Should private agencies contracted with the government and receive tax $ be allowed to discriminate


  • Total voters
    18
The point is not whether or not it will happen . The question is what if? Do you think that other minorities should be protected from discrimination, or are gays a special case?

Being an immoral sexual pervert is not the same thing as being of a different race, religion, or any other legitimate “minority” category. It's defined by behavior that a sane society recognizes as wrong, and harmful, and not something to which children ought to be exposed.
upload_2018-2-25_16-16-15.jpeg
everyone-wants-you-to-shut-up.gif
giphy.gif
 
Equal protection under the law, due process and the establishment clause are not in the constitution?

Nothing in the Constitution supports treating immoral sexual perversions as normal, proper or acceptable. Certainly, nothing in the Constitution supports subjecting children to the predation of such perverts.

One really has to wonder why you are so intent on handing children over to dangerous perverts. Well, one doesn't really need to wonder; I think the answer is obvious enough. In any event, between dangerous sexual predators, and innocent children, its' clear enough on whose side you stand, and it isn't the side of the children.
 
There is something rotten in Texas. There are Children in need of homes and these women are ready, willing and able to prove one, but are not being allowed to do so. They wanted care for an older children who are hard to place. In addition, of the women is an attorney with an expertise in immigration rights. .

PLEASE read to the end and if you choose to participate in the poll, please include an explanation for your answer

Lesbian couple sues feds for thwarting their chance to foster refugee children

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/23/health/lesbian-couple-sues-hhs/index.html

  • A married lesbian couple from Texas is suing the federal government
  • They say an agency, funded by taxpayers, prevented them from fostering refugee children
  • Millions of dollars in federal grant money goes to Catholic organization that discriminates, lawyer says
Three years ago, as they wore long gowns and exchanged vows surrounded by people who love them, Fatma Marouf and Bryn Esplin imagined a growing family. But like so many couples who dream of having children, they keep hitting roadblocks.

They tried IVF treatments and had no luck. They would have liked to adopt domestically, but state-funded agencies in Texas, where they live, are free to exclude same-sex couples. They say they can't afford the tens of thousands of dollars it takes to adopt privately.

So early last year, they turned their attention to the idea of fostering refugee children. They were sure they had found their answer. They didn't get far, though, before they were proved wrong.

However...

During an informational phone call with the organization in charge, Catholic Charities of Fort Worth, they say, they were told that same-sex couples are ineligible to apply because they don't "mirror the Holy Family."

Let’s that sink in? To be worthy and competent parents you have to “mirror the holy family”. What is a family? Who decides? How many families that do not “mirror the holy family” and have children and are even allowed to adopt them? And, taxpayers take note, Catholic Charities accepts federal funding! And lets not forget the First Amendment, the part about “ Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion” They are also suing under the
Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the U.S Constitution by allowing USCCB to impose a religious test governing the provision of federal child welfare services.

What drives this case ?


At the heart of their legal complaint is the financial story behind Catholic Charities of Fort Worth. It is the only organization the couple and their lawyers know of in their area that places refugee children in homes, and it is supported by taxpayers. Its child welfare work is funded by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (known as USCCB), the plaintiffs' lawyer explains, which receives millions of dollars in grant money to help two federal government programs: one for unaccompanied refugee minors and the other for unaccompanied alien children. All that grant money is distributed by the Department of Health and Human Services through the Office of Refugee Resettlement -- which is why various government entities, including HHS, are named in the lawsuit along with the overarching Catholic organization, USCCB.

Using Catholic doctrine to dictate foster parent eligibility violates constitutional protections, said Jamie Gliksberg, a Lambda Legal staff attorney who is working on their case.

Here is more on Lambda Legal: Lambda Legal Sues HHS after Lesbian Couple Blocked from Serving as Foster Parents

Lambda Legal today filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) on behalf of a couple who were denied the opportunity even to apply to serve as foster parents for refugee children by a USCCB affiliate because, they were told, they did not “mirror the Holy Family.”

HHS funds the program that turned away Fatma Marouf and Bryn Esplin, a married same-sex couple, exclusively with taxpayer money. HHS funded USCCB to perform federal child welfare services through its affiliates even though USCCB made clear that it would use the funds to deny such services to members of the public based on USCCB’s religious beliefs.

