How to protect religious freedom and conscience rights

[ChristineM]

Hey everyone. I am not sure if this is the right forum for this question so if I am putting it in the wrong forum, I apologize.

Anyway, lately, there have been some problems in the United States with laws against discrimination and religious freedom or conscience rights. Basically, these laws say that you cannot discriminate against someone because of sexual orientation or gender identity among other things. However, these laws are causing the religious freedom and conscience rights of Christians and others to be violated by forcing such people to provide services for same-sex weddings. If they don't comply and provide the services, they are found in violation of the law.

My question is this. Isn't there some sort of compromise where religious freedom and conscience rights can be protected while minimizing the amount of discrimination that would take place against minorities or is it just simply a fact that religious freedom will have to be sacrificed in order for these laws to take effect? Why can't Christians and those with sincere moral or religious convictions against same-sex marriage be exempted from these laws? After all, it's not like your average gay couple is going to have a hard time finding a baker to bake their wedding cake for them if one baker on the corner refuses to bake the cake for their wedding. There are plenty of places they can go to.

Such anti discrimination laws have been in force for a long time in britain and much of western Europe. Generally they have helped, but there are still some diehard xenophobes, misogynists and homophobes who like to stir up hated sometimes resulting in murder. Its good to know that those who discriminate against minorities or religious views have the law to face for their actions.

Unfortunately, under right wing government the law is not enforced as it should be.

 

[stvdv]

Just wait till they make a church have to accept homosexual preachers or laity into the church.

Seems we (Holland) are way ahead of US.
But you seem confident US will follow soon

Geen regenboogvlag maar een homoseksuele dominee in Loenen: 'Een veel krachtiger statement' - De Ste

Not a rainbow flag but a gay pastor in Loenen: "A much more powerful statement"
The Nashville declaration may be a major issue in the Veluwe, but there is hardly any commotion in Loenen. On the eve of his confirmation, Pastor Marcel Oostenbrink observes that in Loenen they make no mention of his homosexual orientation.

Laity is very normal here in Holland

I'm not sure if below quote is 100% accurate, but Vatican has given plenty of proof, that it might be not too far off

'Het Vaticaan is een van de grootste homoseksuele gemeenschappen ter wereld'

A majority of the cardinals and many bishops and other church leaders are gay. That is the conclusion reached by sociologist Frédéric Martel, who immersed himself in the world of the Vatican for four years. According to an initiate whom Martel spoke, it would even be about 80 percent of the clergy in the Vatican.

IF a priest has sex with little boy AND priest knows all about Bible (reading Latin, Greek and has access to hidden Bible Books) my guess is that the Real Bible Books never said gay leads to Hell, else why would they, who know all about it, do it?

Anyway it's the most hypocritical group of people on earth.

And that they have sex with little children (on a very large scale; 1 of course is already too much) might indicate that Bible God not even exists

 

[stvdv]

I call the quote below Religious Freedom?

Dustin Burggraaf is a pastor in the conservative Restored Reformed Church and came out two and a half years ago. For the first time he tells about his coming-out and the commotion that arose in his orthodox environment

De dominee die uit de kast kwam: Homo zijn was het ergst denkbare

 

[Samantha Rinne]

Hey everyone. I am not sure if this is the right forum for this question so if I am putting it in the wrong forum, I apologize.

Anyway, lately, there have been some problems in the United States with laws against discrimination and religious freedom or conscience rights. Basically, these laws say that you cannot discriminate against someone because of sexual orientation or gender identity among other things. However, these laws are causing the religious freedom and conscience rights of Christians and others to be violated by forcing such people to provide services for same-sex weddings. If they don't comply and provide the services, they are found in violation of the law.

My question is this. Isn't there some sort of compromise where religious freedom and conscience rights can be protected while minimizing the amount of discrimination that would take place against minorities or is it just simply a fact that religious freedom will have to be sacrificed in order for these laws to take effect? Why can't Christians and those with sincere moral or religious convictions against same-sex marriage be exempted from these laws? After all, it's not like your average gay couple is going to have a hard time finding a baker to bake their wedding cake for them if one baker on the corner refuses to bake the cake for their wedding. There are plenty of places they can go to.

This is exactly it. I am LGBT, but basically hate my own, as they are an entitled group that think because they have been victims (hate to break it to ya, but all of us have at one point or another) they get to push for unjust laws that fail at exactly this.

We don't need laws forbidding gay marriage (but laws forbidding sex without telling others that you are an STD carrier knowingly would be nice), any more than we need laws demanding that someone choose between their values and their business. It's not really about homosexuality. I got myself fired from my last job because I had a situation where it seemed everyone but me was okay letting the boss take credit for my work, and I decided at this point that even if I made less money and only had one or so clients I'd rather work for myself. When you start to work for yourself, you realize that a great deal of your freedom and happiness is based on upholding your choices.

The gay couple in question actually had a ton of choices. They were nine or so states away in Massachusetts and instead went to Colorado to harass this one guy. He just gets done with a legal battle with a gay couple then a transgender person wants to celebrate their anniversary as a new person. At want point does this start to look like bullying?

 

[HonestJoe]

Anyway, lately, there have been some problems in the United States with laws against discrimination and religious freedom or conscience rights.

A tiny number of minor problems given that there have been various anti-discrimination laws for many decades across the US and, of course, you’ve always had lots of religious people. These stories make the news because they’re rare. It’s certainly worth noting that the vast majority of Christians don’t seem to have such a major issue with this (even where they don’t personally approve of same-sex marriage).

My question is this. Isn't there some sort of compromise where religious freedom and conscience rights can be protected while minimizing the amount of discrimination that would take place against minorities or is it just simply a fact that religious freedom will have to be sacrificed in order for these laws to take effect?

Freedom is sacrifices with every law but that is, in principle at least, for good reason. Laws are (should be!) created to prevent potential harm and that is balanced against the general restriction of freedoms they impose.

I am strongly opposed to special cases. If a law is good and necessary it is in place to prevent harm. Allowing some people to ignore that law must be allowing some potential harm. If there is a valid argument for some people to ignore the law, why shouldn’t everyone be free to ignore the law and at that point, why have the law at all? Laws can be written with limitations, exceptions and considerations to again, balance the harm prevention with restrictions to freedom but that should (and generally do) apply across the board.

Why can't Christians and those with sincere moral or religious convictions against same-sex marriage be exempted from these laws? After all, it's not like your average gay couple is going to have a hard time finding a baker to bake their wedding cake for them if one baker on the corner refuses to bake the cake for their wedding. There are plenty of places they can go to.

I generally hate “slippery slope” arguments but it can’t help but apply here. Why would this only apply to this specific issue and specific sub-set of opponents? Shouldn’t your logic extend to pretty much any law and any belief (or claimed belief)? Isn’t the entire point of a structured society is that we can’t all do whatever we want but have to compromise and work towards the general good of that society?

 

[HonestJoe]

The gay couple in question actually had a ton of choices. They were nine or so states away in Massachusetts and instead went to Colorado to harass this one guy. He just gets done with a legal battle with a gay couple then a transgender person wants to celebrate their anniversary as a new person. At want point does this start to look like bullying?

Even if that were true (and this isn't the place for that debate), it has nothing to do with the fundamental legitimacy of the law or any proposed exemptions to it, which is the topic of the thread. Dragging it down to yet another argument about specific cases won't achieve anything.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

This is exactly it. I am LGBT, but basically hate my own, as they are an entitled group that think because they have been victims (hate to break it to ya, but all of us have at one point or another) they get to push for unjust laws that fail at exactly this.

What's unjust about it?

The gay couple in question actually had a ton of choices. They were nine or so states away in Massachusetts and instead went to Colorado to harass this one guy. He just gets done with a legal battle with a gay couple then a transgender person wants to celebrate their anniversary as a new person. At want point does this start to look like bullying?

A lot of the anti-segregation protestors weren't local, either. Why is this a problem?

In some ways, it's better if these sorts of protests are done by non-locals. The risk of reprisals by people who want to respond to the protest with violence is certainly a lot less.

 

[leov]

Hey everyone. I am not sure if this is the right forum for this question so if I am putting it in the wrong forum, I apologize.

