Does Religious Freedom Supercede Gender Identity?

So because you have a problem with women exercising their choices when it comes to abortion you are demanding that they be DENIED healthcare services entirely?

Sad!

 

Patently absurd. If they are delusional then they have an obstacle to overcome. If they don’t overcome it, that is between them and god.

However when *I* engage in their deceit it becomes an issue between ME and God. And I will not lose my salvation because you or anyone else is delusional.

 

Of course not. I think PP should provide healthcare services and maybe even receive taxpayer funds to do so... once they stop performing abortions.

 

I too am a practicing Christian (perhaps some day I will get it right). I see no false witness or, more broadly, in granting an individual a right to their name as they see it. It's simply respecting one's secular views. If we wander into whether a baker, with certain religious beliefs, refuses to bake a cake for a same sex marriage, then we enter into a sticky wicket in the purview of the Supreme Court. Parenthetically, the court ruled on the side of the baker.

There are unfortunately, sadly disabled people on earth. If someone believes that they deserve to be called Napoleon, I would tend to humor them out of respect for the individual. If they decide to be Mrs. rather than Mr. that is their choice. As a personal opinion is see no conflict with God's law. Jesus also taught us, To, "love one another as I have loved you."

As a matter of law, I don't see such laws that intend to "enforce" behavior in such matters is 1) unenforcible, and 2) unwise. What should one think about a U.S. Senator that promises constituents to be biased and inflexible in a case, takes a God oath to be open minded and unbiased, and then votes his promised biased? Does this not represent breaking the Commandment, "Thou shall not take the name of the Lord, thy God, in vane?"

This, to me is a much more serious question for debate.

 

That may be the case on your side of the pond, but over here laws may be codified which violate the Constitution, and which may therefore be legally disregarded.

Again, that's not true over here, as state legislatures are not bound by the establishment clause.

Under the US Constitution, non-governmental entities are not subject to any such requirement.

Then you'd have done better to cite any of those other passages rather than misquote the ninth commandment.

You think God created pedophiles?

If there's a substantive difference between that and a professing Christian, Jew or Muslim saving lives by cutting down a shooter intent on mass murder, I fail to see it.

 

The lack of a self defense argument? That could be a difference. I did not invent a shooter or a gun, or the mowing down a bunch or people in pews in my sentence

 

God created each and every person.
People created ways of doing evil. Satan tempts people to endulge them. People being sinful by nature endulge in them joyfully then look for ways to justify their behavior.
Been that way since the beginning. Its amazing how creative we aren't.
Same thing over and over and over and over again..

 

But not a substantive difference, because it's not relevant, seeing a homicide may be justifiable on grounds other than self-defense.

You'd have us believe a person couldn't cut down a murderer in the act, in the name of his or her God?

So He created pedophiles?

 

Since there is ZERO EVIDENCE that your imaginary deity even exists it is PROJECTION on YOUR part to imply that others are delusional when the exact same can be said about your beliefs.

In fact it can also be said that since there is ZERO EVIDENCE for your position that it is you that is already engaging in deceit with respect to the GENUINE evidence based medical conditions of others.

Your bible is full of contradictions and absurdities and your literalist position does not stand up to even cursory scrutiny in this regard.

 

That is NOT your decision to make!

Your own bible establishes that it has no problem whatsoever with abortions and even goes so far as to provide an abortion procedure.

There is no basis whatsoever for your DEMAND that women must be denied their reproductive rights.

 

laws can not be based on religious beliefs, one is bearing false witness if they try to pass such laws because of their religious beliefs and lie and say that is not why they are doing it

and Trump is the biggest liar of them all, the right seems to have no issue with bearing false witness

 

Your imaginary deity created BOTH "evil" and "satan" therefore your god is 100% responsible for any an all evil. It would NOT exist if he had not created it in the first place.

 

so one can support Trump even though he cheats on his wives with no issue if they are Christians?