Being denied the opportunity to foster a child because we don’t “mirror the Holy Family’ – clearly code for being a same-sex couple – was hurtful and insulting to us. More than that, though, insisting on such a narrow, religious view of what a family must look like deprives these children of a nurturing, supportive home," said Esplin.

“Refugee children have been through enough trauma to last a lifetime," Marouf said. "They need love, stability, and support, which Bryn and I have in abundance. But in discriminating against us, the agency put their religious views of LGBT people above what is best for the kids in their care.”

The federal government was on notice when it funded USCCB that this organization refuses to provide services to same-sex spouses at taxpayer expense,” Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Kenneth D. Upton said. “Our government should not be favoring certain religious beliefs over others—to the tune of millions of dollars—and turning people away from government services based on their failure to conform to the dictates of a particular religious belief."

Let’s keep this about the Constitution, the law, government funding and refugee children as opposed to Homosexuality and parenting. There has been far too much of that and it always turns into a shit storm

Should private agencies contracted with the government and receive tax $ be allowed to discriminate?

Do you mean like Affirmative Action racial discrimination in college admissions?
Or do you mean like Affirmative Action racial discrimination in hiring and promotions?
Affirmative action is not discrimination

Using race to determine who is hired or educated is discrimination
 
Freedom of religion is also Constitutional
Two meanings of religious freedom/liberty:

1. Freedom of belief, speech, practice.

2. Freedom to restrict services, hate, denigrate, or oppress others.


1. The historical meaning of religious freedom:

This term relates to the personal freedom:
•Of religious belief,
•Of religious speech,
•Of religious assembly with fellow believers,
•Of religious proselytizing and recruitment, and
•To change one's religion from one faith group to another -- or to decide to have no religious affiliation -- or vice-versa.


The individual believer has often been the target of oppression for thinking or speaking unorthodox thoughts, for assembling with and recruiting others, and for changing their religious affiliation. Typically, the aggressors have been large religious groups and governments. Freedom from such oppression is the meaning that we generally use on this web site to refer to any of the four terms: religious freedom, religious liberty, freedom of worship and freedom to worship.


2. A rapidly emerging new meaning of religious freedom: the freedom to discriminate and denigrate:

In recent years, religious freedom is taking on a new meaning: the freedom and liberty of a believer apply their religious beliefs in order to hate, oppress, deny service to, denigrate, discriminate against, and/or reduce the human rights of minorities.

Now, the direction of the oppression has reversed. It is now the believer who is the oppressor -- typically fundamentalist and evangelical Christians and other religious conservatives. Others -- typically some women, as well as sexual, and other minorities -- are the targets. This new meaning is becoming increasingly common. It appears that this change is begin driven by a number of factors:

•The increasing public acceptance of women's use of birth control/contraceptives. This is a practice regarded as a personal decision by most faith groups, but is actively opposed by the Roman Catholic and a few other conservative faith groups.
•The increasing public acceptance of equal rights for sexual minorities including Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgender persons and transsexuals -- the LGBT community (); and
•The increasing percentage of NOTAs in North America. These are individuals who are NOT Affiliated with an organized faith group. Some identify themselves as Agnostics, Atheists secularists, Humanists, free thinkers, etc. Others say that they are spiritual, but not religious.


One interesting feature of this "religious freedom to discriminate" is that it generally has people treating others as they would not wish to be treated themselves. It seems to be little noticed among those who practice or advocate "religious freedom to discriminate" that this way of treating people is a direct contradiction to the Golden Rule, which Jesus required all his followers to practice. See Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31, and the Gospel of Thomas, 6.


Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/relfree.htm
 
Freedom of religion is also Constitutional
Two meanings of religious freedom/liberty:

1. Freedom of belief, speech, practice.

2. Freedom to restrict services, hate, denigrate, or oppress others.


1. The historical meaning of religious freedom:

This term relates to the personal freedom:
•Of religious belief,
•Of religious speech,
•Of religious assembly with fellow believers,
•Of religious proselytizing and recruitment, and
•To change one's religion from one faith group to another -- or to decide to have no religious affiliation -- or vice-versa.


The individual believer has often been the target of oppression for thinking or speaking unorthodox thoughts, for assembling with and recruiting others, and for changing their religious affiliation. Typically, the aggressors have been large religious groups and governments. Freedom from such oppression is the meaning that we generally use on this web site to refer to any of the four terms: religious freedom, religious liberty, freedom of worship and freedom to worship.


2. A rapidly emerging new meaning of religious freedom: the freedom to discriminate and denigrate:

In recent years, religious freedom is taking on a new meaning: the freedom and liberty of a believer apply their religious beliefs in order to hate, oppress, deny service to, denigrate, discriminate against, and/or reduce the human rights of minorities.

Now, the direction of the oppression has reversed. It is now the believer who is the oppressor -- typically fundamentalist and evangelical Christians and other religious conservatives. Others -- typically some women, as well as sexual, and other minorities -- are the targets. This new meaning is becoming increasingly common. It appears that this change is begin driven by a number of factors:

•The increasing public acceptance of women's use of birth control/contraceptives. This is a practice regarded as a personal decision by most faith groups, but is actively opposed by the Roman Catholic and a few other conservative faith groups.
•The increasing public acceptance of equal rights for sexual minorities including Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgender persons and transsexuals -- the LGBT community (); and
•The increasing percentage of NOTAs in North America. These are individuals who are NOT Affiliated with an organized faith group. Some identify themselves as Agnostics, Atheists secularists, Humanists, free thinkers, etc. Others say that they are spiritual, but not religious.


One interesting feature of this "religious freedom to discriminate" is that it generally has people treating others as they would not wish to be treated themselves. It seems to be little noticed among those who practice or advocate "religious freedom to discriminate" that this way of treating people is a direct contradiction to the Golden Rule, which Jesus required all his followers to practice. See Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31, and the Gospel of Thomas, 6.


Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/relfree.htm

It's still Constitutional even if it gives you gas. The dykes picked this fight on purpose...much like the BS cake baking that goes on.
 
There is something rotten in Texas. There are Children in need of homes and these women are ready, willing and able to prove one, but are not being allowed to do so. They wanted care for an older children who are hard to place. In addition, of the women is an attorney with an expertise in immigration rights. .

PLEASE read to the end and if you choose to participate in the poll, please include an explanation for your answer

Lesbian couple sues feds for thwarting their chance to foster refugee children

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/23/health/lesbian-couple-sues-hhs/index.html

  • A married lesbian couple from Texas is suing the federal government
  • They say an agency, funded by taxpayers, prevented them from fostering refugee children
  • Millions of dollars in federal grant money goes to Catholic organization that discriminates, lawyer says
Three years ago, as they wore long gowns and exchanged vows surrounded by people who love them, Fatma Marouf and Bryn Esplin imagined a growing family. But like so many couples who dream of having children, they keep hitting roadblocks.

They tried IVF treatments and had no luck. They would have liked to adopt domestically, but state-funded agencies in Texas, where they live, are free to exclude same-sex couples. They say they can't afford the tens of thousands of dollars it takes to adopt privately.

So early last year, they turned their attention to the idea of fostering refugee children. They were sure they had found their answer. They didn't get far, though, before they were proved wrong.

However...

During an informational phone call with the organization in charge, Catholic Charities of Fort Worth, they say, they were told that same-sex couples are ineligible to apply because they don't "mirror the Holy Family."

Let’s that sink in? To be worthy and competent parents you have to “mirror the holy family”. What is a family? Who decides? How many families that do not “mirror the holy family” and have children and are even allowed to adopt them? And, taxpayers take note, Catholic Charities accepts federal funding! And lets not forget the First Amendment, the part about “ Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion” They are also suing under the
Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the U.S Constitution by allowing USCCB to impose a religious test governing the provision of federal child welfare services.

What drives this case ?


