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.
"God did allow slavery, but He allowed it for a simple purpose: to help the poor survive. A person could sell himself into slavery (akin to indentured servitude) in order to pay off debt or provide a basic subsistence."
This The Bible and Slavery after I read that, I dropped the research subject and went on. (—Exodus 21:2-6.)
I will retract the statement (only because I can not find where I read it) that is was 'required', however to say that it was man's (not immoral) law, legal to do so, that is true.
The Bible law, ministers and gay marriage and how the Bible addresses that. You're right it doesn't discuss a law for that situation. However, it can be addressed through (man's law) the law of the land:
Let every person be subject to the governing authorities. For there is no authority except from
God, and those that exist have been instituted by God. Therefore whoever resists the authorities
resists what God has appointed ...
Indeed slavery was accepted but it was hardly slavery as known today. It was as you note, a way for the poor to eat. You either worked or went hungry. Good or bad isn't something one can judge by today's standards.
It really doesn't have much to do with your argument that it's O.K. for believers to go against their beliefs as long as it's legal.
Indeed slavery was accepted but it was hardly slavery as known today. It was as you note, a way for the poor to eat. You either worked or went hungry. Good or bad isn't something one can judge by today's standards.
It really doesn't have much to do with your argument that it's O.K. for believers to go against their beliefs as long as it's legal.
Consent is the key. If both parties consent, nothing wrong there. If one is coerced into something, that's the problem.
Let's say I'm a doctor who believes that elective abortions after the third trimester take the life of a real live human baby. Can I be forced to provide those abortions against my moral objections, just because I don't belong to some religion?
You should not be forced to provide a service that conflicts with your morals.
Time to tax churches like any business. If religious people ever had any special moral standing, they abandoned it a long time ago in favor of selfish, hateful politics.
I'm looking forward to the convenience of going to the Muslim butcher nearby and being able to get a quality pork shoulder.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bleidd
Because this whole issue is just a political game to these people.
By game you mean the ridiculous nonsense that treating every customer the same would somehow magically mean that a butcher has to change what products they stock - that kind of silly game?
That's because, unlike Indiana, none of the other RFRAs explicitly allows for-profit businesses to assert a right to "the free exercise of religion." And in some of those states sexual orientation is a protection class. Furthermore, Louisiana and Pennsylvania explicitly exclude for-profit businesses from the protection of their RFRAs.
So Goldberg and many others here are either too lazy to read the actual text of those laws or are intentionally lying when to say that Indiana's law is just like other RFRA's.
Which is it?
There are two different ways to aproach this, one is that the Indiana law does allow a person or business to bring a case against another individual or business. However, another way to aproach this, is some states lowered the bar for when a person may claim their religious freedom has been harmed.
Here is the text for the Indiana law:
Sec. 9. A person whose exercise of religion has been substantially burdened,*or is likely to be substantially burdened,*by a violation of this chapter may assert the violation or impending violation as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding,*regardless of whether the state or any other governmental entity is a party to the proceeding.
But other states like Connecticut's religious freedom law states that government shall not “burden a person’s exercise of religion,” notice how the bar has been lowered by leaving out the word “substantially” in Connecticut’s law. So even if a person in Indiana thinks their religious freedoms have been harmed, they have a higher proof of harm to show a substantial burden, not simply a burden.*
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.
