Let Freedom Reign!


 
HomeHome  PublicationsPublications  SearchSearch  RegisterRegister  Log in  

Share | 
 

 Obama vs. religious freedom

View previous topic View next topic Go down 
Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
AuthorMessage
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3092

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   6/15/2012, 8:37 am

Faith Healing Parents Watch Their Child Die

Quote :
Zachery Swezey was a 17 year-old high school junior when he got appendicitis. Unpleasant, but millions of people go through it without incident. Unfortunately for Zachery, his parents believed in the power of prayer over the wisdom of medical experts. So, instead of going to the hospital, his parents stood over him, doubtlessly watching him writhe in unspeakable agony, while they prayed for him to get better. Meanwhile, actual help was a phone call away, but that was irrelevant to them. Zachery died while his parents watched. His death was totally preventable and lacked even the mercy of painkillers.

Religious freedom! Now there's an abortion conservatives can rally behind.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3092

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   6/15/2012, 8:51 am

Or more to the point:

The ‘Julea Ward Is a Christian Bigot’ Act Passes in Michigan

Quote :
Remember Julea Ward?

She was the graduate student in counseling at Eastern Michigan University who refused to treat a suicidal gay student because her Christianity prevented her from “helping him feel better about himself.”

Thankfully, a judge dismissed her case in 2010, saying that EMU was right to kick her out of their grad school program.

Michigan’s House — the one that can’t bring itself to say the word “vagina” — passed a bill on Tuesday with a 59-50 vote to prevent schools in the state from ever doing that again. Because, you know, EMU is the real problem here…

Classy. Once again, the GOP rallies to the rescue of bigots who are being "victimized" 'cause they just can't discriminate the way they want to...

Hmmm...

I wrote:
We trample all over first amendment rights when we force Catholic hospitals to treat homosexuals.

For now, anyway. I'm sure the GOP will come to their rescue any day now.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3092

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   6/28/2012, 3:49 pm

Judge Tells Christian Counseling Student That Her School Was Right to Punish Her for Wanting to Convert Gay Clients

Quote :
It was only a week ago when the Michigan House of Representatives passed the “Julea Ward freedom of conscience act,” an act that would ban schools from punishing, say, Christian counseling students who don’t want to help gay clients.

Ward wasn’t the only Christian who refused to help people because of their sexual orientation.

Jennifer Keeton was in the same boat at Augusta State University in Georgia. She took things one step further. She made it clear that if any client ever tells her he’s gay, she’s going to respond by telling him he needs to be “cured.” She supported “conversion therapy,” something that doesn’t work and harms the patients.

In response, her school made her take diversity sensitivity workshops as part of a remediation plan. Keeton refused to participate. The school kicked her out of the program. Keeton sued. She said the school discriminated against her because of her faith. They didn’t, of course, because they weren’t asking her to alter her religious beliefs — she just had to keep them to herself and do her damn job.

Now, a Georgia federal district court has sided with the school (PDF). Yay!

Quote :
Keeton’s conflation of personal and professional values, or at least her difficulty in discerning the difference, appears to have been rooted in her opinion that the immorality of homosexual relations is a matter of objective and absolute moral truth. The policies which govern the ethical conduct of counselors, however, with their focus on client welfare and self-determination, make clear that the counselor’s professional environs are not intended to be a crucible for counselors to test metaphysical or moral propositions. Plato’s Academy or a seminary the Counselor Program is not; that Keeton’s opinions were couched in absolute or ontological terms does not give her constitutional license to make it otherwise.



Keeton’s allegations do not show that imposition of the remediation plan was substantially motivated by her personal religious views. The plan was instead imposed “because she was unwilling to comply with the ACA Code of Ethics.”

The Judge, James Randal Hall, issued one hell of a ruling, dismissing all of her claims. Most importantly, the judge reiterated the fact that “when someone voluntarily chooses to enter a profession, he or she must comply with its rules and ethical requirements.”

Hear that, Christian pharmacists?

