RestoreTheJoy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 13, 2018
5,152
1,653
Passing Through
✟457,191.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Still doesn’t explain how a physician could be forced to perform an abortion. If an OB/Gyn does not include abortion in their practice, then they cannot be forced to perform one.

One does not need to be an OB-GYN to perform an abortion in many states. Abortion Laws By State 2021

Even technicians can do them in several states, the PTB values abortion so highly.
 
Upvote 0

comana

Senior Veteran
Site Supporter
Jan 19, 2005
6,931
3,500
Colorado
✟908,385.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Others
One does not need to be an OB-GYN to perform an abortion in many states. Abortion Laws By State 2021

Even technicians can do them in several states, the PTB values abortion so highly.
Ok, regardless, those who do not perform abortions are not going to be forced to do the procedure.
 
  • Agree
Reactions: john23237
Upvote 0

Anthony2019

Pax et bonum!
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2019
5,957
10,894
Staffordshire, United Kingdom
✟776,545.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
So...all reasonable, except it sounds very much like you are saying that if any person in a protected class wants to do anything that a particular religious belief prohibits, the religious belief must fall to the legislation.

How does that work in the admittedly quite rare instances where there is a direct conflict? Such as Faith leader (say Muslim or Christian) simply cannot in good conscience perform a religious ceremony for a same sex couple because the scriptures prohibit it?
My understanding is that the terms of Equality Act still apply to religious organisations, however a few exceptions are made so it is possible for them to practise in accordance with their beliefs. For example, when appointing bishops, priests, nuns, monks, etc, a church is allowed to give preference to someone who shares the same faith, however I do not believe they are allowed to discriminate against anyone where their belief (or lack of belief) is not essential to the role. The law also allows religious organisations to opt out of performing certain ceremonies (eg. same sex weddings) although some churches have opted to hold such ceremonies.
 
Upvote 0

RestoreTheJoy

Well-Known Member
Site Supporter
Jul 13, 2018
5,152
1,653
Passing Through
✟457,191.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
My understanding is that the terms of Equality Act still apply to religious organisations, however a few exceptions are made so it is possible for them to practise in accordance with their beliefs. For example, when appointing bishops, priests, nuns, monks, etc, a church is allowed to give preference to someone who shares the same faith, however I do not believe they are allowed to discriminate against anyone where their belief (or lack of belief) is not essential to the role. The law also allows religious organisations to opt out of performing certain ceremonies (eg. same sex weddings) although some churches have opted to hold such ceremonies.
Interesting. Sounds like a real engagement of government into religion.
 
Upvote 0

Anthony2019

Pax et bonum!
Site Supporter
Jan 25, 2019
5,957
10,894
Staffordshire, United Kingdom
✟776,545.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
Single
Interesting. Sounds like a real engagement of government into religion.
My personal view is that the Equality Act is both balanced and fair. It provides protection for all citizens on the grounds of characteristics such as race, gender, disability, marital status, sexual orientation, gender reassignment, pregnancy, maternity and religion. There are provisions in the Act to ensure that it is applied in a way that is reasonable and proportionate to the circumstances.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Belk
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,737
12,120
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟652,047.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
Since the loophole still exists for race, this isn’t realistic. It also doesn’t make sense. Would you have churches required to marry anyone who asks, no matter their religion? There’s no history in the legal treatment of marriage to suggest this. There is, however plenty of history of people trying to rile up emotions by threatening things that won’t happen.

"History" is always being made these days. It's the "in" thing to do. Haven't you been watching the news?
 
Upvote 0

Aldebaran

NCC-1701-A
Christian Forums Staff
Purple Team - Moderator
Site Supporter
Oct 17, 2009
38,737
12,120
Wisconsin, United States of America
✟652,047.00
Country
United States
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Single
no.

you know that


Churches are not places of business and pastors aren't public servants. NO one can compel anyone to conduct a marriage. This is why you still hear about pastor's refusing to marrying interracial couples, refusing to do so is not illegal

We're not talking about what's legal right now. We're talking about what will be legal if this bill becomes new law, and then what could be done to close "loopholes" that will exist that people will want closed afterward.
 
Upvote 0

SilverBear

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2016
7,359
3,297
57
Michigan
✟166,106.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
So...all reasonable, except it sounds very much like you are saying that if any person in a protected class wants to do anything that a particular religious belief prohibits, the religious belief must fall to the legislation.
not if you actually read the legislation
 
  • Like
Reactions: john23237
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

disciple Clint

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2018
15,258
5,991
Pacific Northwest
✟208,189.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
If discrimination against same-sex couples is banned, and religious freedom can't be used as a defense against this mandate, I suppose that would become required. Can't say for sure, but that's what it looks like
The first sentence in the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Crwth
Upvote 0

SilverBear

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2016
7,359
3,297
57
Michigan
✟166,106.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
"History" is always being made these days. It's the "in" thing to do. Haven't you been watching the news?
Yep and we see plenty of people trying to rile up emotions by threatening things that won’t happen.
 
Upvote 0

SilverBear

Well-Known Member
Sep 2, 2016
7,359
3,297
57
Michigan
✟166,106.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Widowed
We're not talking about what's legal right now. We're talking about what will be legal if this bill becomes new law, and then what could be done to close "loopholes" that will exist that people will want closed afterward.
all you are doing is showing you haven't read the legislation
 
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,643
15,974
✟486,683.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
There is, however plenty of history of people trying to rile up emotions by threatening things that won’t happen.
Yep. I imagine hat's what happens when there needs to be an argument against equal protection of the "wrong" type of minorities but no good ones against the actual bill can be found.
 
  • Like
Reactions: john23237
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,643
15,974
✟486,683.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
So...all reasonable, except it sounds very much like you are saying that if any person in a protected class wants to do anything that a particular religious belief prohibits, the religious belief must fall to the legislation.
How in the world can a law change what a religious person believes? That doesn't sound like something that's possible in theory, much less what this act proposes.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,643
15,974
✟486,683.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
The first sentence in the First Amendment in the Bill of Rights reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof."
And yet we have laws against human sacrifice, even during religious exercises. We also have government-paid religious figures.

The bit you quoted in your post is not an absolute.
 
Upvote 0

disciple Clint

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2018
15,258
5,991
Pacific Northwest
✟208,189.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
And yet we have laws against human sacrifice, even during religious exercises. We also have government-paid religious figures.

The bit you quoted in your post is not an absolute.
We have laws against murder, nothing in the view of progressives is an absolute
 
  • Agree
Reactions: Crwth
Upvote 0

KCfromNC

Regular Member
Apr 18, 2007
28,643
15,974
✟486,683.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
We have laws against murder

Yep. Glad we agree that the first amendment isn't a blanket "no laws apply to me" to people who are religious.

nothing in the view of progressives is an absolute

Yeah, tell me more about how it was "progressives" using whatever excuse they could find to rationalize Donald's behavior.
 
  • Haha
Reactions: john23237
Upvote 0

disciple Clint

Well-Known Member
Mar 26, 2018
15,258
5,991
Pacific Northwest
✟208,189.00
Country
United States
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Private
Yep. Glad we agree that the first amendment isn't a blanket "no laws apply to me" to people who are religious.



Yeah, tell me more about how it was "progressives" using whatever excuse they could find to rationalize Donald's behavior.
Yeah, tell me more about how it was "progressives" using whatever excuse they could find to rationalize Donald's behavior.
Trying to change the subject will not change the facts.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums