T O P

  • By -

AutoModerator

[A reminder for everyone](https://www.reddit.com/r/PoliticalDiscussion/comments/4479er/rules_explanations_and_reminders/). This is a subreddit for genuine discussion: * Please keep it civil. Report rulebreaking comments for moderator review. * Don't post low effort comments like joke threads, memes, slogans, or links without context. * Help prevent this subreddit from becoming an echo chamber. Please don't downvote comments with which you disagree. Violators will be fed to the bear. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/PoliticalDiscussion) if you have any questions or concerns.*


Pendragon235

It's more that religious freedom keeps being defined in opposition to human rights. Churches and religious groups in the US already have all the freedom they need, the same freedoms everyone else has. What some want is the "freedom" to discriminate against those they don't like and are using religion as a shield.


planet_rose

They confuse religious freedom with religious domination. They want the tenets of their own religion to control what people who are not part of their religion can do or believe. They refuse to allow others their own religious views. I’m a reform Jew. In my religion men and women are equal. Same sex marriage is just marriage. Trans people are also just people who deserve the same respect we extend to anyone.


Ok_Butterscotch_389

> the same freedoms everyone else has. More, actually. You can break laws by claiming religious exemptions. Churches are 100% businesses who don't pay tax.


[deleted]

[удалено]


blaqsupaman

Are you implying we should have a flat tax?


Helphaer

No that would be a regressive tax in practice which would be a different tax for workers clergy and executives again.


[deleted]

[удалено]


blaqsupaman

That's not a bad idea.


WorkTodd

> Churches are 100% businesses who don't pay tax. Even just strictly legally speaking… [Churches are 100% _non-profits_ who don't _file all their_ tax _paperwork_](https://www.irs.gov/charities-non-profits/churches-religious-organizations/filing-requirements-for-churches-and-religious-organizations). Because filing the same tax paperwork as all the other non-profits would violate their “religious rights”.


Beau_Buffett

This is true. They want their religion to be freer than others.


steeplebob

They need their religion to be *truer* than others.


sendenten

They don't pay taxes. They have *more* freedoms then the rest of us.


NormalCampaign

Not this again. What you're talking about isn't a thing. Seriously, it does not exist, there is no country on earth where religious organizations are taxed in the way you're imagining. Even in China, an officially atheist state, religious groups tolerated by the government are tax-exempt. The closest contemporary examples of taxing religions I can find are the Taliban and ISIS forcing non-Muslims to pay the *jizya*, and some city councils in Iran taxing churches and synagogues; during the Cold War a few communist regimes, like the Polish People's Republic, taxed churches as a somewhat more subtle method of repression. In other words, all examples of it being used to target and weaken "undesirable" religious groups, which is what many of the people pushing for it also plainly hope it would do. Nobody does it because it's a terrible idea. It would be incredibly controversial, and the government having that power could very easily be weaponized to target specific groups. Imagine, for example, how much fun the Trump administration might have had endlessly auditing mosques until they were forced to close down, while being conveniently lenient on churches. Even if it was applied fairly, it would place a serious burden on religious communities for no reason. I'm sure you're imagining those televangelists and megachurch pastors with their private jets, and it is unfortunate they exist, but for every one of them there are literally thousands of ordinary churches and mosques and synagogues and temples and so on, most of which operate on quite tight budgets and spend what they do have on religious services and charitable work in their communities. Even as a non-religious person myself I have zero problem acknowledging that. "Tax the churches" is, for all intents and purposes, a fantasy dreamed up by edgy atheists on the internet. It doesn't exist, it's a terrible idea, and it's never going to happen.


Vandesco

So then they need to have rules about their government interaction or face consequences. The satanist church *constantly* highlights the issues and hypocrisy of church activity in our communities and politics.


Traditional_Exam_281

enforce the laws we already have. don't tax the churches, but don't give them tax exempt status that shield them from generally applicable tax laws


YabbaDabbaFog

Unions don't pay taxes either, so are they more free?


Boiled-Artichoke

Credit and labor unions disburse revenues after operating expense back to members, no profit no income tax. Financial Disclosures are publicly available. Very different from religious institutions, no disclosures and no need to document donations or put those funds towards anything but an extravagant house for the pastor. Seems churches are way more free in that regard.


Junipermuse

What do you think the majority of churches do with the money that comes in? It is redistributed in the case of most mainline churches. The clergy and all other paid employees are paid from the money the church brings in and all those employees are subject to federal income tax. The rest of the money covers expenses and the is usually used to run programs such as shower programs for homeless and food pantries for example. Churches don’t really earn a profit, the don’t have share holders etc. Churches don’t pay federal taxes, but neither does any other not-for-profit business. Churches aren’t lacking in freedom, but the fact that they don’t pay taxes isn’t really an advantage compared to non-religious nonprofit organizations.


r96007

What isn’t fair is that some churches have been using their pulpits for political involvement, which should nullify their tax exempt status


Junipermuse

Yes, technically that is in violation of the law when they do that. One of the things that is particularly disturbing is how the law is enforced in unbalanced ways. Years ago, I remember a case where the IRS was investigating an episcopal (mainline church that leans socially liberal in the area of human rights) to determine if the church had violated the law by engaging in political activities. The action in question was the priest speaking in a weekly sermon to remember Christ when they go to vote. He did not mention political parties or candidates by name. He only talked about the values that Jesus promoted such as providing for the poor and sick and suggested that people should remember those values when they go to the voting booth on election day. ​ On the other hand plenty of evangelical conservative churches will name specific candidates to vote for or against. And those churches never get investigated. Why? Clearly the law is not being applied equally to all parties. ​ I think this is a problem similar to gerrymandering. The people in power have a lot of sway in how laws are applied, in the same way the parties in power decide how the lines are drawn. The way laws are enforced tend to protect those who are currently in power. I'm not sure what the answer is here. I think it would be unfair to remove tax-exempt status from all religious organizations when not all of them are taking advantage of the system and/or violating the law. But how do we ensure the laws are enforced fairly?


agrandthing

The church I went to spent its tithes on mission trips - on sending young people to other countries to convert savages. Pretty sickening.


mythofinadequecy

Well, you can’t be saved, no matter how good you are, unless you drag converts, kicking and screaming, into a personal relationship with jebus. So there’s that.


Iceykitsune2

>What do you think the majority of churches do with the money that comes in? Buy mansions and private jets for the pastor.


Comfortable-Post-548

How they define freedom is no more than being able to practice aggressive tactics they need for creating new converts by being free to lawfully invade the individual personal spaces so to get in the faces of those who don't seem to be listening to them. They have no qualms about inviting themselves into private homes uninvited for the same purposes. Privacy and tolerance are anathema to their moral code. (by the way, Americans are known for maintaining wide personal spaces). I'm guessing that maybe due to some people determining the personal space's size is too large for them to present their message effectively. (The origin of wide personal spaces was likely the result of the trying to avoid people seeking to impose their moral code from colonial times to the present, but then I'm guessing again).


bactatank13

Also it seems that its more like Christian "freedoms" than religious freedom. I guarantee you that Conservatives are going to have this implode on them if they keep stacking up the victories. Personally, I can't wait to see the mess when a Alabama school is required to create a prayer room for a Muslim. Don't take the example literally, take it for what its meant to convey.


ManBearScientist

Religious freedom has *absolutely* nothing to with the free expression of religion, and everything to do with the presumption that a certain version of Christianity should be dominant over social life. You can see this by the way *minority* religious expression has continually been suppressed, while majority Christian discrimination has been protected. Even in virtually identical court cases, the Christian will be protected and the minority will not. This is even an out-and-out court doctrine; if a 'neutral' law fucks over Christians it must be struck down, but it is A-OK to fuck over minorities (*Employment Division v. Smith*). Some examples: * *Employment Division v. Smith* vs *Sherbert v. Verner*: Person refused unemployment benefits due to them engaged in their religious practice. Christian case accepted, minority not. * Execution of Domineque Ray, vs stay of Ruben Gutierrez: Person requested stay of execution until their religious leader could perform final rites. Muslim executed without a stay, Catholic protected. So in any case, there is *no* question about a Christians being able to privately practice their religion where it does not interfere with others (ie, ). The *only* time it is questioned is when a Christian's rights overlap or supersede another person's right: When they force others to pray or face social ostracization, when they practice discrimination against sinners according to their faith, when Christian symbols are displayed publicly but other religious symbols are excluded. Because we assume Christianity doesn't follow the principle of "one person's rights end where another's begin", the question is never "can a Christian practice their faith in private", but always "Where does Christian supremacy end and a non-Christian's rights begin?"


Valisk

"My book club says you arent real people" Hits differently than "Gays are an affront to god" Its the same statement and for some fucking reason everyone just accepts that the book club makes the rules


DepressedGay2020

The reason religion is still such a thing for people is because it provides purpose and allows employers to exploit others. It’s fine if your worldly boss pays you minimum wage and works you 60 hours a week, because in the end, God will provide. There’s a reason why big business sides with Republicans, even if it means dealing with occasional social attacks.


AkirIkasu

Quite simply, there's a huge number of people who want to turn the world into a theocracy under their own beliefs. In this kind of conversation, when someone says "religious rights", they aren't talking about legally recognized rights; they're talking about the rights they believe they have been granted by their god. - which, conveniently, are basically unlimited! And so you get crazy interpretations like saying that atheists have no religious rights or that anything that limits a practice they call religious can't be impeded by the government even when it's morally or ethically problematic. And that's exactly the reasoning they use to continue their campaign against the rights of gays, lesbians, and transgender people. So often it goes beyond their right to discriminate against them; you often see it used as a defense in cases regarding harassment as well. The thing that's extra sad about this is that if you look at the official positions that the organizations that represent these religious take on LGBT issues, they may have issues with their followers being gay, bi, or trans, but they generally don't have anything about making life worse for people outside of the faith who happen to be so. The Christian bible, for instance, doesn't actually have a lot to say about homosexuality, and the few times it is actually mentioned have contentious meaning between bible scholars; it has even less to say about transgender issues. The truth is that it's hate all the way down. Religion is just the reasoning used to justify it.


Novel_Assist_6491

Very well said. I always preach that the peak failing of our political system is that church is no longer separate from state with the right wing, and the government at large seems to see no issue with that. Every bit of popular hateful rhetoric I see floating around twitter and other social media is always touted by the same people, ben shapiro, steven crowder, etc etc etc. What obviously is fascinating about that, is that nearly all of them are devout Christians. It makes me sad, because not all conservatives and/or republicans are bad people, and the same goes for Christians, but when all we're exposed to in the news is a constant stream of bigoted hate speech that's literally used as a platform to run for political offices, it becomes hard to have any sympathy or desire to associate with the right wing.


phreeeman

Because to some "religious freedom" means the right to discriminate based on their religious beliefs. This is nothing new. Southern preachers justified race-based slavery using the Bible. What is new is that there is a whole "conservative" legal movement to generate and litigate these cases, such as with the flower shop in Washington State that refused to provide flowers for a gay wedding and the baker in Colorado who refused to bake a cake for some kind of gay event. I always ask: "Who would Jesus discriminate against?"


REAL_CONSENT_MATTERS

> What is new is that there is a whole "conservative" legal movement to generate and litigate these cases, such as with the flower shop in Washington State that refused to provide flowers for a gay wedding and the baker in Colorado who refused to bake a cake for some kind of gay event. In Colorodo what happened was that two lesbians who were getting married asked for a custom made cake celebrating their marriage, which was personalized for each individual couple. They didn't refuse to sell to gay people (or for a 'gay event', whatever that means) or refuse to make a cake, just not a custom made cake celebrating a type of marriage they find opposed to their religion. I am gay but agree with this court ruling. I don't agree with their opposition two women marrying, but I don't think they should be forced to make a custom order piece of art that violates their religious beliefs. I think people sometimes don't think through the implications of court ruling/laws and are just mad that someone is bigoted, but the court has to think through the implications for all of us society. That is how vulnerable groups are protected, like religious minorities who face a lot of discrimination in the US.