It’s the right call. No school has a right to tell you what you have to believe religion-wise, but they have every right to make sure counselors do what’s best for their patients. Keeton was using her faith to harm certain ones and the school had every right to kick her out of their program because of it.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3092

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   10/3/2012, 2:18 pm

Court Rejects Religious Liberty Challenges To Contraceptive Coverage Mandate of Affordable Care Act

Quote :
In an important and extensively reasoned opinion handed down yesterday, a Missouri federal district court rejected a series of challenges to the contraceptive coverage mandate of the Affordable Care Act brought by a small business organized as a limited liability company and by its sole owner who is Catholic. Plaintiffs claimed that the mandate burdens their exercise of religion. In O’Brien v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, (ED MO, Sept. 28, 2012), Judge Carol E. Jackson (a President George H. W. Bush appointee) first held that she need not decide whether O’Brien Industrial Holdings (“OIH”), a secular limited liability company, is capable of exercising religion within the meaning of the Religious Freedom Restoration Act or the First Amendment because, even if it is, the contraception coverage mandate does not infringe religious exercise rights.

Rejected on all counts, using similar arguments I was making earlier in this thread.

Quote :
Plaintiffs allege that the preventive services coverage regulations . . . burden their free exercise of religion “by coercing Plaintiffs to choose between conducting their business in accordance with their religious beliefs or paying substantial penalties to the government.” However, the challenged regulations do not demand that plaintiffs alter their behavior in a manner that will directly and inevitably prevent plaintiffs from acting in accordance with their religious beliefs . . . . Instead, plaintiffs remain free to exercise their religion, by not using contraceptives and by discouraging employees from using contraceptives. The burden of which plaintiffs complain is that funds, which plaintiffs will contribute to a group health plan, might, after a series of independent decisions by health care providers and patients covered by OIH’s plan, subsidize someone else’s participation in an activity that is condemned by plaintiffs’ religion. This Court rejects the proposition that requiring indirect financial support of a practice, from which plaintiff himself abstains according to his religious principles, constitutes a substantial burden on plaintiff’s religious exercise.

RFRA is a shield, not a sword. It protects individuals from substantial burdens on religious exercise that occur when the government coerces action one’s religion forbids, or forbids action one’s religion requires; it is not a means to force one’s religious practices upon others. RFRA does not protect against the slight burden on religious exercise that arises when one’s money circuitously flows to support the conduct of other free-exercise-wielding individuals who hold religious beliefs that differ from one’s own.

. . .

Indeed, if the financial support of which plaintiffs complain was in fact substantially burdensome, secular companies owned by individuals objecting on religious grounds to all modern medical care could no longer be required to provide health care to employees. A district court has already rejected a RFRA challenge to the individual mandate of the ACA as applied to plaintiffs whose religion forbids seeking medical care. “[T]he conflict between the [ACA’s] requirements and Plaintiffs’ Christian faith does not rise to the level of a substantial burden... Plaintiffs have failed to allege any facts demonstrating that this conflict is more than a de minimis burden on their Christian faith.... Finally... Plaintiffs routinely contribute to other forms of insurance, such as Medicare, Social Security, and unemployment taxes, which present the same conflict with their belief that God will provide for their medical and financial needs.”

Not to mention paying taxes that funding wars, the death penalty, and the insurance plans that hypocritically cover Viagra in violation of the same moral/biblical code they're citing here.

The whole opinion is worth reading.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3092

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   4/23/2013, 9:30 pm

Catherine, Herbert Schaible's Second Child Dies After Parents Use Prayer, No Medicine

Quote :
A couple serving probation for the 2009 death of their toddler after they turned to prayer instead of a doctor could face new charges now that another son has died.

Herbert and Catherine Schaible belong to a fundamentalist Christian church that believes in faith healing. They lost their 8-month-old son, Brandon, last week after he suffered from diarrhea and breathing problems for at least a week, and stopped eating. Four years ago, another son died from bacterial pneumonia.

I wrote:
Religious freedom! Now there's an abortion conservatives can rally behind.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3092

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   5/28/2013, 2:10 am

Couple who believe in faith healing charged with baby's murder

Quote :
A Philadelphia couple convicted of manslaughter for denying medical care to a child who died were charged Wednesday with the murder of another child.