Anyway, lately, there have been some problems in the United States with laws against discrimination and religious freedom or conscience rights. Basically, these laws say that you cannot discriminate against someone because of sexual orientation or gender identity among other things. However, these laws are causing the religious freedom and conscience rights of Christians and others to be violated by forcing such people to provide services for same-sex weddings. If they don't comply and provide the services, they are found in violation of the law.

My question is this. Isn't there some sort of compromise where religious freedom and conscience rights can be protected while minimizing the amount of discrimination that would take place against minorities or is it just simply a fact that religious freedom will have to be sacrificed in order for these laws to take effect? Why can't Christians and those with sincere moral or religious convictions against same-sex marriage be exempted from these laws? After all, it's not like your average gay couple is going to have a hard time finding a baker to bake their wedding cake for them if one baker on the corner refuses to bake the cake for their wedding. There are plenty of places they can go to.

book of Acts, the first Christian Community was a closed circle. If Christians want to do business outside the circle they must obey whatever rules are outside that circle.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

This is exactly it. I am LGBT, but basically hate my own, as they are an entitled group that think because they have been victims (hate to break it to ya, but all of us have at one point or another) they get to push for unjust laws that fail at exactly this.

Are you seriously going to suggest that LGBTQ people haven't faced more victimization and discrimination that non-LGBTQ people?

And how is it "entitled" to expect to be treated fairly and not discriminated against?

We don't need laws forbidding gay marriage (but laws forbidding sex without telling others that you are an STD carrier knowingly would be nice), any more than we need laws demanding that someone choose between their values and their business. It's not really about homosexuality. I got myself fired from my last job because I had a situation where it seemed everyone but me was okay letting the boss take credit for my work, and I decided at this point that even if I made less money and only had one or so clients I'd rather work for myself. When you start to work for yourself, you realize that a great deal of your freedom and happiness is based on upholding your choices.

The gay couple in question actually had a ton of choices. They were nine or so states away in Massachusetts and instead went to Colorado to harass this one guy. He just gets done with a legal battle with a gay couple then a transgender person wants to celebrate their anniversary as a new person. At want point does this start to look like bullying?

At no point whatsoever, because it plainly isn't.

Businesses don't have the right to discriminate based on sexuality, race or gender, and you would categorically not be writing this if it was a cake being denied to a black couple.

 

[Good-Ole-Rebel]

Seems we (Holland) are way ahead of US.
But you seem confident US will follow soon

Geen regenboogvlag maar een homoseksuele dominee in Loenen: 'Een veel krachtiger statement' - De Ste


Laity is very normal here in Holland

I'm not sure if below quote is 100% accurate, but Vatican has given plenty of proof, that it might be not too far off

'Het Vaticaan is een van de grootste homoseksuele gemeenschappen ter wereld'


IF a priest has sex with little boy AND priest knows all about Bible (reading Latin, Greek and has access to hidden Bible Books) my guess is that the Real Bible Books never said gay leads to Hell, else why would they, who know all about it, do it?

Anyway it's the most hypocritical group of people on earth.

And that they have sex with little children (on a very large scale; 1 of course is already too much) might indicate that Bible God not even exists

I have no doubt the U.S. will follow. Corruption is always a working agent in the Church. But, my point was, in the U.S. there is supposedly 'separation of Church and State'. Meaning the State cannot order the Church to accept homosexual pastors or laity if it doesn't want to. But, make no mistake, they will, if they haven't already.

In other words, they are going to whine if a Christian baker doesn't want to bake a cake for a homosexual. Because he has supposed rights under the Constitution. But they in turn will, in my opinion, ignore the so called Separation of Church and State and force the Church to accept homosexuals.

They do it regularly if a pastor preaches about politics. They use the 501c3 as leverage. They will do the same with homosexuals.

Good-Ole-Rebel

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Anyway, lately, there have been some problems in the United States with laws against discrimination and religious freedom or conscience rights. Basically, these laws say that you cannot discriminate against someone because of sexual orientation or gender identity among other things. However, these laws are causing the religious freedom and conscience rights of Christians and others to be violated by forcing such people to provide services for same-sex weddings. If they don't comply and provide the services, they are found in violation of the law.

"the right to swing your arm, ends at my nose".

Here, your arm is your religious beliefs and my nose is my sexuality.

