Pope Francis backs same-sex civil unions

[stevevw]

Nope, you are in error,

Its all bigotry by the SSM opponents.

Yes but these matters are not decided by individual opinion but law and consitutional rights. For example in the case of Mr Phillips of the Materpiece Cake case the Supreme Court Judges ruled 7-2 that Colorado had shown an unconstitutional anti-religious animus toward Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cake shop when it punished him for refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding. They actuall said

“To describe a man's faith as 'one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use' is to disparage his religion in at least two distinct ways: by describing it as despicable, and also by characterizing it as merely rhetorical—something insubstantial and even insincere,”

“This sentiment is inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado's anti-discrimination law—a law that protects discrimination on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation.”

So if anyone was being a bigot it was those who attacked and condemned Phillips for his religious beliefs.

 

[stevevw]

You are mistating the position. Religious charities, including adoption agencies, can decide themselves if they want to allow adoption to single sex couples. But if it's government policy that single sex couples must be treated equally then the government can't operate with that charity. It would be associating itself with an act that breaks it's own policies.

So if the agency wants to maintain it's position then it will receive no government help. Their choice is then to obtain funds from elsewhere - feel free to chip in when you like, or perhaps close up due to lack of funds.

Put another way: They are your policies. You go fund them. You ain't using my tax dollar.

Ain't capitalism grand!

Yet many religious charities have receieved funding such as schools and been allowed to determine in most cases who represents them as teachers to ensure their religious culture is upheld without any issues. It seems the government wants the best of both worlds now. It relied on these charities to help clean up the mess they created or mismanaged but then wants to make religious charites pay for it all without one bit of help. Thats unless they conform to their stipulations.

This only hurts the kids and society. I am sure the charities will do all they can to help but they are non-profit and rely on charity which is not always available. The government is just making it harder and matters worse. You have to also remember the government is also breaching their own policy of supporting religious rights within the 1st Amendment.

 

[Bradskii]

You have to also remember the government is also breaching their own policy of supporting religious rights within the 1st Amendment.

You are too fond of misrepresenting opposing positions. And now showing a lack of knowledge of the first ammendment. It doesn't say that religious rights should be supported. But that no law shall be passed which prohibits the free exercise of religion.

So the government (and I) will support your right to exercise your religious beliefs. You just can't expect to be financially supported by the tax payer in enforcing those beliefs on others. Whether the adoption charities decide to continue or not is a matter for them. If y'all are really concerned then maybe you could have a regular church collection for the one in your area.

 

[VirOptimus]

Yes but these matters are not decided by individual opinion but law and consitutional rights. For example in the case of Mr Phillips of the Materpiece Cake case the Supreme Court Judges ruled 7-2 that Colorado had shown an unconstitutional anti-religious animus toward Jack Phillips of Masterpiece Cake shop when it punished him for refusing to make a cake for a gay wedding. They actuall said

“To describe a man's faith as 'one of the most despicable pieces of rhetoric that people can use' is to disparage his religion in at least two distinct ways: by describing it as despicable, and also by characterizing it as merely rhetorical—something insubstantial and even insincere,”

“This sentiment is inappropriate for a Commission charged with the solemn responsibility of fair and neutral enforcement of Colorado's anti-discrimination law—a law that protects discrimination on the basis of religion as well as sexual orientation.”

So if anyone was being a bigot it was those who attacked and condemned Phillips for his religious beliefs.

No, its still bigoted opinions opposing ssm.

 

[stevevw]

You are too fond of misrepresenting opposing positions. And now showing a lack of knowledge of the first ammendment. It doesn't say that religious rights should be supported. But that no law shall be passed which prohibits the free exercise of religion.

Then isnt the new marriage law denying religions their right to free exercise of religious belief.

So the government (and I) will support your right to exercise your religious beliefs. You just can't expect to be financially supported by the tax payer in enforcing those beliefs on others.

Yet governments have given tax payers money to religious schools which sometimes determine who works for them and also provides specific religious practcies such as daily and weekly prayer time and church services and has done for over 100 years.

Just because they may be religious entities should not exclude them from tax payers money as they are still providing a basic human right eduction. The State is not siding with any particular religion but applying the same to all beliefs. Religious freedom should also be protected. IE

U.S. Supreme Court endorses taxpayer funds for religious schools
The justices faulted the Montana Supreme Court for voiding a taxpayer program merely because it can be used to fund religious entities, saying such action violates the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment protection for the free exercise of religion.

“A state need not subsidize private education,” Roberts wrote. “But once a state decides to do so, it cannot disqualify some private schools solely because they are religious.”

