"Heterosexuals Only"

[Agnostic75]

.......Americans from all walks of life, have the ability to challenge others when they feel their rights have been impinged upon.

This thread is about the Kansas bill. What does what you said have to do with the Kansas Bill?

Though I imagine that you would have a hard time wrapping your mind around the concept of a religious person being discriminated AGAINST, I assure you, that happens too. Their freedoms and rights are important to me as well.

This thread is about the Kansas bill. What does what you said have to do with the Kansas Bill?

.......local, state and federal governments have the responsibility to ensure that our constitutional freedoms remain in tact, anyway.

This thread is about the Kansas bill. What does what you said have to do with the Kansas Bill?

It would bother me as an American if a religious organization, one with a specific mission, were being forced by the government to provide service that stretched outside the scope of it's mission of intent and scope. I find this to be in confliction with the rights of that organization as per the constitution.

This thread is about the Kansas bill. What does what you said have to do with the Kansas Bill?

If the Kansas bill is not needed, nothing that you said makes any sense since there are already laws which protect religious, and non-religious people from discrimination. In addition, the bill has caused lots of needless animosity, and has wasted the valuable time of politicians. Further, some proponents of the bill have admitted that part of their motives for the bill is to buttress existing anti-same-marriage laws to protect Kansas from what they call "activist" judges who want to overturn the laws, and that would be unfairly discriminating against homosexuals' right to get married.

You said that the Arizona bill is better, but so what since you said that that bill is not needed either? If both bills are not needed, why have you spent a lot of time discussing them, especially since both bills were defeated, and the Kansas bill was even called discriminatory by some Senate Republicans, and would have prohibited homosexuals from filing lawsuits if they were discriminated against.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's not. it is however, a CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT to have freedom of religion, which includes practice and observance.

Freedom of religion isn't absolute, even in your country. Polygamy, animal sacrifice, and most entheogenic drugs are illegal despite them all being fundamental to the beliefs and practices of their respective religions.

But all this is irrelevant to employment, since as long as a person is able to voluntarily accept a job and quit it when it no longer suits him, freedom of religion is maintained. We know the job doesn't go against the employee's beliefs, because he's freely accepted the job's duties. And we know this because the employee is free to quit but chooses to stay.

The only time your arguments about freedom of religion in employment would be legitimate is when the employee didn't freely choose the job and isn't free to quit. The only job I can think of like that is being a conscripted soldier.

I might also be willing to grant your argument some validity when we're talking about foreigners whose visa only allows them to work for a particular company. In these cases, there could be coercion to stay in the job, since quitting would mean getting kicked out of the country. However, in these situations, the coercion can be with regard to all sorts of issues besides religion, so I think it makes more sense to tie the person's protection to their visa status, not to their religion.