Does Religious Freedom Supercede Gender Identity?

I don't believe so. If they had ruled on the merits, instead of simply dismissing due to lack of standing that would be the case.

 

If I’m at dinner with a trans at the table I’m not going to go out of my way to insult him by calling him a guy or Gary when he wants to be sally.

However if you’re asking me if a transgender man is actually a woman I’m not going to lie and deceive people with an untruth and state he is. In public discourse or in a context outside of speaking with the individual person on a personal level I’m not going to engage in it and God would not expect me to from what I can read in the Bible.

 

Currently everyone is required to participate in that system, regardless of whether they personally agree with it or not. You are arguing for only religious people to be excluded from that but not for the system to be removed, so by definition, you’re arguing for non-religious people to continue to be forced to follow it, even if they have just as strongly held personal beliefs against it.

It’s like seeing a bunch of people drowning in a pool and dragging your friend out rather than draining the water.

Why did you bring up taxes then. Again, everyone has (and should have) equal rights to advocate for changes to policy and law. Being religious or not is irrelevant to that.

And just because someone isn’t religious doesn’t mean it isn’t expressly forbidden under their moral principles. Being religious or not is irrelevant to that.

Where is that explicitly defined?

 

No the law should be changed, but in the event that it’s not religious freedom trumps your law. If, for no other reason, that it is a constitutional protection which supersedes any local, state or federal law.

And:

“In the law, the term “immutable characteristic” refers to any attribute considered impossible or difficult to change, such as race, national origin, or sex. Individuals claiming to have experienced discrimination because of an immutable characteristic will automatically be treated as members of a protected class. An immutable characteristic is the clearest way to define a protected class; these characteristics are given the most legal protection.”

 

exactly, if one can't sell wedding cakes without discriminating, just don't sell them to anyone, seems pretty simple

like if one can't sell pork, don't work for a place that sells pork

 

the gender of the couple is the reason the clerk won't sell the cake, just like people that used to not support inter-racial marriage, it's no different from people today that do not support intra-gender marriage, one was about race of the couple, the other gender

 

No it’s not. If two straight guys walked in and asked to buy a wedding cake for a heterosexual marriage the cake would have been sold.

Hell if the two gay guys asked for a cake for a heterosexual wedding, it would have been sold.

 

Again, those are two entirely separate arguments and need treating separately. You’re still jumping back and forth between the two, confusing the entire thread.

The Constitution doesn’t supersede the law, it forms the basis for the law. The Constitution means the law can’t discriminate against (or in favour of) any particular religion but it doesn’t mean that religious people get to pick and choose which laws they obey based on their beliefs. Requiring everyone to obey the same secular law is not discriminating against anyone by definition.

That states that immutable characteristics are automatically considered protected but not the other way around, which is what you suggested. As I pointed out, religion is also a protected class but not legally recognised as an immutable characteristic, demonstrating that there is no automatic reason that other mutable characteristics can’t also be included.

 

True religious belief is immutable. Regardless of our opinions it was defined as protected by our founders. Something sexuality and gender identity was not. For them to argue protected status they’re going to need to be able to put forth a cogent argument as to why.

And your argument doesn’t make sense. If, for some odd reason, we passed a law that said you have to eat bacon on sundays and beef on saturdays. Would you argue that Muslims and Hindu’s have to participate because it is the law? Or would their religious faith and our freedom of religion preclude them from doing so?

 

It’s m

Or when a person with a penis gets dressed and pretends to be a man. Unfortunately, they by far out number the dress wearing crowd.

 

You do know what an appellate court is for? Because you are correct, a case was dismissed, but it wasn’t the Religious Liberty Accommodation Act. The case of Barber vs Bryant was dismissed. This was the case challenging HB 1523, so in turn HB 1523 stands as law, now stands as a federal ruling.