In the case, free exercise of religion was pitted against another element of the First Amendment - the separation of church and state that prohibits governmental establishment of an official religion or favouring one religion over another.
U.S. Supreme Court endorses taxpayer funds for religious schools

This should do the same for religious adoption agencies as these are also providing human rights such as the right to a safe home and family.

Both Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and Article 23 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights provide basis for the right to family life as a fundamental human right.
Right to family life - Wikipedia

But it seems that only in recent times that things are beginning to change and governments are relaizing the benefits and rights of religious adoption agencies to place children according to their beliefs.

Supreme Court leans in favor of Catholic adoption agency that won’t work with LGBT couples
The Supreme Court’s conservative majority seemed prepared to rule in favor of a Roman Catholic adoption agency in Philadelphia that argued that it is entitled to discriminate against potential foster parents on the basis of sexual orientation.

Catholic Social Services argues that Philadelphia’s exclusion of it from the city’s foster care system amounts to religious discrimination, in violation of the First Amendment’s protections for religious exercise.
https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/04/sup...oster-agency-that-refuses-to-work-with-g.html

So the right to religious beliefs is not just about the government making laws that prohibit religions from practicing their beliefs. It is also about denying religious organisations from their right to religious freedom full stop. Catholic Services won because it was determined that they were being descriminated against and this was in violation of the First Amendment’s protections for religious exercise.

 

[stevevw]

No, its still bigoted opinions opposing ssm.

LOl you even call the Supreme court bigoted. Your bias is showing. Unsubstanciated personal opinion means nothing.

 

[Bradskii]

Then isnt the new marriage law denying religions their right to free exercise of religious belief.

No.

 

[stevevw]

No.

Then why are so many people and organisations being attacked for expressing their beliefs as per examples.

 

[Bradskii]

Then why are so many people and organisations being attacked for expressing their beliefs as per examples.

They're not. They are being prevented enforcing their beliefs on others.

 

[stevevw]

They're not. They are being prevented enforcing their beliefs on others.

So wait a minute. A cake maker chooses not to create a cake for a same sex marriage and rather than having the right to express their belief and not create that cake they are wrong to do so because they are imposing their belief on others.

A farmer expressed their belief and support for TM on Facebook and they are denied to do business which denies his livelihood. So denying a farmers livelihood for expressing a belief on Facebook is justified because its not about the right to express a belief but rather its really about enforcing their belief on others.

You sure have a skewed and one sided view of religious freedom. Under that view there would be no such thing as religious rights to belief. The only problem in both cases they were not at fault for enforcing a belief on anyone but rather it was found that they had their rights to their beliefs denied under the 1st Amendment.

Forcing Phillips to make custom wedding cakes for same-sex marriages requires him to, at the very least, acknowledge that same-sex weddings are “weddings” and suggest that they should be celebrated—the precise message he believes his faith forbids. The First Amendment prohibits Colorado from requiring Phillips to “bear witness to [these] facts, Hurley, 515 U. S., at 574, or to “affir[m] . . . a belief with which [he] disagrees,” id., at 573 (ibid, at 8)
Colorado Wedding Cake Baker wins before US Supreme Court

Banned from the Farmer’s Market Because of a Facebook Post
"If the government can shut down a family farmer just because of the religious views he expresses on Facebook — by denying him a license to do business and serve fresh produce to all people — then no American is free."
Banned from the Farmer’s Market Because of a Facebook Post

 

[Speedwell]

Then why are so many people and organisations being attacked for expressing their beliefs as per examples.

You are missing a big part of the picture when you are discussing court cases and other controversies here in the US. I don't know what things are like in Australia, but here in this country we have a concerted movement called the Religious Right, a loose coalition of Evangelical Protestants and conservatives from other denominations who are actively testing the limits of their political power to impose their morality on society as a whole as they once did. They are not just innocent Christians suddenly being blindsided by aggressive evil homosexuals. I don't know how old you are, but I am old enough to remember when homosexuality was illegal and subject to severe criminal penalties and violent acts against homosexuals were tolerated--all for for religious reasons. It's not just about a wedding cake.

 

[Speedwell]

So wait a minute. A cake maker chooses not to create a cake for a same sex marriage and rather than having the right to express their belief and not create that cake they are wrong to do so because they are imposing their belief on others.

A person expressed their support for TM on Facebook and they are sacked. So being sacked was justified because they have no right to express their belief but were rather enforcing their belief on others.

You sure have a skewed and one sided view of religious freedom. Under that view there would be no such thing as religious rights to belief. The only problem in both cases it was the SSM supporters who were at fault and were found to be by the court and tribunals in denying people their right to express their beliefs.

Yes, that is correct. The courts are where the limits of constitution rights are tested.

