I produced facts. Do you wanna actually read and argue for the bills wording?
-
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Iowa governor signs 'religious freedom restoration act' into law at Christian conservative event
- Thread starter Evangelicalhumanist
- Start date
I produced facts. Do you wanna actually read and argue for the bills wording?
esmith
Veteran Member
Depends on what you consider "facts"!
Yes, the bill's written wording lmao
Do you see any reasonable limits to religious practices?
It's always interesting when people act surprised that others are reacting to the things that are happening right now and not other things that aren't happening. Maybe no one is trying to outlaw turning the other cheek, maybe we don't talk about the freedom to do things that culture at large regards positively. My freedom only truly exists when I am allowed to do things, or refrain from doing them, in a manner that you don't wish it done.
That is an essential freedom.
Should fair housing & other
anti-discrimination laws be repealed?
So you see yourself as "not free" because somebody had the temerity to make murder illegal?
No, tolerance of those we don't like and allowing them to be free. Is essential to freedom.
Can you give me some examples of what you're meaning? My thick brain isn't picking it up.
It might be a freedom, but its not a religious freedom, in my opinion. Its a tribalistic freedom.
I expect the truly religious to be above such petty nonsense, and to lead by positive and loving examples. If they are unwilling to try, I am unable to view them as anything other than tribalistic.
I'm certainly not free to commit homicide.
Yes. The consequences would be pretty awful, but I can't get past forcing someone to work for/allow into their property (potentially into their home depending on how they run their business) people they don't want to. It's also not a high priority, other things are in greater need of attention than people being forced not to run their business according to racist/sexist principles.
Who is it that is upset the legal system of Iowa will not be using government force to make people behave in a way they are opposed to in principle? Tolerance is not acceptance, and you do not need to be accepted to be free.
I'm not sure what exactly you want examples of. Freedom only existing when it is for something you don't like? When I say something you like, I don't need freedom because you aren't going to stop it. My freedom only exists when I am allowed to say things you don't like, that might make you very upset.
The other side of that paragraph is the obvious fact that we're not going to be fighting for things that we don't need to fight for. Why don't we fight for the right to turn the other cheek? Because no one has made it illegal, or to help the poor. The ability to operate within a workspace under the tenets of your faith was/is in jeopardy, thus it is fought for.
Why rule out anything, then? Why have laws at all?
I'm not even going to bother. This is just sad.
The goal of laws are to protect the weak from the strong.
The Catholic/Christian belief system is not, in any sense, in a position of societal weakness.
The Catholic/Christian belief system is not, in any sense, in a position of societal weakness.
I don't see how these questions follow.
The goal of the law is to protect everyone in society. If it is the weak harming the strong, the strong are just as protected.
Then they were not weak.
Why have laws at all? If we have to protect the discriminator as much as the discriminated?
Guitar's Cry
Disciple of Pan
Acts of discrimination against LGBTQ+ folks are often justified by a person making a choice based on religion. These often are argued through the person having the right for religious freedom.
For instance:
A former clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses must pay $260,000 in fees and costs, a judge rules
A judge has ruled that a former county clerk who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples in Kentucky must pay up.
Colorado baker loses appeal over birthday cake for gender transition celebration
The Colorado baker who won a partial U.S. Supreme Court victory after refusing to make a gay couple’s wedding cake because of his Christian faith has lost an appeal in his latest legal fight.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
You are not listening. The bill gives them the ability to do so, and Christians do have a history of doing that. It does not say that they automatically will, but since so many Christians want to go against the Constitution by doing so it is for all practical purposes guaranteed.
Subduction Zone
Veteran Member
The bill is so vague as to what is allowed that it is likely to be found unconstitutional on that alone. Though I do have to worry since the USSC no longer follows the Constitution of the United States.