To what extent is religious freedom protected by 1st A?

[Jonathan Bailey]

There are some lawmakers (Republicans) who do not want to include "sexual orientation" and "gender expression/identity" as protected classes under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because they claim that it will "violate" religious freedom under 1st A.

Clearly there are limits on the Bill of Rights. The right to keep and bear arms doesn't extend to unregulated atomic bomb ownership by private citizens. Freedom of speech doesn't extend to yelling FIRE in a crowded theater or BOMB on a loaded commercial jetliner. Freedom of religion doesn't mean priests have the right to molest young boys and people don't have the right to commit murder because "the devil (or God) made them do it".

 

[metis]

I had to be snarky, but the current stock of Republican legislators and their President Bone-Spurs couldn't care less what's in the Constitution.

Now that I've said that and got it off my chest, then let's deal with the actual OP and I'll restrain myself-- my white jacket with long sleeves, will someone please get that for me.

 

[Nakosis]

There are some lawmakers (Republicans) who do not want to include "sexual orientation" and "gender expression/identity" as protected classes under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because they claim that it will "violate" religious freedom under 1st A.

Clearly there are limits on the Bill of Rights. The right to keep and bear arms doesn't extend to unregulated atomic bomb ownership by private citizens. Freedom of speech doesn't extend to yelling FIRE in a crowded theater or BOMB on a loaded commercial jetliner. Freedom of religion doesn't mean priests have the right to molest young boys and people don't have the right to commit murder because "the devil (or God) made them do it".

Can't pass laws, IMO, that discriminate or favor any individual religion. The LGBTQ community needs to start their own religion.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

There are some lawmakers (Republicans) who do not want to include "sexual orientation" and "gender expression/identity" as protected classes under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because they claim that it will "violate" religious freedom under 1st A.

I'd argue that not extending full rights to LGBTQ people violates the 14th amendment.

When one part of the Constitution is in conflict with another part, which part wins?

 

[Jonathan Bailey]

I had to be snarky, but the current stock of Republican legislators and their President Bone-Spurs couldn't care less what's in the Constitution.

Here is what inspired my OP: Trump supposedly is "championing" religious freedom worldwide.
Opinion | Trump Stands Up for Religious Freedom

No, people should not be killed or jailed simply for believing in something and expressing that belief. I have the right to believe all horses are evil but I don't have right to kill each and every horse I come upon indiscriminately. No, I really don't believe all horses are evil: just said to make a point.

 

[metis]

Here is what inspired my OP: Trump supposedly is "championing" religious freedom worldwide.
Opinion | Trump Stands Up for Religious Freedom

I'll get to that tomorrow as I have to leave for the day. Take care.

 

[Jainarayan]

There are some lawmakers (Republicans) who do not want to include "sexual orientation" and "gender expression/identity" as protected classes under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because they claim that it will "violate" religious freedom under 1st A.

They're under the misguided belief that their religion is the only one that can be and should be freely practiced, i.e. fundamental Christianity. There are other religious groups, albeit small minorities, who have no problem with anything LGBTQ... orientations or beliefs, and who are protected by the FA. Freedom of religion also implies freedom from religion.

 

[Jonathan Bailey]

I'd argue that not extending full rights to LGBTQ people violates the 14th amendment.

When one part of the Constitution is in conflict with another part, which part wins?

I could theoretically found a religion that forbids selling wedding cakes to women, people of color, disabled veterans, people over age 70, Jews and/or people of Germany ancestry. How far would that get before a major lawsuit shut my bakery down flat?

 

[Polymath257]

Well, let's start with some other examples. Suppose some religious person wants to start a company that refuses to serve to a different religion? Do they have that right? How about if they want to refuse to serve the descendants of Ham? Do they have that right? What if they insist that men and women be separated in a restaurant?

 

[sun rise]

I'd argue that not extending full rights to LGBTQ people violates the 14th amendment.

When one part of the Constitution is in conflict with another part, which part wins?

Answering the question gets to the ideology of the Supreme Court. Currently it's tilted far right.

 

[leov]

There are some lawmakers (Republicans) who do not want to include "sexual orientation" and "gender expression/identity" as protected classes under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because they claim that it will "violate" religious freedom under 1st A.

