POTUS 2017

[pulga]

"Religious liberty" is a dog whistle for "everyone must live by Christian standards and values." Conservative Christians have exactly no interest in religious liberty for anyone but themselves and those who believe the same way they do.

From the op-ed it's clear that the secularists share the same sentiment.

Trump's election came as religious liberty was under unprecedented attack. The Obama administration was trying to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to violate their religious conscience and facilitate payment for abortifacient drugs and other contraceptives. During oral arguments in the Obergefell v. Hodges case, President Barack Obama's solicitor general told the Supreme Court that churches and universities could lose their tax-exempt status if they opposed same-sex marriage.

Hillary Clinton promised to escalate those attacks. In 2015, she declared at the Women in the World Summit that "religious beliefs ... have to be changed" -- perhaps the most radical threat to religious liberty ever delivered by a major presidential candidate. Had Clinton won, she would have replaced the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia with a liberal jurist, giving the Supreme Court a liberal judicial-activist majority.

[Justsit]

"Religious liberty" is a dog whistle for "everyone must live by Christian standards and values." Conservative Christians have exactly no interest in religious liberty for anyone but themselves and those who believe the same way they do.

From the op-ed it's clear that the secularists share the same sentiment.

Trump's election came as religious liberty was under unprecedented attack. The Obama administration was trying to force the Little Sisters of the Poor to violate their religious conscience and facilitate payment for abortifacient drugs and other contraceptives. During oral arguments in the Obergefell v. Hodges case, President Barack Obama's solicitor general told the Supreme Court that churches and universities could lose their tax-exempt status if they opposed same-sex marriage.

Hillary Clinton promised to escalate those attacks. In 2015, she declared at the Women in the World Summit that "religious beliefs ... have to be changed" -- perhaps the most radical threat to religious liberty ever delivered by a major presidential candidate. Had Clinton won, she would have replaced the late conservative Justice Antonin Scalia with a liberal jurist, giving the Supreme Court a liberal judicial-activist majority.

"Religious liberty" means one is free to practice one's religion. It does not mean one is free to impose one's beliefs on anyone else. Your (not you Pulga specifically, but generic you) right to be a Christian (or Buddhist or Muslim or anything else) ends when it attempts to control other people's lives. Be Christian all you want, but don't attempt to make me one or make me live by your laws.

"Secularism" asserts the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, or, in a state declared to be neutral on matters of belief, from the imposition by government of religion or religious practices upon its people. This principle is specifically promulgated in the First Amendment of the US Constitution. The US is not a Christian nation and does not operate under Christian laws.

[pulga]

"Secularism" asserts the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, or, in a state declared to be neutral on matters of belief, from the imposition by government of religion or religious practices upon its people. This principle is specifically promulgated in the First Amendment of the US Constitution. The US is not a Christian nation and does not operate under Christian laws.

Agreed. But that doesn't mean that "religious beliefs... have to be changed", as Ms. Clinton put it. Or do progressives contend that because their ideology isn't a religion they have a right force it upon those whose religious beliefs are at odds with their political agenda?

[Justsit]

"Secularism" asserts the right to be free from religious rule and teachings, or, in a state declared to be neutral on matters of belief, from the imposition by government of religion or religious practices upon its people. This principle is specifically promulgated in the First Amendment of the US Constitution. The US is not a Christian nation and does not operate under Christian laws.

Agreed. But that doesn't mean that "religious beliefs... have to be changed", as Ms. Clinton put it. Or do progressives contend that because their ideology isn't a religion they have a right force it upon those whose religious beliefs are at odds with their political agenda?

Without reading Clinton's comments in the original context, one cannot know what she intended by the quote. Perhaps she meant that those religious beliefs that violate Constitutional prohibitions will have to be changed. Or that those holding religious beliefs will have to change their view that religion overrules federal law.

The Constitution prohibits the establishment of religion. Upholding the law of the land is not "forcing" anything on persons with religious beliefs any more than anyone else is "forced" to obey the law.

[pulga]

The Constitution prohibits the establishment of religion. Upholding the law of the land is not "forcing" anything on persons with religious beliefs any more than anyone else is "forced" to obey the law.

So It comes down to the law of the land. Also from the op-ed:

In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Court will soon determine whether the government can compel a U.S. citizen to violate his conscience and participate in speech that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs.

President Trump with his appointment of Justice Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court bench has been a godsend for those who wish to practice their religion in accordance with their beliefs.

[Justsit]

In Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission, the Court will soon determine whether the government can compel a U.S. citizen to violate his conscience and participate in speech that violates his sincerely held religious beliefs.

President Trump with his appointment of Justice Neil Gorsuch to the Supreme Court bench has been a godsend for those who wish to practice their religion in accordance with their beliefs.

The issue is a very slippery slope. If the Court allows individual beliefs to supersede the Constitution and other laws, who decides where and when that is appropriate and "sincere?"

Will doctors then be allowed to deny patients' care because they don't agree with the patients gender or sexual orientation?
If I, a transgender person, am lying on a gurney in an ER having a heart attack, can a Christian cardiologist refuse to
treat me?
Will nurses be able to refuse to care for patients who are of a different religion than themselves?
Will landlords be able to refuse to rent to couples or who aren't married? Individuals who are HIV positive? Lesbian? Gay? Have children born out of wedlock?
Will store owners be able to refuse to serve patrons based on race, color, creed, national origin? Gender, sexual orientation, marital status?
Will a funeral director be able to refuse to bury people based on religion?
Will I finally be able to stop paying taxes to the American war machine without risk of going to jail? Killing is against my religion.
Say I'm a US citizen who happens to be Muslim and my sincerely held religious belief is that Christians are infidels? Can I legally murder them?
If a person hasn't been to church in 30 years, but claims to have "sincere religious beliefs," are they lying? Will attendance be taken at church? (just kidding here)
Do we really intend to cater the every whim of the individual conscience?

I sincerely hope the Justices, in their wisdom, come to a decision that does not produce catastrophic unintended consequences.

[pulga]

The issue is a very slippery slope. If the Court allows individual beliefs to supersede the Constitution and other laws, who decides where and when that is appropriate and "sincere?"

Should an Orthodox Jew be compelled to cater a Ku Klux Klan rally?

[Justsit]

The issue is a very slippery slope. If the Court allows individual beliefs to supersede the Constitution and other laws, who decides where and when that is appropriate and "sincere?"

Should an Orthodox Jew be compelled to cater a Ku Klux Klan rally?

A similar case was adjudicated in 1968, when the owner of a barbecue restaurant — Piggie Park, in South Carolina — held that his religious beliefs gave him the right to withhold service from African-Americans. The owner, Maurice Bessinger, argued that the Civil Rights Act violated his freedom of religion, because “his religious beliefs compel him to oppose any integration of the races whatever.” He lost because the Court determined that his establishment was principally engaged in selling food for consumption on the premises, and was therefore a place of public accommodation where all should be served equally per the provisions in the Civil Rights Act. https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/di ... 1/2349546/

Masterpiece really has nothing to do with religious freedom. It’s about enshrining a freedom to discriminate. Historically, religious exemptions from the law have occasionally been granted to protect the person who holds the belief. But this case is different, in that it gives an individual the right to harm someone else. And that’s what the Masterpiece case is about: It would give individuals the right to discriminate. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/11/29/opin ... -cake.html

My personal opinion is that if a person opens a public business, they should serve the public equally. So far the courts have upheld that position based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

[pulga]

My personal opinion is that if a person opens a public business, they should serve the public equally. So far the courts have upheld that position based on the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

Thank you for your thoughts. It'll be interesting -- and important -- to see the way the Masterpiece Cakeshop v. Colorado Civil Rights Commission case plays out.

[chownah]

It is a difficult issue and I see merits for both sides.

Concerning the cake shop. It is my understanding that the shop declined to custom make a product. This is not the same as providing a "public accomodation". If the custom cake shop had (perhaps it does) some ready made cakes on display for sale and a customer came in and bought one then there would be a "public accomodation" and all members of the public would have to be accomodated without prejudice......but making a custom order I think is not a "public accomodation".
chownah

[Justsit]

It is a difficult issue and I see merits for both sides.

Concerning the cake shop. It is my understanding that the shop declined to custom make a product. This is not the same as providing a "public accomodation". If the custom cake shop had (perhaps it does) some ready made cakes on display for sale and a customer came in and bought one then there would be a "public accomodation" and all members of the public would have to be accomodated without prejudice......but making a custom order I think is not a "public accomodation".
chownah

Yes, my reply was directed to Pulga's question; it's not directly applicable to this case.

And definitely agree, this is a tricky question.

In this case, it seems that the cake shop owner makes custom cakes. Now if a person/persons come in and wants a custom cake for a wedding, that's part of what the shop normally provides. The problem comes when the owner refuses to make the cake because the couple is gay. It is not illegal to be gay, it does not harm the store owner in any way that the couple is gay - they are not attempting to seduce him, or "turn him gay," or solicit him or refuse to pay, or request special treatment or require him to approve of homosexuality. They just want a cake. He is refusing because he does want to serve gay people, evidently because his religion (not sure which one he claims?) says he should condemn gay people (thinks they are an abomination before the Lord??). Does he also refuse to serve all other so-called sinners?? Or only certain ones?

He does in fact refuse them based on their membership in a particular class of persons, which legally constitutes discrimination, thereby violating the law.

It will indeed be interesting to read the opinions of the justices, majority and dissenting.

[DooDoot]

[chownah]

....speaking of draining the swamp:
https://www.yahoo.com/gma/exclusive-epa ... ories.html
I think that trump is master of the swamp.....he drains out the opposition's gators and installs his own.
chownah

[Virgo]

This is extremely dangerous to our Democracy:

[Justsit]

This is extremely dangerous to our Democracy:
(video)

What's next, Two MInutes Hate?