Should religious freedom protect you from penalties in a court of law?

Missouri Senate Approves Bill Protecting Opponents of Same-Sex Marriage - The New York Times
www.kansascity.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/the-buzz/article64696347.html

A proposed bill in Missouri says that religious organizations and certain types of private businesses shouldn't be penalized for refusing service to gay and lesbian couples because they disagree with same-sex marriage. Republicans in favor of the bill say it's simply a bill that would protect religious freedom.

The St. Louis Regional Chamber of Commerce is concerned about negative economic consequences if the bill passes. They made a statement, "While we understand the desire to protect clergy and religious institutions from having to perform ceremonies counter to their beliefs, expanding protections to individuals and private business owners that voluntarily enter the stream of public commerce sends the message to the rest of the country that Missouri condones discrimination."

Is this bill constitutional?

 

I'm certain that everyone explores Missouri's state commercial statutes before traveling to Missouri.

It may or may no be constitutional, depending upon application and federal statutes - which now are generally created by administrative orders rather than acts of Congress.

 

If you allow a Christian to ignore law because they disagree with homosexuality how long will it take before Muslims are killing Christians in the street because their religion disagrees with Christians.

I know that a far stretch but you get the point. These new legal loopholes will be exploited to do more than discriminate against gays.

My view: not constitutional, will be struck down to the pure screaming fits of social conservatives. At least they will have a few more news cycles of "Christians targeted for their beliefs" to console themselves.

 

Both practicing faith and practicing the gay lifestyle are choices

the govt cannot force one practice upon another nor force one group to serve the other during those practices.

People who enjoy gay-sex are not refused photos, cupcakes or coffee. What they are refused is for a Christian to service a "wedding" which is the celebration of the CHOSEN gay lifestyle

we are talking about lifestyle choices be it religion or the gay lifestyle

We are not talking about something that medical science can prove like how you were born a certain race etc.

 

Muslims will kill homosexuals and Christians no matter what laws say.

 

I agree, one can choose to remain celibate

In none of the recent cases was anyone forced to do anything - these business were opened under the terms and conditions set by their business license. If they disagree with those terms they have several options, not limited to: Moving to a new location, closing, becoming a members only club, becoming part of a religious or protected organization

All of the above would be allowable discriminate under the new law. Gay people have also been refused medical service for their children and legal documents in just the last few months.

Except you feel one group should be given legal provisions to disenfranchise the other

Ok? Relevance

 

In the US they would be arrested for murder and hopefully executed (cheaply, with a pork marinated round); why some are trying to argue the practice should be legal on the grounds of religious freedom without limits makes no sense to me.

 

I agree except for your usage of "choice." Not being born to an orientation does not mean it is a choice. Clearly, then, you could easily decide to be a homosexual since its just a choice anyone makes, just like you could chose to desire a 500 pound 60 year old woman.

- - - Updated - - -

Actually that is an absurd point. Refusing to participate or support an ideological/ religious ceremony has no relevancy to proactively and aggressively attacking someone.

 

Once again, we see Christians thinking it's "protecting religious freedom" when they persecute others for doing things they disagree with.

- - - Updated - - -

I'm more concerned about Christians killing Muslims at this point..

 

What do you mean by servicing a wedding ?

There is officiating at a wedding when a religious worker such as a priest or minister or a rabbi marry a couple. When you say servicing a wedding is that what you mean ? If not then what ?

 

It was meant to be taken as absurd, I guess I am just getting tired of both major religions believing their personal view should overrule the life liberty and happiness of others. Religion should be a personal covenant not a political weapon.

 

I agree with you. However, politics shouldn't be used as a weapon against a person's personal beliefs either. So while I TOTALLY support SSM and full equality, I do not believe a condition of a person's employment and participation in our economic system can be that person must support, attend and participate in any ideological or religious ritual - which is what every "marriage" ceremony, since it is only the signing of the license that makes for a marriage in terms of government. All the rest is JUST an ideological or religious ritual.

