Does Religious Freedom Supercede Gender Identity?

do you believe in souls though, if your soul switched with an opposite gender body tomorrow, would you be sexually attracted to your own gender

while I agree, doctors need to know what sex parts you have, there seems to be more to it then just the sex parts

the fact that hermaphrodites exist shows there is more too it

 

Neither can supercede the other.

 

I guess I would be gay. Not sure about metaphysical musings. But I know what a penis or Vag means.

 

There are reportedly only 700 hermaphrodites in a world of 7.5 billion people. Very few. They are legitimate and should get to decide what and who they want to be AFTER they become adults.

Transgenders are confused and mentally dysfunctional and, they too, are free decide who or what they want to be so long as they don't demand minority privilege status and/or compete against women as a 'woman'.

 

What you are MISSING is that ORIENTATION is a MENTAL state rather than a PHYSICAL one.

Someone can be born with a brain that is the opposite gender to their body.

Why is this concept so difficult to grasp?

 

Hell, i dont care. Like mounds says "sometimes you feel like a nut, sometimes you dont".

It's basic science, biology.

 

Nope!

It is COMPLEX biology because it is NOT binary, it is a SPECTRUM instead.

 

I'm saying that pretty much all laws force people to do things they don't want to (or prevent them from doing things they do) - we wouldn't need the laws otherwise. There are all sorts of different reasons an individual might find a particular law restrictive or difficult and religious belief is only one of them. Plenty of people will feel exactly as strongly about something for pretty much the same reasons but not identify it as part of their religion. That doesn't mean their situation should be deemed any more or less important than those who do identify it as part of their religion.

I'm totally in favour of doing everything we can to minimise the negative impact of restrictive laws, carefully balancing the potentially benefits and risks in each case. I even think there is an argument the specific law we're discussing here pushes a little too far and in too much detail. I'm very specifically in favour of doing that for everyone though. The only objection I have is to the idea of having a special set of rules for religious people, be it in their favour or against them.

Incidentally, we've not even touched on the practical aspect. Who determines what is a "valid" religious belief and a "valid" objection on the basis of it? Plenty of religious objections raised by religious individuals are based on principles that aren't shared by many of the other people of the same faith or even by the leadership of those faiths. And presumably you wouldn't accept someone being able to simple declare themselves a follower or a new religion which happens to have a specific rule against something they don't want to do. Don't we risk falling in to the situation of having state sanctioned religions and authorised beliefs, which I'd argue poses even greater risks, both to the religious and non-religious alike?

 

My suggestion to you would be to laugh and walk away

 

Nothing was debunked except his assertion that it was the lead justices opinion alone. It was part of the decision and signed onto by the rest of the justices. Pay attention. Or are you going to go report my post again? Loller

 

You’re not referring to actual cases. You’re referring to the personal opinions of justices. Which mean nothing until they rule.

 

To our founders it was immutable. But regardless EVERY protected class added after the drafting of the constitution and amendments has a common characteristic in being immutable. You’re not going to be able to include an attribute which is not immutable successfully. But go ahead and try in futility lol

 

Yes and if they had known they have every right to tell you to not purchase their product.

 

false religious liberty supersedes the commerce clause and has since the founding. The only act that has been successfully advocated for violating religious freedom is when that religious freedom brings demonstrable harm to others. Period.

 

Ironic given that YOU are the one NOT paying attention!

Go and READ your OWN link!

I QUOTED from the SCOTUS RULINGS in that link that DEBUNKED your bovine excrement allegation.

It is a PF Rule VIOLATION to discuss moderator actions. I recommend that you LEARN the RULES.

 

Those were ACTUAL RULINGS!

Read your own link before responding again!

 

More asinine bovine excrement WITHOUT any shred of substantiation.

 

Do you believe people are incapable of choosing to go from no religion to religion, or from one religion to another, or from religion to no religion.

It doesn’t matter what you feel the founding fathers said — I have never seen a direct quote from one saying it was immutable — if what they believed was true is actually false then it is simply false.

