Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Silhouette]

One could take that to apply to unicorns that fart glitter, but neither would be legally valid.

The law is very clear on what constitutes a church.

So you're saying a church isn't the individual Christians who practice the faith? I think that SCOTUS might disagree with you. See "Hobby Lobby" for details..

 

[Ernie S.]

Oh common! You are confusing religious institution that are protected by the first amendment, and in many cases by state laws that provide a religious exemption to any anti discrimination laws that they may have with individuals who want to discriminate on the basis of religious freedom.

Please explain the specific legal difference between a member of a church and a church as to the protection of freedom of religion.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. ESTABLISMENT OF RELIGION An individual, a baker , photographer, proprietor of a for profit wedding mill is not an establishment of religion.


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.

The media often refer to NOTAs as "NONES" because they are affiliated to NONE of the faith groups. However, the words Nones and Nuns are homophones: words that sound alike but are spelled differently and which hold very different meanings. To avoid confusion, we recommend against this practice and recommend the unambiguous term "NOTA."

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

Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

You'll notice that there is no qualifier. One can take that to apply to either a member of an organized of individual.

Nice try, but you're wrong, as usual.

One could take that to apply to unicorns that fart glitter, but neither would be legally valid.

The law is very clear on what constitutes a church.

It is but where in the first amendment is freedom of religion restricted to churches?

 

[Syriusly]

One could take that to apply to unicorns that fart glitter, but neither would be legally valid.

The law is very clear on what constitutes a church.

So you're saying a church isn't the individual Christians who practice the faith? I think that SCOTUS might disagree with you. See "Hobby Lobby" for details..

The Hobby Lobby decision didn't say that individual Christians are a church.

Once again:
Christians pay taxes
Churches do not pay taxes

The IRS can distinguish between a church and a individual- but apparently you cannot.

No church is going to be forced to marry anyone- gay- Jewish- black- Mormon- Hindu- handicapped- veterans- anyone.

 

[Ernie S.]

One could take that to apply to unicorns that fart glitter, but neither would be legally valid.

The law is very clear on what constitutes a church.

So you're saying a church isn't the individual Christians who practice the faith? I think that SCOTUS might disagree with you. See "Hobby Lobby" for details..

The Hobby Lobby decision didn't say that individual Christians are a church.

Once again:
Christians pay taxes
Churches do not pay taxes

The IRS can distinguish between a church and a individual- but apparently you cannot.

No church is going to be forced to marry anyone- gay- Jewish- black- Mormon- Hindu- handicapped- veterans- anyone.

Where does the 1st Amendment restrict religious freedom to churches?

 

[Syriusly]

One could take that to apply to unicorns that fart glitter, but neither would be legally valid.

The law is very clear on what constitutes a church.

So you're saying a church isn't the individual Christians who practice the faith? I think that SCOTUS might disagree with you. See "Hobby Lobby" for details..

The Hobby Lobby decision didn't say that individual Christians are a church.

Once again:
Christians pay taxes
Churches do not pay taxes

The IRS can distinguish between a church and a individual- but apparently you cannot.

No church is going to be forced to marry anyone- gay- Jewish- black- Mormon- Hindu- handicapped- veterans- anyone.

Where does the 1st Amendment restrict religious freedom to churches?

I don't know- where did I say that it did?

 

[Ernie S.]

Not on so many words, but you imply that by demanding individuals provide services that conflict with personal beliefs.

 

[TheProgressivePatriot]

Oh common! You are confusing religious institution that are protected by the first amendment, and in many cases by state laws that provide a religious exemption to any anti discrimination laws that they may have with individuals who want to discriminate on the basis of religious freedom.

Please explain the specific legal difference between a member of a church and a church as to the protection of freedom of religion.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. ESTABLISMENT OF RELIGION An individual, a baker , photographer, proprietor of a for profit wedding mill is not an establishment of religion.


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.

The media often refer to NOTAs as "NONES" because they are affiliated to NONE of the faith groups. However, the words Nones and Nuns are homophones: words that sound alike but are spelled differently and which hold very different meanings. To avoid confusion, we recommend against this practice and recommend the unambiguous term "NOTA."

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

Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

You'll notice that there is no qualifier. One can take that to apply to either a member of an organized of individual.

Nice try, but you're wrong, as usual.

One could take that to apply to unicorns that fart glitter, but neither would be legally valid.

The law is very clear on what constitutes a church.

It is but where in the first amendment is freedom of religion restricted to churches?

I never said that it was. There is no distinction in the first amendment in the way that religious freedom is guaranteed to churches vs. individuals. I did however make a distinction between those who understand that religious freedom is about how they live their lives and not about controlling how other people live or discriminating against them.

We cannot let each and every individual decide that they can discriminate against anybody that they like in the name of their religion, even when their religion may not agree with them or may be divided on an issue. That is lawlessness. Who would be next? Maybe a restaurant will decide that they don't want to serve fat people because gluttony is condemned in the bible. Non discrimination laws make this clear and I don't know of any that have been tossed out on constitutional grounds

Now churches get away with a hell of a lot. Maybe they should be held to the same standard but we know that wont happen.