Catherine and Herbert Schaible surrendered at police headquarters, The Philadelphia Inquirer reported. They were being held pending a bail hearing.

The Schaibles belong to First Century Gospel Church, which believes in treating illness with prayer.

The couple are charged with the third-degree murder of Brandon Scott Schaible. The baby, just over 7 months old, died in April of bacterial pneumonia and dehydration.

"Sadly, there is only one reason for it: his parents," District Attorney Seth Williams said at a news conference. "Instead of caring and nurturing him, they ultimately caused his death by praying over his body rather than taking him to the doctor."

A medical examiner ruled Tuesday that Brandon's death April 18 was a homicide, the Philadelphia Daily News reported. The medical examiner said the child began experiencing difficulty breathing, irritability and decreased appetite three days before he died.

But this is America! Where we should totally be able to murder our children so long as an deity we say exists says we can.

So sayeth the GOP. Yay Religious Freedom!
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3092

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   5/29/2013, 10:19 pm

Faith-Healing Churches Linked to 2 Dozen Child Deaths

Quote :
Two Philadelphia faith-healing churches have a long history of the youngest members of their congregation dying because parents refused medical care.

Families who attend Faith Tabernacle Congregation in North Philadelphia and First Century Gospel Church in Juniata Park have lost more than two dozen children to illness since 1971, according to non-profit Children’s Healthcare Is a Legal Duty, Inc. (CHILD, Inc.). Both churches believe in the power of prayer over modern medicine.

The Schaibles are one of those families.

Herbert and Catherine Schaible stand charged with third-degree murder and other crimes after their 7-month-old son Brandon died from bacterial pneumonia, dehydration and a group B streptococcus infection on April 18.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   8/27/2013, 10:08 am

Measles Outbreak Linked To Texas Megachurch Whose Pastor Has Spread Myths About Vaccines
Quote :
The current measles outbreak in Texas — which has sickened at least 21 people in the northern part of the state — has been linked to a megachurch that encourages faith healing. The Eagle Mountain International Church has a relatively high population of unvaccinated congregants, which allowed the highly-contagious virus to spread rapidly among them.

Texas’ state epidemiologist reported this week that he has traced the origins of the outbreak, which first emerged about two weeks ago. After a man became sick with measles while traveling to Indonesia, he passed the infection to the other attendees at the megachurch — which repeatedly attracts over a thousand people each Sunday — when he returned home. Measles spread to the congregation, the staff, and a daycare center on church property.

Even though the Texas county where the church is located has an overall vaccination rate of about 98 percent, state officials note that Eagle Mountain International Church includes a “pocket” of people who aren’t vaccinated. The children who contracted measles there are homeschooled, so their parents haven’t been required by state law to get them their measles, mumps, and rubella vaccine. That’s likely because senior pastor Terri Pearsons has expressed unfounded skepticism about vaccines in the past, repeating the widely debunked conspiracy theory that they can lead to autism.

Pearsons is the oldest daughter of conservative televangelist Kenneth Copeland, who has also endorsed anti-vaccine myths. Eagle Mountain International Church is a division of Kenneth Copeland Ministries, which maintains a position on “faith healing” that encourages people to make up their own minds about vaccines rather than putting too much stock in the scientific community. “Kenneth Copeland Ministries’ position regarding dealing with any medical condition involving yourself or someone in your family is to first seek the wisdom of God, His Word, and appropriate medical attention from a professional that you know and trust,” a statement from the executive offices of the organization explains. “Apply wisdom and discernment in carrying out their recommendations for treatment. This would include: vaccinations, immunizations, surgeries, prescriptions, or any other medical procedures.”

Measles, which is so contagious that 90 percent of the unvaccinated people who are exposed to it will get sick, used to kill about 500 Americans each year. Now, advances in immunizations have virtually eradicated the once-common childhood disease. But health officials warn that unvaccinated pockets like Eagle Mountain International Church could allow the virus to come back.

“This is a classic example of how measles is being reintroduced,” William Schaffner, an infectious disease expert at the Vanderbilt University School of Medicine, told USA Today. “This is a sadly misinformed religious leader.”