In this case, I feel like an analogy might help you understand: race instead of sexuality.
Suppose a religion states that blacks are inferior to whites and shouldn't be able to use the same bathrooms or drive he same busses etc.

Would you say that laws against discrimination based on skin colour would infringe upon their religious rights?

My question is this. Isn't there some sort of compromise where religious freedom and conscience rights can be protected while minimizing the amount of discrimination that would take place against minorities or is it just simply a fact that religious freedom will have to be sacrificed in order for these laws to take effect?

Freedom isn't the same as anarchy and it also doesn't count just for the majority or the powerfull.
Gay people have rights to. And your rights don't override theirs.

Why can't Christians and those with sincere moral or religious convictions against same-sex marriage be exempted from these laws?

Why do you feel you deserve the right to be exempt from laws?
Don't you consider this at least a little bit arrogant?

After all, it's not like your average gay couple is going to have a hard time finding a baker to bake their wedding cake for them if one baker on the corner refuses to bake the cake for their wedding. There are plenty of places they can go to.

Not if they all think like you do.

Consider the analogy again...

"It's not like black people won't manage to get to places. Just take another bus"

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Businesses don't have the right to discriminate based on sexuality, race or gender, and you would categorically not be writing this if it was a cake being denied to a black couple.

Right... and the fact that we're talking about business is an important distinction.

Nobody is making it illegal to be a racist or an anti-gay bigot, or to say racist or anti-gay things. What the law says, effectively, is that if you choose to operate a business, your business has to meet a certain minimum standard.

 

[icehorse]

My question is this. Isn't there some sort of compromise where religious freedom and conscience rights can be protected while minimizing the amount of discrimination that would take place against minorities or is it just simply a fact that religious freedom will have to be sacrificed in order for these laws to take effect?

Another way to look at this is that in a country like the US, the goal is equal religious freedoms for all. If you really agree with that idea then you can see that no one religion can make rules for the others to follow. That leads to the idea that they must all follow the secular rules of the state.

 

[Nakosis]

Oh well. Religion should never be used as an excuse to deny someone and treat them as less than a fully entitled citizen. Just as we told religion to bugger off when it came to slavery, discrimination, and interracial marriages, religion can go bugger off on this subject as well. No one has the "right" to open a business. People do have a right to equal protection and liberties under the law.

Just going to say, I was kind of leaning the other way but what you said convinced me to agree with you.

 

[halbhh]

Hey everyone. I am not sure if this is the right forum for this question so if I am putting it in the wrong forum, I apologize.

Anyway, lately, there have been some problems in the United States with laws against discrimination and religious freedom or conscience rights. Basically, these laws say that you cannot discriminate against someone because of sexual orientation or gender identity among other things. However, these laws are causing the religious freedom and conscience rights of Christians and others to be violated by forcing such people to provide services for same-sex weddings. If they don't comply and provide the services, they are found in violation of the law.

My question is this. Isn't there some sort of compromise where religious freedom and conscience rights can be protected while minimizing the amount of discrimination that would take place against minorities or is it just simply a fact that religious freedom will have to be sacrificed in order for these laws to take effect? Why can't Christians and those with sincere moral or religious convictions against same-sex marriage be exempted from these laws? After all, it's not like your average gay couple is going to have a hard time finding a baker to bake their wedding cake for them if one baker on the corner refuses to bake the cake for their wedding. There are plenty of places they can go to.

There isn't really a way to control what people think and how they judge others.

So, there is already freedom to judge others, even if it's not really good for us to do so often, not in our true or ultimate best interest (not spiritually good for us to condemn others).

But what about 'freedom' of association then?....

Ask yourself: Would you really want a more extended 'freedom' to be refuse to serve others to be protected by law that would allow...

...a doctor to refuse to save your life because of your associations they don't personally like?

I'm guessing you'd say 'No, I'd want a doctor to have to try save anyone's life that needs their emergency care."

And what about a fireman? Should a fireman be given an extended freedom to refuse to save your house?

What of a dentist? Should a dentist be allowed to reject your children, and send them out of the office, because he/she discovers their association and doesn't like that association?

What of a small grocery store?

What of a gas station?

What about an emergency plumber you call, and they arrive to your great relief while water is getting past your temporary dam in downstairs, but then they find out your associations, and decide to refuse you service.....

