Religious Freedom and the Freedom to Discriminate

I recently came upon this article and felt compelled to comment on it:

Among the groups classified as those with a "homosexual agenda" include the Human Rights Campaign (HRC) and the Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network( GLSEN), The Southern Poverty Law Center and Freedom From Religion Foundation.

This is an extremely disconcerting development and represents a new low for those working against equality. As a last resort, the anti-equality forces have claimed victimhood and are, in fact blaming the victims. It is born of fear, prejudice and an increasing sense of desperation, and is attempting to hijack Christianity to stem the tide of progress in the area of human rights and evolving standards of decency. They purport to speak for the entire Christian faith, but in reality, represent a small, paranoid and reactionary fringe .

It is also disturbing to realize the depth of the divisiveness that has developed between these progressive rights organizations and a certain segment of the Christian community, a divisiveness that really does not need to be. The claims that the advance of gay rights and secularism an affront to Christians and impinges on religious freedom is without merit. While there are those that actually believe that is the case, others are knowingly promoting a false idea of religious liberty for their own purposes.
Consider the following:

The fact is that any animosity that gays and their advocates express towards Christians is born of the hostility and bigotry express by those Christians and others toward gays. While charges that progressives want to eradicate Christianity are rooted in paranoid delusions, there are those who in reality want to eradicate homosexuality and in fact anything perceived as un-Christian, or at least drive it underground. In truth, there is no rift between gays and their progressive allies on one hand and the mainstream Christian community on the other. Many progressives are Christians and many Christians support gay rights and other progressive cause. The rift is between the progressives who are fighting for equality and those who use Christianity to hold those who they disapprove of down. The false dichotomy is set up by those on the right as a deliberate attempt to create an impression that gays are anti- Christian and intent on destroying all that is sacred to them. As evidence of this, let’s look at the pejorative definitions of the four organizations listed on the interactive map:

HUMAN RIGHTS CAMPAIGN

According to the AFA...

Yes, HRC does work for marriage equality. Marriage equality that they oppose but, like all others, have come up with no rational, logical or legal reason to support their position. Moreover, the HRC is not just a “homosexual organization” It is, according to their website:

SOUTHERN POVERTY LAW CENTER

The AFA states that

The fact is that '

The Southern Poverty Law Center is dedicated to fighting hate and bigotry and to seeking justice for the most vulnerable members of our society. Using litigation, education, and other forms of advocacy, the Center works toward the day when the ideals of equal justice and equal opportunity will be a reality.

Among them are Neo Nazis, White Nationalists , Racist Skin Heads , and the KKK. I have to ask the AFA, which of these groups do you support?


GLSEN (Gay, Lesbian & Straight Education Network) According to the AFA they:

Actually, it’s hard to infiltrate when invited in. From their web site:

Freedom From Religion Foundation. The AFA states that they:

Well yes, that may be so. After all, like it or not this is a secular nation. On their website they ask:

Yes, they defend the constitution and the separation of Church and State.! Here are three examples:

A final note, I can only conclude that the true hatred, the bigotry is very much one sided and that it is the right that is responsible for it. They hate the reality of a secular society in which all are equal and Christianity does not reign supreme and is not the law of the land.


A favorite tactic of those who initiate hate is to accuse others of being hatful. But yes, I do in fact have hatred and never denied that. I hate bigotry and yes, I hate bigots. I hate that people’s lives are messed with for no other reason than there are some who “disapprove” of them or see them as “different” But all hatred is not equal. My hatred is in response to other’s hatred and for that reason it is objective and justified. Is it not justifiable for the oppressed to hate their oppressor? Should the abused fell anything but disdain for the abuser? We all deplore violence, but do we condemn those who are attacked for defending themselves with violence?

What is the bigots hatred in response to? What excuse other than fear of change and a need to maintain superiority do they have? Oh I know, they will claim that they don’t hate and I realize that they may not recognize it as hate, that they may not feel hate in their heart. But, I have to wonder, what they you feel, if anything, when they advocate the denial of basic rights to people while not even being able to articulate a rational reason for doing so? What do you call that if not hate?

Yes, I will condemn those who seek to oppress gays just as they condemn gays and their advocates for seeking rights, for seeking and –yes demanding-equality. The difference is that I rely on the truth, while the opponents of equality rely on lies, scare tactics appeals to ignorance and other logical fallacies, because that’s all that they have.





.

 

There is nothing more despicable than their mantra... "oh we love the sinner we just hate the sin".

This sums up the arrogance of these folks and reveals the absurd assumption on their part that they alone with their dusty old book of mythology are the only ones able to discern right from wrong.

The evil that is religion is what produces these types of sociopaths.

And to them I can only reply ..." Oh I love the hater... I just hate the hate"!

This world will be much better off when religion is dead and reason becomes the norm!

 

Food for thought people!