Since health officials first notified the megachurch about the measles outbreak in mid-August, they say church leaders have been very cooperative of their efforts to contain the virus. But Pearson has also continued to express her reservations about vaccines. “The concerns we have had are primarily with very young children who have family history of autism and with bundling too many immunizations at one time,” she said in a statement on August 15.

Since then, the church has since scheduled two vaccination clinics, and Pearson began urging congregants to get their shots. Pearson is also recommending that congregants take vitamin D to “fortify their immune systems,” even though there’s no scientific evidence that vitamins actually protect people against measles like a vaccination would.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3092

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   8/27/2013, 11:21 am

This is particularly indefensible, given how dangerous it is. Vaccinations also protect those who can't get them - infants, elderly, the sick, etc. And it appears that prayer is as ineffective against measles as it is against cancer, homicide, hurricanes, rape, fires, car accidents, indigestion, Republican stupidity, etc.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3092

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   11/2/2013, 3:21 pm

How religions—and the U.S. government—let children die

Quote :
I’ve been reading an enlightening but disturbing book:  When Prayer Fails: Faith Healing, Children, and the Law, by Shawn Francis Peters, which details how children of some religious parents are left to suffer and die because the sects of their parents abjure medical care. The parents pray instead of taking their kids to the doctors or the hospital. The book is full of disturbing tales of not only horrible neglect, but of how the law tends to overlook such treatment, letting off religious parents who fail to treat their children with regular medical care, or giving them lenient treatment like short probation.

. . .

Some of the kids who could have been saved had appendicitis, diabetes, diphtheria, meningitis, and measles.  There are also many babies and mothers who die in childbirth because they refuse to consult a doctor during a difficult birth.
Child sacrifice.  All in the name of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness*!"



*Offer not available to the children of idiots.
Back to top Go down
Artie60438

avatar

Posts : 9360

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   11/2/2013, 5:58 pm

Heretic wrote:
How religions—and the U.S. government—let children die

Quote :
I’ve been reading an enlightening but disturbing book:  When Prayer Fails: Faith Healing, Children, and the Law, by Shawn Francis Peters, which details how children of some religious parents are left to suffer and die because the sects of their parents abjure medical care. The parents pray instead of taking their kids to the doctors or the hospital. The book is full of disturbing tales of not only horrible neglect, but of how the law tends to overlook such treatment, letting off religious parents who fail to treat their children with regular medical care, or giving them lenient treatment like short probation.

. . .

Some of the kids who could have been saved had appendicitis, diabetes, diphtheria, meningitis, and measles.  There are also many babies and mothers who die in childbirth because they refuse to consult a doctor during a difficult birth.
Child sacrifice.  All in the name of "Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness*!"



*Offer not available to the children of idiots.
As Bill Maher said just last night,The GOP health plan is "god will heal you".
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3092

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   11/9/2013, 12:08 pm

Christian homeschoolers receive maximum jail time for death of child

Quote :
In Washington state a Christian homeschooling couple received maximum prison sentences allowable under the law after being found guilty of beating and starving their adopted daughter to death in accord with Biblical based parenting techniques.

Superior Court Judge Susan Cook showed no mercy to Larry and Carri Williams, found guilty of causing the tragic death of their adopted daughter, Hana, by using Biblical based parenting techniques found in the controversial child-rearing book, To Train up a Child, by Michael and Debi Pearl.

. . .

Hana’s death was consistent with a corporal punishment style advocated by many Christian extremists, and memorialized in the controversial book, To Train Up A Child. According to reports, Hana was beaten and starved as part of a regimen of corporal punishment subscribed to by many Christian homeschoolers and other Christian fundamentalists.

The New York Times reports that the couple's abusive parenting tactics mimicked instructions from the Christian parenting book. Evidence presented at trial indicated Carri Williams had repeatedly beaten Hana with a plastic tube - a device recommended in the book.

To Train Up A Child advocates using a plumbing tool to beat children with starting at age one. The book also advocates giving children cold water baths, putting children outside in cold weather, and forcing them to miss meals, as well as beating them; all of which exemplifies the abuse investigators said Hana endured.