 

[Syriusly]

Not on so many words, but you imply that by demanding individuals provide services that conflict with personal beliefs.

Nope.

 

[Seawytch]

Not on so many words, but you imply that by demanding individuals provide services that conflict with personal beliefs.

Public Accommodation laws have withstood Constitutional scrutiny at the Federal level. Your right to practice your religion is not infringed upon by having to follow the law.

 

[Ernie S.]

Please explain the specific legal difference between a member of a church and a church as to the protection of freedom of religion.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. ESTABLISMENT OF RELIGION An individual, a baker , photographer, proprietor of a for profit wedding mill is not an establishment of religion.


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.

The media often refer to NOTAs as "NONES" because they are affiliated to NONE of the faith groups. However, the words Nones and Nuns are homophones: words that sound alike but are spelled differently and which hold very different meanings. To avoid confusion, we recommend against this practice and recommend the unambiguous term "NOTA."

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

Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

You'll notice that there is no qualifier. One can take that to apply to either a member of an organized of individual.

Nice try, but you're wrong, as usual.

One could take that to apply to unicorns that fart glitter, but neither would be legally valid.

The law is very clear on what constitutes a church.

It is but where in the first amendment is freedom of religion restricted to churches?

I never said that it was. There is no distinction in the first amendment in the way that religious freedom is guaranteed to churches vs. individuals. I did however make a distinction between those who understand that religious freedom is about how they live their lives and not about controlling how other people live or discriminating against them.

We cannot let each and every individual decide that they can discriminate against anybody that they like in the name of their religion, even when their religion may not agree with them or may be divided on an issue. That is lawlessness. Who would be next? Maybe a restaurant will decide that they don't want to serve fat people because gluttony is condemned in the bible. Non discrimination laws make this clear and I don't know of any that have been tossed out on constitutional grounds

Now churches get away with a hell of a lot. Maybe they should be held to the same standard but we know that wont happen.

Forcing an individual to participate in an event that is forbidden by one's religion may be discrimination, but it is permitted by the first amendment.
You can't force a baker to make a cake.

That would be passing a law prohibiting free exercise.

 

[Ernie S.]

Not on so many words, but you imply that by demanding individuals provide services that conflict with personal beliefs.

Public Accommodation laws have withstood Constitutional scrutiny at the Federal level. Your right to practice your religion is not infringed upon by having to follow the law.

We shall see

 

[Seawytch]

Not on so many words, but you imply that by demanding individuals provide services that conflict with personal beliefs.

Public Accommodation laws have withstood Constitutional scrutiny at the Federal level. Your right to practice your religion is not infringed upon by having to follow the law.

We shall see

Where? Where will we "see"?

Supreme Court declines case of photographer who denied service to gay couple - The Washington Post

 

[Seawytch]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. ESTABLISMENT OF RELIGION An individual, a baker , photographer, proprietor of a for profit wedding mill is not an establishment of religion.


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.

The media often refer to NOTAs as "NONES" because they are affiliated to NONE of the faith groups. However, the words Nones and Nuns are homophones: words that sound alike but are spelled differently and which hold very different meanings. To avoid confusion, we recommend against this practice and recommend the unambiguous term "NOTA."

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

Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

You'll notice that there is no qualifier. One can take that to apply to either a member of an organized of individual.

Nice try, but you're wrong, as usual.

One could take that to apply to unicorns that fart glitter, but neither would be legally valid.

The law is very clear on what constitutes a church.

It is but where in the first amendment is freedom of religion restricted to churches?

I never said that it was. There is no distinction in the first amendment in the way that religious freedom is guaranteed to churches vs. individuals. I did however make a distinction between those who understand that religious freedom is about how they live their lives and not about controlling how other people live or discriminating against them.

We cannot let each and every individual decide that they can discriminate against anybody that they like in the name of their religion, even when their religion may not agree with them or may be divided on an issue. That is lawlessness. Who would be next? Maybe a restaurant will decide that they don't want to serve fat people because gluttony is condemned in the bible. Non discrimination laws make this clear and I don't know of any that have been tossed out on constitutional grounds

Now churches get away with a hell of a lot. Maybe they should be held to the same standard but we know that wont happen.

Forcing an individual to participate in an event that is forbidden by one's religion may be discrimination, but it is permitted by the first amendment.
You can't force a baker to make a cake.

That would be passing a law prohibiting free exercise.

No, it isn't. Nothing requires you to own a business, but if you do, you must follow the laws of the locality.

 

[Skylar]

One could take that to apply to unicorns that fart glitter, but neither would be legally valid.

The law is very clear on what constitutes a church.

So you're saying a church isn't the individual Christians who practice the faith? I think that SCOTUS might disagree with you. See "Hobby Lobby" for details..

A church and a person are different entities. You insist they are the same. The law doesn't recogize your claim as legally valid.

If it were so, they anyone molested by a catholic priest could sue ANY catholic personally. Alas the Catholic Church and individual Catholics are not the same.

 

[Skylar]

Not on so many words, but you imply that by demanding individuals provide services that conflict with personal beliefs.

