Once again we find the conservative "Christian" opinions on religious freedom protected by the First Amendment to be grossly inaccurate in the following CNS opinion. http://www.cnsnews.com/commentary/bill-donohue/federal-agency-trashes-religious-liberty The question asked demands a response and that question can be answered. As noted the Constitution doesn't provide any protections for "gay rights or gay marriage" but the Fourteenth Amendment does expressly requires "equal protection under the law" for all people and that was the foundation for the Supreme Court decision striking down the prohibitions against same-sex (gay) marriage throughout the United States. The fact that the case dealt with denial of equal protection under the law related to same-sex marriages was fundamentally irrelevant with the exception of the fact that same-sex couples were being denied equal protection based upon the prohibition. The Supreme Court didn't "legalize" same-sex marriage but instead struck down the invidious laws that prohibited same-sex marriage in the United States because those laws infringed upon the rights of same-sex couples to marry in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment's equal protection clause. Next is the fact that the protection of religious freedom in the First Amendment only protects the right of the person to hold religious beliefs (opinions) but does not protect any religious "right to act" (actions) based upon those beliefs. In the article it refers to "religious exceptions" and the "exceptions" are "actions" based upon the religious beliefs and the US Supreme Court has already ruled upon this in Reynolds v United States . http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/98/145.html The denial of a "religious exemption" refers to allowing a person to discriminate against another person based upon their religious belief (e.g. the Christian commercial baker that refuses to make a wedding cake for a same-sex couple) and that discrimination is an "action" which would violate the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The baker's religious freedom to hold a "religious opinion" against same-sex marriage is not being violated by the Constitutinal requirement of "equal protection" that requires them to bake the cake. The suggestion that there is a conflict between the "Religious Right of Opinion" protected by the First Amendment and the Fourteenth Amendment's "Equal Protection Under the Law" for all people that relates only to "Actions" (i.e. religious discrimination) is complete and utter nonsense because the right of opinion is not infringed upon by the prohibition against actions based upon the opinion. The individual always has the right to their religious opinion but never has a right to act based upon that religious opinion where it would be a "violation of social duties or subversive of good order.".
It is interesting that when presented with the fact that only religious opinion, not actions based upon religious beliefs, is presented there are no "conservatives" willing to argue with the facts. They keep whining about their "religious freedom" being violated when they're not allowed to violate the rights of others and that has never been allowed under the Constitution nor does the First Amendment protection of religious freedom allow it. .
Let's review the relevant portion of the First Amendment, shall we? As worded, the protection is not only of belief, but of its exercise - an action. In my view, this negates the assertion that "the First Amendment only protects the right of the person to hold religious beliefs (opinions) but does not protect any religious "right to act" (actions) based upon those beliefs." The question then, is what actions constitute an actual exercise of one's religion? Worship certainly would fall under this. Purely personal conduct that doesn't involve the rights of others would also qualify. Where conflict arises is when the actions extend beyond the realms of personal conduct or worship, to one's interactions with others and the endangerment of their rights. There is no question in my mind concerning the marriage question. No one has a right to control others' ability to marry based on religious beliefs; those beliefs are the burden of the believer, not non-believers or those who hold a different set of beliefs about marriage. Editing to add: The correct exemption with regard to marriage is an exclusion from government control of the services places of worship provide or whom they must recognize as married within the context of their religion. The error, in my view, is in the assertion that religious rights trump all other rights. They certainly don't - no matter where in the list of rights they appear. It is always an issue of striking a balance between rights where conflicts between them arise. We, through our representational government, have decided that undue discrimination against certain groups of people is not in our collective best interest. The First Amendment's protection of religious rights is not an automatic exemption from any law one finds disagreeable. Exemption should only apply when it endangers what it truly protected - actions connected to worship and personal conduct. Once we move beyond these, it amounts to putting religion in a place of superiority that is not part of its protection. The "free exercise" of religion is no more an absolute than any other right.
Before all else we have to understand that the Natural Right is literally the Right of Thought (you can have any religious belief in your thoughts) while the First Amendment's provision is exclusively about the Freedom to Exercise the Natural Right and the Freedom to Exercise any Natural Right is always subordinate to any other Natural Right. There can't be an actual conflict between Natural Rights because the criteria for a Natural Right prohibits the conflict but how the person exercises their Rights can certainly conflict with another person's rights. For example we have the Natural Right of Liberty but we can't exercise that Right by walking into someone else's home uninvited. In this case what the "Christians" are basically demanding is the Freedom to Discriminate that violates the equal protection clause. Sorry but invidious discrimination is not allowable based upon any belief because all people are equal based upon their Natural Rights. There's another opinion article on same "Right to Discriminate" for churches in Massachusetts due to a recently passed anti-discrimination law. http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2016...e-jail-over-mass-anti-discrimination-law.html The law prohibits discrimination based upon gender identity and the Religious Right (Wrong) is in an uproar because it would allow a transgender person into the Church but this even flies in the face of Christian teachings that advocate the spreading of the Gospel to ALL people. Now apparently the religious bigots are saying to "All people Except Transgender people" by wanting to discriminate against them. I found the following statement to actually be very humorous. {quote=]“The law bootstraps the idea of gender identity onto existing Civil Rights laws,” MFI president Andrew Beckwith tells me. “Even having a sign in your church that says “This Bathroom is for Biological Women Only” could subject the pastor of the church to up to 30 days in jail.” Beckwith said under the law, the sign would be treated the same as if it had said, “Whites Only.” [/quote] Guess what Mr. Beckwith. To use personal beliefs to invidiously discriminate against a person based upon gender identity is identical to discriminating based upon race. There's no difference because both are protected under the Constitution. You have the right to not like them based upon any bigoted opinion you choose but you don't have a right to discriminate against anyone. I have absolutely no idea where the Religious Right (Wrong) came to believe that they have a Constitutionally protected Right to violate the Constitutional Rights of other people. The irony is that apparently the Religious Right (Wrong) believes that a bunch of transgenders are going to come and hang out at a church full of religious bigots that despise them. They can probably expect that to happen the day after hell freezes over.
