Thank you Chuz Life 1. RE: limiting the application of the premises established by the 1st Amendment CL: "People have a right to each their own beliefs, religious views and the like. However, the 1st amendment forbids lawmakers from enacting laws that are solely based upon religion." ^ This is the statement that sounded like you were limiting the meaning to only prohibiting laws based "SOLELY ON RELIGION" What about beliefs in general, and any values or rational for laws imposing a FAITH BASED argument or standard. I am arguing that it's not only RELIGION that govt cannot establish, but the broader meaning in order to apply to protecting all people concerns faith based beliefs. Are you okay with classing the pro LGBT "beliefs" as INCLUDED in not "establishing religion nor prohibiting the free exercise of religion" when it comes to persona choice to believe or not believe in gender identity that is apart from what is agreed by science as in genetic identity established at birth. 2. Again the WHOLE POINT of this thread is to show how in both cases, OBJECTIONS to the prolife arguments or the pro-LGBT arguments are that the LEGAL defintions should be based on what is established at birth, and not conflicting beliefs such as * subjective "gender identity" that half the population doesn't agree to recognize * beliefs in recognizing rights of individual persons before birth, which again half the people doesn't agree to establish by law Instead of addressing these SEPARATELY where both issues deadlock and nobody changes their approach, I am comparing these at the same time to ask that in both cases we all agree to * neither establish the subjective conflicting beliefs and definitions that opposing views don't agree on and don't want this forced on them because of free exercise of religion and not establishing faith based beliefs that others do not choose freely and shouldn't be coerced into by force of law or govt * nor PROHIBIT or discriminate against either Prolife believers or LGBT believers since they have equal rights to those beliefs, and NOT be forced under laws that disparage and infringe on their rights and beliefs Are you okay with applying this broader sense of religious freedom to these kind of BELIEFS so that we agree not to make laws that infringe on either side in either case. Again, the reason I bring both up, is so that people who take one approach in one case, put themselves in the shoes of the other side in the other case. Chuz Life: If you are pushing your beliefs about prolife in the case of abortion, are you okay with others pushing their faith based beliefs about LGBT in the other case. If you do not agree to LGBT redefining gender to be some "subjective" faith based identity that isn't agreed on due to conflicting beliefs and can't be forced on other people by govt, are you okay with refraining from defining the starting point of human rights BEFORE birth instead of the legal terms using birth as the starting point, similar to laws recognizing gender at birth and not subjective/relative definitions which LGBT advocates believe in using. Baz Ares If you reject the faith based arguments about defining persons and rights based on conditions other than natural birth, and defending agreed secular standards of using BIRTH for determining legal status, are you okay when opponents of subjective LGBT identity "similarly demand" to use scientific genetic gender at birth as the legal definitions and NOT be forced to comply with "faith based beliefs about gender identity or orientation" under penalty of law because having beliefs otherwise is opposed as "class discrimination" when such opponents argue this isn't a class of person but is a range or choice of BEHAVIOR. Chuz Life If you believe in using scientific definitions of gender at birth instead of govt establishing and recognizing "faith based" beliefs in subjective LGBT identity, do you understand my point that secular liberals also demand to use legal definitions at birth when it comes to recognizing persons under law. If we cannot agree on this, that is why I am saying we need to solve the problem another way. Because both sides require establishing their beliefs over the beliefs of others which is unconstitutional. In order to respect all beliefs equally, we'd have to try a totally different approach that doesn't run into these impossible contradictions where laws couldn't be established without violating beliefs of others. The way to prevent that in such cases is to make laws by agreed consensus so no beliefs on either side are violated or discriminated against by the policies.