Mississippi House Bill 1523 (H.B. 1523), also called the Religious Liberty Accommodations Act or Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act, is 2016 state legislation passed in direct response to federal rulings in support of same-sex marriage.[1]

 

They cant. Because it DOESNT take away from their freedom or religion. They simply want to apply the "yucky" factor, and discriminate. Thats what they do. Its who they are. They cannot help themselves.

 

I could declare that "true sexual orientation is immutable" and it would be as meaningless as your statement. Not even your lauded founders get to redefine established words.

They should and, in this case presumably have - the law wouldn't exist otherwise. To challenge that established and democratically enacted law, we'd need to make a cogent argument against it. And you don't even need to be religious to have the freedom to try to do that if you want.

It's obviously a stupid example but if it was deemed necessary to impose such a generally prescriptive law, it would be presumably necessary for everyone. In practice, there'd could be arguments for exceptions, but not just for religious reasons but also things like vegetarians or people with heart conditions and they'd be written in to the specific law.

Your turn. Do you believe FGM should be legal if the parents claim it is a requirement of their religion?

 

Does Religious Freedom Supercede Gender Identity?

Everything supersedes gender identity.

 

again, ruling on standing does not set a precedent on the merits.

 

Actual yes they do get to define words as the writers of the constitution they got to define what their words and terms meant. And your insistence that they’re wrong doesn’t change the fact that it’s constitutionally a legitimate protection whether you like it or not. Moreover the SCOTUS has ruled time and time and time again that the right to religious freedom and not having to violate your faith based upon state or federal law is foundational in this country. Furthermore that document serves as the primary legal document in this country upon which all laws are based and those laws MUST adhere to the freedom of religion and the ability of the people not to be forced to violate them.

Also the analogy holds true. If there is no explicit exemption wrote into the law for religious beliefs and the Muslim or Hindu wasn’t vegetarian or had health issues would his religious faith ON ITS OWN ACCORD and our freedom of religion preclude them from being included in the law?

And as I’ve expressed many times you have the right to your religion as long as you’re not bringing demonstrable harm upon others. FGM is demonstrably harmful. Whereas me calling you a man because you actually are a man, is NOT demonstrably harmful.

It may be insensitive but it’s not harmful. And I hate To break this to you but your sensibilities do not trump my constitutional rights.

 

People with a penis are men. I cant believe i need to say obvious things that kindergarterners are aware of. There are men and women.

 

I've never questioned the constitutional protection for religion, I questioned your assertion that religion is immutable and the implication that only immutable things can be protected. This is all a tangent to either of your actual arguments though, just more distraction, so I'm not going to discuss it any further.

You're still trying to have it both ways. If something brings demonstrable harm, it should be illegal for everyone. If something doesn't bring demonstrable harm, it shouldn't be illegal for anyone. Your argument is discrimination against non-religious people. You might not consider that illegal but it's certainly immoral.

It isn't your place to simply dismiss the potential harm of the systematic bullying of vulnerable patients by their carers which the law is designed to prevent. Regardless, you're still perfectly entitled to bring a case against the necessity of the law on whatever basis you care to raise. A non-religious person would have exactly the same right too.

 

So then if we passed a law which said practicing organized religion and public displays of religious ideology are illegal. Since it applied to everyone, according to your interpretation of Freedom of religion, the law would be constitutional and not discriminatory?

 

I kinda look at trans-gendered persons as people exercising a very specific, personal belief. And, just as I would may call a religious figure "Father" although my dad is dead, I offer the same respect to people who are more comfortable being a different gender then there sex.

 

You don't have to, you can work elsewhere.

 

No, because that would be specifically targeted at religion.

 

And? It’s applicable to all people. So according to your interpretation it’s not discriminatory. And it’s not against any specific religion. It’s against them all.

 

Should doctors play pretend with them too?

 

The SCOTUS did absolutely no such thing. This is what the court said, in dicta, not the holding......................................

Notice the word unofficial. We are a secular nation, as established by the 1st amendment, and have been since the inception of this country.