Religious freedom is code word for intolerance, says civil rights chairman.

I agree - that would have been not allowing gay people to appear on tv, serve in the military, sign a civil document, adopt children or be arrested just because some view it as "sin" - it is also not imposing beliefs to request a baker bake a cake.

 

They don't make that argument because they are concerned that they may lose the protections they have been given. They are fine with others being forced to serve them, rent to them and employ them - what they have issue with is others having the same protections.

They demand special accommodations

 

Religious types deserve nothing more than contempt. Let's talk about what they're trying to do with this religious freedom nonsense. They are attempting to use bronze age fairy tales as a basis for contemporary law. How can people not have a problem with that? Why do your superstitions serve as basis for laws that affect everyone? Of course religious freedom laws are nothing more than attempts by religious crackpots to reinforce their bias and hatred. Hypocrisy knows no bounds with these people.

It's ironic when religious types scream about intolerance of their beliefs. It almost always in response to them trying to discriminate against someone. Tolerance of religiously fueled bigotry is not tolerance.

 

some Christians and Muslims need to learn to play well with others... most are good people and could care less about someone elses love life

 

Religions say some crazy things, such as kill gays, treat women as 1/2 a man, and some magic zombie from Nazareth will magically let you survive your own death up in a happy invisible place in the sky if you simply believe in him enough, etc. Obviously Modern Secular Humanism is the way of the future.

 

"Good people" don't give their children texts that say to KILL them if they happen to turn out the way their god made them - i.e. GAY! "Good people" don't approve of texts that say to kill innocent people. Modern Secular Humanists are indeed "good people", however.

- - - Updated - - -

"Jesus" will see (according to about 12 verses in the Bible, that is) that Jews, no matter how ethical they are, or how hard they work, or how much charity they do, burn, burn, and burn some more....for eternity. Yes, Jesus deserves contempt.

 

Who doesn't want to serve gay people? Can you find even one example? Sweet Cakes in Oregon was more than willing and actually had previously sold baked goods to the lesbian. IT WAS ONLY a wedding cake for a same sex wedding that they didn't want to provide.

 

Typical libbie tactic, take a phrase like 'religious freedom' and try to turn it into something just the opposite....'intolerance.'

 

It is beginning to seem that way.

- - - Updated - - -

You're missing the point. Even if we force businesses to accommodate homosexuals, you still have the right to express your religion and it won't conflict with such laws.

The religious angle is stupid. It never works.

 

It means being able to practice your religion without interference from government.

 

That point would be worth exploring (but the thorny matter of interpretation of scripture complicates things).

I'm not sure the Koran specifically precludes separation of church and state. It does state there is no compulsion in religion, and the Prophet saw *some* Christians and *some* Jews as true believers in the One True God, ie, the God of Abraham (Jehovah, or Allah in Arabic). There were many splintered Jewish and Christian sects in his time (c.600AD) - for which he despised them; nevertheless he did see some 'good' people (in his eyes) amongst them. And the Prophet had no idea of the incredible speed with which Islam would spread across the globe; in my reading of the Koran, I don't recall him mentioning the issue of religion in relation to government. He states that the Koran is a Revelation for Arabs (who were pagans and polytheists at the time). And he certainly did not mention the idea of a leader to succeed him, which is why Muslims almost immediately after his death began fighting amongst themselves - resulting in the Sunni/Shia split.

Back to Christian doctrine: it's unfortunate early Christians insisted on seeing Jesus as the Jewish Messiah prophesied in the Old Testament. The Jews themselves (the vast majority) refuted this and still do.
The early Christian Church father Marcion, one of the early compilers of the evolving New Testament cannon, rightfully saw the incompatibility of the Old and the New Testaments; indeed Jesus' kingdom is not of this world, whereas Jehovah was not above authorising genocide on behalf of his 'chosen people' (in the late bronze age 1300-1000BC, during the exodus and conquest of the 'promised land'). Marcion rejected such a God. Christ's Two Great Commandments and the Sermon on the Mount belong to an entirely different age and posit an entirely different God - Eternal Love perhaps. So we have the schizophrenic Bible of today - no wonder church authorities in the Middle Ages were given to burning alive those who dared to translate it for the common people.

(In my reading of history, The Prophet chose the wrong God......)

 

So law doesn't apply to religious persons? Muslim law requires death to infidels.
The government cannot stop you from expressing your religion - they can however expect you to follow the laws of the nation.

 

Republicans are the ones doing that. Not liberals.
The religious freedom bills only exist to allow discrimination - destroying the phrase is on them

 

Provided that (from Article18, paragraph 3 of the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights):

I hope you can agree.

 

Unfortunately, it is a literal interpretation of the koran and hadiths that leads to this wave of Islamic terrorism.

Do you really think that the Islamic Caliphates that existed from 632 until the 1920s was some kind of departure from Islam as opposed to implementation of Islam?

