Smart Republican

[spence]

Originally Posted by buckman

It wasn't a bill that was designed to reverse antidiscrimination laws.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Not reverse but rather open up a very fuzzy loophole.

Interesting that there's not a problem with religious freedoms being violated, but they want to pass a bill just in case. I'd be willing to wager that had the bill passed, like magic the violated would start coming out of the woodwork with political action groups pushing them forward.

-spence

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by spence

Not reverse but rather open up a very fuzzy loophole.

It's amazing and instructive to see how far the Constitution has been deconstructed when the first amendment is considered, not the law, but a loophole.

Interesting that there's not a problem with religious freedoms being violated, but they want to pass a bill just in case.

When fundamental freedoms are no longer considered unalienable rights, but are only those rights and freedoms allowed and defined by the government (which was originally prohibited from denying or defining those rights)--when that is the case, then government decides whether those rights are being violated since it prescribes what those rights are. Because you subscribe to this transformation of all rights being dispensed by government, it is easy to see why you think there is no problem with religious freedoms being violated. And why it would be redundant to pass a bill when one is not needed.

On the other hand, those who view certain rights as being inherent and existent before government, and beyond its reach, experience government denying them their exercise of those rights because they conflict with government mandated "rights" meant to benefit specific groups rather than to equally protect everyone, they might well see the only legal, peaceful, recourse would be to "pass a bill" to protect their rights.

I'd be willing to wager that had the bill passed, like magic the violated would start coming out of the woodwork with political action groups pushing them forward.

-spence

Isn't that what is actually happening every time gay activists win a court decision? Aren't those "victims" now coming out of the woodwork in greater frequency and numbers and locations in an unstoppable tide?

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by spence

Interesting that there's not a problem with religious freedoms being violated, but they want to pass a bill just in case. -spence

Spence, from where do you get the idea that no religious freedoms are being violated? There have been cases, valid cases, of the government ordering people to do that which violates their beliefs. I posted one about a Christian baker who wanted nothing to do with a gay wedding, and the govt said "serve that wedding or we'll fine you." In other words, the government said "we have the authority to tell you what you can believe and what you can't believe".

Let's say a black person owns a house-painting business. If I ask him to paint a confederate flag on the side of my house, does he have the right to say no, or doesn't he?

Like hell no religious freedoms are being violated. The proposed bill is not anti-gay, it is pro-first amendment. Big difference.

I support gay marriage. But I have huge problems with the government telling its citizenry what they are allowed to believe. Everyone should be appalled at that. We cannot ignore the parts of the Constitution that aren't fashionable at the time. If we decide religious freedom only exists until someone's feelings are hurt, we need to amend the Constitution to reflect that. Until then, someone should tell homosexual agitators that freedom of religion applies to everyone, even people they don't always agree with.

Freedom of speech means that someone can hang a painting of Christ covered in feces. Freedom of assembly means that the Klan can hold a rally. Freedom of the press means that Ed Schultz can call Laura Ingraham a "right-wing slut" on the air. And like it or not, freedom of religion (in a country that truly is free) means that I have the right to decline to provide services for, or attend, a gay wedding.

Freedom ain't free. It means you'll occasionally have to put up with that which makes your skin crawl. There's this liberal tolerance and inclusion on display, where liberals want diversity in everything, except in ideas. If you will tolerate others to express their opinions which you despise, you respect freedom. Anything else is called totalitarianism. Which do we want to be, Spence?