At the heart of their legal complaint is the financial story behind Catholic Charities of Fort Worth. It is the only organization the couple and their lawyers know of in their area that places refugee children in homes, and it is supported by taxpayers. Its child welfare work is funded by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (known as USCCB), the plaintiffs' lawyer explains, which receives millions of dollars in grant money to help two federal government programs: one for unaccompanied refugee minors and the other for unaccompanied alien children. All that grant money is distributed by the Department of Health and Human Services through the Office of Refugee Resettlement -- which is why various government entities, including HHS, are named in the lawsuit along with the overarching Catholic organization, USCCB.

Using Catholic doctrine to dictate foster parent eligibility violates constitutional protections, said Jamie Gliksberg, a Lambda Legal staff attorney who is working on their case.

Here is more on Lambda Legal: Lambda Legal Sues HHS after Lesbian Couple Blocked from Serving as Foster Parents

Lambda Legal today filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) on behalf of a couple who were denied the opportunity even to apply to serve as foster parents for refugee children by a USCCB affiliate because, they were told, they did not “mirror the Holy Family.”

HHS funds the program that turned away Fatma Marouf and Bryn Esplin, a married same-sex couple, exclusively with taxpayer money. HHS funded USCCB to perform federal child welfare services through its affiliates even though USCCB made clear that it would use the funds to deny such services to members of the public based on USCCB’s religious beliefs.

Being denied the opportunity to foster a child because we don’t “mirror the Holy Family’ – clearly code for being a same-sex couple – was hurtful and insulting to us. More than that, though, insisting on such a narrow, religious view of what a family must look like deprives these children of a nurturing, supportive home," said Esplin.

“Refugee children have been through enough trauma to last a lifetime," Marouf said. "They need love, stability, and support, which Bryn and I have in abundance. But in discriminating against us, the agency put their religious views of LGBT people above what is best for the kids in their care.”

The federal government was on notice when it funded USCCB that this organization refuses to provide services to same-sex spouses at taxpayer expense,” Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Kenneth D. Upton said. “Our government should not be favoring certain religious beliefs over others—to the tune of millions of dollars—and turning people away from government services based on their failure to conform to the dictates of a particular religious belief."

Let’s keep this about the Constitution, the law, government funding and refugee children as opposed to Homosexuality and parenting. There has been far too much of that and it always turns into a shit storm

Should private agencies contracted with the government and receive tax $ be allowed to discriminate?

Do you mean like Affirmative Action racial discrimination in college admissions?
Or do you mean like Affirmative Action racial discrimination in hiring and promotions?
Affirmative action is not discrimination
Your are right, it is reverse discrimination and has cost lives.
I'm not going to get sucked into arguing the merits of affirmative action here. The fact is that I can see both sides of that argument. However what you are doing here is making an assumption of what side I'm on and using it to insinuate that I am a hypocrite...right? That is what is called a logical fallacy because even if I'm being inconsistent, it does not invalidate my position on foster care by Lesbians

Learn this word:

tu quoque (To kwok we )(Latin for "you, too" or "you, also") or the appeal to hypocrisy, is a logical fallacy that attempts to discredit the opponent's position by asserting the opponent's failure to act consistently in accordance with that position; it attempts to show that a criticism or objection applies equally to the person making it. This dismisses someone's point of view based on criticism of the person's inconsistency and not the position presented whereas a person's inconsistency should not discredit the position. Thus, it is a form of the ad hominem argument. To clarify, although the person being attacked might indeed be acting inconsistently or hypocritically, this does not invalidate their argument."

It is also a red herring type of fallacy because it's intended to derail the topic.
 
Let 'em eat pussy.
Apparently you did not read it to the end as I asked, or your reading comprehension sucks. I said Let’s keep this about the Constitution, the law, government funding and refugee children as opposed to Homosexuality and parenting. There has been far too much of that and it always turns into a shit storm. Take a fucking hike asshole!
But you chose a lesbian couple to illustrate your point, and you said it’s coz they is gay that they aren’t allowed to adopt :itsok:
 
Let 'em eat pussy.
Apparently you did not read it to the end as I asked, or your reading comprehension sucks. I said Let’s keep this about the Constitution, the law, government funding and refugee children as opposed to Homosexuality and parenting. There has been far too much of that and it always turns into a shit storm. Take a fucking hike asshole!
But you chose a lesbian couple to illustrate your point, and you said it’s coz they is gay that they aren’t allowed to adopt :itsok:

So what? Did you not understand what I said at t the end. ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
There is something rotten in Texas. There are Children in need of homes and these women are ready, willing and able to prove one, but are not being allowed to do so. They wanted care for an older children who are hard to place. In addition, of the women is an attorney with an expertise in immigration rights. .