Public Accommodation laws have withstood Constitutional scrutiny at the Federal level. Your right to practice your religion is not infringed upon by having to follow the law.

We shall see

Where? Where will we "see"?

Supreme Court declines case of photographer who denied service to gay couple - The Washington Post

Oh snap!

 

[beagle9]

Why would any couple want their wedding performed by a Church that was forced to do it....

Or why would they want a Christian to photograph them or bake them a wedding cake if an agenda isn't on their mind? They would'nt, so why are they doing it, and then acting as if they are surprised when the resistance comes?

They aren't surprised, and everyone including them knows this, but they got to play it out.

 

[Skylar]

Why would any couple want their wedding performed by a Church that was forced to do it....

Or why would they want a Christian to photograph them or bake them a wedding cake if an agenda isn't on their mind? They would'nt, so why are they doing it, and then acting as if they are surprised when the resistance comes?

They aren't surprised, and everyone including them knows this, but they got to play it out.

And by 'agenda' you mean being treated like everyone else?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. ESTABLISMENT OF RELIGION An individual, a baker , photographer, proprietor of a for profit wedding mill is not an establishment of religion.


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.

The media often refer to NOTAs as "NONES" because they are affiliated to NONE of the faith groups. However, the words Nones and Nuns are homophones: words that sound alike but are spelled differently and which hold very different meanings. To avoid confusion, we recommend against this practice and recommend the unambiguous term "NOTA."

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

Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

You'll notice that there is no qualifier. One can take that to apply to either a member of an organized of individual.

Nice try, but you're wrong, as usual.

One could take that to apply to unicorns that fart glitter, but neither would be legally valid.

The law is very clear on what constitutes a church.

It is but where in the first amendment is freedom of religion restricted to churches?

I never said that it was. There is no distinction in the first amendment in the way that religious freedom is guaranteed to churches vs. individuals. I did however make a distinction between those who understand that religious freedom is about how they live their lives and not about controlling how other people live or discriminating against them.

We cannot let each and every individual decide that they can discriminate against anybody that they like in the name of their religion, even when their religion may not agree with them or may be divided on an issue. That is lawlessness. Who would be next? Maybe a restaurant will decide that they don't want to serve fat people because gluttony is condemned in the bible. Non discrimination laws make this clear and I don't know of any that have been tossed out on constitutional grounds

Now churches get away with a hell of a lot. Maybe they should be held to the same standard but we know that wont happen.

Forcing an individual to participate in an event that is forbidden by one's religion may be discrimination, but it is permitted by the first amendment.
You can't force a baker to make a cake.

That would be passing a law prohibiting free exercise.

Wrong.

State and local public accommodations laws do not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment:

“We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.
[…]
Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).”

Employment Division v. Smith US Law LII Legal Information Institute

 

[Ernie S.]

Why would any couple want their wedding performed by a Church that was forced to do it....

Or why would they want a Christian to photograph them or bake them a wedding cake if an agenda isn't on their mind? They would'nt, so why are they doing it, and then acting as if they are surprised when the resistance comes?

They aren't surprised, and everyone including them knows this, but they got to play it out.

And by 'agenda' you mean being treated like everyone else?

I believe he means a lawsuit, or at least a big stink.
Damn son! Why would anyone demand a photographer or bake provide a service under duress?

Force me to do something against my will and you sure as hell aren't getting my best effort.
Why not find someone that has no such religious conviction?

 

[Ernie S.]

Or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.

You'll notice that there is no qualifier. One can take that to apply to either a member of an organized of individual.

Nice try, but you're wrong, as usual.

One could take that to apply to unicorns that fart glitter, but neither would be legally valid.

The law is very clear on what constitutes a church.

It is but where in the first amendment is freedom of religion restricted to churches?

I never said that it was. There is no distinction in the first amendment in the way that religious freedom is guaranteed to churches vs. individuals. I did however make a distinction between those who understand that religious freedom is about how they live their lives and not about controlling how other people live or discriminating against them.

We cannot let each and every individual decide that they can discriminate against anybody that they like in the name of their religion, even when their religion may not agree with them or may be divided on an issue. That is lawlessness. Who would be next? Maybe a restaurant will decide that they don't want to serve fat people because gluttony is condemned in the bible. Non discrimination laws make this clear and I don't know of any that have been tossed out on constitutional grounds

Now churches get away with a hell of a lot. Maybe they should be held to the same standard but we know that wont happen.

Forcing an individual to participate in an event that is forbidden by one's religion may be discrimination, but it is permitted by the first amendment.
You can't force a baker to make a cake.

That would be passing a law prohibiting free exercise.

Wrong.

State and local public accommodations laws do not violate the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment:

“We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs [p879] excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.
[…]
Subsequent decisions have consistently held that the right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes).”

Employment Division v. Smith US Law LII Legal Information Institute

Quite a stretch even for you!

Held: The Free Exercise Clause permits the State to prohibit sacramental peyote use, and thus to deny unemployment benefits to persons discharged for such use. Pp. 876-890.