 

[VirOptimus]

LOl you even call the Supreme court bigoted. Your bias is showing. Unsubstanciated personal opinion means nothing.

Heh, the irony is delicious.

And its still bigotry.

Court cases or laws dont change that.

 

[Bradskii]

The only problem in both cases it was the SSM supporters who were at fault and were found to be by the court and tribunals in denying people their right to express their beliefs.

Then in this case you have nothing to complain about. And I agree that they should be able to express their beliefs. But this shotgun approach that you have dilutes any valid points you might have if this thread was not about ssm but cake making. As far as ssm, you constantly divert from the subject because your arguments aren't based on anything factual.

You are your own worst enemy.

 

[stevevw]

Then in this case you have nothing to complain about. And I agree that they should be able to express their beliefs. But this shotgun approach that you have dilutes any valid points you might have if this thread was not about ssm but cake making.

Your playing a deceptive game and changing the goal posts on every post. This is where I have to keep tabs and pin you down to what you actually said. Let me remind you of the conversation and what the facts and point was

Post #923 Bradskii said:
You are too fond of misrepresenting opposing positions. And now showing a lack of knowledge of the first ammendment. It doesn't say that religious rights should be supported. But that no law shall be passed which prohibits the free exercise of religion.
Post #925 Stevevw said:
Then isnt the new marriage law denying religions their right to free exercise of religious belief.
Post #927 Bradskii said:
No
Post #928 Stevevw said:
Then why are so many people and organisations being attacked for expressing their beliefs as per examples.
Post #929 Bradskii said:
They're not. They are being prevented enforcing their beliefs on others.
Post #930
Stevevw then posted examples showing that the 1st Amendemnet actually does defend and support peoples religious beliefs and is not about preventing people from enforcing their beliefs on others 'the exact opposite of what you were claiming'. The point being you were wrong about this. But instead of acknowledging that you justified it as being OK because the people involved won their case to have those rights.

But that wasnt the point was it. You are either overlooking or denying peoples religious rights and have a bias and hostile view of those rights by the fact that you percieve the religious rights issue as more about " prevented enforcing their beliefs on others" than protecting peoples religious belief.

In otherwords you choose to oppose peoples religious rights rather than recognise and support them by choosing to see that anyone who tries to express their belief as being an imposition on others rather than a right they have.

As far as ssm, you constantly divert from the subject because your arguments aren't based on anything factual.
You are your own worst enemy.

Hum I just showed that you were factually wrong and I was right so how can that be.

 

[Speedwell]

But that wasnt the point was it. You are either overlooking or denying peoples religious rights and have a bias and hostile view of those rights by the fact that you percieve the religious rights issue as more about " prevented enforcing their beliefs on others" than protecting peoples religious belief. In otherwords you choose to oppose peoples religious rights rather than recognise and support them by seeing anyone who tries to exp[ress their belief as being an imposition others rather the a right.

Hum I just showed that you were factually wrong and I was right so how can that be.

You have a right to express ignorant and bigoted views in public. You have no right to be free of criticism for expressing those views. It doesn't matter that you deem them "Christian." You have no more right to be free of criticism for expressing your views than anyone else, just because they are "religious." If you flout public accommodation or labor laws you have no more right to escape court action than anyone else just because you are Christian. You have provided numerous examples of cases where Christians have in fact been exonerated of such behavior, which shows that freedom of religion is in fact being protected in accord with the 1st amendment. What you do not have is a right to avoid being accused of it just because you are a Christian. In cases where there is a doctrinal dispute within a religious organization, the government has no standing and the 1st Amendment does not apply.

 

[stevevw]

Heh, the irony is delicious.

And its still bigotry.

Court cases or laws dont change that.

Thats just a personal view which has not substance. So your saying people don't have the right to express their religious beliefs.

 

[VirOptimus]

So your saying people don't have the right to express their religious beliefs.

No, I dont.

You cant read?

 

[stevevw]

Yes, that is correct. The courts are where the limits of constitution rights are tested.

Yes but that wasnt the point. I was showing that the 1st Amendment is about the right to religious freedom to express belief and not about preventing people from imposing their belief on others. That is the opposite of what the 1st Amendment stands for.

The First Amendment guarantees freedoms concerning religion, expression, assembly, and the right to petition.
First Amendment

 

[stevevw]

No, I dont.

You cant read?

Not sure what your point is. I posted the example of Mr Phillips and the Masterpiece Cake case and that the Supreme court decided that he had the right to express his belief to not create a cake for a SSM and you said " No, its still bigoted opinions opposing ssm ".

So are you saying that despite Mr Phillips win and right not to create a cake for a SSM he still has a bigoted opinion opposing SSM. I can only read a post as it is plainly laid out.