Someone very wise gave us a general principle to answer these sometimes increasingly complex questions, where it gets harder to answer than people thought at first....

He said, "In everything, do to others as you would have them do to you."

 

[viole]

Hey everyone. I am not sure if this is the right forum for this question so if I am putting it in the wrong forum, I apologize.

Anyway, lately, there have been some problems in the United States with laws against discrimination and religious freedom or conscience rights. Basically, these laws say that you cannot discriminate against someone because of sexual orientation or gender identity among other things. However, these laws are causing the religious freedom and conscience rights of Christians and others to be violated by forcing such people to provide services for same-sex weddings. If they don't comply and provide the services, they are found in violation of the law.

My question is this. Isn't there some sort of compromise where religious freedom and conscience rights can be protected while minimizing the amount of discrimination that would take place against minorities or is it just simply a fact that religious freedom will have to be sacrificed in order for these laws to take effect? Why can't Christians and those with sincere moral or religious convictions against same-sex marriage be exempted from these laws? After all, it's not like your average gay couple is going to have a hard time finding a baker to bake their wedding cake for them if one baker on the corner refuses to bake the cake for their wedding. There are plenty of places they can go to.

No. There is no way to compromise, in general.

Suppose the child of JW parents is so sick that needs a transfusion. Alas, the parents believe that would jeopardize his eternal destiny, or whatever.

What would you do?

Respect the right of belief of the parents, and let the child slowly die?
Or override the parents and send the kid to the OP?

Do you see a compromise? Which one?

Ciao

- viole

 

[BilliardsBall]

Hey everyone. I am not sure if this is the right forum for this question so if I am putting it in the wrong forum, I apologize.

Anyway, lately, there have been some problems in the United States with laws against discrimination and religious freedom or conscience rights. Basically, these laws say that you cannot discriminate against someone because of sexual orientation or gender identity among other things. However, these laws are causing the religious freedom and conscience rights of Christians and others to be violated by forcing such people to provide services for same-sex weddings. If they don't comply and provide the services, they are found in violation of the law.

My question is this. Isn't there some sort of compromise where religious freedom and conscience rights can be protected while minimizing the amount of discrimination that would take place against minorities or is it just simply a fact that religious freedom will have to be sacrificed in order for these laws to take effect? Why can't Christians and those with sincere moral or religious convictions against same-sex marriage be exempted from these laws? After all, it's not like your average gay couple is going to have a hard time finding a baker to bake their wedding cake for them if one baker on the corner refuses to bake the cake for their wedding. There are plenty of places they can go to.

There is no compromise for those on the left! The American Constitution guarantees freedom of association, something these liberals wish to suppress.

 

[1213]

...After all, it's not like your average gay couple is going to have a hard time finding a baker to bake their wedding cake for them if one baker on the corner refuses to bake the cake for their wedding. There are plenty of places they can go to.

I think there is no reason why people should not have right to decide to whom they sell things. And I think it is interesting that this is problem in the case of sexual orientation, but not for example in case of poor, "ugly" and not well-dressed people. Why it is accepted that there are many places that don’t accept people who have not much money, or who are not good looking or well dressed?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

There is no compromise for those on the left! The American Constitution guarantees freedom of association, something these liberals wish to suppress.

In regards to same sex marriage, Conservatives solution of a compromise had already been ruled, by the Supreme Court, unconstitutional. In regard to access, again, the right wants a solution that has already been ruled illegal in the same situation, but a different class of people. You are still free to associate, you just don't get special treatment and privileges because you are religious. Equal protection and rights are a guarantee of the Constitution to all citizens. Opening is not. It is a privilege, and bound to the laws that govern businesses, including anti-discrimination laws. Being Christian doesn't mean you get to ignore those laws you don't like, especially if you can't even support them in your own holy book (but suggest the contrary where even Jesus himself didn't care or turn people away because of their sins).

 

[columbus]

My question is would Jesus be going around not serving wedding cakes to people?

I think He would have done.

Jesus was a conservative Jew in 1st century Judea. That was a very homophobic society, and I see no reason to think that Jesus differed with the prevailing norms on that subject. There's certainly nothing in the NT suggesting that He did.
Tom