The book is also linked to the deaths of at least two other children, four-year-old Sean Paddock of North Carolina and seven year-old Lydia Schatz of California. In each case, punishment techniques advocated by the controversial Christian parenting manual were used.
How dare they interfere with their religious freedom. This is America! Where we should be able to beat children to death if a magic, invisible, sky wizard demands it!
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3092

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   11/14/2013, 11:02 am

Meaty.

The Colbert Report
Get More: Colbert Report Full Episodes,Video Archive

Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3092

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   2/13/2014, 3:24 pm

I wrote:
The doc's got religious freedom to watch his patients die as dictated by his magic invisible sky wizard just as pharmacists are able to tell rape victims "no emergency contraception for you!", right?

As predicted, the GOP to the rescue!!!

Segregation Coming For All Gay People In Kansas

Quote :
Lawmakers in the Kansas House of Representatives have just passed a bill that allows any person or religious institution to refuse service to same-sex couples. The vote on HB 2453 was a whopping 72-49. The Kansas Senate, which has a strong Republican majority, will almost certainly pass the bill, and Kansas’ Republican and virulently homophobic governor, Sam Brownback, will not only sign it, but likely dance for joy when he does.

How big a deal is this?

In short, the bill allows anyone to refuse to provide service to any gay person or same-sex couple.

That “anyone” includes your doctor, a police woman, the fire department, the clerk at the DMV, a grocery store clerk, your local barber or hairdresser, your doorman, the person who comes to check your electric meter, a gas station attendant, your friendly neighborhood banker, stock broker, insurance salesperson, newspaper delivery person, cable repair man, garbage collector, heck — even your boss or co-worker.

The bill (PDF) states that “if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious beliefs of the individual or religious entity…no individual or religious entity shall be required by any governmental entity to…[p]rovide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care and other social services; or provide employment or employment benefits, related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement; solemnize any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement; or treat any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement as valid.”

"Religious freedom" or civil rights...? Clearly, we can't have both.
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3092

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   2/26/2014, 8:48 am

How to Determine If Your Religious Liberty Is Being Threatened in Just 10 Quick Questions

Quote :
1. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to go to a religious service of my own choosing.
B) Others are allowed to go to religious services of their own choosing.

2. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to marry the person I love legally, even though my religious community blesses my marriage.
B) Some states refuse to enforce my own particular religious beliefs on marriage on those two guys in line down at the courthouse.

3. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am being forced to use birth control.
B) I am unable to force others to not use birth control.

4. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to pray privately.
B) I am not allowed to force others to pray the prayers of my faith publicly.

5. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) Being a member of my faith means that I can be bullied without legal recourse.
B) I am no longer allowed to use my faith to bully gay kids with impunity.

6. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to purchase, read or possess religious books or material.
B) Others are allowed to have access books, movies and websites that I do not like.

7. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) My religious group is not allowed equal protection under the establishment clause.
B) My religious group is not allowed to use public funds, buildings and resources as we would like, for whatever purposes we might like.

8. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) Another religious group has been declared the official faith of my country.
B) My own religious group is not given status as the official faith of my country.

9. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) My religious community is not allowed to build a house of worship in my community.
B) A religious community I do not like wants to build a house of worship in my community.

10. My religious liberty is at risk because:

A) I am not allowed to teach my children the creation stories of our faith at home.
B) Public school science classes are teaching science.

Scoring key:

If you answered "A" to any question, then perhaps your religious liberty is indeed at stake. You and your faith group have every right to now advocate for equal protection under the law. But just remember this one little, constitutional, concept: this means you can fight for your equality -- not your superiority.

If you answered "B" to any question, then not only is your religious liberty not at stake, but there is a strong chance that you are oppressing the religious liberties of others. This is the point where I would invite you to refer back to the tenets of your faith, especially the ones about your neighbors.