PLEASE read to the end and if you choose to participate in the poll, please include an explanation for your answer

Lesbian couple sues feds for thwarting their chance to foster refugee children

https://www.cnn.com/2018/02/23/health/lesbian-couple-sues-hhs/index.html

  • A married lesbian couple from Texas is suing the federal government
  • They say an agency, funded by taxpayers, prevented them from fostering refugee children
  • Millions of dollars in federal grant money goes to Catholic organization that discriminates, lawyer says
Three years ago, as they wore long gowns and exchanged vows surrounded by people who love them, Fatma Marouf and Bryn Esplin imagined a growing family. But like so many couples who dream of having children, they keep hitting roadblocks.

They tried IVF treatments and had no luck. They would have liked to adopt domestically, but state-funded agencies in Texas, where they live, are free to exclude same-sex couples. They say they can't afford the tens of thousands of dollars it takes to adopt privately.

So early last year, they turned their attention to the idea of fostering refugee children. They were sure they had found their answer. They didn't get far, though, before they were proved wrong.

However...

During an informational phone call with the organization in charge, Catholic Charities of Fort Worth, they say, they were told that same-sex couples are ineligible to apply because they don't "mirror the Holy Family."

Let’s that sink in? To be worthy and competent parents you have to “mirror the holy family”. What is a family? Who decides? How many families that do not “mirror the holy family” and have children and are even allowed to adopt them? And, taxpayers take note, Catholic Charities accepts federal funding! And lets not forget the First Amendment, the part about “ Congress shall make no law respecting the establishment of religion” They are also suing under the
Equal Protection and Due Process Clauses of the U.S Constitution by allowing USCCB to impose a religious test governing the provision of federal child welfare services.

What drives this case ?


At the heart of their legal complaint is the financial story behind Catholic Charities of Fort Worth. It is the only organization the couple and their lawyers know of in their area that places refugee children in homes, and it is supported by taxpayers. Its child welfare work is funded by the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops (known as USCCB), the plaintiffs' lawyer explains, which receives millions of dollars in grant money to help two federal government programs: one for unaccompanied refugee minors and the other for unaccompanied alien children. All that grant money is distributed by the Department of Health and Human Services through the Office of Refugee Resettlement -- which is why various government entities, including HHS, are named in the lawsuit along with the overarching Catholic organization, USCCB.

Using Catholic doctrine to dictate foster parent eligibility violates constitutional protections, said Jamie Gliksberg, a Lambda Legal staff attorney who is working on their case.

Here is more on Lambda Legal: Lambda Legal Sues HHS after Lesbian Couple Blocked from Serving as Foster Parents

Lambda Legal today filed a federal lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops (USCCB) on behalf of a couple who were denied the opportunity even to apply to serve as foster parents for refugee children by a USCCB affiliate because, they were told, they did not “mirror the Holy Family.”

HHS funds the program that turned away Fatma Marouf and Bryn Esplin, a married same-sex couple, exclusively with taxpayer money. HHS funded USCCB to perform federal child welfare services through its affiliates even though USCCB made clear that it would use the funds to deny such services to members of the public based on USCCB’s religious beliefs.

Being denied the opportunity to foster a child because we don’t “mirror the Holy Family’ – clearly code for being a same-sex couple – was hurtful and insulting to us. More than that, though, insisting on such a narrow, religious view of what a family must look like deprives these children of a nurturing, supportive home," said Esplin.

“Refugee children have been through enough trauma to last a lifetime," Marouf said. "They need love, stability, and support, which Bryn and I have in abundance. But in discriminating against us, the agency put their religious views of LGBT people above what is best for the kids in their care.”