 

certain procedures are covered, should not mater who preforms those procedures, that is why religious hospitals also receive government funds

otherwise, religious hospitals would have to depend on church donations and billing patents and that woudl not be enough, they need the help of a civil power

even religious hospitals depends on the fruit of knowledge over prayer to heal their patients

 

Sigh. This point is so petty and obvious its hardly worth my time but just to comfort you I will provide the following disclaimer. If religious people kill others in the defense of others or self defense, or are criminally insane or suffer extreme emotional disturbance then the fact that they happen to be people of faith does not deprive them access to the same affirmative defenses that non-religious suspects enjoy. The mere fact that the suspect wears a cross and screams something about God's justice while he shoots the gun, does not deprive him of the same rights to the full panoply of legal options an agnostic or atheist has available when he screams about justice for humanity. The theist simply gets no benefit or exemption to the criminal statutes and sanctions because he quotes a bible as a justification.


There ya go! Duhhh.

 

but if they are insane, then god made them that way and is responsible as they do not have free will

 

Nope, he created people, they became pedophiles of their own accord.

 

Not going there. I tend to avoid these atheist/theist debate spirals. On the other hand, I fully intend to avoid coddling theists with some sort of ill defined get- out -of -legal- trouble pass because some statute or regulation gives them religious discomfort. That is their problem and they get to figure out how they want to resolve these conflicts.

Again, I prefer to concentrate on what people do and what they support, and ignore the religious window-dressing they surround it in.

 

sounds like God makes mistakes and created defects, as people can not control who they are attracted too, only choice they have is to act on that attraction or not, why would a god give them that attraction?

the reality is, if one gives god credit for the good, he also gets credit for the bad

now if one is deistic and believes god has a hands off approach and just set everything in motion, that is different

 

Well, the second highest court in the land made a ruling nearly 3 years ago protecting religious beliefs over LGBT issues. This ruling sets precedence for any business to deny service.

By William Vogeler, Esq. on June 27, 2017 11:57 AM


A federal appeals court preserved Mississippi's so-called "religious freedom law" from a legal challenge by LGBT-rights activists.

The U.S. Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals said the plaintiffs in Barber v. Bryant lacked standing to sue the state over the Protecting Freedom of Conscience from Government Discrimination Act. The law allows government employees, service providers, and businesses to deny services to gay couples and others based on religious beliefs without reprisal from the government.

 

so basically they refused to rule against the LGBT, they just said we won't let you sue in this case as you lack standing

the reality is they did have standing, the right just did not have a valid argument so is trying to avoid the court battle

if republicans thought they could win, you can bet they would have let the case continue, this is just a delay tactic

 

House Bill 1523

The Act, under House Bill 1523, covers a broad group of Mississippians. It provides that the "state government shall not take any discriminatory action" against anyone who acts in accordance with certain beliefs.

Those beliefs are: Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one
woman; sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and male or female refers to an individual's biological sex as determined by anatomy and genetics at birth.

 

This is bigger than your Constitution, a global moral question rather than a regional legalistic one. The ultimate question is simple; Should religious beliefs get priority over everything else?

 

the bill supports discriminating against LGBT, it will be shot down eventually, just like when some Christians thought they had a God given right to own slaves or ban inter-racial marriage, they eventually lost too

most Christians know this is wrong too and won't support it

 

The OT, the NT and Jesus all speak against homosexuality. You are to love people but you also have a responsibility to tell them they’re sinning as Jesus did over and over and over and over again.

Moreover it’s not their name change that they demand acceptance on. They expect us to view and treat them as the actual opposite sex. In other words they expect us to participate in their deceit.

If you think god is okay with you participating in deceit then by all means proceed. But the God Jesus taught us about was not.

As for your senator question, yeah I’m not sure how it can be said they were going to be non partisan and then have two people who are running against against the person being accused who don’t recuse themselves and then voted in a way that EVERYBODY knew they would vote months before evidence was even seen. But that’s the system we have.