Yup.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   3/2/2014, 2:14 pm

Heretic wrote:
Segregation Coming For All Gay People In Kansas

Quote :
Lawmakers in the Kansas House of Representatives have just passed a bill that allows any person or religious institution to refuse service to same-sex couples. The vote on HB 2453 was a whopping 72-49. The Kansas Senate, which has a strong Republican majority, will almost certainly pass the bill, and Kansas’ Republican and virulently homophobic governor, Sam Brownback, will not only sign it, but likely dance for joy when he does.

How big a deal is this?

In short, the bill allows anyone to refuse to provide service to any gay person or same-sex couple.

That “anyone” includes your doctor, a police woman, the fire department, the clerk at the DMV, a grocery store clerk, your local barber or hairdresser, your doorman, the person who comes to check your electric meter, a gas station attendant, your friendly neighborhood banker, stock broker, insurance salesperson, newspaper delivery person, cable repair man, garbage collector, heck — even your boss or co-worker.

The bill (PDF) states that “if it would be contrary to the sincerely held religious beliefs of the individual or religious entity…no individual or religious entity shall be required by any governmental entity to…[p]rovide any services, accommodations, advantages, facilities, goods, or privileges; provide counseling, adoption, foster care and other social services; or provide employment or employment benefits, related to, or related to the celebration of, any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement; solemnize any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement; or treat any marriage, domestic partnership, civil union or similar arrangement as valid.”

"Religious freedom" or civil rights...?  Clearly, we can't have both.



If a minister of any denomination came into a T-shirt store with a gay proprietorship and told the proprietor that he wanted 100 T-shirts for his congregation emblazoned with the slogan “Homosexuals Shall Burn in Hell”, do you believe that the proprietor has the right to refuse to fill such an order?
Back to top Go down
Heretic

avatar

Posts : 3092

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   3/2/2014, 3:58 pm

Answer my question first.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   3/2/2014, 4:13 pm

Heretic wrote:
Answer my question first.

I'd be more than happy to answer your question, but it would make it much easier if you were to actually ask me a question.
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   3/3/2014, 7:47 am

happy jack wrote:


If a minister of any denomination came into a T-shirt store with a gay proprietorship and told the proprietor that he wanted 100 T-shirts for his congregation emblazoned with the slogan “Homosexuals Shall Burn in Hell”, do you believe that the proprietor has the right to refuse to fill such an order?

Sure why not?
I'm pretty sure that the proprietorship has the right to refuse to make something that is obscene.

If I came into a T-shirt store with a conservative republican proprietorship and told him that I wanted 100 T-shirts emblazoned with the slogan "Republicans Are Sleazy Assholes", I think the proprietorship would have the right to refuse to fill such an order.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   3/3/2014, 9:26 am

edge540 wrote:
happy jack wrote:


If a minister of any denomination came into a T-shirt store with a gay proprietorship and told the proprietor that he wanted 100 T-shirts for his congregation emblazoned with the slogan “Homosexuals Shall Burn in Hell”, do you believe that the proprietor has the right to refuse to fill such an order?

Sure why not?
I'm pretty sure that the proprietorship has the right to refuse to make something that is obscene.

If I came into a T-shirt store with a conservative republican proprietorship and told him that I wanted 100 T-shirts emblazoned with the slogan "Republicans Are Sleazy Assholes", I think the proprietorship would have the right to refuse to fill such an order.



There is a difference. The statement, "Homosexuals Shall Burn in Hell", wrong-headed as it may be, is not obscene; it is a declaration of a religious belief for some. Should a proprietor be allowed by law to discriminate against a potential customer based upon that customer's religious beliefs?
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   3/3/2014, 10:31 am

happy jack wrote:
edge540 wrote:
happy jack wrote:


If a minister of any denomination came into a T-shirt store with a gay proprietorship and told the proprietor that he wanted 100 T-shirts for his congregation emblazoned with the slogan “Homosexuals Shall Burn in Hell”, do you believe that the proprietor has the right to refuse to fill such an order?

Sure why not?
I'm pretty sure that the proprietorship has the right to refuse to make something that is obscene.

If I came into a T-shirt store with a conservative republican proprietorship and told him that I wanted 100 T-shirts emblazoned with the slogan "Republicans Are Sleazy Assholes", I think the proprietorship would have the right to refuse to fill such an order.