Are you familiar with the concept of Meccan verses and Medinan verses? The "no compulsion in religion" verse came from Muhammad when he was in Mecca with his new religion and just a handful of converts. The people of his own tribe were opposed to him and his new religion. They were throwing camel (*)(*)(*)(*) at him and dumping garbage in front of his place. He was in no position to compel anything. Then later came the Medinan verses when Muhammad had an army of supporters in Medina.

Surah 2:106:None of Our revelations do We abrogate or cause to be forgotten, but We substitute something better or similar: Knowest thou not that Allah Hath power over all things?

Surah 16:101
When We substitute one revelation for another,- and Allah knows best what He reveals (in stages),- they say, "Thou art but a forger": but most of them understand not.

and the new declaration-

[9.5] So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Literally, CONVERT OR DIE. What some might consider compulsion.

Dr. al-Buti “The Jurisprudence of Muhammad’s Biography”

(p. 287) "It may be said, 'What is the value of a faith in Islam which is a result of a threat? Abu Sufyan, one moment ago, was not a believer, then he believed after he was threatened by death.' We say to those who question: 'What is required of an infidel or the one who confuses other gods with God, is to have his tongue surrender to the religion of God and to subdue himself to the prophethood of Muhammad. But his heart felt faith is not required at the beginning. It will come later."

Because the text of the bible, could and would demonstrate the illegitimacy of the divine rule of the catholic church in the Protestant reformation. Could be used by Thomas Paine in his Pamphlet "Common Sense" to demonstrate the illegitimacy of the divine rule of monarchs and the legitimacy of government of, by and for the people. JUST AS the likes of Al Qaeda and ISIS can use the text of the koran to demonstrate the illegitimacy of any governance other than the Islamic caliphate.

The perfect god if your goal is conquering new territory to rule over and collect tax. Through the implementation of Islamic government applying Islamic doctrine as law.

Speaking to the authority of the Caliph, Ibn Khaldoon from the 1300s defined it as: "A representation, of the one who has the right to adopt the divine rules, aimed at protecting the Deen and ruling the world (Dunia) with it."

Like Al-Mawirdi before him in the 11th century defined it as: "Succession of the Prophethood aimed at protecting the Deen and ruling the world (Dunia)"

or from 1785

"But one cannot get around what Jefferson heard when he went with John Adams to wait upon Tripoli’s ambassador to London in March 1785. When they inquired by what right the Barbary states preyed upon American shipping, enslaving both crews and passengers, America’s two foremost envoys were informed that “it was written in the Koran, that all Nations who should not have acknowledged their authority were sinners, that it was their right and duty to make war upon whoever they could find and to make Slaves of all they could take as prisoners, and that every Mussulman who should be slain in battle was sure to go to Paradise.”

 

Well, certainly if we put you in charge of deciding how one will be permitted to "express" their religion. I don't see some Christian baker who has previously served the lesbian customer baked goods but doesn't want to serve a same sex wedding cake because she sees it as a mockery of a sacred institution, to be an unreasonable "express"ion of her Christian faith. Especially when our only concern is the inconvenience of going to a different baker to get the same cake at a better price.

 

You are allowed to express your religion until that expression interferes with another unwilling party or violates law. You do not get special provisions outside of the 1A which y'all have twisted and perverted.

 

Conflicting interest need to be weighed and compared. And there is no comparison between the inconvenience of going to a different baker and getting the same cake at a better price, and death.

 

The church down the street interferes with me with traffic on weekends, 100s of times more than Sweet Cakes interfered with the lesbian couple who was able to go to another baker and get the same cake for a better price. AND the only unwilling party is the business owner you want to force to serve a particular customer that they do not want to serve.

 

Not if you consider the right to force a business to serve you when they don't want to, to be a "fundamental right"

 

Like I have stated 200 times, I believe any small owner operated business that does not drastically impact the patron should be able to deny service to anyone for any reason. You are the one advocating for special provisions. These facilities should be mandated to post what groups they refuse service to.

Since you want to allow people claiming religious beliefs special rules - do you believe they should be able to deny service to blacks, people have used religion in the last to do this - just trying to see how far back you want to take the country.

 

So there are limitations on "religious freedom", good to know.
Can I fire someone because they are black? There is probably another job down the street...
Can I deny housing to a gay? Houses are everywhere
Can I refuse to care for the child of a religious person? Doctors abound

What about just not serving them at my restaurant, maybe I could even make them a special section.
Wonderful vision of the future y'all have.

 

The USA government routinely violated the religious rights from the Jehovah's Witnesses and others who refused to fight the imperialistic war of terrorism in Vietnam. Strangely, the right wing which harps on "loss" of religious freedom failed to take notice back then.

 

I think we need to dispense with the word "tolerance" altogether when discussing these issues. We shouldn't tolerate bigotry. I can support the right of anyone to refuse service for any reason. I can't sanction bigotry even if I can't stop it. Nothing is as intolerable as the intolerance of the tolerance police on any side of an issue. Religious bigots need to deal with being condemned for being bigots and if they get to discriminate against lesbians then atheists get to discriminate against the religious.

 

I have questions,
does anybody heard a Pastor or a Priest did sent someone to prison because of disbelief?
or does anyone being bludgeoned by the same for such an error?