 

I uphold your right to your misinformed opinion but it is noted FTR that you have utterly FAILED to credibly substantiate any of your bogus allegation on this matter.

 

Do you believe harassment of another person brings “demonstrable harm to others”?
How about denying people healthcare over religious preferences?
Denying adoption?

 

I think you make a very good and interesting point. Not sure why you needed to bring religion into it though ? Forget about Satan and what the Bible Teaches - and not all lying is bearing false witness.

Lying is condemned universally - regardless of whether or not one is religious - and what is being propagated by this pronoun stuff is a lie - a movement based in falsehood.

When Children are taught - and raised in a world where Truth is Falsehood and Falsehood is Truth - what is the societal impact ?

I grew up in a world with sayings like "honesty is the best policy" - where lying was bad. What is the fallout from being raised in a world where lying to yourself and others is normalized - where honesty and integrity are worthless and even frowned upon ?

A similar analogy would be when Gov't does not respect essential liberty. If Gov't has no respect for individual liberty - what does this teach our youth ? Then we sit around and wonder "why do so many of today's youth have such little respect for the rights others" ?

What does a world that lacks and respect for the rights of others look like ? I am reminded of examples from Africa where one tribe fights another tribe - where they go in and hack off the arms of Children from the other tribe.

 

no it isn't. Nowhere in that ruling does the court declare this a Christian nation. They are precluded from doing so by the 1st amendment. We are, and have always been, a secular nation.

 

yes, if they ruled on the merits of the case. They did not rule on the merits. They dismissed it due to the plaintiffs having no standing to bring it before the court. There is no precedent to adhere to.

 

There are quite a number of factors working here.

First, bearing false witness. By your comments this implies the saying of things not true. By that logic, every Christian who ever claimed the sun moved around the earth, include the church leaders who persecuted Galileo, are guilty of this sin. However in reality bearing false witness means deliberate lying when the truth is otherwise know to the individual. If I know for fact that you are 40 and claim you are 50, I'm lying. But if I just look at you and claim you to be 30 when you are actually 40, I am not lying.

Then we come to what is the truth? Going back, the church would have told you that the truth was that the sun went around the earth. Given that science discovers that what we once "knew" isn't always truth, it is not unreasonable to assume that we may have been wrong as to the nature of a person based upon genitals or genes. The truth of the majority is not the truth of all. Most are right handed, but that doesn't mean a person who is left handed is wrong. Yet, again, the early.church would have had you believe that left handedness as a sign of evil, possession or just plain wrong, was the truth.

I don't think that any transgender has ever denied what body they were born with. But is the body the actual truth of self? Maybe a better vocabulary is needed, but for now people are working with what words they have. A FtM sees how other males who identify as male are and behave, and recognizes that within them, whereas they recognize little if anything within of what those who are and identify as female are and behave. The transgender do not lie in their conviction of what they are. They do not bear false witness, because that is the truth of themselves.

 

But you’re trying to treat religious and non religious people the same and they’re not. If you’re a doctor and not religious and you have a deeply held conviction that abortion is wrong and you shouldn’t have to participate in it, when they make a law that says you do have to, all it does is make you feel bad and at worst cause some damage to your psyche. Whereas if a religious doctor is forced to engage in it, he is condemning his soul to everlasting damnation in hell. We are not the same. That’s a large part of why our founders put the freedom of religion into our constitution.

So do you not believe in religious freedom at all? I mean your interpretation seems very one sided. You assert that not prohibiting religion is solely that a law can’t be made outlawing religion. But on the other side you assert that establishing religion includes not only a law which makes makes a state religion but any law which would have even a religious driven intent. Whereas if you were being consistent you would expand the interpretation not prohibiting religion to include not passing laws which violate religious beliefs.

If you pass a law which forces me to do something which violate my religious beliefs aren’t you, for all intents and purposes, prohibiting me from practicing my religion?