Clearly there are limits on the Bill of Rights. The right to keep and bear arms doesn't extend to unregulated atomic bomb ownership by private citizens. Freedom of speech doesn't extend to yelling FIRE in a crowded theater or BOMB on a loaded commercial jetliner. Freedom of religion doesn't mean priests have the right to molest young boys and people don't have the right to commit murder because "the devil (or God) made them do it".

Imo, we should leave Constitution alone.

 

[Regiomontanus]

Imo, we should leave Constitution alone.

I favor burning it and starting over. We could do MUCH better.

 

[Brickjectivity]

USA is and was an experimental country and didn't start out with the certainty that this would work or that would work. What is constitutional may not be an absolute protection of religion. It may be that religion has to be curbed in some cases. Hence we don't allow sacrifice of people. Human sacrifice would be an expression of religion, however it would break the country up. It would not be constitutional, because we'd arrive at a better union by prohibiting people from sacrificing humans. Its what makes the union stronger and better which is constitutional, and so the 2nd amendment is interpreted to suit. I think... I'm not doctor of law, but.. it seems like the way things are done.

 

[Curious George]

Answering the question gets to the ideology of the Supreme Court. Currently it's tilted far right.

SCOTUS is not far right.

 

[fantome profane]

There are some lawmakers (Republicans) who do not want to include "sexual orientation" and "gender expression/identity" as protected classes under the Civil Rights Act of 1964 because they claim that it will "violate" religious freedom under 1st A.

I do not accept the idea that one persons freedom can include the right to oppress another.

 

[Shiranui117]

I believe that religions should not be forced to change their beliefs for others, and I believe that people should not be forced to speak against their own beliefs (religious or otherwise). In America, the church should not dictate who can and cannot get married, but by the same token churches (or mosques, synagogues, temples, etc...) should not be forced to host or conduct gay weddings.

When it comes to companies providing artistic services (cake decorations, wedding invitations, etc.), then I think the issue becomes more complicated. Where do artistic professions fall--do they fall under protected categories of free speech, or do they fall under the category of businesses which use public infrastructure and thus cannot discriminate?

 

[Jonathan Bailey]

SCOTUS is not far right.

It's somewhat middle of the road. It's usually a 4-5 or 5-4 ruling. Nine judges, an odd number, was chosen by the Founding Fathers to avert a possible tie in a ruling just as a best of seven baseball games averts a World Series tie.

 

[Jonathan Bailey]

I believe that religions should not be forced to change their beliefs for others, and I believe that people should not be forced to speak against their own beliefs (religious or otherwise). In America, the church should not dictate who can and cannot get married, but by the same token churches (or mosques, synagogues, temples, etc...) should not be forced to host or conduct gay weddings.

When it comes to companies providing artistic services (cake decorations, wedding invitations, etc.), then I think the issue becomes more complicated. Where do artistic professions fall--do they fall under protected categories of free speech, or do they fall under the category of businesses which use public infrastructure and thus cannot discriminate?

Bakeries should not be allowed to discriminate against gay people any more than they should be allowed to discriminate against Jewish people or people of color. It's my firm belief that sexual orientation is natural biological condition we our born with just like one's sex or skin color.

The LGBT community needs its very own Martin Luther King.

Freedom of religion implies freedom FROM religion. You have every right to believe in what you wish including ghosts and witchcraft. You have no right oppress me as a human being with your beliefs.

 

[Curious George]

It's somewhat middle of the road. It's usually a 4-5 or 5-4 ruling. Nine judges, an odd number, was chosen by the Founding Fathers to avert a possible tie in a ruling just as a best of seven baseball games averts a World Series tie.

Except the number was originally neither nine nor odd.

But my comment was regarding the justices themselves and the court in general. It is neither far left nor far right. Reading the opinions of the court paint this clearly.

 

[metis]

They're under the misguided belief that their religion is the only one that can be and should be freely practiced, i.e. fundamental Christianity. There are other religious groups, albeit small minorities, who have no problem with anything LGBTQ... orientations or beliefs, and who are protected by the FA. Freedom of religion also implies freedom from religion.

That's what I was basically going to say, but you took the words out of my mouth and undoubtedly said it better than I could.