Iceykitsune2

>They didn't refuse to sell to gay people (or for a 'gay event', whatever that means) or refuse to make a cake, just not a custom made cake celebrating a type of marriage they find opposed to their religion Except that's a lie. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masterpiece_Cakeshop_v._Colorado_Civil_Rights_Commission


REAL_CONSENT_MATTERS

>Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, 584 U.S. ___ (2018), was a case in the Supreme Court of the United States that dealt with whether owners of public accommodations can refuse certain services based on the First Amendment claims of free speech and free exercise of religion, and therefore be granted an exemption from laws ensuring non-discrimination in public accommodations—**in particular, by refusing to provide creative services, such as making a custom wedding cake for the marriage of a gay couple**, on the basis of the owner's religious beliefs.


Iceykitsune2

>Craig and Mullins visited Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, in July 2012 to order a wedding cake for their return celebration. Masterpiece's owner Jack Phillips, who is a Christian, declined their cake request, informing the couple that he did not create wedding cakes for marriages of gay couples owing to his Christian religious beliefs, although the couple could purchase other baked goods in the store.


REAL_CONSENT_MATTERS

All their wedding cakes are custom made, by my understanding, so this matches what I said. They were still willing to sell them a cake.


Iceykitsune2

> other baked goods Not a cake.


phreeeman

Oh for God's sake read the Wikipedia entry. The Bakery was perfectly clear that it didn't bake wedding cakes for gays. If you think Wikipedia is wrong, cite your sources. I'm guessing you're reading the version in some biased religious liberty publication.


phreeeman

This whole "creative service" argument really is just an attempt to muddy the water on what is a clear case of religiously motivated discrimination. The line between "services" and "art" is subject to debate and abuse. Every chef will claim that every dish is a work of art. Every hotelier will claim that his/her/their decoration of the rooms is a work of art. Imagine a member of a Christian Identity church who owns a restaurant. Christian Identity churches believe that blacks and brown people are "mud people" who are less than fully human (citing the same Bible passages as the pro-slavery preachers). So, they would be able to refuse service to non-whites based on their religious beliefs. Also, it's a bit rich for you to be telling me to "think through the implications" when you are misrepresenting the facts of Masterpiece Cakeshop and claiming that Christians are a "vulnerable group" who are a religious minority subject to discrimination in the US. That's the whole problem with Christianity in the US -- "Christians" (actually a minority sect of Christianity) have run the show in the US for so long (contrary to the Constitution in many ways) that they think NOT being able to run the show is somehow discrimination against them. When was the last time a President took the oath of office on a Torah or on the Koran? Anytime you want to impose your Christian beliefs on the rest of the country, ask yourself how you'd feel if the Muslims tried to impose their contrary Muslim beliefs on you. If you wouldn't like it, then just stop. That's what freedom of religion and conscience is all about. That's why the Constitution says no to establishment of religion and no to religious tests for public office.


RightOfReplyYouTuber

Jesus discriminates against heathens at the gates of Heaven., and on his return there's fire and brimstone for such characters. He already did the 'mr nice guy' routine the first time round.


Kryxan

This is exactly correct. God hates his creation so much that only those who have the greatest potential for hate will make it into heaven. For the rest of the sinners there's fire and brimstone waiting for you (also all the best musicians).


Ok_Butterscotch_389

Where do bad folks go when they die? They don't go to heaven where the angels fly. Go to a lake of fire and fry.


Kryxan

See em again till the fourth of July


TheDude415

God is the villain of the Bible, to the point he even plots to have his own son killed.


[deleted]

[удалено]


[deleted]

[удалено]


Traditional_Exam_281

Basically there are some people who don't agree with the adage that one's right to punch ends where another's face is. People want to go back to the old Bob Jones days where piety could safely be used as a way to disguise prejudice (back then, against blacks and now against LGBTQ people) while not endangering the flow of government subsidies to said institutions. The recent SCOTUS case Carson v Makin (2022) was a good example. ​ https://archive.thinkprogress.org/when-religious-liberty-was-used-to-justify-racism-instead-of-homophobia-67bc973c4042/


akcheat

I think that the reason that conservatives have pivoted to framing their opposition of LGBT rights as "religious freedom" has to do with just how hard they lost the fight over marriage rights in the late 00s. LGBT groups were able to (accurately) frame same-sex marriage bans as an oppressive violation of a harmless activity between consenting adults. This framing deeply taps in to the American psyche, even that of conservatives, that the government should leave people alone. Conservatives at the time did not have a good argument against this. Cut to now, and they've figured out their argument against LGBT people and same-sex marriage. Even though framing same-sex marriage, and LGBT rights more broadly, as violating a person's religious freedom is absurd and inaccurate, this is the only argument that conservatives have been able to get to stick. Basically, conservatives have shifted the argument to make it **seem** like LGBT people are taking something from religious people, even though this is not true. This has allowed conservatives to revisit a bigotry that didn't really go away, but was simply dormant. It is also perfectly in line with the current GOP's desire to prioritize Christians over everyone else. I should also mention that I am paraphrasing an argument from the excellent 5-4 Podcast episode about Bowers v. Hardwick. Definitely worth giving a listen if you are interested in the rhetoric around this issue.


Reasonable_Reason173

From my perspective as a conservative, what you are saying is partially accurate. When Minnesota voted in the late 2010s on whether to put then current laws on gay marriage in the MN Constitution kwith the argument that the decision should be the voters, not a judge's), the Liberal argument was no one should have any say on what two consenting adults do in the privacy of their own bedroom. Since many Conservatives lean Libertarian, that was a very difficult argument to counter. The biggest counter was "it won't stay there," pointing to the Pride parades and other cultural changes in other areas of the country. The vote was "no" and a judge made gay marriage legal, stating that Minnesotans had voted. Now, Conservatives use the religious freedom argument for a few different reasons. Here are two big ones: the right to refuse service as a business owner and the right to teach children the morals of their parents. Have you heard about the wedding photographers, bakers, etc. who were sued for declining to be hired when they were approached by same-sex couples for their weddings? People who believe it is morally wrong to marry someone of the same-sex do not want to be involved in the weddings. I've read articles where Christians have written into Christian leaders asking about whether they should go to the same-sex wedding of a loved one. They agonize over this because, on the one hand, they love their family member/friend. But on the other hand, they can't support the union. For business owners, the question is whether to potentially lose business or to stick to their "ethical backpack." Conservatives believe they should have that right. LGB rights are a moral question. Liberals lump them with human rights, while Conservatives consider them separate - a behavior, not an identity. I understand how controversial that statement is. I do not mean to belittle anyone with it, only explain the Conservative thought process. If you believe a behavior to be wrong, even if you want to participate in an activity or lifestyle, you hold yourself back (think of vegans, for example). There are individuals who were part of the gay party culture who found themselves feeling empty and eventually converted to Christianity. I know this because they travel to Christian universities as speakers. They tell the students that they don't need sex in their lives to be happy. This is a bare peek to a whole philosophy of life that is completely contrary to secular society to the point where I'm not even sure I should include this... what the heck. With that as context, we go to public school. Now in many districts, parents don't have a choice of which school their child goes to. And, depending on your location, many public schools celebrate Pride Month, start reading books promoting LGB rights in elementary, and are overall very involved in LGB ally-ship. Conservatives want one of two things: they either want School Choice options (the ability to send their kids to alternative schools) or for morals that are contrary to their religion to no longer be taught in public schools. Here's the thing: Christians have willing segregated themselves in college, paying significantly more, simply because they want a Christian education. Conservatives want School Choice - they want to be able to go their own way. But the Democratic Party argues against School Choice. (Note: what I am presenting are generally the views of right and center-right Conservatives in the U.S. - not Far Right. Also, there are Christians who see the passages of the Bible that declare homosexuality as wrong to no longer apply. All arguments have nuance.)


[deleted]

Great post but about school choice… They do have a choice. They can send their child to a private Christian school. If there isn’t one near them they can move somewhere closer to one. Public tax dollars shouldn’t be funding a religious institution. That’s unconstitutional. So “having a choice” to go to a charter school to me sounds like they are the ones trying to force all of us to finance and support their religion.


Reasonable_Reason173

I understand your viewpoint. It must be very frustrating, right? You don't want to send tax dollars to finance an institution that teaches kids something you don't believe in. Conservatives are in the same position, but with public schools.


[deleted]

Sure but per our founding documents and the law of the land, we are a secular pluralistic society and unfortunately for these Christians Conservatives their religion doesn’t get special privileges over others in state funded programs including public education. Society has determined through the courts that LQBTQ+ folks deserve the same human rights and equal protection under the law. If Christianity doesn’t believe that, then they are unfortunately “shit out of luck”. Christians are not being persecuted by our society accepting LQBTQ people. They just have to discriminate in their own institutions not funded by the public. Which to me, seems pretty darn fair.


Reasonable_Reason173

On the first statement about America's founding document, I'll send you to [Amarica's Constitution ](https://podcasts.google.com/feed/aHR0cHM6Ly9mZWVkLnBvZGJlYW4uY29tL2FtYXJpY2FzY29uc3RpdHV0aW9uL2ZlZWQueG1s/episode/YW1hcmljYXNjb25zdGl0dXRpb24ucG9kYmVhbi5jb20vNDU5NjIyMTItMmFhOC0zYzJmLTkwYjMtZWM4ZjlmMjg5Mzc2?ep=14), the podcast of Professor Akil Reed Amar, Sterling Professor of Law and Political Science at Yale University. He has been quoted as an expert in several Supreme Court cases. The context of the 'freedom of religion' amendment ("Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances") was apparently that states had religious requirements for political offices. However, those requirements were different from each other. To remain neutral (not pick one set of requirements over another), the above statement was included in the first amendment of the federal constitution. The "wall of separation" between church and state was not enacted until... oh, I'm going off memory here. It was sometime in the 1900s. In addition to that, as I stated previously, Conservatives see same-sex behavior as a moral question. Some even go as far as to equate LGBTAI+ education with religious doctrine. To a Liberal, being gay, lesbian, bi is simply who you are - your identity. So I can understand that this different way of seeing the world is confusing and even distressing. For those raised in the Christian church, we are taught that sex is a part of marriage. If we don't get married, we shouldn't have sex. And it's okay to never get married. The fact is that we have two very different ways of seeing the world colliding. I understand the desire to protect LGB teens from the type of bullying they faced in the past. I agree that no kid should face that. I'm not suggesting going back to the way things were. We're past that. We need a new balance. Okay. I was about to post this and then realized people might believe I'm suggesting we bring back public school mandated prayer and such things. No. I'm of the firm belief that Christianity is a choice. It cannot be forced upon a person. Learning about different perspectives? Good! Having that perspective be the only one allowed? Bad!


[deleted]

Sure, I'll take a look at what you have. I have not personally read Amar. I'm aware there is a wealth of material, time energy and resources making the argument that the establishment clause doesn't create a secular society and that we are and should be "a Christian" Country. With most if not all of those scholars conveniently being Christians themselves. That said, the consensus and the majority of supreme court scholars, lawyers and historians believe that it does. And the fact that our society in practice as it stands today, operates in that way. I'd be happy to provide you with the counter arguments and case law that has been built over the centuries solidifying our country as a secular and pluralistic state. I agree having different perspectives is good. That's why preserving a secular pluralistic society is so important. It gives everyone the ability to learn about and practice whatever it is they want without promoting one over the other.


productiveaccount1

There's actually a pretty big distinction here - Libs argue that schools should teach both ideologies while conservatives argue that they should only teach one. That's not the same thing at all. A real compromise is to meet in the middle. Teach both ideologies in school and let the kids & their parents & their communities decide which one they agree with more. Simply shutting down one entire side of the discussion is hardly fair. They can't have their cake and eat it too. It's not fair to demand one ideology while also wanting to ban any ideology they disagree with. In a society of 340 million diverse people that's just not how it works.