So... refusing to sell a cake to LGTBs? No, can't do that. Refusing to make a cake for an SSM ritual? Yes, if that violated the person's beliefs - religious or non-religious. So in the exact debated case, yes I believe the baker could say "no, I won't make a cake for an SSM ceremony." If the gay couple had then said, "Ok, just make us the cake for us however we want to" and the baker said "no, because I know you are going to use it for an SSM ceremony" then the baker loses. It is a subtle, but distinct difference.

 

So... we should not enforce laws prohibiting such behavior?

What do you mean?

 

The whole purpose of the gaystapo in cloaking their discrimination and attacks on peoples' basic human and civil rights is is via the Trojan Horse cover of "anti-discrimination" and the latest pablum version "equality". The Homosexual Agenda comes right out and says that dissent speech against homosexual politics and behaviors must be criminalized.

"Our campaign should not demand explicit support for homosexual practices but should take instead anti-discrimination as its theme." -Overhauling Straight America

The OP title question should read: Should "anti-discrimination" laws authorize discrimination against dissenters? Or Should Freedom of Speech not include a prohibition on compelled speech".

 

yes, as long as your not harming others...., should yo be able to deny people their rights like Kim Davis was doing.. no

the bill is not constitutional if it allows businesses to decriminate based on the gender or race of a couple

.

 

I understand your view, I have struggled with it and after much thought I personally believe discrimination by entities who serve the public must serve the entire public. Graphic images and words should not included under this provision. If they are unwilling to serve all individuals equally they have many options (private club, membership basis / they did not do this because they wanted the profits of a business open to the public) no one should have to walk into a store advertising a good or service and be told "we don't serve your kind here."

 

What is a "gay lifestyle"?

And then, there will be those of even certain "Christian" faiths, which allow homosexual behavior. Will we protect that "faith" as well?

I hope for the day those places (refusing such services) are just memories.

And I ask again, what is a "CHOSEN gay lifestyle"?

I am sure, that bigotry will ultimately lose, in the broadest sense.

Not yet, anyway.

 

Sometimes it's a mental illness, other times it's a choice and occasionally it is something you have to struggle to resist depending on what plays into the particular phrase of propaganda.

So essentially it is just a false cause.

 

I mean laws passed pro or con on LGTB rights won't change the conduct of violent people who do violence for reasons of prejudice.

 

Here is an exact example of someone I know who officiates weddings "for anyone," including SSM. But she showed up at a Latino wedding at a home. In the front yard hanging by its back legs was a goat whose throat they had slit. They told her this is part of their traditional marriage ceremonies. She a real animal-lover replied, "oh no, no, no, this makes sick. I can't stay" and left. With that, they couldn't even able to do the wedding ceremony - with everyone there for it and the ceremony to start within minutes - now totally cancelled because she walked out. However, what they did to that goat is 100% legal.

How much do you think she owes to that couple for "religious discrimination?" $50,000? $100,000? $250,000? That is the question, isn't it? It isn't just religious/ideological rituals that YOU are ok with, but all the ones you absolutely could find replusive for ethical, religious or emotional reasons.

 

Another example? An officiate who will marry "anyone" with a license legal to marry found himself with a girl age 16, a groom in his mid-50s who was a "pastor," and the girl's mother, who had signed off on the 16 year old for the license. He asked the 16 year old if she really wanted to do this, and she answered "yes, its God's will" - with the mother joining in that God had willed that her daughter marry that old preacher. The officiant said "no, I won't do this."

Illegal religious discrimination?

 

In my personal view, since that is what we are talking about, animal torture or using an animal in a ceremony should not be legal.

$0.00, the same amount I feel should have been awarded in the bakery case.

Do people that officiate charge money? Advertise similar services to the public? Have business licenses? I am unsure how the process works so I am unable to give you my complete opinion.

 

You last two examples have simply strengthened my view that religions are ridiculous and should not be endorsed at any level of government.

 

So, some legislature finds it necessary to pass a bill to ALLOW people to not use their own persons and property to serve people they don't want to serve, amazing...

And the OP is asking if that piece of legislation is constitutional! Wow,.. just,.. wow.

 

Goes to show you just how far back into The Dark Ages the powerful gaystapo cavemen have dragged society where people are forced to pass specific laws blocking homosexualists from discriminating and bullying people who refuse to submit to their fiery brand of Homo-Sharia..