The federal government was on notice when it funded USCCB that this organization refuses to provide services to same-sex spouses at taxpayer expense,” Lambda Legal Senior Counsel Kenneth D. Upton said. “Our government should not be favoring certain religious beliefs over others—to the tune of millions of dollars—and turning people away from government services based on their failure to conform to the dictates of a particular religious belief."

Let’s keep this about the Constitution, the law, government funding and refugee children as opposed to Homosexuality and parenting. There has been far too much of that and it always turns into a shit storm

Should private agencies contracted with the government and receive tax $ be allowed to discriminate?

Do you mean like Affirmative Action racial discrimination in college admissions?
Or do you mean like Affirmative Action racial discrimination in hiring and promotions?
Affirmative action is not discrimination
It absolutely is.
 
Why can't homosexuals respect the fact some people and religions are going to give them a hard time? How can something like this change those feelings? You are dealing with people not the Constitution. You chose the lifestyle, deal with it, and stop taking our laws to silly extremes.
Thank you for you eloquent legal opinion but this is very much about the constitution. What if an agency chose not to place kids with black or Jewish people ? Should they just suck it up ?
Let me know when that happens.
The point is not whether or not it will happen . The question is what if? Do you think that other minorities should be protected from discrimination, or are gays a special case?
Only because they make themselves a special case.
Oh really ? No other group has ever made some noise about being discriminated against? Thank you for admitting that there should be open season on gays only
Why are you sooooooooooo obsessed with all things gay???
Not a single day passes when you’re not foaming at the mouth about some (usually imagined) slight against homosexuals.
 
The short is that I think if a child lacks parents and there is person who demonstrates they can provide for and love a child that needs parents and a stable home, it should be nihil obstat as goes that parent's eligibility to adopt or foster parent the child. The implicit conclusion that, on account of prospective parents' sexuality, a child is somehow better off bereft of permanent parents who have chosen willfully to unconditionally extend their love, care for and raise the child, well, that's just multidimensionally nuts.
 
71.gif
Thank you for you eloquent legal opinion but this is very much about the constitution. What if an agency chose not to place kids with black or Jewish people ? Should they just suck it up ?
Let me know when that happens.
The point is not whether or not it will happen . The question is what if? Do you think that other minorities should be protected from discrimination, or are gays a special case?
Only because they make themselves a special case.
Oh really ? No other group has ever made some noise about being discriminated against? Thank you for admitting that there should be open season on gays only
Why are you sooooooooooo obsessed with all things gay???
Not a single day passes when you’re not foaming at the mouth about some (usually imagined) slight against homosexuals.
Hes ghey perhaps :badgrin:
 
71.gif
Let me know when that happens.
The point is not whether or not it will happen . The question is what if? Do you think that other minorities should be protected from discrimination, or are gays a special case?
Only because they make themselves a special case.
Oh really ? No other group has ever made some noise about being discriminated against? Thank you for admitting that there should be open season on gays only
Why are you sooooooooooo obsessed with all things gay???
Not a single day passes when you’re not foaming at the mouth about some (usually imagined) slight against homosexuals.
Could be he's ghey :badgrin:
:iyfyus.jpg:
 
71.gif
Let me know when that happens.
The point is not whether or not it will happen . The question is what if? Do you think that other minorities should be protected from discrimination, or are gays a special case?
Only because they make themselves a special case.
Oh really ? No other group has ever made some noise about being discriminated against? Thank you for admitting that there should be open season on gays only
Why are you sooooooooooo obsessed with all things gay???
Not a single day passes when you’re not foaming at the mouth about some (usually imagined) slight against homosexuals.
Could be he's ghey :badgrin:
He claims to be rampantly promiscuous but not gay ???
 
The point is not whether or not it will happen . The question is what if? Do you think that other minorities should be protected from discrimination, or are gays a special case?

Being an immoral sexual pervert is not the same thing as being of a different race, religion, or any other legitimate “minority” category. It's defined by behavior that a sane society recognizes as wrong, and harmful, and not something to which children ought to be exposed.
View attachment 178967
everyone-wants-you-to-shut-up.gif
giphy.gif
If only you’d take your own advice.
 