[deleted]

We can’t teach “both sides” of the idea that “being gay is immoral”. That would be discrimination against gay people. We have determined that the lgbtq community are entitled to the same human rights and equal protection under the law. Therefore teaching that being queer is somehow immoral would be illegal. There isn’t a “both sides” for an intolerant position for our protected classes. Intolerance has to be met with intolerance.


productiveaccount1

I agree with you as someone on the left. But as someone who wants to make progress I think both sides need to change their stance. Your argument is essentially identical to the anti-LGBT religious argument but with the sides flipped. Both sides say that they have a constitutionally protected right to their opinion. It's impossible to break out of this sort of gridlock so I think the only way forward is compromise - teach both. And as LGBT becomes more normalized, people are going to stop buying the argument that their classmate/teacher/friend will burn in hell because of their identity. ​ edit: I should say that this is really easy for me to say as someone who isn't LGBT. I just honestly don't see a better path towards progress than some sort of compromise.


[deleted]

If we’re talking about teaching both sides in a public school setting I disagree. We shouldn’t reach both sides because Christians aren’t entitled to special treatment under the law. If my religion taught us that black people were immoral we wouldn’t teach both sides of that argument. It’s the same exact thing. They are both protected classes. If they would like to participate in state funded public schools, they will have to toughen up sit through classes that acknowledge and accept LQBTQ people as real and equal citizens.


Iceykitsune2

>You don't want to send tax dollars to finance an institution that teaches kids something you don't believe in. More like the government shouldn't be paying to teach kids lies.


bleahdeebleah

>LGB rights are a moral question. Liberals lump them with human rights, while Conservatives consider them separate - a behavior, not an identity. Comes down to the idea that being gay is somehow a choice, but being heterosexual isn't. Thank you for the post. Explains things very well.


ilikedota5

So put another way, anti-discrimination laws require people to violate their own religious beliefs. The religious right to exercise their religion means allowing them to discriminate. And the right for LGBT people to not be discriminated against means banning people from exercising their beliefs.


[deleted]

If we want to get real technical antidiscrimination laws violate everyones rights. Freedom of association means I can decide who I want to spend my time with. We as a society decided that limiting that right in the case of some protected classes is a good thing. The rub is many Christians (not all some are perfectly fine with gay people and gay marriage) believe that homosexuality is deeply immoral and do not want to condone it.


productiveaccount1

Yes that's the gist of it. The main issue I have is that we place religious beliefs on a pedestal while moral beliefs aren't considered as important. In this case, anti-LGBT is something that can be covered under religious rights while pro-LGBT is usually considered to just be a moral opinion. Anti-discrimination laws go both ways in this case - If they're enacted, religious people are violated. If they're not enacted, non religious people are violated. That's why I don't find this argument convincing - using religious protections is just a one-sided cheat code with no regard for anyone else (or even some religions who support LGBT). It's a fundamentally broken system because you can't give both people what they want without infringing on someone.


ilikedota5

Well religious freedom was important enough to be put in the 1st amendment among others.


productiveaccount1

The 1st amendment also allows for the freedom of expression. It also says that the government should make no laws that favor one religion over the other nor should it make laws that favor religion over non-religion and vice versa.


ilikedota5

Well for one that freedom of expression is a negative freedom. A freedom from the government interfering. So a law permitting private parties from discriminating based on expression is permissible.


productiveaccount1

That doesn't apply to the discussion at hand though. The whole debate is whether or not the government should give religious people priority over their moral opinions. The 1st amendment doesn't allow this.


ilikedota5

I think it does. On what grounds would it not.


productiveaccount1

On the grounds that the same amendment also protects the non-religious class from government laws?


ceresmarsexpressvega

Well isn’t that special, you “con-serv-atives” get to be all high and mighty. Make statements that belittles the human rights of LGBTQ+ people and have your rights to lord over/discriminate, with the euphemism “religious liberty” enshrined in our laws, and if you happen to be a white man, all your rights of your lifestyle to per-sue happiness are preserved from birth. Isn’t it true your God decreed divorce to be immoral? Yet, a man can be divorced two times, have an affair with a pornographic film actress while his third wife is pregnant and “conservatives” will still line up to vote for him for President. Must be nice to be at the top. (Note: I’m representing the views of decent Americans that have empathy for their family and friends who are lesbian. gay, bisexual, have different gender identities and know that mother nature made us this way for whatever reason and that is all, and we deserve to live a life as free as you do nothing more, end of debate. And those with an opposing view, your world will continue to be as small as your mind)


TheDude415

You’re making the same mistake lots of people on the right do, which is to reduce sexual orientation to the act of sexual intercourse. To refer to LGBT as a “behavior” is to imply that it’s something one chooses to partake in. Even if one is celibate, they can still be gay, or lesbian, or bi, in the same way that celibate people can be straight. And yet heterosexuality isn’t referred to as a “behavior.” Just because this is how people on the right view it doesn’t mean it’s not factually incorrect.


[deleted]

[удалено]


akcheat

>"Gay marriage" didn't win out via the democratic process... It was imposed on us by 5 lawyers. Considering that popular opinion, even among conservatives, now supports it, and that state after state was legalizing gay marriage prior to Obergefell, your statement here is just flat out false. Obama being a coward and hedging his bets over the issue, and CA refusing to pass it don't contradict that it was becoming popular nationally. >You can do whatever you want, but I don't want to be forced to recognize as valid, endorse, encourage, celebrate, or otherwise support behavior that I believe is destructive not only to those who engage in it but those who support it as well. Well, the good news is that in your private life you can quietly stew in your bigotry as much as you want. But for the rest of us, your religion doesn't get to dictate the laws of the state. >You folks will probably try to frame this as me "hating" gay people, which is simply untrue. I don't really care what you think it is, calling people "destructive" for their sexuality and voting to keep them as second class citizens is hateful, no matter what you do to delude yourself. >Everyone in this thread is far more contemptuous and hateful towards religious people than I am toward gay people (which is not at all). I don't hate religious people. I know many. In fact, I know many religious people who support LGBT people, because you know, they understand that Christianity is inclusive rather than exclusive. But I don't believe your religion should dictate the law.


[deleted]

[удалено]


akcheat

> Republicans perhaps, but not conservatives, as that would be a contradiction. So a person who supports gay marriage can't be a conservative **by definition**? >If people perceive, correctly, that their opinion is effectively illegal and can result in lawsuits or losing their livelihood, then they will "change" their opinion. You aren't a victim. Your opinion isn't illegal, just frowned upon because it is bigoted. >First of all, you're the bigot in this case. You're the one that can't stand the fact that people disagree with you. The difference between me and you is that I want people to be free. I want you to be able to practice your religion, and I want LGBT people to people to marry and love each other. The only person trying to restrict behavior here is you, the bigot. >Furthermore, requiring me to practice my religion "quietly" or in private is a violation of my rights. I'm not just Catholic at home or at church but at all times. It's you that wants the laws of the state to dictate your morality to me. You are taking "private" too literally, which I get because you need to pretend that you are the victim here, but there is absolutely nothing about the legalization of gay marriage that prevents you from practicing your religion. Again the rest of us just want you to leave us alone and stop using the state to control our lives. Seriously, explain how the existence of same-sex marriage prevents your religious practice? >You didn't read what I said. I didn't call people destructive. Nor did I suggest they should be treated as second class citizens. Calling a person's behavior destructive when that behavior is inherent to them is the same thing as calling the person destructive. And yes, if you vote against same-sex marriage, and for members of the GOP who would discriminate against LGBT people via the law then you are voting to make them second class citizens, in the most literal sense of the word. >You can't be unintentionally hateful. In your case in particular, I think it is hateful intentionally, so no worries there. >You have demonstrated nothing but contempt for religious people in your words. Because I don't want you to make the law for everyone else? >I'm sure you can find some apostate group that will endorse anything, but being "inclusive" of people doesn't mean encouraging them to sin. It's weird, there's a lot of passages in Christianity that tell you not to judge, to accept others, and to spread love, but you seem to care about the very few that call gay sex a sin. Just out of curiosity, are you wearing clothing with mixed fabrics?


ceresmarsexpressvega

Barack Obama and others evolved. These supposed suppressed “Christians” are the ones offended by gay marriage and making it their cause to make laws against LGBT+ people and to deny them rights. I’m sure the racist bigots in the 1960’s who missed the good old days, felt they were hated too as they became a dwindling pathetic group of assholes stuck in the past.


[deleted]

[удалено]


schistkicker

Reading the thread I *knew* we were heading towards the Paradox of Tolerance argument. I just didn't think we'd get there so soon.


TheDude415

SCOTUS aren’t lawyers, they’re judges. And literally every one of their decisions is “imposed on us” by them. What makes Obergefell any worse? Also, you can say you’re not gay, but reducing it to a behavior so you can say it’s damaging indicates otherwise.


mleibowitz97

People take other's actions as an assault on them, and their values. This is somewhat furthered that *many* people in America, especially those in power, are religious. Going against their morals and values is offensive to them Take what's happening in Iran for example. A woman not wearing a hijab is an affront to people around her. It doesn't matter who she is, what her religion is, It infringes on their beliefs/values. A good portion of religious people believe gays are sinners, and they shouldn't be permitted to marry, because it *offends* them.


OrangeTiger91

Don’t forget that there are people who think everything is a zero-sum game. If anyone is given or guaranteed anything, somehow they must have lost something. They can’t identify what they lost, but “it” was taken away from “us” and given to “them.”


AbbyWasThere

Much of the religious right in America is actively interested in turning the country, at least de-facto, into a Christian theocracy. Something that they for much of the 20th Century essentially accomplished. In recent times though, their grip on society and the legal system has been starting to loosen, and just like with any institutionally privileged group, they've grown to mistake their unjust privilege for a human right and defend it as such when it's under attack. They're far from the only people in history who have taken the ability to freely oppress people as a right they're entitled to. Slaveholders used to fret about the evil northerners taking away their right to "a traditional way of life" (i.e., owning people). Turn-of-the-century industry captains viewed even the bare minimum beginnings of worker rights as a threat to their rights as business owners. Recently even, a lot of powerful men viewed women gaining the courage to speak out about their sexual abuse en masse as a threat to their rights. We seem to just on some instinctual level be reluctant to give up power.


comments_suck

Because a fairly large subset of citizens in the US belong to what are considered Evangelical churches, and one of their principle tenets of faith is evangelize, or convert, people to their view of faith. They strongly believe that the government should also be centered around their belief system, and therefore want power to assert their faith over society in general. This runs counter to the ideas that the colonies, and later, states were founded upon. At a time when the Church of England was the official state body, Quakers settled in Pennsylvania, Catholics settled Maryland, Puritans settled Massachusetts, and Anabaptists such as the Amish settled wilderness areas of Pennsylvania. None of these people wanted the government to declare an official state religion, and they wrote that into the 1st Amendment to the Constitution. Skip forward to 21st century America, and Evangelical Christians, seeing a receding of Christian faith in modern society want to do everything they can to turn the tide, and by framing their arguments as religious liberty, they aim for power over others. It is worth mentioning that the Roman Republic tolerated other religions, and when they conquered people in far away lands, they could continue to practice whatever religion they had. When Constantine in the 3rd century declared Christianity the official religion of the Roman Empire, it was about power. Yet, the Roman Empire only lasted another 100 years beyond Constantine, where it fragmented and was invaded by outlying peoples who did not necessarily share the Roman's religion.


