Not for most people, no, but for a minority of frightened reactionary conservatives, yes.
Unfortunately, in some states and jurisdictions, that frightened, reactionary minority manifests as a majority which advocates denying citizens of the United States their rights and protected liberties motivated by unwarranted fear and hate.
That’s why we have a Constitution and its case law, to protect the rights and protected liberties of citizens from abuse by state and local governments.
Such is the ridiculous hypocrisy of conservatives and libertarians: they rail against the perceived ‘abuse’ and ‘overreach’ of the Federal government, yet when state governments engage in the same abuse and overreach, conservatives and libertarians are suddenly blind to that abuse and overreach.
Dear
C_Clayton_Jones
your past two posts, this and the one previously,
are stating the same as what Conservative Constitutionalists also say:
that the Constitutional laws are to prevent abuses of Govt to infringe on rights of people
A. one difference I see is that both you and the right opponents
count protection of infringement
ONLY if it protects YOUR beliefs but not the other side
Thus that is still depending on govt to establish beliefs,
where the left is worse about believing and relying on govt to do so
instead of teaching people to respect this naturally as the right try to teach
(where citizens are empowered equally by living by and enforcing Constitutional laws directly
similar to living by Scriptural laws to be equally empowered instead of relying on church authority as a middleman)
So if govt protected right to life beliefs from overstepping by ACA
Do you equally applaud this, as prolife Constitutionalists do, as correct enforcement of Constitutional limits?
And when laws are blocked from imposing faith based arguments against abortion
Do those same Constitutionalists applaud this as protecting the free choice
of the individual from establishing beliefs through govt?
B. the other difference I notice
Again the left RELIES on govt to create or establish rights,
while the right teaches these are inherent
and writing them down in the Constitution just made them statutory.
It seems to me if both parties agreed to stop abusing govt to push
THEIR beliefs about rights on everyone else,
then we wouldn't rely on govt to define and defend them.
We the people would agree to respect and protect each other's rights.
And we'd all agree to use govt correctly to ESTABLISH policies where we already agree.
You clearly have no understanding of the issue, the issue has nothing to do with the ACA or ‘life beliefs,’ and your posts are consequently completely devoid of merit.
It is a settled, accepted fact of Constitutional law, beyond dispute, that the states may not deny same-sex couples access to marriage law they’re eligible to participate in.
Obergefell is the progeny of over 100 years of 14th Amendment jurisprudence prohibiting the states from engaging in class legislation.
This settled and accepted 14th Amendment jurisprudence applies solely to state and local governments, not private persons or organizations.
As a result, no personal beliefs, ‘life beliefs,’ or religious beliefs are being violated, infringed upon, or in any manner abridged by the
Obergefell ruling.
Private persons and religious organizations hostile to gay Americans remain at complete liberty to continue to oppose, discriminate against, and prohibit gay Americans from joining or participating in their private organizations.
Last,
Obergefell applies only to state civil marriage, not religious marriage, where religious organizations are free to exclude same-sex couples with absolute impunity.
Dear
C_Clayton_Jones
I don't have a problem if people agree with govt endorsing right to marriage.
I have a problem with people discriminating,
and treating right to marriage for same-sex beliefs
the opposite as right to prayer for Christian beliefs.
I find it discriminatory and hypocritical to cry
for separation of church and state, and reducing prayer to "moment of silence"
but when it comes to LGBT beliefs,
demanding these be established and protected by govt as a class and a practice
but denouncing, suing, harassing and attacking Christians for
defending Christian references to God, prayer, Christmas etc.
All I ask is to be consistent.
In fact, the more I ask around and get feedback from others,
more people are agreeing with me that if
right to prayer and Christian expression were allowed back into public institutions
and people would agree not to harass, sue for removal, etc.
then Christians and others opposed to same sex marriage
might AGREE to allow that freedom of expression if the same
is enforced for Christian beliefs and practices in public and public institutions as well!
More people are saying that may be a better solution
that fighting to remove both.
Just go ahead and let govt endorse and establish both.
At least that would be fair.