Freedom of religion is also Constitutional
Two meanings of religious freedom/liberty:

1. Freedom of belief, speech, practice.

2. Freedom to restrict services, hate, denigrate, or oppress others.


1. The historical meaning of religious freedom:

This term relates to the personal freedom:
•Of religious belief,
•Of religious speech,
•Of religious assembly with fellow believers,
•Of religious proselytizing and recruitment, and
•To change one's religion from one faith group to another -- or to decide to have no religious affiliation -- or vice-versa.


The individual believer has often been the target of oppression for thinking or speaking unorthodox thoughts, for assembling with and recruiting others, and for changing their religious affiliation. Typically, the aggressors have been large religious groups and governments. Freedom from such oppression is the meaning that we generally use on this web site to refer to any of the four terms: religious freedom, religious liberty, freedom of worship and freedom to worship.


2. A rapidly emerging new meaning of religious freedom: the freedom to discriminate and denigrate:

In recent years, religious freedom is taking on a new meaning: the freedom and liberty of a believer apply their religious beliefs in order to hate, oppress, deny service to, denigrate, discriminate against, and/or reduce the human rights of minorities.

Now, the direction of the oppression has reversed. It is now the believer who is the oppressor -- typically fundamentalist and evangelical Christians and other religious conservatives. Others -- typically some women, as well as sexual, and other minorities -- are the targets. This new meaning is becoming increasingly common. It appears that this change is begin driven by a number of factors:

•The increasing public acceptance of women's use of birth control/contraceptives. This is a practice regarded as a personal decision by most faith groups, but is actively opposed by the Roman Catholic and a few other conservative faith groups.
•The increasing public acceptance of equal rights for sexual minorities including Lesbians, Gays, Bisexuals, Transgender persons and transsexuals -- the LGBT community (); and
•The increasing percentage of NOTAs in North America. These are individuals who are NOT Affiliated with an organized faith group. Some identify themselves as Agnostics, Atheists secularists, Humanists, free thinkers, etc. Others say that they are spiritual, but not religious.


One interesting feature of this "religious freedom to discriminate" is that it generally has people treating others as they would not wish to be treated themselves. It seems to be little noticed among those who practice or advocate "religious freedom to discriminate" that this way of treating people is a direct contradiction to the Golden Rule, which Jesus required all his followers to practice. See Matthew 7:12, Luke 6:31, and the Gospel of Thomas, 6.


Source: http://www.religioustolerance.org/relfree.htm

It's still Constitutional even if it gives you gas. The dykes picked this fight on purpose...much like the BS cake baking that goes on.

Because you say so?? I going to call an appeal to ignorance logical fallacy on that one.
 
71.gif
Let me know when that happens.
The point is not whether or not it will happen . The question is what if? Do you think that other minorities should be protected from discrimination, or are gays a special case?
Only because they make themselves a special case.
Oh really ? No other group has ever made some noise about being discriminated against? Thank you for admitting that there should be open season on gays only
Why are you sooooooooooo obsessed with all things gay???
Not a single day passes when you’re not foaming at the mouth about some (usually imagined) slight against homosexuals.
Hes ghey perhaps :badgrin:
th
 
Let 'em eat pussy.
Apparently you did not read it to the end as I asked, or your reading comprehension sucks. I said Let’s keep this about the Constitution, the law, government funding and refugee children as opposed to Homosexuality and parenting. There has been far too much of that and it always turns into a shit storm. Take a fucking hike asshole!
But you chose a lesbian couple to illustrate your point, and you said it’s coz they is gay that they aren’t allowed to adopt :itsok:

So what? Did you not understand what I said at t the end. ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Let 'em eat pussy.
Apparently you did not read it to the end as I asked, or your reading comprehension sucks. I said Let’s keep this about the Constitution, the law, government funding and refugee children as opposed to Homosexuality and parenting. There has been far too much of that and it always turns into a shit storm. Take a fucking hike asshole!
But you chose a lesbian couple to illustrate your point, and you said it’s coz they is gay that they aren’t allowed to adopt :itsok:

So what? Did you not understand what I said at t the end. ?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
yes I understand you chose a gay couple as the platform on which to whine about discrimination, then said but don’t talk about homosexuality or parenting :cuckoo:
 

Forum List

Back
Top