QUOTE]As the LGBT community waits for the Supreme Court to hear four same-sex marriage cases on April 28, 2015, there is a rising sense of optimism about the expected outcome. Even Justice Thomas – as evidenced by his recent "[this] may well be seen as a signal of the court's intended resolution" dissent in the 7-2 SCOTUS decision to allow same-sex marriage to proceed in Alabama – appears to be jumping on the bandwagon of inevitability
[/QUOTE]

 

Seriously. Let's do something about the Gay Agenda, but can we tackle the Boogeyman issue first? That is a much more immediate threat.

 

this, exactly. otherwise kindly and gentle folk manage to retain and feed this very monster.

 

So many people are still bloviating and wringing their hands over the issue of when does religious liberty become discrimination. At the same time, many business owners are coming to realize that theses religious freedom laws are not a good thing for business. This might be a good time to take a step back and have a look at it from business perspective.

 

I love how christians criticize states that adopt sharia law, when in reality, they advocate that the US should adopt christian law. Tack another one on the religious people list of hypocrisy.

 

change the names/places etc of bible stories and christians condemn them to hell and back (pun intended). nothing in that book would be embraced if it didn't have the preferred branding. which, if nothing else, tells us that part of their ethics filter is in working order. there's just that one malfunction ....

 

If you want equality for homosexuals (or all sexual orientations), logic dictates that pedophiles should be allowed the same equality.

 

actually no only the warped mind of the sex obsessed right who want to be in everyone's bedroom.

 

No, it doesn't. One involves consenting adults. The other involves a party that is unable to consent. This is just as nonsensical as saying "If you want equality for interracial couples, logic dictates that pedophiles should be allowed the same equality."

 

Discrimination is good. It is at the heart of every decision we make in real life. You can't buy a ball-point pen without discriminating between what pen is best for you and who is best to buy it from. Discrimination is what differentiates between what is good and practical, and what is bad and impractical. To be against discrimination is to be against sound judgment and basic human freedoms.

How we discriminate will vary from individual to individual. Some will discriminate well, and some poorly. It is how life works.

But what the gay activists can't come to grips with is the reality that they are the ones who want to force their form of discrimination upon everyone else; which of course denies everyone else their right to discriminate as they so choose. Gay activists are, without knowing it, the most oppressive, dangerous, and destructive faction in American politics today. It is because they cannot accept the fact that everyone else has the same right to discriminate as they do, and that includes discriminating against them.

So the next time you see gay activists boycotting businesses, demanding resignations, suing people, or insulting those with religious views; remind yourself that it is proof that we have just as much right to discriminate against them, the gay activists.

 

the right to disagree, yes, but not the right to prevent people from marrying (or doing whatever other harmless and 'consenting adults' things they want to do) based on YOUR personal preference.

- - - Updated - - -

I see no logic in that at all. One is harmless consenting adult expression of love/sex, the other is the deeply harmful abuse of a non-consenting innocent child. Literally, universes apart.

 

Nope, Neither Children or Animals are able to legally give consent, sorry to disappoint ya.

 

Oh, so now it's an issue of consent, not equality.

 

The fact that you think those are mutually exclusive shows how little interest you have in having a discussion. It is about equality between pairs of consenting adults, regardless of their gender. Now, if you want to argue that the same justification could be used for polygamy, I'd actually agree with you. That argument actually has some shred of intellectual honesty, unlike the pedophilia nonsense.

 

No, it just shows that those with no morals have to make up things as they go along.

Nevertheless, the question becomes why consent is even necessary in the first place.

 

Pedophilia was legal in America until around 1900.

 

I remember you from somewhere else. I never could take your equine excrement seriously. Logic dictates? It's a logical fallacy. A red herring. It's stupid. A sexual relationship between a child and an adult can never be equal to the relationship between two consenting adults. Never. It's child abuse. Are you a child predator? Do you have children on your mind? Then why would you bring it up? Now, do you have anything remotely appropriate or intelligent to say about the topic of religious freedom or are you just showing up to toss an idiotic flame bait out.?

 

I just saw this and my first impression is that it could be a workable solution to this discrimination issue. What do you all think?

 

Personally....I find it pathetic that the religious regularly complain about "persecution" and mistreatment based upon their beliefs and positions while attempting to persecute those that do not meet their opinions of personal morality...look in the mirror folks, unless of course you can't stand what you see.

 

There is no rational, moral argument against homosexuality. There are only religious, faith-based arguments. I have morals, and I would gladly stack them up against any religious text; well, almost -- I'm sure plenty of Buddhist text can give me a run for my money. Mine are based on empathy and reason.

Because of morality. Because of empathy and reason. Because of the fact that it is a contract and a contract can only be entered into by consenting parties.

Come to think of it, why do you think consent is necessary, and why do you oppose pedophilic marriage?

 

No surprise in seeing you change the goalposts from equality to consent. Such is to be expected when you base arguments on flimsy principles.

 

That's not true.

You didn't really answer my question. Why is it immoral? Why is it irrational? Why must there be consent when it comes to sexual matters concerning children, but not when it comes to other issues where consent isn't necessary (according to societal norms)?

 

No one is changing the goalposts from equality to consent. Equal rights advocates have always appealed to both, and they aren't mutually exclusive.