There is a difference. The statement, "Homosexuals Shall Burn in Hell", wrong-headed as it may be, is not obscene...
That's your opinion. I think it is. It's rude, vulgar, coarse, crude and offensive.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   3/3/2014, 10:44 am

edge540 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
edge540 wrote:
happy jack wrote:


If a minister of any denomination came into a T-shirt store with a gay proprietorship and told the proprietor that he wanted 100 T-shirts for his congregation emblazoned with the slogan “Homosexuals Shall Burn in Hell”, do you believe that the proprietor has the right to refuse to fill such an order?

Sure why not?
I'm pretty sure that the proprietorship has the right to refuse to make something that is obscene.

If I came into a T-shirt store with a conservative republican proprietorship and told him that I wanted 100 T-shirts emblazoned with the slogan "Republicans Are Sleazy Assholes", I think the proprietorship would have the right to refuse to fill such an order.



There is a difference. The statement, "Homosexuals Shall Burn in Hell", wrong-headed as it may be, is not obscene...
That's your opinion. I think it is. It's rude, vulgar, coarse, crude and offensive.



The statement doesn’t say anything offensive about homosexuals; it merely delineates what a person of a particular religious persuasion believes will happen to homosexuals whenever their particular version of Judgment Day arrives. And it’s not rude, vulgar, coarse, crude and offensive to a person who holds such beliefs.
And again - should a proprietor be allowed by law to discriminate against a potential customer based upon that customer's religious beliefs?
Should a Muslim caterer be allowed to refuse service to a customer who wishes to retain him to cater a Jewish event?
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   3/3/2014, 12:19 pm

happy jack wrote:
edge540 wrote:
happy jack wrote:
edge540 wrote:
happy jack wrote:


If a minister of any denomination came into a T-shirt store with a gay proprietorship and told the proprietor that he wanted 100 T-shirts for his congregation emblazoned with the slogan “Homosexuals Shall Burn in Hell”, do you believe that the proprietor has the right to refuse to fill such an order?

Sure why not?
I'm pretty sure that the proprietorship has the right to refuse to make something that is obscene.

If I came into a T-shirt store with a conservative republican proprietorship and told him that I wanted 100 T-shirts emblazoned with the slogan "Republicans Are Sleazy Assholes", I think the proprietorship would have the right to refuse to fill such an order.



There is a difference. The statement, "Homosexuals Shall Burn in Hell", wrong-headed as it may be, is not obscene...
That's your opinion. I think it is. It's rude, vulgar, coarse, crude and offensive.



The statement doesn’t say anything offensive about homosexuals; it merely delineates what a person of a particular religious persuasion believes will happen to homosexuals whenever their particular version of Judgment Day arrives. And it’s not rude, vulgar, coarse, crude and offensive to a person who holds such beliefs.
Really now.
If I told you that you're going to burn in hell, you wouldn't find that rude and offensive?
If you told that to me I would find it extremely rude and offensive.
I don't give a shit if you believe it, it's still extremely rude and offensive.
Back to top Go down
happy jack

avatar

Posts : 5952

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   3/3/2014, 2:31 pm

edge540 wrote:
 If I told you that you're going to burn in hell, you wouldn't find that rude and offensive?

No, I'm pretty much resigned to that fact.
Back to top Go down
edge540

avatar

Posts : 1166

PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   3/3/2014, 3:25 pm

happy jack wrote:
edge540 wrote:
 If I told you that you're going to burn in hell, you wouldn't find that rude and offensive?

No, I'm pretty much resigned to that fact.

Yeah well except it's not a fact. As far as I know, I don't have any reason to think that you're going to burn in hell.
You hiding something?
Back to top Go down
Sponsored content




PostSubject: Re: Obama vs. religious freedom   

Back to top Go down
 
Obama vs. religious freedom
View previous topic View next topic Back to top 
Page 3 of 7Go to page : Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

Permissions in this forum:You cannot reply to topics in this forum
Let Freedom Reign! :: Nation/Other :: Nation/World-
Jump to: