Little-Acorn
Gold Member
Most people are familiar with the 1st amendment, which states "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, nor prohibiting the free exercise thereof...."
Many of the world's most widespread religions are based on texts that clearly and succinctly describe homosexuality as wrong, punishable, and even forbidden.
Now in the U.S. the Fed govt has passed legislation saying that businesses cannot refuse to serve customers because they are homosexual.
Does that legislation violate the 1st amendment for people in those religions, who run businesses?
Which law takes precedence? A Federal law forcing religious people to do things forbidden in their religions? Or a Constitutional passage saying the Fed can't make such a law?
Some issues are obvious: If some religion calls for the sacrifice of virgins, clearly the Fed can make laws against that, since such a religion is violating OTHER constitutional rights (the virgins' right to life).
Does the Fed law forcing people to treat homosexuals "equally", violate another right listed in the Constitution?
------------------------------------------------------------
Indiana religious freedom act What apos s behind the law and the backlash - LA Times
Indiana religious freedom act: What's behind the law and the backlash
Tim Cook
March 30, 2015, 6:15 PM
When Indiana approved a law designed to allow residents and business owners to use their religious beliefs as reason to deny services to some people, the conservative state braced for some fallout. But the response was quicker and harder after a campaign from critics who argued the law discriminates against gays and lesbians..
Within days, Indiana was the target of a social media boycott campaign, threatening its lucrative convention business. Top business leaders from the technology sector slammed the state. San Francisco and Seattle announced they were barring publicly funded travel to Indiana. Connecticut and Washington state announced they would follow suit. Even the NCAA, a temple to what some consider to be the religion of basketball, weighed in, saying it was disappointed in the new law and wanted a clarification before deciding what to do about future events and tournaments.
Indiana legislative leaders are scrambling to contain the potential damage, announcing they will pass language to clarify that the law, which goes into effect in July, does not discriminate against gays and lesbians, despite the fear that it does. Here is a guide to understanding the issue that is a political window into the changing nature of gay rights.
What happened in Indiana?
Gov. Mike Pence, a conservative Republican, last week signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, designed to “help protect churches, Christian businesses and individuals from those who want to punish them because of their biblical beliefs,” he said. Twenty states have similar laws, though the exact language differs. Sixteen more states are considering passage of some form of the law.
Isn’t there a federal version of the law? How does it differ from the state laws?
Yes. The federal version of the law was signed in 1993 by President Clinton and was considered a liberal response to a conservative Supreme Court ruling in 1990. The court ruled against Native Americans who argued that their use of peyote was a religious requirement. In effect, the court decided that states could ban the sacramental use of peyote. That changed the legal standard for what states could and could not do in the area of religious practices.
Liberals quickly moved to protect the tribes by passing a measure to protect religious practices from government interference. Two decades later, it is conservatives who are seeking the new laws.
Many of the world's most widespread religions are based on texts that clearly and succinctly describe homosexuality as wrong, punishable, and even forbidden.
Now in the U.S. the Fed govt has passed legislation saying that businesses cannot refuse to serve customers because they are homosexual.
Does that legislation violate the 1st amendment for people in those religions, who run businesses?
Which law takes precedence? A Federal law forcing religious people to do things forbidden in their religions? Or a Constitutional passage saying the Fed can't make such a law?
Some issues are obvious: If some religion calls for the sacrifice of virgins, clearly the Fed can make laws against that, since such a religion is violating OTHER constitutional rights (the virgins' right to life).
Does the Fed law forcing people to treat homosexuals "equally", violate another right listed in the Constitution?
------------------------------------------------------------
Indiana religious freedom act What apos s behind the law and the backlash - LA Times
Indiana religious freedom act: What's behind the law and the backlash
Tim Cook
March 30, 2015, 6:15 PM
When Indiana approved a law designed to allow residents and business owners to use their religious beliefs as reason to deny services to some people, the conservative state braced for some fallout. But the response was quicker and harder after a campaign from critics who argued the law discriminates against gays and lesbians..
Within days, Indiana was the target of a social media boycott campaign, threatening its lucrative convention business. Top business leaders from the technology sector slammed the state. San Francisco and Seattle announced they were barring publicly funded travel to Indiana. Connecticut and Washington state announced they would follow suit. Even the NCAA, a temple to what some consider to be the religion of basketball, weighed in, saying it was disappointed in the new law and wanted a clarification before deciding what to do about future events and tournaments.
Indiana legislative leaders are scrambling to contain the potential damage, announcing they will pass language to clarify that the law, which goes into effect in July, does not discriminate against gays and lesbians, despite the fear that it does. Here is a guide to understanding the issue that is a political window into the changing nature of gay rights.
What happened in Indiana?
Gov. Mike Pence, a conservative Republican, last week signed the Religious Freedom Restoration Act, designed to “help protect churches, Christian businesses and individuals from those who want to punish them because of their biblical beliefs,” he said. Twenty states have similar laws, though the exact language differs. Sixteen more states are considering passage of some form of the law.
Isn’t there a federal version of the law? How does it differ from the state laws?
Yes. The federal version of the law was signed in 1993 by President Clinton and was considered a liberal response to a conservative Supreme Court ruling in 1990. The court ruled against Native Americans who argued that their use of peyote was a religious requirement. In effect, the court decided that states could ban the sacramental use of peyote. That changed the legal standard for what states could and could not do in the area of religious practices.
Liberals quickly moved to protect the tribes by passing a measure to protect religious practices from government interference. Two decades later, it is conservatives who are seeking the new laws.
