Iowa governor signs 'religious freedom restoration act' into law at Christian conservative event

[Viker]

Shouldn't people be able to exercise their religion freely? Or should they have to stay in the closet about their beliefs, lest they be harassed, threatened, or even fired from a job based on their beliefs?

Now, in Iowa, certain people will have to stay in the closet about their sexuality, identity and their beliefs, lest they be legally harassed, discriminated against, fined, threatened or even fired from a job according to their sexuality, identity and/or beliefs.

I'm a diabolist/diabolator. What if my religion actually believed in animal or human sacrifice, should I be allowed to practice these sacrifices with impunity? Yanno, "freedom" of religion?

Freedom of religion should never mean allowance to trample on the rights of others. And this Iowa bill does exactly that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Now, in Iowa, certain people will have to stay in the closet about their sexuality, identity and their beliefs, lest they be legally harassed, discriminated against, fined, threatened or even fired from a job according to their sexuality, identity and/or beliefs.

I'm a diabolist/diabolator. What if my religion actually believed in animal or human sacrifice, should I be allowed to practice these sacrifices with impunity? Yanno, "freedom" of religion?

Freedom of religion should never mean allowance to trample on the rights of others. And this Iowa bill does exactly that.

Hmm, sacrificing people could interfere with the religious beliefs of the person being sacrificed. So I can understand just a bit of hesitancy on their part. But did you know that they will not let me sacrifice a chicken next to the Nativity Scene? Now that is crossing the line, I know that these people eat chicken themselves so the death of one more chicken should not both them one iota. It sounds like hypocrisy to me.

 

[Quintessence]

Now, in Iowa, certain people will have to stay in the closet about their sexuality, identity and their beliefs, lest they be legally harassed, discriminated against, fined, threatened or even fired from a job according to their sexuality, identity and/or beliefs.

Nonsense. I'll be doing none of those things. Folks are loosing their minds over this thing and for little good reason. I live here. If you want examples of some of the things our crappy legislature has tried to pull that were blatantly hostile towards the rights of others, I can give you examples. Because they've happened. This isn't it. This isn't one of them. Many states have made similar affirmations given the importance of religious freedom in the United States. To quote an important section of the bill:

"''Exercise of religion" means the practice or observance of religion. ""Exercise of religion" includes but is not limited to the ability to act or refuse to act in a manner substantially motivated by one's sincerely held religious Senate File 2095, p. 3 belief, whether or not the exercise is compulsory or central to a larger system of religious belief."​

I'm not a legal expert, but this sure sounds to me like it can be used to to protect human rights. Now, if the state tries this crap again with trying to remove gender identity from the Iowa Civil Rights Code (which they tried this year, by the way) I could understand believing this law is a problem. As it stands, I'm not seeing it.

 

[Mister Emu]

Why have any restrictions on anything?

Because there are truly evil and vile acts, acts that infringe on others' rights, and areas of life that are not governed by rights and can be improved with proper regulation.

Then they were not weak.

Weak does not mean impotent, nor strong invulnerable.

Why have laws at all? If we have to protect the discriminator as much as the discriminated?

I wouldn't consider it much of a law if it doesn't protect undesirables.

 

[JustGeorge]

Because there are truly evil and vile acts, acts that infringe on others' rights, and areas of life that are not governed by rights and can be improved with proper regulation.

I don't disagree, but I think part of the issue here is figuring out what's vile and what's tolerable.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Shouldn't people be able to exercise their religion freely? Or should they have to stay in the closet about their beliefs, lest they be harassed, threatened, or even fired from a job based on their beliefs?

I guess it would depend on what those beliefs entailed, right?

 

[McBell]

Shouldn't people be able to exercise their religion freely? Or should they have to stay in the closet about their beliefs, lest they be harassed, threatened, or even fired from a job based on their beliefs?

If their beliefs prevent them from doing their job, fire them.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Any why is it always about "freedom to separate myself from people I don't like"? I'd expect most religious people to be above that. If they're not, I couldn't consider them religious. They're just wearing a tribalistic mask and pretending its religious, imo.

Freedom of religion in my mind is to be able to practice your religion without outside interference. You don't 'practice' a religion by hating on others...

I agree.

The bigots have lots of sympathy for county clerks or pharmacists who want avoid doing the job they freely signed up for, but I don't hear much sympathy for people who find religious pacifism after they've already enlisted in the army.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Hmm, sacrificing people could interfere with the religious beliefs of the person being sacrificed. So I can understand just a bit of hesitancy on their part. But did you know that they will not let me sacrifice a chicken next to the Nativity Scene? Now that is crossing the line, I know that these people eat chicken themselves so the death of one more chicken should not both them one iota. It sounds like hypocrisy to me.

You remind me of a poem I wrote long ago:

The Very First Skeptic

Who was the very first skeptic?
Surely not the priest, upon whom the fortunes of all depend!
Nor the king, whose claim to kingship is divine kinship.
Perhaps it was that wizened, wisened soul,
Watching yet one more sacrifice
And remembering, “They never work.”
Or perhaps it was that man upon the altar,
About to meet the gods whose help won’t come,
Because, he thought,
“Maybe they aren’t there.”

 

[Pogo]

Hmm, sacrificing people could interfere with the religious beliefs of the person being sacrificed. So I can understand just a bit of hesitancy on their part. But did you know that they will not let me sacrifice a chicken next to the Nativity Scene? Now that is crossing the line, I know that these people eat chicken themselves so the death of one more chicken should not both them one iota. It sounds like hypocrisy to me.

Next time try a lamb, they're into that sort of sacrifice.

 

[Laniakea]

If their beliefs prevent them from doing their job, fire them.

Unless it's a Muslim belief, in which case we need to be accommodating, understanding, lenient, tolerant and not so "hateful".

 

[Subduction Zone]

Unless it's a Muslim belief, in which case we need to be accommodating, understanding, lenient, tolerant and not so "hateful".

Hardly. I know of only one thing that the Muslims have gotten away with in some communities. And it is not that different from what churches have gotten away with for centuries. Can you give a reasonable example?

 

[Laniakea]

Hardly. I know of only one thing that the Muslims have gotten away with in some communities. And it is not that different from what churches have gotten away with for centuries. Can you give a reasonable example?

What have churches gotten away with for centuries?

 

[Subduction Zone]

What have churches gotten away with for centuries?

No, I asked you first. You answer my question then I will answer yours. I do have a very specific example in mind.