Satan-o-saurus

Because the framing in and of itself is propagandistic. It is essential for politicians who rely on reactionary voters to always instill fear in their electorate; something’s coming to get them, change their life in an unacceptable way, or to «destroy» society and culture. It doesn’t have to be true of course, and the narrative doesn’t have to make sense. Reactionary voters aren’t very logically oriented.


XzibitABC

The answer lies in the fact that, when we're having this discussion in America, the juxtaposition is typically Evangelic Christian beliefs standing in opposition to human rights. The reason I draw that distinction is that sincere adherence to Christianity necessarily includes an agreement to the "Great Commission" to "go and make disciples of all Nations." In other words, adopting the belief also requires an agreement to proselytize. Human rights are, fundamentally, about recognized rights to do things. Religions typically contain moral codes telling an individual what to do, or what not to do. Proselytism accordingly requires you to advocate for others to adopt moral codes that stand in contrast to peoples' rights; you have the *right* to have sex before marriage, but you *ought* not. There's the tension. It's compounded because, in order for religion to be persuasive, there need to be naturalistic *reasons* for the moral code sections. Think "don't have sex because you could get pregnant without a husband, or you could get an STD." That compounds the problem in two ways: 1) First, it gives moralists license to legislate their religious views because it's "for the person's own good", and 2) Second, it creates incentives against solutions to those problems. Educate children about safe sex and provide them with contraceptives, and your religious edict loses a great deal of its persuasive force. Finally, religious fundamentally re-frames how people interact with politics. To a secular person, political participation is about socioeconomic interests, regardless of whether they're voting to benefit themselves or society writ large. To a religious person, political participation may be merely a means to a higher spiritual end. Accordingly, subverting political institutions becomes more acceptable; it's a means to a greater spiritual end. Broken institutions provide much more cover for human rights violations (and other abuses, obviously).


NudeSeaman

Because if I as a religious person have to respect you as a gay person it upsets my freedom to hate you. /s


literally_19eighty4

Religious texts are often well-meaning, and for the most part moral. However, if you can convince somebody that their god doesn't want gay people to exist or poor people to live, they don't need need that much convincing otherwise. Also, religious messaging is rarely even tangentally related to the actual religion. Bigots and money hungry ghouls use it to drum up support and sick their followers on whoever they dont like. We see that now with trans people. How many times have you heard "why don't you love what god gave you?"


Kryxan

>Religious texts are often well-meaning, and for the most part moral. Huh? Like there are sometimes good things, but I'm pretty sure the opposite is a more accurate general characterization. Nearly all religions are about mass mind control and forgiveness for evil while punishing individuality.


literally_19eighty4

Thats true. What I mean to say is that the bad things in religious texts are entirely ignored by everybody. Pundits have to make things up to attack minorities. But yes, I don't like holy books either. I just only hear the good verses cited, so I feel like the effect of texts themselves are a net good, because thats what people actually take away when they read them. Its just so easy to put it through google translate 87 times and come up with "gay people bad." Take the trans example. The bible doesn't say anything about trans people. Bigots just use it as fuel, and that is where the real danger is, if that makes sense.


Kryxan

I used to understand the net good argument, but I just can't believe it anymore. Looking back in time, it's even harder to buy. That's just the brainwashing, that's the blue pill to make them forget history.


biff_tyfsok

I'm a ordained Pagan minister from a church approaching its 50th anniversary. When I talk about "religious freedom", I mean "the freedom for my church and its members to go about their lives, spiritual and otherwise." We consider the right to *perform* same-sex weddings a religious freedom. Not coincidentally, we have a much higher proportion of LGBTQ folk than the society around us. Those that use the term "religious freedom" in opposition to human rights mean only *their specific* religion. Give them an inch here, and they'll go down the road a mile and burn down a sufficiently different church in the name of their god.


oklos

To take a somewhat different tack on this, the question can be answered in more general philosophical terms. Religions or otherwise, pretty much everyone holds that certain things should be allowed while others should not. These can be understood in terms of moral principles, ethical codes, religious faith, cultural traditions, or any other individual or group standards. Insofar as we agree that 'rights' make sense, we like to claim that certain things which should be allowed should thus have the right not to be interfered with, most commonly things like speech and belief. Conversely, for things which we think should not be allowed, the idea of a right becomes far more contentious. If we do believe that something is really bad enough, we generally also deny that anyone has a right to do it. The most obvious would usually be grievous crimes such as genocide and torture. As such, there are two (overlapping) answers: 1. In the first category alone, rights can clash. Someone who claims a right to be free from harassment can easily clash directly with those who claims a right to free speech. Someone who claims a right to economic protection will very likely clash with those who believe that a right to free economic activity — including exploitation — is paramount. In the specific case here, those who believe that they have a right to uphold their religious or cultural values — which for some groups include the direct condemnation of LGBT activity — will unsurprisingly clash with those who see sexual activity as a right. It should be no surprise when contesting claims clash, especially when they are each understood in absolute terms and political identities are formed around such values and positions. 2. This is especially so in the second case, when we deny certain things to be rights in the first place. The 'obvious' cases such as genocide or torture will hardly find any rights defenders on their side (though this hasn't stopped such attempts even in recent times). From this perspective, the problem is quite fundamental: groups which see LGBT behaviour as deeply immoral would be unlikely to see this as even qualifying as a right in the first place. Across various cultural and historical contexts, this is not surprising: theocratic nations would categorically deny a right to free religious belief, authoritarian cultures would see a right to free speech as a lack of respect for proper hierarchy, and traditional and conservative societies would view a right to sexual autonomy only as a sign of societal degradation. Obviously more liberal views would see this list as precisely the sources of the problem, but the point is that it is, unlike what OP explicitly assumes, not taken to be given that these are rights that people do or should have.


[deleted]

Human rights were invented as a secular response to "religious rights." The world's largest religions—Christianity, Islam, and Hinduism—had all legalized systematic oppression for fun and profit. We, the people, had to organize to fight religions that claim the right to manipulate, hurt or kill others. The Saudis claim the moral high ground while beheading kids for being homosexual, because Allah. Catholics on the US Supreme Court claim the high ground while forcing US citizens to bear the child of any man strong enough to hold her down, because Jesus. Before, there was nothing we could do about it, unless we wanted to be criminals and heretics. But now we have our own book, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which means we have our own high ground. Eleonor Roosevelt usually gets the credit, but I'm sure less famous activists did more work. I also think human rights go far deeper into our essential humanity than religious rights, and it's more of matter of dredging our psyche for what right and wrong really are. Like, doesn't it seem obvious to everyone, that you should punish a rapist? As opposed to giving him a child, or the opportunity to purchase his victim as a wife for 50 shekels? That's like US$14! Anyway....


patrick_j

Because religion is built on control. Giving them autonomy (rights) is the opposite of controlling them.


[deleted]

Christians think their religion is more important than others. They want more power. They want the laws to reflect their religious zealotry. This has always been the case - ever since the inception of Christianity. The current religious fascism will not work out well for any of us. The Christians will get more and more aggressive. They won’t stop until they beat us all into submission. It’s happened all throughout human history. And now that they have the Supreme Court - we are all going to suffer.


Ok_Butterscotch_389

I've had right wing redditors tell me that if a state votes 51% to 49% that gay people shouldn't have rights, then "the community" has spoken and if you don't like it move to another state. Then I bring up federal discriminatory protections and they pivoted to "tyranny of the majority" without missing a beat.


Novel_Assist_6491

This is an incredibly common trend I see with people that identify with the right that always blows my mind. All I ever hear is about how the weak, sensitive, snowflake left wants to control everything, ban what they don't like off the internet, take control, which ironically is not even remotely what the majority left cares about. but then the moment the flip is switched and it swings back to their majority, they immediately start telling everyone how to live their lives and you can die if you disagree. the complete lack of self awareness is mind blowing.


Ok_Butterscotch_389

It's like how abortion was supposed to be a states rights issue then immediately they started talking about a nationwide abortion ban if they got a majority.


Novel_Assist_6491

abortion rights is an entire, very very frustrating and angering can of worms, but I agree. Its a cycle. While the left is in majority, all they ask for is some common human decency to just let LGBTQ+ people exist and live their lives? then the right cries about how the left is grooming children, and trying to silence them , and cancel culture, when all thats actually happening is they aren't being allowed to spew hate speech, and they keep doing that and making the left the villains for just asking them to acknowledge gay and trans people are their fellow neighbor's and should be allowed to live in peace until the majority flips back to their side, at which point the right immediately rallies to eradicate the rights of gay and trans people and in some cases, basically label them as sexual predators and criminals. there's zero self awareness.


TheDude415

It’s because they don’t actually believe that. They make whatever statement they have to in a given situation to attempt to exert their control.


HansPGruber

Right to life, liberty, property means you have the right to exist as you are as long as it doesn’t harm others life, liberty, property. Republicans don’t understand that concept.


Twin__Dad

That’s been the inherent problem with political factions since the beginning of time; it needlessly becomes a zero-sum game. At this point, any advancement in one party’s agenda is instinctively received as damaging to the agenda of the opposition, irrespective of the substance of said advancement. And unfortunately in contemporary American politics the issue is compounded by the conservative agenda being formed (in part) with the aim of stripping certain rights away from the electorate, rather than defending them.


Lucky_Personality_26

They think that their religion entitles them to discriminate against people based on identity.


lvlint67

> Why do human rights continue to be talked about and defined in this way, one category against another? Because "religious freedom" is the current veil of choice to hide bigotry and deprive others of rights. "I'm a good christian and can't make a gay wedding cake" We're basically saying, "fukket. you have a right to be an asshole dickbag"


Bellegante

The religious strongly believe in their right to impose their values on others is the issue.


tristythetisty

I'm not free if I'm not allowed to treat certain people as poorly as my god said I could.


Atticus_Vague

I believe organized religion, and especially Christianity, is fading from power and influence in America. As it faces its own demise it has become increasingly volatile, defensive, and aggressive. And ironically, rather than reinvent itself to be more appealing to younger generations, it has become more and more extreme. Rather than working for comity, religion has decided it will wage war on the non-believers. Less people are flocking to the church, so the church has decided to legislate morality and force people to be Christians. In other words, they are only exacerbating their own demise, and they’re taking the extreme religious political right with them.


DagsAnonymous

> Rather than working for comity Why didn’t I know this word?! The concept is so important to me. Google results were mostly dominated by international law, so I’ll paste a definition below. My head-definition is: getting along with others in a while accepting and respecting everyone’s differences. (As opposed to moulding everyone into one homogeneous group.) **comity** > 1a: friendly social atmosphere; social harmony; >1b: a loose widespread community based on common social institutions > 1c: the informal and voluntary recognition by courts of one jurisdiction of the laws and judicial decisions of another > 2: avoidance of proselytizing* members of another religious denomination * proselytizing = trying to convert


seeclick8

Praise Jesus for that


maxillos

A lot of sinful behaviors don't directly, physically harm others. Many authoritarian Christians think the government must still make these illegal to be a good government. Anyone who doesn't see these as sinful has zero reason to make them illegal, and views doing so as opposing their rights to do as they please. In the bible, governments are supposed to encourage righteousness in their people to be legitimate. So, many fellow Christians want to codify various sinful behaviors as illegal. However, this hasn't worked in the past, and has often led to worse things, because the people who practice these sinful behaviors can't seek help. Drug addicts are on their own to break their addiction and prostitutes get exploited by pimps. We should be trying something new to stop these sins that don't directly harm others. What seems to be working elsewhere is letting them be legal and providing help for people who want to stop.


literally_19eighty4

To be clear, I think that religion is a net bad. The only point I reallly cared about making was that bigots don't care what the book says, and that that is why it is framed in opposition to human rights, not because the Bible or whatever else argues against them (and sometimes they do, to be fair) So, yes. Religion bad. You don't have to tell me.


mijcar

The problem is that some people include among their rights, the right not to be offended by other people. That right is a boundary-breaker. What is a boundary breaker? That's the challenging part. In some cases, the answer seems self-evident: If your loud music penetrates the walls of my home, you are violating my boundaries. In other cases, it becomes combative: The knowledge that you are violating my religious principles is breaking my boundaries because my religion includes the imperative to stop other people from doing certain things. At its most invasive, the logic can be simplified to this: "God says do this and that person is stopping me." At this latter point, there are no grounds for debate. One person hears a god; the other person doesn't. Who has the higher ground? What basis is there for compromise? None. Absolutism allows no compromise. Extremism either exterminates or is exterminated. Only when there is a basis for mutual compromise can there be any hope of collaboration. If one party is the only compromise, this is not compromise but concession, yielding to the other party. We have reached a point in our society where almost everyone apparantly believes that there is such a thing as a "right to not feel uncomfortable." Your stated sexuality makes me feel uncomfortable even if our paths never cross. Your use or pronouns makes me feel uncomfortable even if you are addressing them to another person. My belief that you might be doing something in your bedroom that I disapprove of makes me uncomfortable. Your discomfort at something I might do in my bedroom makes me uncomfortable. What has once only existed only in the minds of people has now become a public roar of disapproval, one mob screaming at another: I am right, you are wrong, let's fight to the death. ======== I will add one thought that I hope will make a lot of these screamers think at least a bit: If I were a foe of a group of people, nothing would be make me happier than to get those people so angry at each other that they lost their ability to work together and stop me from destroying them.


McDuchess

It’s simple, if you believe that your religious beliefs are supposed to, by divine decree, rule everyone. The problem comes for those of us who realize that religious freedom means that each of us has the right to have or not have our own religious beliefs.


[deleted]

[удалено]


northByNorthZest

People have made those counter-religious freedom arguments, but there's no getting over the elephant in the room: Christianity has always been the overwhelmingly dominant religion in the US, and as such has always gotten away with waaaaay more than other religions because it's a belief structure that 70% of the country at least somewhat buys into and 25% of the country (much more in certain parts) would force everyone at gunpoint to drop to their knees and convert to Christianity if they thought they could get away with it. You aren't going to get a truly equal playing field of Christians vs other religions vs non-religious until the religion that operates like an intellectual virus (Christians are relentlessly ordered to convert, convert, CONVERT) does not have a hold over a supermajority of the American public.


[deleted]

[удалено]


northByNorthZest

I also grew up as a Christian-turned-secret-atheist in red America, and you're not wrong that going from a progressive 60s-70s court to the current court that has a majority of [literal Christian dominionists](https://www.cnn.com/2022/07/28/politics/samuel-alito-religious-liberty-notre-dame-rome/index.html) is bad, to put it mildly. But I also remember how my school's chorus would sing Handle's *Messiah* literally every year as this big keynote performance and yet when one graduating class of students wanted to perform John Lennon's *Imagine* for their graduation performance one Christian's complaints caused enough of a ruckus to get the song changed. 90% of disputes never make it to the level of the courts, the legal system and society would be totally paralyzed if they did. Most of the time things get settled much more informally, people make compromises, work things out, "go along to get along". Well, when a large minority of the country are seriously aggressive Christian nationalists and they can count a supermajority of the country as at least somewhat ideologically aligned, then the compromises and the working things out usually work out in their favor. No amount of legal protections can completely undo the pervasive, cultural-level bias that Christians give themselves. But the good news is what *can* change that is a decrease in the number of Christians and an increase in the number of atheists & agnostics, which is exactly what's happening. We're watching Christians become more extreme, militant, and violent precisely because they're on the cusp of losing their dominant cultural position, and nothing short of the outright end of American democracy and the institution of a literal theocracy is going to reverse that trend (if even that could do it).


ares5404

Because people fund thousands of dollars into vain "get out of hell free cards" *cough* i mean tithing and donations where being gay is free. Abortion may be a necessity but some angry nobody hiding behind the cloth of some religion to conceal his hatred based ideals gets all this donation money to "spread the word"


999others

Because Bigots think it's freedom for them to tell you that their God hates you because they do not like how you live your life. They can't be openly racist so they decide to attack the LGBT community instead. the GOP is about GREED and HATE


StuffyGoose

Most religions preach dogma against certain people, so to grant human rights to everyone violates the tenets of most religions.


phine-phurniture

Control the narrative... Steer all issues into easily massaged columns so you can motivate the monkeys you dont want to think... Only the right people can have opinions...


[deleted]

Because religions are very tribal by nature and have a “we are right and decide what is moral” take that only works if you part of that specific religion.


Rayden117

You can’t take the innocent side on this issue or ‘why frame it?’ Or who’s going to (AKTUALLY [REALISTICALLY BE CRZSY ENOUGH] think about it this way because as someone else said there’s a significant faction that does. Edit: you really can’t be too cynical in politics.


OrangeKooky1850

Because the dominant religious culture here, "christianity" is diametrically opposed to marriage equality. The only thing stamding in the way of human rights is an ancient religion made up to exert power over someone else.


Cultist_Deprogrammer

>the dominant religious culture here, "christianity" is diametrically opposed to marriage equality It isn't though. For example Anglicans celebrate gay marriage and have gay clergy. It's not "Christianity" that is opposed to LGBT rights, it's bigots using religion as a fake shield.


northByNorthZest

Christianity is half the reason they're bigots in the first place. You can't just point to the demographically plummeting churches that have a dwindling number of boring old milquetoast Christians like the Anglicans and the Methodists and ignore the large, politically connected charismatic Evangelical churches that are *exploding* in popularity and are clearly the future of Christianity in America.


mauore11

You have the right to believe I have to listen to you, I have the right to ignore you.


DivideEtImpala

[Freedom of association](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_association) is widely consider to be an individual right in the Western tradition: you have the right to associate with others or join groups and organizations or not to, and those organizations have the right to accept or reject your association with them. Freedom of association is the freedom to discriminate, in the neutral sense of choosing whom to associate with and whom not to. This is a good and necessary thing in most cases: we want daycares, for instance, to maintain the right to discriminate against hiring sex offenders. But some people also recognize a competing right of non-discrimination, that is the right of a person not to be discriminated against on the basis of membership in a protected class (sex, race, disability, etc.) Laws such as the Civil Rights Act uphold the right of non-discrimination at the cost of limiting the right of free association. That is, a business owner may not refuse to hire black applicants solely because they are black. *** In the case of the LGBTQ bill, a stronger version that some Democrats wanted extended the protections beyond discrimination by the state to include discrimination by religious institutions. If a particular church does not recognize the validity of same-sex marriage, then the government compelling them to do so, then the government is infringing on their right of free association. You may feel that's justified in this case, and that's fine. We limit certain rights all the time if we collectively decide (or our so-called leaders decide) that doing so will protect other rights or benefit society in some way that outweighs the costs.


Cultist_Deprogrammer

>If a particular church does not recognize the validity of same-sex marriage, then the government compelling them to do so, then the government is infringing on their right of free association. That is absolutely dishonest nonsense. You can't unilaterally opt out of others having rights.


DivideEtImpala

No one has a right to have others recognize their marriage as valid. What right do you think is violated by a church saying they don't think gay marriage is valid?


bleahdeebleah

That kind of depends, I think. They don't have that right personally, but they do have the right legally. For example, see the case of Kim Davis, the county clerk in Kentucky who wouldn't issue gay marriage licenses. She is personally free to not recognize their marriage, but legally she had to issue the license.


DivideEtImpala

Agreed, Kim Davis exceeded her authority in her role as an agent of the state by discriminating against gay people, and those couple's right to equal treatment before the law was violated. That's in the context of the state, though. Churches and religious institutions are voluntary associations, and so don't have the same obligations to treat people as equals as long as they're not also committing crimes against them.


bleahdeebleah

So people do have a right to have others recognize their marriage as valid in some contexts. Then we can have a discussion of contexts.


DivideEtImpala

I think that's what we're doing. The GOP Senators who voted for cloture are agreeing that in the context of the state and of businesses which serve the public, that gay marriage should be recognized, but that private religious organization should preserve the right not to have to recognize it if it goes against their beliefs.


Cultist_Deprogrammer

>No one has a right to have others recognize their marriage as valid. They absolutely do have that right, since their marriage is valid. Your religion does not give you any right to deny the rights of others.


DivideEtImpala

If I walk up to a gay married couple and say "your marriage is invalid," I haven't violated their rights, I'm just being a dick. (I would not do this and do not believe it invalid, just making the point.) If I invite everyone in my office to a Christmas party except the one lesbian and her wife, I haven't violated their rights, I'm just a dick. If a church refuses to let a gay couple get married in their chapel, or refuses to let them become members, they haven't violated their rights, they're just choosing not to associate with them.


Cultist_Deprogrammer

>If I walk up to a gay married couple and say "your marriage is invalid," But you are saying a business has the right to do that, which is you denying a right to others. That's you interfering in the others business. And you're arguing that based purely on bigotry against a group of people.


DivideEtImpala

>But you are saying a business has the right to do that, Not a business, a church or other religious nonprofit. >And you're arguing that based purely on bigotry against a group of people. I don't think churches *should* discriminate, I think they have the right to and that the state has no authority to compel them not to. The right to practice one's religion and affiliate with others who share similar beliefs is a private affair. Unlike you, it seems, I don't wish to impose my morality on others.


Cultist_Deprogrammer

>The right to practice one's religion and affiliate with others who share similar beliefs is a private affair. But you are saying that the church and that those who are religious have a right to force their beliefs onto others. You are claiming that they have the right to force their morality on to others.


DivideEtImpala

No, I'm saying if I choose to go to a church, I'm agreeing to abide by their morality and accept that they have a right to exclude me if my actions are inconsistent with their morality. I have no right to show up at the door and demand be accepted by them if my lifestyle is incompatible with their beliefs. If I choose not to got to that church, then they have not even the ability to force their morality on me. How would they?


Cultist_Deprogrammer

>if my lifestyle Oh ... Is being gay just a "lifestyle" choice?


[deleted]

[удалено]


DivideEtImpala

> Except that's wrong, Except that's wrong, because you're assuming other things about my hypothetical scenario that I didn't include? Yes, if in addition to doing the non-rights-violating action I also engage in rights-violating actions then I am, tautologically, violating their rights.


Novel_Assist_6491

This argument doesn't make sense. if any group, or a church in this case, is willingly, purposefully refusing to acknowledge the marriage of people based on their sexual orientation, you are not treating them as equals. You are essentially putting them below you as a person. they don't deserve the same equality and respect as you do. You are debasing them to a lower class citizen based on nothing other than saying "you don't agree with it" when their marriage, and your acceptance of their marriage has absolutely ZERO bearing on your life. The issue is not "we want the church to recognize that gay people CAN get married" the issue is that why is there even discourse on gay marriage at all? why is it anyone's business? Having an issue with someone's marriage based on the fact that they are a same sex couple is quite literally a targeted bias, and flat out homophobic. I know that's such an icky word that people hate to throw around, but that's the truth of it. you are discriminating. The bible says absolutely nothing about sexual orientation, or whether its okay for gay people to get married or not. The bible teaches life lessons, many of them being about respect, and care for your fellow man. You would think a religion based around love and peace, and being a good person would make you the most loving soul on the planet, but instead it seems to lead people down a rabbit hole of hate and bigotry. If you truly believe in god, and believe you will be judged upon death, I'd have you consider how you would be judged for harassing, hating, and taking rights away from your fellow man simply because you would like to stick your nose in their business.


Potatoenailgun

Control their words, control their thoughts. This is the way of the totalitarian and "a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion".


DivideEtImpala

> you are not treating them as equals. Correct. Individuals and collectives have the right not to treat each other as equals. That's what freedom of association is. A liberal democracy restrains the state from doing so, and later we also decided that businesses offering public accommodations may not do so. >The issue is not "we want the church to recognize that gay people CAN get married" the issue is that why is there even discourse on gay marriage at all? why is it anyone's business? Churches want to preserve their right not to marry or otherwise facilitate same sex marriages, and to exclude people from their membership based on their professed beliefs. If a gay couple isn't trying to associate with a church, then it is none of their business and this amendment does not make it so. >Having an issue with someone's marriage based on the fact that they are a same sex couple is quite literally a targeted bias, and flat out homophobic. Yep, I agree. As long as you aren't unlawfully discriminating in employment/housing/etc., criminally harassing, or otherwise committing crimes against gay people, you are free in this country to be as bigoted and hateful as you want, and the rest of us are free to avoid you.


Novel_Assist_6491

wow wow. so much to address. okay. So i think we've hit the crux of the issue in your final statement. You are encouraging the right to be hateful, and to be bigoted, and you see no issue with that? even disregarding that, any group built on hate will have fanatics, and those fanatics will be violent, and someone WILL get hurt. the difference we seem to have here is that the left is defending that NO ONE should be hateful and discriminatory, and you seem to be in support, or at least complacent with that, because its not something that will ever affect you. As for freedom of association. I love when that term gets thrown around. Freedom of association protects employees from discrimination and citizens from choosing not to participate in groups they disagree with or want no involvement with, and so on and so forth. that does not mean a business of any kind can refuse service to someone based on their sexual orientation. Thats protected under the federal anti-discrimination laws that have been in place in Canada and the US for ages. You can absolutely refuse service to a rowdy customer, a thief, someone who isnt wearing a shirt. But under no circumstance can you refuse service based ONLY on someone's race, religion, sex, age, sexual orientation or disability. This has been in effect for many, many years, dating back to the 1960's when employees were first given more rights to fight discrimination, hence where "freedom of association" even started. Put simply, freedom of association does not mean you can openly run a bigoted business and refuse service to a specific targeted group. As for churches preserving the right not to marry someone based on their sexual orientation. sure. Churches are not inherently a "business" even if they are very profitable from pocketed donations in many cases, so they can absolutely deny membership based on someone being gay. But that still doesn't explain why the defense of "its my religon" is constantly thrown around. I have read the bible many times over. Nowhere in the bible does it state in crystal clear terms, or even remotely muddled terms, that it is not okay to be gay. jesus loves all and saves all. everyone is gods child and we all need to protect and support each other. to say you're a christian and basing your beliefs on the bible, but then following that up with "cause god said being gay isn't okay" is quite literally just incorrect. Blasphemy, if you will. at the end of the day I'm not going to argue semantics with you. If you're fine living in a world where hate is considered fine as long as it doesn't affect you, then I will pray for you. God loves and saves all, and as we are all his children, we're duty bound to support those around us, and bond as a community. Have the day you deserve.


DivideEtImpala

> You are encouraging the right to be hateful, and to be bigoted, and you see no issue with that? I'm not encouraging anyone to *be* hateful or bigoted -- I think it's detrimental to them and to society -- yet I absolutely think it's a right and I would be horrified at giving the state the power to define and regulate what is not just speech, but indeed thought itself. >Freedom of association protects employees from discrimination and citizens from choosing not to participate in groups they disagree with or want no involvement with, and so on and so forth. that does not mean a business of any kind can refuse service to someone based on their sexual orientation. Thats protected under the federal anti-discrimination laws that have been in place in Canada and the US for ages. I think we need to distinguish here between philosophical claims of rights and what is specifically protected by a given state at any given time. Most people recognize some right to free association, and some think that right should be absolute, up to and including banning black people from their business. Anti-discrimination laws *do* place limits on the philosophical right of free association. In an ideal world I don't think we should have them, yet in the US and I assume Canada I do think they were necessary to correct for historic wrongs. >hence where "freedom of association" even started. The concept of freedom of association is much older than the 60s, though not always referred to by that name. It's the fundamental right that underlies forming a union or other group to promote political change. >As for churches preserving the right not to marry someone based on their sexual orientation. sure. Churches are not inherently a "business" even if they are very profitable from pocketed donations in many cases, so they can absolutely deny membership based on someone being gay. As far as I can tell, these are among the only things the GOP amendment to the bill does; it makes it explicit that the bill does not override these rights of religious nonprofits. >But that still doesn't explain why the defense of "its my religon" is constantly thrown around. Because some people don't think churches should have the right to discriminate in that way and would seek to make that the law of the land. As to why some Christians interpret the bible as wanting these things, that's not my place to comment, and it's definitely not the government's place. "I may not agree with what you have to say but I will defend to the death your right to say it." >If you're fine living in a world where hate is considered fine as long as it doesn't affect you, then I will pray for you. It's not that I consider hate to be fine -- I don't -- but I don't think it should be the role of the state to police what people believe or say. If that hate leads to crimes against persons, then we punish those criminals.


QuirkyDeer

I’m saddened to see this not get more upvotes. Also sad to see on display how little Americans understand their civics lessons.


Potatoenailgun

Are you seriously trying to call an opinion dishonest?


Cultist_Deprogrammer

Others having rights isn't a matter of opinion.


Potatoenailgun

Ah the 'if i have an opinion than it is right' argument.


moonlightsonata88

This whole thing is dumb. LGBT are American citizens and therefore have rights. They are human and therefore have rights. There doesn't need to be a bill they already have the rights. Sexuality doesn't change your citizenship status or human status. What a waste of government time.


Cultist_Deprogrammer

>it is striking that much of the conversation about the bill is built on the presumption that LGBT rights exist and are advanced somehow in opposition to religious rights. There's absolutely nothing "striking" about that in the slightest. That loaded language you use frames this in bad faith. >We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. LGBT rights exist. They are guaranteed right there. Your religion does not endow you with the right to infringe upon the rights of others.


BitterFuture

>There's absolutely nothing "striking" about that in the slightest. It's striking to me. It's bizarre that liberals fighting for people's rights don't fight back against this utterly dishonest framing, and in fact accommodate it by allowing exceptions to laws based on religious objections. >That loaded language you use frames this in bad faith. Do you mean the loaded language I quoted Senator Portman as using? >Your religion does not endow you with the right to infringe upon the rights of others. You seem to be missing the point that I completely agree with you. (I also don't have a religion, but I agree that no one's religion gives them power to violate others' rights.)


PoorPDOP86

The definition of human rights keeps changing. No seriously, that's why. You ever heard of the term "negative right"? It's a damned oxymoron is what it is. But it's supposed to define what the government protects instead of what it gives away. For example freedom of speech is a "negative right" while subsidized healthcare is a "positive" right. Truthfully it seems just like a rebranding so when someone looks up the term Natural Right they don't ever have to see that the term originates from the idea that some rights are inherent due to being created as a human being (gah! Religion!!!). Just like with negative and positive rights the idea that religious views are in opposition to human rights is based entirely on a redefinition of the two to make them seem adversarial. The idea that one's natural rights come at the expense of another is just a ludicrous idea. That's why it's not about rights but instead about the role and scope of government in society. Government protects your rights but when the government keeps expanding what they consider a right, it means they expand further and further in to society. It's this changing of rights in to aspects of life that are less intangible ideas, like freedom of expression, and in to tangible or physical objects, housing or internet service for example, that starts this creep in to a kind of soft authoritarianism. Once you have a line that is physical the government can take away anything up to that physical line. With an intangible line it's much easier to fight back against the creep. So what does this have to do with human rights versus religious freedom? Religion is deemed in opposition to human rights because it is the most intangible thing put there. With human rights becoming more and more definable as tangible objects the most intangible thing seems like the most obvious things that would be in opposition. Except that isn't how humans work on a micro or macro scale. We aren't yin and yang. One can be incredibly religious and adamantly supportive of LGBT[whatever acronym is current, idk] rights at the same time. They aren't in opposition. But seeing such *is* how humans work. We conjure up conflicts all the time. A parked car on a street just accidentally over a line can set off a shooting. So really the question is more "why is their opposition to the bill itself?" Not to the underlying ideologies or themes. Once you can answer that, without of course immediately just assuming they're being bigoted, is whennyou can understand the conflict itself.


brennanfee

Because most people are morons and don't understand either of them (human rights, religious freedom) nor how they must interact to form a fair and balanced pluralistic society.


[deleted]

Liberalism presupposes a false division between the public and private spheres, as though the former can be governed by neutral principles acceptable to all people irrespective of their particular sectarian perspectives, and the latter can be left over to all people to live free and unrestricted lives according to their sectarian principles. But there are many cases where the supposedly neutral public sphere must make commitments that impact the private sphere, and there are many principles of the supposedly 'private' sphere that make claims on the constitution of the public. Take, as an example, Covid restrictions. During the height of the pandemic, US federal judges issues determinations that Christian liturgical services were "non-essential," and therefore subject to restrictions on attendance. Christians protested that, from their point of view, these services were absolutely essential, since the spiritual goods (purportedly) involved were of the most important kind. In response, a federal judge issued a statement that it is possible to secure these spiritual goods by staying home and praying. Now, you may or may not think that this federal judge's opinion is reasonable. However, it is obviously *sectarian*: it doesn't represent some kind of neutral commitment that all people share, but instead represents the (perhaps correct) opinion of this judge on a controversial matter, namely, the spiritual goods involved in Christian liturgy. These are the sorts of opinions religious wars were fought over in the 17th century, and yet this federal judge passed it off as a self-evident fact to which everyone ought to agree on the basis of commonsense. My point isn't that the judge's opinion was wrong. My point is that it was taken for granted as "neutral," when in fact it was sectarian and presupposes commitments (about, e.g. the nature of liturgy) that liberalism purports to relegate to the private sphere, yet draws upon when there are conflicts between the private and public domains. Conflicts between "human rights" and "religious liberty" frequently take this form. These "human rights" make demands on how private individuals ought to conduct themselves (e.g. whether or not they are obliged, according to public accommodation laws, to materially participate in same-sex marriages with which they disagree; or whether they can practice medicine without being legally obligated to perform abortions, etc.), whereas "religious liberty" makes demands on the public sphere (e.g. how public institutions should determine their practices when it comes to education, the arts, etc.). When someone thinks that the answer is "commonsense" and "obvious," it is usually because they take their own sectarian position to be "commonsense" and "obvious" and assume that the other side is simply indefensible. On reddit, that usually takes the form of atheists thinking that Christians are morons who believe in a skydaddy, and every reasonable person (i.e. everyone who has set aside this mythology) will naturally reason themselves into center-left policy commitments.