What this really comes down to is that historically Christians have received preferential treatment under the laws that included violations of Constitution because Christians controlled the legislative process since the founding of the country. It was the white Anglo-Saxon Protestant men that had absolute control of our government for the first 130 of our nation and they've retained effective control of our government for the subsequent years since women were finally given the right to vote We're still stuck with the negative impact of "Christian" legislation. In the 1950's, based upon Christian condemnation of the "godless" Russians the Congress of the United States, controlled by Protestant men, abandoned the historical national motto of E Pluribus Unun (from many, one) that was inclusive of every person living in America and that had existed since 1776. They replaced it with "In God We Trust" (believing that only the "Christian" God mattered) which instantly excluded any diest, agnostic, or athiets living in the United State. The National Motto that Christians imposed upon the nation in the 1950's is just as discriminatory as the other forms of discrimination that they're now being denied because it discriminates against every American that doesn't believe in god. I'm hoping that the Supreme Court will review and overturn that law at some point in the future and the Christians will cry in their beer over that happening too. The nefarious creep of Christianity into our secular government has been going on since this country was founded and now that they're having their unconstitutional actions addressed they're screaming bloody murder.
...except the equal protection clause, like the rights detailed in the Bill of Rights, is a restriction on government, not individuals. Not that this distinction gives them a free pass to discriminate against members of the public; as I noted before, the First Amendment is not an exemption to laws one finds disagreeable. It seems to be much ado about nothing, since it's a law dealing with public accommodation. When did a place of worship become a place of public accommodation? The fact that a place of worship may be open to the public doesn't mean it has any obligation to provide services to members of the public.
This is incorrect as we know historically because the "equal protection clause" mandates government intervention whenever a person is nefariously denied equality by anyone in society. The failure of the government to protect a person's natural rights from the actions of others in society is to deny them equal protection under the law. We need to remember one very important fact about the government of the United States. Our government was not created to protect us from government itself but instead it was created to protect us from the violations of our natural rights by other people. If government was the source of the violations of the natural rights of the person then the solution is to have no government. People are the primary violators of the rights of the person and historically foremost among all of those that violate the natural rights of the people are those that do so for religious reason. How we define "public accommodation" is critically important. If an event is "open to the public" then aren't the organizers of the event providing "public accommodation" because the public is invited? If it's a "members only" event, limited exclusively to members and their guests, then it would be a "private event" and that doesn't relate to public accommodation. I've never heard of a church actually issuing membership cards or of limiting services to "members and guests" only like going to the bar at the local VFW that I'm a member of. As far as I know all church services are open to the general public and therefore the church most provide "public accommodation" to those that attend. That doesn't imply that they can't become "members and guests only" events that would not require public accommodation but then they have to bar entry if someone isn't a member or a guest of a member. That could easily cover the actual church religious service but what about the other social activities of the church? Are those also going to be limited to "members and guests" only? My point would be that the church can't claim a Constitutional right under the First Amendment to an exemption from "public accommodation" requirements as long as the event is open to the public. If it's a private event that would require membership or possibly a written invitation to attend then it isn't subject to the "public accommodation" requirement and doesn't require an exemption.
I'm not persuaded. Perhaps you could cite for us a case where the Court actually applied the "equal protection clause" to prevent private individuals from discriminating. The only thing that comes to mind as a means to get there, is by the Court's refusal to enforce contracts thatunduly discriminate - because doing so would amount to State-sanctioned discrimination. Pretty much anything else one is likely to read about the equal protection clause reflects its actual language as a restriction on government, not individuals. If you read the Bill of Rights, it's very clearly a restriction on government, not individuals. We fought a revolution to get out from under an oppressive government. The Bill of Rights exists to limit the power of government, in order to avoid a repetition of the past. No, the solution is to have the kinds of checks and balances established in our system of government, that place certain limitations on its power. The First Amendment, by way of example, is a restriction explicitly on the power of Congress. "Congress shall make no law..." etc. Likewise, the 14th's equal protection clause: "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." It's a restriction on the power of the individual states. People acting as agents of the state, perhaps. I do not think we should confuse what the "equal protection" clause does, versus what anti-discrimination statutes do. How it's defined is indeed of critical importance. In legal terms, it doesn't necessarily mean anything and everything accessible to the public. Religious entities have exemptions under Title VII. Nope. I have certificates of membership for the churches I had once joined - such things are indeed issued. I take it you've never been to a Roman Catholic service. Not everybody is eligible to participate in the Holy Eucharist. You might be allowed to attend the service, but not fully participate in it. Think of it this way - the public who aren't members are considered guests. As such, they can be made to leave, or barred from entry. There's also no obligation to accommodate everyone who wishes to become a member. A church can deny you membership for any reason they please - so long as they conform to their own 'laws'. To call them a 'public accommodation' is to stretch the meaning of the law beyond the way it has been understood and applied in longstanding practice. But your point is false. Churches have statutory exemption under Title VII.
