Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since the Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion, and since such large number of Americans are Christians, the Congress needs to respect the views of those people and consider passing a law which will allow people of faith to decline performing services which they believe will offend their god. Of course the law needs to be worded in such way it does not contradict other laws. If there is a will, there is a way.
Since the Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion, and since such large number of Americans are Christians, the Congress needs to respect the views of those people and consider passing a law which will allow people of faith to decline performing services which they believe will offend their god. Of course the law needs to be worded in such way it does not contradict other laws. If there is a will, there is a way.
The only way to do so would require a law that allows any person of any religious belief to deny services. That means that Muslims can refuse drivers licenses to women, or business licenses to places that sell pork or alcohol, or any service to anyone they may think is an infidel.
Heck I could create a religion tomorrow that would allow me to refuse service to anyone I choose. Who's to say my beliefs are not true? Do you want the government deciding which beliefs are valid and which aren't?
Open the door for Christians to violate the law, then you allow any and all to do so.
Since the Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion, and since such large number of Americans are Christians, the Congress needs to respect the views of those people and consider passing a law which will allow people of faith to decline performing services which they believe will offend their god. Of course the law needs to be worded in such way it does not contradict other laws. If there is a will, there is a way.
If you can demonstrate that your religion requites you to respond to things in others which you consider sin bye egregiously self-righteous attitudes and actions, you have a point. My reading comes out differently.
The only way to do so would require a law that allows any person of any religious belief to deny services. That means that Muslims can refuse drivers licenses to women, or business licenses to places that sell pork or alcohol, or any service to anyone they may think is an infidel.
Heck I could create a religion tomorrow that would allow me to refuse service to anyone I choose. Who's to say my beliefs are not true? Do you want the government deciding which beliefs are valid and which aren't?
Open the door for Christians to violate the law, then you allow any and all to do so.
Since the Constitution guarantees the free exercise of religion, and since such large number of Americans are Christians, the Congress needs to respect the views of those people and consider passing a law which will allow people of faith to decline performing services which they believe will offend their god. Of course the law needs to be worded in such way it does not contradict other laws. If there is a will, there is a way.
And yet the vast majority of Americans believe secular law trumps religious objection.
In general, when there’s a conflict between (someone’s religious beliefs) and (the need to treat everyone equally under the law), which do you think is more important?
Religious beliefs: 19%
Equal under the law: 74%
No opinion: 6%
As you may know, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that gay and lesbian couples have the right to marry. Nonetheless a county clerk in Kentucky has refused to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples, saying she objects on religious grounds. Do you think this county clerk should or should not be required to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples?
Required to issue: 63%
Not required to issue: 33%
No opinion: 4%
We already saw (or I think we did..for some reason the Kim Davis saga seems to be going on even after a compromise was reached) how a compromise could be reached to allow a person to personally not be required to perform a task that goes against their religious convictions. But that person cannot be allowed to prevent the service being provided by others to said persons. Which is where Ms. Davis went over the compromise line.
The same thing applies to Registrars here refusing to marry Gays. Muslim checkout operators refusing to handle bacon. Pharmacists refusing to handle the Pill...not prevent it being sold, but not handling it themselves. Refusing to serve alcohol on an aircraft.
The correct way is that they find another job. If a compromise can be found then that is not actually correct as it is discriminating in their favour so as to allow them to keep their job. This is a concession and not a right. It is a commuted sentence, it is not being found 'not guilty'.
The law is now clear on gay marriage. What is going on now (apart from martyred for their faith publicity stunts where the law was clearly being broken) the law is now tussling about whether a personal business offered to the public is still personal or is now public. So far as I can see, the law decided that offering a service to the public means that you cannot deny that service to some of the public.
In general, when there’s a conflict between (someone’s religious beliefs) and (the need to treat everyone equally under the law), which do you think is more important?
Religious beliefs: 19%
Equal under the law: 74%
No opinion: 6%
As you may know, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled that gay and lesbian couples have the right to marry. Nonetheless a county clerk in Kentucky has refused to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples, saying she objects on religious grounds. Do you think this county clerk should or should not be required to issue marriage licenses to gay and lesbian couples?
Required to issue: 63%
Not required to issue: 33%
No opinion: 4%
You are missing the point, although I must have repeated it 10 times.
If there is a will, there is a way to come up with a solution to satisfy both parties.
It is not about issuing, or not issuing the licenses. They can be issued, while allowing certain people to decline signing them. Someone else can sign them.
You are missing the point, although I must have repeated it 10 times.
If there is a will, there is a way to come up with a solution to satisfy both parties.
It is not about issuing, or not issuing the licenses. They can be issued, while allowing certain people to decline signing them. Someone else can sign them.
No, it is YOU who miss the point: the "will" to work out a compromise must come from both sides. "Do it my way: problem solved" does not demonstrate a will to find a solution.
No, it is YOU who miss the point: the "will" to work out a compromise must come from both sides. "Do it my way: problem solved" does not demonstrate a will to find a solution.
Was my post #152 difficult to understand?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
