Davis has been married four times. So in the interpretation of very traditional churches she either needs to go back to her original marriage or else she is in a continuing state of adultery which is just as serious a Biblical sin as a continuing state of homosexual activity.

A clerk who was refusing licenses to divorced couples planning to remarry would be defended by hardly anyone, even among the Christian right, hence the charges of hypocrisy.

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

originally posted by: grandmakdw
Just don't force people who don't want to
perform the ceremony because they disagree
to perform the ceremony.

Yeah, that's not happening. If it were, I would be totally with you on that. But let's stick with what IS happening...

one wedding venue had to close down because
the person who did the marrying didn't believe in gay marriage
and didn't want to perform the ceremony.

Link? Really. I need to see this.

www.huffingtonpost.com...
www.lifesitenews.com...
toprightnews.com...
www.christianpost.com...
www.foxnews.com...

originally posted by: DelMarvel

originally posted by: grandmakdw

I am extending it to what you perceive
as negative behavior.
Hurting someone's feelings happens,
get over it.

Then let's use precise language here.

1: You have the right to say "I believe gay marriage is a sin" whether it hurts someone's feelings or not.

2: You don't have the right to "behavior" or "action" that denies someone what they are legally entitled to because you believe gay marriage is a sin.

I am saying that the left IS punishing people
for simply stating they disagree with gay marriage;
for the crime of saying something that might hurt
someone's feelings.

(again, I don't care if gay people marry or any
adults, 3 or 5 marry, don't care at all, not my
business, live and let live)

How about the pizza parlor who did not deny anyone
anything. They were asked a hypothetical, after
the reporter went to many other restaurants trying
to get one to say what the person said.

She said after asked a hypothetical question, they
would not cater a gay wedding, they never refused
anyone, the person asking was not asking them
to cater a gay wedding. It was all hypothetical
and "how do you feel about".

That is how I see the left operating these days.
Chasing down people who are not doing anything,
goading them into saying things that might hurt
someone's feelings.

Then make sure they get death
threats for it, hateful emails, scare the family members,
and try to shut down the business.


That is how I see the left operating these days.
It is wrong, it is immoral, and it is evil to hunt down
people just to persecute them, not for what they
did but for what they think. (In this instance think
they would do.)

It is as wrong, evil and immoral as what the left
says the Christian right is doing, and 2 wrongs
never ever make a right, they only make hatred
and division.

The left in this instance was calling for punishment
not for a real illegal act
but for someone expressing their thoughts
and what they may or may not actually do.
Punishing for a thought crime
to intimidate people into thinking
the correct way
the way the left demands they think
or else.

a reply to: grandmakdw

You can't use the Hitching Post Wedding Chapel. as an example, it's been discussed and the facts have been told before

Do you understand Anti-Discrimination Laws?

originally posted by: grandmakdw
www.huffingtonpost.com...

From your link:

However, according to city officials and the lawsuit itself, the Hitching Post filed papers with the Idaho Secretary of State identifying itself as a religious corporation on Oct. 6, the day before the 9th Circuit struck down Idaho’s ban. The city’s ordinance explicitly states that religious corporations are exempt from the law.

The lawsuit came as a surprise to city officials, who described conversations with the Knapps up until last week as “cordial.”

“We have never threatened them. We have never sent them a letter warning them. There was no ‘we’re going to throw you in jail’ kind of stuff. So we were mildly surprised, well, totally surprised by the lawsuit,” City Attorney Mike Gridley told The Huffington Post.

Moreover, while the lawsuit claims that the Knapps have already turned away multiple same-sex couples, Gridley said that the city had received no complaints about the Hitching Post and had no idea who these couples might be.

How did the Knapps come up with that jaw-dropping figure of 180 years? According to the lawsuit, the city ordinance sets forth fines up to $1,000 and jail time up to 180 days for every day of a violation. The Knapps' complaint reasons that they "risk going to jail for 180 years and being fined $365,000" if they refuse to marry one couple for one year.

Is that a real possibility? Gridley laughed. “That's not correct. Again,” he said.

“I want to make clear," said Gridley, "that the Hitching Post, or any other minister that I’m aware of, is not subject to our ordinance."

The Knapps declined to comment on the case.

OK, you said:

originally posted by: grandmakdw
one wedding venue had to close down because
the person who did the marrying didn't believe in gay marriage
and didn't want to perform the ceremony.

Yeah, I didn't think that was happening, and I was right.

Most of your links went to a story about The Hitching Post, which DID NOT close down and WAS NOT forced to perform gay marriages. See these posts. www.abovetopsecret.com... and www.abovetopsecret.com...

One link was about a gallery business who refused to RENT their wedding venue to a gay couple. Simply because they were gay. Not because "the person who did the marrying didn't believe in gay marriage". The gallery agreed not to discriminate in the future, and then CHOSE to not do weddings anymore, which is why their business didn't succeed. Source

a reply to: Benevolent Heretic

Facts are scary and another tool the Liberal Progressive Militant Gay Agenda use to take away Freedoms

a reply to: windword

Yea so take a bad example that was not God's original intention and muddy the waters . Then claim that it's in the biblw and so must have a value to it lame ...

originally posted by: grandmakdw

originally posted by: Flatfish
a reply to: grandmakdw

Yet, you seem to be doing more "Whining" than anyone in this thread.

Go figure!

Not whining, stating the truth, can't take it?
Don't respond with a third grade response.
Can't come up with an intelligent and cogent response?

Now that's funny!

I made an intelligent response to you prior to this one and you chose to ignore it completely.

The truth of the matter is that you are the living embodiment of the whining assed crybaby you describe as neo Liberal and you're the only one here who doesn't see it.

Your posts/rants in this thread are proof of that fact.

a reply to: DelMarvel

Oh I probably would agree with many in that she is working in a dept. she ought to abandon and get on with her real purpose in life .Happy are those that agree with what they do .

Excerpts pertaining to religious freedom from the majority decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (from Washington Post ):

“Many who deem same-sex marriage to be wrong reach that conclusion based on decent and honorable religious or philosophical premises, and neither they nor their beliefs are disparaged here. But when that sincere, personal opposition becomes enacted law and public policy, the necessary consequence is to put the imprimatur of the State itself on an exclusion that soon demeans or stigmatizes those whose own liberty is then denied. Under the Constitution, same-sex couples seek in marriage the same legal treatment as opposite-sex couples, and it would disparage their choices and diminish their personhood to deny them this right.”

“Finally, it must be emphasized that religions, and those who adhere to religious doctrines, may continue to advocate with utmost, sincere conviction that, by divine precepts, same-sex marriage should not be condoned. The First Amendment ensures that religious organizations and persons are given proper protection as they seek to teach the principles that are so fulfilling and so central to their lives and faiths, and to their own deep aspirations to continue the family structure they have long revered.”

Additionally, the controversies surrounding tax exempt status and the enforcement of local anti-discrimination ordinances only applies to those premises and facilities which do not meet federal criteria for being deemed places of worship, and which are recognized under the law as for-profit businesses and/or public accommodations.

Peace.

a reply to: the2ofusr1

If it wasn't "God's intention for ancient Hebrews to have more than one wife, why did he kill so many in child birth?

Genesis 18 Rachel died while giving birth to the son. Before dying, she named the boy Benoni. But Jacob called him Benjamin.

Good thing Jacob had Leah, eh?

a reply to: DelMarvel

He said that Gods plan was that the two come together to make one but because of the hardness of their heart Moses allowed them to divorce .note it was man and not God that instituted divorce . It is interesting that the first document pertaining to marriage was one of divorce and not marriage itself .