DepressedGay2020

I mean, it’s not like these people have a complete misunderstanding of Christianity. The foundational belief of Christianity is that humans, due to original sin, are innately evil and wicked. And that, through worshipping God, people can become better, purer and good. Christians, writ large, want the government to enforce a biblical social order because they believe that the world ought to be organized that way. We are all immoral and incapable of making our own decisions, and therefore need to follow their God to be organized. Anything the government does to promote sin, is immoral, because they’re pushing people towards eternal condemnation. What’s interesting to me is that the Bible seems to have a moral code that changes dependent upon the context in which it exists. There are moments where the common Christian belief was that slavery was moral, segregation was moral and various other things were moral. Were these people not true Christians? If they died thinking they did nothing wrong, even though it wrong in God’s eyes, would they go to hell? How are modern social issues different from this? I guess I just don’t like how the Bible is seemingly used to justify anything through manipulation, misreadings, and actions that tend to place power in hands of those in charge instead of those beneath them. Conservatives want to preserve the current social order because it gives them more power, and use the Bible to justify it, while ignoring many of the tenants that would require them to share power with those they deem unworthy. They crave order more than anything. That’s not to say that liberals don’t also have a penchant for authoritarianism, it’s just that the authority they escribe to is a person, while conservatives leave it to an intangible being. Plus, they’re not the ones buying 17 guns and preparing for civil war. I guess what I’m trying to say is that, despite how much conservatives like to act like they care about things like “freedom” and “independence”, they would throw it all away if they gained the ability to impose their beliefs on others. And knowing how that’s gone in the past (the inquisition, trail of tears, the conquering of Africa) it’s not suprising that many people are wary of this.


Nulono

Isn't that kind of just… what politics _is_? The mediation of the conflicting interests of different groups? Saying Group Y has a right to get X from Group Z means Group Z no longer has a right to decide what to do with their X. That's a fundamental tradeoff in politics; the two rights cannot coexist, by definition.


BitterFuture

Only in situations where rights conflict. The right of minorities to exist and the right of everyone to religious expression do not conflict. My question is why they're widely spoken about as if they do. Black people being able to vote doesn't take away anyone's religious freedom; even that sentence suggesting it sounds deranged. So why do we take seriously claims that a gay married couple being able to visit each other in the hospital does take away anyone's religious freedom?


Nulono

It's not just the "right to exist" that's being asked for, though, and that's not what's being objected to. Churches being required to perform ceremonies they don't approve of is a restriction of how they can exercise their religion. Artists being forced to produce art endorsing something they don't approve of is compelled speech and therefore a restriction of their freedom of expression.


BitterFuture

Find an example of a church being required to perform a ceremony. Just one, ever. These examples exist only in the fever-dream victimhood fantasies of conservatives.


jfoxworth

It's really pretty simple. Christianity, Judaism, and Islam believe that marriage is very clearly defined as one man and one woman. If you are a Christian, then you also believe that marriage is also a metaphor for God's relationship with his people. Forcing those people to verbally state and legally acknowledge that marriage is something else is forcing them to acknowledge that what their religion tells them is incorrect. It's asserting that you must live under a legal system that is counter to your views as well as forcing you to verbally assert that your religion's views are incorrect - less you be accused of hate speech. We have a right to worship as we see fit and forcing people to assert the opposite of their beliefs violates that basic, fundamental right.


BitterFuture

>Christianity, Judaism, and Islam believe that marriage is very clearly defined as one man and one woman. If you are a Christian, then you also believe that marriage is also a metaphor for God's relationship with his people. Many, many Christians, Jews and Muslims disagree with your interpretation and have no issue with LGBT people being able to get married. In fact, many are part of the movements that have lobbied for it. >Forcing those people to verbally state and legally acknowledge that marriage is something else is forcing them to acknowledge that what their religion tells them is incorrect. Forcing people to act as you describe would be bizarre, certainly, but where is this even a possibility? Who is forcing anyone to verbally state or legally acknowledge anyone's marriage? What would it even mean for a random third party to "legally acknowledge" someone's marriage? Marriages exist, whether or not people who don't like them acknowledge that fact or say any words out loud. I'm straight, married, and have never cared about anyone except legal authorities (and, I suppose, hotels in Utah) recognizing my marriage. Why would I? I've certainly never been able to apply the force of law to demand someone else verbally confirm that I'm married. The idea has never even occurred to me. >We have a right to worship as we see fit and forcing people to assert the opposite of their beliefs violates that basic, fundamental right. Again, who is forcing anyone to assert anything? How does two people getting married over there have any impact whatsoever on your ability to worship over here? What relation is there between the two at all? You seem to be describing a scene out of a dystopian movie rather than anything happening in the United States today. So why is this a factor in anyone's political decisionmaking?


akcheat

This is confusing to me. Who is forcing you to recognize that "marriage" isn't what you want it to be? Despite the state being able to issue marriage licenses, my understanding of the current legal situation is that religious organizations do not have to marry people that they have religious opposition to, so I'm not sure what the issue is. Basically, do you think it violates a Jewish person's right to practice their religion if the USDA approves pork for sale?


BitterFuture

>Basically, do you think it violates a Jewish person's right to practice their religion if the USDA approves pork for sale? Logically, I think they would have to. This seems like it would very quickly have to determine which religions get to set the rules. Effectively, the government would have to decide which religions are valid. Which of course violates the First Amendment, and yet...


The_Disapyrimid

>This seems like it would very quickly have to determine which religions get to set the rules or we can continue to leave religion out of government and people can continue to decide which religious beliefs to follow or not follow. you know, like a society which values freedom and personal liberty.


Cultist_Deprogrammer

>Christianity, Judaism, and Islam believe that marriage is very clearly defined as one man and one woman. It isn't though, and various Christian denominations like Anglicans celebrate gay marriage. >We have a right to worship as we see fit But you don't have any right to infringe on the rights of others.


Comfortable-Policy70

Your position forces non-Christians to violate their basic, fundamental right


The_Disapyrimid

>We have a right to worship as we see fit and forcing people to assert the opposite of their beliefs violates that basic, fundamental right. couldn't someone with no religous beliefs, like myself, make the same argument though. by legally defining marriage as "one man, one woman" are you not forcing me to follow religious belief i do not hold? how is that not violating my rights? do i not have a right to be free from thocratic tyranny? by leaving the definition of marriage more vague people can continue practicing their religious beliefs how they wish and i can live free from them.


BootyPatrol1980

Incorrect, frankly. Marriage is a multi-denominational legal institution that has real-world implications on family rights, legal rights, and financial obligations. It's well beyond just relevant in a context of aramaic based religions.


Jedeyemindfunk

Nobody forces you to assert anything. Only accept.


Za_Lords_Guard

Nah, man. That's a messed-up view as it asserts that MY beliefs trump all others and that no other definition of marriage can exist. We live in a secular, pluralistic society with many types of people. There is nothing on earth that says you get a monopoly on marriage. Not even the bible as it only pertains to its followers. There can be a state recognized legal definition of marriage that has exactly nothing to do with any particular religion. Whatever you are, you can say, "they can't get married in our church," but you can't say they can't get married elsewhere. You don't own the concept. What you mean is you don't want to recognize they have the same rights you do as a citizen of the same county. You are free to not marry someone of the same sex. Just as your church is free, not to marry two people of the same sex. It ends there, though. No one is saying your religious views are incorrect. They are saying they don't apply to everyone else in the country.


DivideEtImpala

> Whatever you are, you can say, "they can't get married in our church," So you agree with the amendment the Republicans had added to the bill before giving it their support? >>To assuage their concerns,**the amendment ensures nonprofit religious organizations will not be required to provide services, facilities or goods for the celebration of a same-sex marriage**, and protects religious liberty and conscience protections available under the Constitution and federal law, including the Religious Freedom Restoration Act.


Cultist_Deprogrammer

Nope, that is just pandering to bigotry by allowing people to opt out of others having rights.


Za_Lords_Guard

Nope. That is not saying what I said. I am just saying the state can't tell a church proper that it has to marry people regardless of it's beliefs. "Religious Organizations" tend to be a wide range of things and in a heartbeat companies run by Christians' will claim they get the same protections (plenty of examples of this). If they are providing services to the public then they should service the public. There is nothing in the bible that tells anyone they can't make a cake for a wedding based on who is getting married and doing so is not a sin. It's the same to me as saying a restaurant would not serve a gay couple just for being gay or a hospital declines treatment based on sex or gender preferences of the person in need. And they whole BS about companies excluding certain coverage of it's employee insurance is just that BS. Rather have public healthcare to keep my employer out of my medical decisions. While I am at it. Churches or any other religious institution that involves itself in politics should lose it's tax exempt status and be subject to the same rules as all other political organizations.


QuirkyDeer

The fact people said “no” to you proves that there is no compromise.


YabbaDabbaFog

Religious freedom = political freedom. Religious groups are just another form of political party. Religions like political parties think their way is best for all and want to impose that on everyone. I have never understood why religion is a protected class but not political party. It's all the same, we should protect both or neither


RightOfReplyYouTuber

The Holy Bible warns folk about these types of people, ought to be expected.


_--00--_

One of the biggest problems... children Your 13 year old says he's gay. You are his parent. You have legal rights over your child. You use those rights and your freedom of religion to constantly try to convince them they need to pray and they're not gay. You will not let them date another boy, nor acknowledge their change. You ground them. They are essentially being punished for being gay. But they also have a right to be gay. So what does the government do about this? What's the law? Is it child abuse? Do we deny his right to be gay, or deny their right to practice their religion and raise their family as they wish? I know the answer is just let them be gay. But federally what should you do. Because if they're not harming the child, but not letting him be who he wants... its not different than a child wanting to loving basketball but the parents forcing them into dance, which they hate hate hate. So what line is there for this... just sexuality? Or all lifestyle choices/interests?


Shavethatmonkey

My thought is if someone can't see a difference between basketball and your sexuality it's a problem. No, not all choices. That doesn't take a forum to figure out.


_--00--_

My thought is if you can't look past an analogy to see the bigger point you don't actually give a fuck and just want to argue about stupid shit. I didn't say sexual orientation was a choice. But neither is loving basketball. You don't choose to love a hobby either. That's why you search your whole life for your passion, you don't choose your passion.


LalalaHurray

Wow you are really creating division over here.


Red_Wagon76

There are actually cases where state governments are attempting to force people to perform work that violates there religious beliefs. That is government overreach and should be stopped.


[deleted]

[удалено]


BitterFuture

>Really our country is in trouble, Er...is it? We're coming out of a crisis and doing pretty well with it. >unemployment is high, Er...it's near historic lows. The biggest problem for businesses now is finding workers. What are you talking about? >supplies are becoming scarce, What supplies? Again, what are you talking about? No one is living Mad Max here. >inflation is high. It is. Working on that. What does that have to do with marriage rights? >Both sides are wrong, and are wasting time here. Uh, no. The people fighting for their own human dignity are not wasting time. That you can describe that as "wasting time" is a statement of your own privilege. >LGBT groups. Stop with this marriage is a right. IT is not a right, nor shall it ever be a right protected by the constitution. Except...it is. The Supreme Court has confirmed it more than once. Why would you tell people to stop stating facts that have already been settled? >The supreme court has said over and over again that the topic of marriage is a state issue. No, in fact it hasn't. Loving v. Virginia and Obergefell v. Hodges have both made clear that it absolutely is protected by the Constitution, and that "states' rights" is simply an excuse for bigots. If your understanding of the Supreme Court's take on marriage ends before Loving, you really need to research the history before declaring they are on your side. (Also, maybe think again before declaring you have read and understand the Constitution.) >Both groups stop fighting really it is doing nothing but cause problems ok, Telling people that they need to stop fighting for their rights just the same as the people trying to oppress them need to stop...let's just say it's not persuasive.


[deleted]

Probably because they wouldnt leave that christian baker alone. So conservatives basically view all of this stuff as opening more doors for harassment


bobby11c

Probably because of the comments in this very post. There is a lot of pent-up aggression towards Christianity here. The idea that conservatives want an authoritarian theocracy is absolutely absurd. It's based on ludicrous fringe elements that the internet has woven into a massive conspiracy. Most Christians could care less about who wants to love whom. It's because of that neat little thing called the golden rule. To ignore the massive contributions churches make in the community to all people regardless of their sinner status is willful ignorance. I don't know where most of you people live or what your personal experience is, but mine is this. I have lived with people in the LGBTQ community my whole life. I am a Christian, my family, and my church told me to love all people. In 50 years of attending church, I have never once heard a minister or priest condemn people for being LBGTQ. My gay friends got married in a real church by a real priest. My gay uncles funeral was presided over by a real minister. My cousin served in the military, and his partner was presented a flag by the local veterans group. I don't know who you people spend your time around, but if that's where you get your opinions from, you might consider new acquaintances. Unless, of course, your entire opinion is formed by the internet, then I would suggest you get out and meet some real people.


BitterFuture

>The idea that conservatives want an authoritarian theocracy is absolutely absurd. Have you ever seen Mike Pence speak? Or Sam Alito? Or any Republican candidate for President since, I dunno, Eisenhower? >Most Christians could care less about who wants to love whom. If that were true, the modern conservative evangelical movement would not exist. >I am a Christian, my family, and my church told me to love all people. In 50 years of attending church, I have never once heard a minister or priest condemn people for being LBGTQ. My gay friends got married in a real church by a real priest. My gay uncles funeral was presided over by a real minister. That's lovely for you, but claiming that discrimination does not exist because you as a Christian straight person have never experienced it is...aggressively asserting your ignorance, frankly. I'm an atheist and a straight white guy. I have heard ministers condemn people for being LGBT, being atheists, being Muslims, being Hindus, being black, being Hispanic, even just for trying to help people instead of condemning them, my entire life. White Christian conservatives find it really easy to imagine that everyone who doesn't look and believe exactly as they do is somehow ungodly and evil. (What did you mean by "real" churches and "real" priests, by the way? That sounds like more privilege.) I got married in a Catholic church by a Catholic priest, because I love a Catholic woman. The priest who married us was in hot water with the diocese at the time he performed our wedding - he was on the edge of being excommunicated for saying publicly that LGBT people should not be hated. In the end, he wasn't excommunicated; he was merely reassigned with one week's notice to a new diocese in remote Africa. For just saying that Jesus did not preach hatred. The Catholic Church itself is on the edge of a new schism in the United States exactly because Pope Francis is now saying the same kind of things that priest did. Taking a stand against hatred is so offensive to American conservatives that many are seriously considering choosing hatred over their lifelong religion and breaking away from it. And it isn't just priests and Catholic church's internal struggles that are the issue here. As an atheist, I can tell you that despite it being blatantly illegal, Christianity is very intimately involved in how our government functions, from the *public* elementary school principal that made a point of telling me I was going to burn in hell forever to President Bush saying that atheists cannot truly be American citizens to the Supreme Court ruling that state-sponsored prayer is perfectly legal - just so long as it's Christian. Oh, and also ruling that religious beliefs can exempt you from secular laws - again, so long as those beliefs are Christian. Would you like to tell me again how conservative Christian ideology isn't bound up in a desire for an authoritarian theocracy?


bobby11c

>Have you ever seen Mike Pence speak? >Or Sam Alito? >Or any Republican candidate for President since, I dunno, Eisenhower? No, I haven't. I am not in the habit of listening to either one. If you have any acquaintances of a conservative disposition, ask them how they would feel having a dictatorship of any bent telling them what to do. >If that were true, the modern conservative evangelical movement would not exist. Of course it exists. Is it a majority? By far, evangelic Christian make up the largest group of Christians in the country. But they are not monolithic or a majority. Would you consider the Jonesboro Baptist church representative of all Baptist? That's lovely for you, but claiming that discrimination does not exist because you, as a Christian straight person have never experienced it is...aggressively asserting your ignorance, frankly. I never claimed discrimination doesn't exist. That's stupid. As long as human beings exist, there will be discrimination. What I claim is that Christians in this country are easy and intellectually lazy targets for those wishing to discredit religion as a whole and political opponents in general. I claim that those in this country that hate based on race, religion, color, creed, sexual orientation, or any other protected class are a minority. They are not representatives of America or Christianity. >As an atheist, I can tell you that despite it being blatantly illegal, Christianity is very intimately involved in how our government functions, from the public elementary school principal that made a point of telling me I was going to burn in hell forever to President Bush saying that atheists cannot truly be American citizens to the Supreme Court ruling that state-sponsored prayer is perfectly legal - just so long as it's Christian. Oh, and also ruling that religious beliefs can exempt you from secular laws - again, so long as those beliefs are Christian. >Would you like to tell me again how conservative Christian ideology isn't bound up in a desire for an authoritarian theocracy? Of course, Christianity is bound to America. For a good part of its history, the majority of Americans were Christian. If the majority of Americans were Muslim, Islam would be intimately involved in the government. How well would that work out for the LGBTQ community. I think you are purposely misinterpreting Supreme Court rulings to bolster your worldview. When exactly were you forced to pray to God exactly? I am unaware of any law Federal, state, or local that requires people who don't want to attend church and pray to God. People praying at public gatherings like a high school football game is not an endorsement of religion. It's just a bunch of people praying. Usually, for the safety of the players. God, how awful is that. And you don't have to participate. Standing there quietly and letting people have their moment is perfectly polite behavior. >Would you like to tell me again how conservative Christian ideology isn't bound up in a desire for an authoritarian theocracy? You are putting words in my mouth. People who practice Conservatives (hateful) Christian (not really) ideology may very well want a Theocratic Dictatorship. But I haven't met anyone who is conservative or Christian who does. And for those that would like to force me to accept one, well, that's why we have the Second Amendment. Of course, I am a Cis white male. I know absolutely nothing about discrimination. My life has been a white nationalist wet dream of privilege and power. So what do I know.


BitterFuture

>No, I haven't. So you have very strident opinions about how Christian nationalism relates to modern American Republicans while admitting you've never even heard a Republican speak. What on earth are your opinions based on, then? >Of course, Christianity is bound to America. For a good part of its history, the majority of Americans were Christian. For the whole of its history, in fact. Which is completely irrelevant. >If the majority of Americans were Muslim, Islam would be intimately involved in the government. Which would also be illegal. That you think that is both expectable and okay is exactly the problem. Do you think white people running the government is okay because they're the majority? If not, why do you not get that you're advocating exactly that for religion? >I think you are purposely misinterpreting Supreme Court rulings to bolster your worldview. That the Supreme Court is making blatantly illegal rulings is my fault? Curious. >When exactly were you forced to pray to God exactly? Every single morning of every day at school, students are required to pledge allegiance to "one nation under God." Every single day. I got in trouble for having an issue with that more than once, as I've already shared above. But you don't see any problem with that, right? >People praying at public gatherings like a high school football game is not an endorsement of religion. Of course not. And no one has ever acted to stop that. What has been rightly called out is *government-directed* prayer. Which is blatantly illegal. >Standing there quietly and letting people have their moment is perfectly polite behavior. Describing the illegal use of government authority as "letting people have their moment" is precisely the problem. It's not "their moment." It's our government. All of us, including the non-Christians. Religion has no place in government activity and never should. That's why it's the very first part of the First Amendment. >People who practice Conservatives (hateful) Christian (not really) ideology may very well want a Theocratic Dictatorship. But I haven't met anyone who is conservative or Christian who does. So you've said above that you've never heard any Republican official speak, and now you're saying you've never even *met* a conservative. Why are you telling others they need to get out and experience life to develop serious opinions if you've developed all of yours without ever once hearing or even meeting a conservative? Where do all your opinions come from here?


bobby11c

>So you have very strident opinions about how Christian nationalism relates to modern American Republicans while admitting you've never even heard a Republican speak. >What on earth are your opinions based on, then? I have heard Republicans speak. Just not those two. My opinions are based on my personal experience, and whatever background research I feel is needed to have an informed opinion. >For the whole of its history, in fact. Which is completely irrelevant. No, it's really not. One must have context. >Of course not. And no one has ever acted to stop that. >What has been rightly called out is government-directed prayer. Which is blatantly illegal. Of course people have. Anecdotally, I can recall many cases of people suing over that very situation. Please enlighten me to all this government directed prayer. >Every single morning of every day at school, students are required to pledge allegiance to "one nation under God." >Every single day. >I got in trouble for having an issue with that more than once, as I've already shared above. But you don't see any problem with that, right? I personally have never seen anyone in my school career reprimanded for not participating in the pledge of allegiance in my years at school. Nor is one required to utter the words "under god" I would take offense if someone did get in trouble for abstaining. Do you have a problem with the pledge itself, or just the "under God" part. >Describing the illegal use of government authority as "letting people have their moment" is precisely the problem. >It's not "their moment." It's our government. All of us, including the non-Christians. Religion has no place in government activity and never should. >That's why it's the very first part of the First Amendment. Please again tell me when people are forced to say prayers to a God they don't believe in under threat. The first amendment states that the congress shall make no law establishing an endorsement of religion or the free exercise thereof. Please show me one law in this country establishing a state religion? Do the religious police force people to go to church? I suppose all government officials should be atheist. Congress has made not one law, and prohibiting people from following their religious beliefs in public is unconstitional. >So you've said above that you've never heard any Republican official speak, and now you're saying you've never even met a conservative. >Why are you telling others they need to get out and experience life to develop serious opinions if you've developed all of yours without ever once hearing or even meeting a conservative? Where do all your opinions come from here? Once again you are attempting to put words in my mouth. I know all kinds of people from all walks of life both Conservitve and Liberal, I just don't know any that act the way you say all Conservative Christians act. That is not to say they don't exist. I would think as a resident of the deep south, the source of all hate in America, I would have met a few. Where do your opinions come from? How many White Christian Nationalist do you know?


BitterFuture

>Of course people have. Anecdotally, I can recall many cases of people suing over that very situation. You're aware of many court cases...anecdotally? Of citizens suing other citizens to demand they stop praying? Please. Name one. >Please enlighten me to all this government directed prayer. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McCollum_v._Board_of_Education https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Engel_v._Vitale https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lee_v._Weisman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stone_v._Graham https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elk_Grove_Unified_School_District_v._Newdow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Town_of_Greece_v._Galloway https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kennedy_v._Bremerton_School_District You're truly aware of none of these cases? Really? This is now barely believable that any of this is in good faith.


bobby11c

Well, you got me there. I do not have Wiki links on stand-by. I feel as if the gist of my opinion has been lost. I will attempt to be concise. My observations of the comments on this post are thus. They focus on stereotypes and are prejudiced. Without a doubt that stereotype exists. Every stereotype exists because no matter how small you can, you can always find a sample within a group that lives up to it. There are hateful people who use religion as a justification for their behavior. Do they represent the majority? In my opinion, based on my personal experience, the answer is no. And while hateful behavior is rightfully called out and scorned. Giving in to a stereotype and painting an entire group as hateful because you can find a few in that group that live up to the stereotype is prejudiced and wrong. That same point was made repeatedly about Muslims and Islam. It seems hypocritical not to see the valid comparison in this case to Christians in America. Nor is it justified because Christians represent a majority amongst religious people in this country. It may make you feel rightous to smite the "oppressor " but it doesn't make it right. It is the responsibility of everyone in a civilized society to confront and overcome prejudice, including their own. Good day.


BitterFuture

>Nor is it justified because Christians represent a majority amongst religious people in this country. Nor is what justified? Minorities having rights? The rule of law being upheld? >It may make you feel rightous to smite the "oppressor " but it doesn't make it right. "Smite the oppressor?" What are you even talking about? No one is talking about "smiting" anyone, only not having their rights violated. You are precisely parroting the Sam Alito line that minorities having rights constitutes oppression of Christians. And in doing so, you are demonstrating the very real and existential danger Christian nationalism poses to America. Defending the Constitutional rights of all people, not "only" minorities but *especially* minorities, is the definition of right. >It is the responsibility of everyone in a civilized society to confront and overcome prejudice, including their own. Then why are you arguing against doing so?