Which way would you recommend if given a choice:
A. either remove marriage from govt and reduce it to civil unions for all people with no mention of biases for or against
either traditional or same sex marriage or any social relations or conditions at all besides legal competence and consent; and treat right to prayer the same, reducing it to moment of silence and not make any references to beliefs
B. or if LGBT expressions and practices are protected recognized or incorporated into govt functions
then equally endorse and protect Christian beliefs and practices including spiritual healing that has
helped people change unwanted sexual patterns of behavior, whether heterosexual or homosexual
Say what? Since when are Christians' rights to practice their faith infringed?
C'mon! IF a Christer isn't free to discriminate against other American citizens because of made-up religious reasons...are any of us truly free?
Hi
bodecea And do you recognize that's how Christians feel
when they are told to reduce prayer in schools to "moment of silence"
because of other people's "personal reasons" --
the rejection of crosses, of mention of God and creation,
that people have enforced the right to REMOVE from public institutions
because of faith based biased.
The right to life that many people DO believe includes unborn in the womb,
which is faith based, so it is legally REMOVED and the limits on life
are kept at BIRTH.
So gender determined at BIRTH is the belief of some people.
while gender identity determined otherwise is the belief of others.
If both groups want equal right to "discriminate" against the other belief,
shouldn't these be REMOVED from govt and keep
the legal standard where they agree?
If "marriage laws" were reduced to "civil unions and social contracts"
then both sides would be equally free to choose or discriminate in private
as with Hindus and Muslims who choose or reject pork or beef.
Buddhists and Vegans set up their own places where they promote
not eating animal products, in accordance with their beliefs. They
remain free to discriminate and not patronize businesses that profit off the meat industry.
PETA is hated and harassed also for pushing those beliefs, often in controversial
or even criminal ways of vandalism and assault. But they aren't trying to
force govt to establish their beliefs in veganism or vegetarianism as a protected class,
that can't be discriminated against.
People have the right to choose and not be punished by govt if
they reject vegetarian beliefs.
Just like Atheists have the right to reject Christian beliefs
"for whatever reason" because these are faith based and a personal choice.
Do you get the idea
bodecea
Sure, PETA activists get harassed, Occupy, Tea Party, etc.
Christians and prolife, anyone pro prayer and pro God or Creation
also have felt DISCRIMINATED against, harassed and EXCLUDED
FROM PUBLIC POLICY.
so if you want equality, that's how everyone else has had
to defend their views, without help of Govt to identify
THEIR beliefs as a special class.
Now
bodecea if you want to argue as I do that
"religious freedom" is discriminatory if it ONLY applies
to "members of recognized religions" such as Christianity,
Buddhism, etc. I already AGREE with you.
if Atheists or nontheists don't belong to any group,
or JW or UU are smaller and have not the means of defending
their beliefs, or Buddhists JW or Christians don't believe in suing,
these individuals would not have "equal protections of the law."
I would AGREE that IS discrimination by CREED
to favor Christians more than others who don't have a collective identity
or legal/political resources to fight.
And on that note, I argue the political parties have been
discriminating by creed for a long time, and even colluded
and conspired to violate equal civil rights of other citizens
who WEREN'T represented by Congressional decisions
and spending, such as the Iraqi War contracts and military
spending and the ACA and trillions paid to corporate insurance.
So if you really cared to end discrimination by creed
there is a bigger battle to recognize political beliefs
equally as religious beliefs, and possibly sue both major
parties for racking up trillions in debts and damages
at taxpayers expenses. We could call for restitution to
pay back all the debts we didn't authorize which we can
show violated the political beliefs of someone in a class
action. we don't all have to agree, just collectively show
where DOMA violated beliefs, or now the court ruling on
right to marriage or right to health care discriminated
against people not treated equally with their beliefs
about right to life or right to prayer. And sue to demand
trillions in credit to pay to reform govt and correct these problems.
Even if you only want to sue to defend LGBT beliefs, we
could still build a class action with people suing to defend
beliefs in traditional marriage. We don't have to agree which
beliefs were violated by govt and party collusion to unite
and demand damages and restitution be credited back
to taxpayers for the cost of violating religious freedom
and equal protection of laws from discrimination by creed.
