The LGBT War on Religion Continues

Discussion in 'Civil Rights' started by Battle3, Jul 25, 2016.

  1. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16,248
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/5/churches-fight-back-against-iowa-bid-to-silence-bi/

    Churches fight back against Iowa bid to silence biblical views on sexuality, gender identity

    Two churches are fighting back against the Iowa Civil Rights Commission after the agency issued an interpretation of state law that could bar churches from expressing biblical views on sexuality and gender identity — even from the Sunday pulpit.

    ...

    The lawsuit came in response to an explanatory brochure titled “Sexual Orientation and Gender Identity — A Public Accommodations Provider’s Guide to Iowa Law,” released by the Civil Rights Commission. It says churches are public accommodations and therefore generally subject to the Iowa Civil Rights Act.

    Under a section header titled “Does this law apply to churches?” the brochure says: “Sometimes. Iowa law provides that these protections do not apply to religious institutions with respect to any religion-based qualifications when such qualifications are related to a bona fide religious purpose

    ...

    “Where qualifications are not related to a bona fide religious purpose, churches are still subject to the law’s provisions,” the brochure continues, adding that church activities such as “a child care facility operated at a church or a church service open to the public” are not examples of “bona fide religious purpose




    Note that according to the regulators "a church service open to the public" is not a bona fide religious purpose and a minister who preaches Christianity faces oppression from unelected regulators.

    We have already seen from the Colorada Masterpiece Cakeshop that the regulators will interpret what is a legitimate activity and what is not, and as Colorado clearly demonstrated the regulators will interpret based on their PC pro-LGBT leanings. The Colorado "civil rights" commission decided Masterpiece must bake a cake for gays, but Azucar bakery and 2 others did not have to bake a cake for a Christian.

    Now we see Iowa regulators going one step further and openly stating a public church service (all church services are open to the public) is not a "bona fide religious activity" and must obey the pro-LGBT anti-religion anti-Constitution regulators.

    All those who supported "gay equality", is this what you had in mind?

    Do you feel guilty for smearing all those people who predicted the LGBTs would not stop with gay marriage "equality" but would continue on to attack religion directly?
     
  2. Perriquine

    Perriquine On hiatus Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    9,587
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63

    If you take the language as a whole and in its full context, it would seem that they meant a service the church provides, open to the public, that isn't related to a religious purpose. Obviously that should exclude actual 'services' of worship/praise/prayer, which do relate to a religious purpose. But arguably most people, when they see the phrase "church service", would interpret that to mean Sunday worship/praise/prayer services. So it was an extremely poor choice of words on the commission's part.

    In the meantime, they've acknowledged the confusion, and published a new flyer, but the ADF is continuing with it's lawsuit. The new flier states:

    "PL A C E S OF WO R S H I P

    Places of worship (e.g. churches, synagogues,
    mosques, etc.) are generally exempt from the Iowa
    law’s prohibition of discrimination, unless the place of
    worship engages in non-religious activities which are

    open to the public. For example, the law may apply to
    an independent day care or polling place located on
    the premises of the place of worship."

    https://icrc.iowa.gov/sites/default/files/publications/2016/2016.sogi_.pa1_.pdf


    Certainly not. A religious worship service is a religious worship service. Calling it a "public accommodation" is way out of left field.

    No, because they're still liars. "LGBTs" are not a homogenous group with a singular agenda and set of beliefs, despite your efforts to fearmonger, hatemonger, and otherwise propagandize against us in a way that seeks to paint us all with the same broad brush. And it is that kind of dishonesty that shows us just who is actually waging a war against whom. It's not LGBTs waging a war against religion as the thread title falsely states. The thread's title is a blatant lie. Many LGBT people are themselves religious. No, the war is being waged by social conservatives and religious extremists against anyone who isn't a conformist cisgender heterosexual.

    You posted the thread. You are one of those engaging in an anti-LGBT war.

    I, on the other hand, support the right of any church to refuse religious services to anyone for any reason (and not even having to give a reason, for that matter.) But that truth is inconvenient to your propaganda, so we can expect it to be ignored.
     
  3. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16,248
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113

    The modified brochure is little better than the original, its just a bit more vague. The fact remains that the original brochure did clearly infringe on a church, and the requirement that an activity have a "bona fide religious purpose" was up to the interpretation of the anti-religious bureaucrats on the commission. And the current update is still vague and leaves the decision of what are "non-religious activities open to the public" in the hands of the religious hating bureaucrats.

    For example, instead of celebrating Halloween, many churches have "Fall Festivals" open to the community at no charge, but they have a clearly Christian prayer at the start, Christian music, and a religious theme. Is this a religious activity? To the church, definitely, the purpose is to provide a religious and safe alternative to the insulting and sinful Halloween theme. To the bureaucrats, it would be a Halloween party subject to their accommodation rules and they would want it to accommodate transgenders and not "insult" other religions, atheists, wiccans, etc.
     
  4. DoctorWho

    DoctorWho Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 5, 2016
    Messages:
    15,501
    Likes Received:
    3,740
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Amendment I

    Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

    It is Unconstitutional for Government, Federal, State, Municipal, to make any Laws or Regulations concerning how Religious services are conducted or an attempt to define the content of services or any attempt to define what constitutes a service or church event.
     
  5. HonestJoe

    HonestJoe Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 28, 2010
    Messages:
    14,838
    Likes Received:
    4,814
    Trophy Points:
    113
    This isn’t a law concerning religious services though, it’s a law concerning public accommodation. The first amendment can’t apply to general laws that happen to cover some religious institutions. Churches have to follow lots of general laws and regulations (fire regulations, minimum wage laws, animal care laws, charity regulations etc.), even as they apply or impact upon religious practices. I actually suspect there are more direct references to religion in such laws and regulations that grant them specific exceptions or special considerations (which could be seen as questionable on constitutional grounds as laws specifically against them would be).

    In this example, I suspect the original leaflet overstated the stretch of the law somewhat. I very much doubt a case objecting to the content of a religious service on grounds of discrimination would get anywhere except in very extreme cases. I do think a church that actively prevented people of specific groups from attending nominally open services could face problems but I’d hope most mainstream church goers would agree with that – don’t they want sinners to go to church so they can be saved?

    I don’t see a lawsuit succeeding on the basis of a badly worded sentence in a simple advisory leaflet. Unless the actual law can be shown to be written in this manner it seems somewhat pointless (and I think it’s telling that none of the articles seem to reference or link to the actual legislation).
     
  6. Daniel Light

    Daniel Light Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2015
    Messages:
    31,455
    Likes Received:
    34,888
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Has any gay person or gay group taken a church to court using the guidelines set in
    the pamphlet? No.
    So it's more of a State issue than an LGBT issue. Your thread is BS.
     
  7. Perriquine

    Perriquine On hiatus Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    9,587
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Except for the inconvenient fact that the number of prosecutions of churches under Iowa's law with respect to this is a big, fat zero. Same with the number of lawsuits. So claiming an infringement took place when none have actually happened is rather ridiculous.

    Get back to us when the "religious hating bureaucrats" in Iowa actually do what you're accusing them of without any evidence.

    Again, provide us with evidence that the bureaucrats have made such an interpretation. You can't, because not a single instance is on record of it.

    In other words, you're full of hot air.
     
  8. Gorn Captain

    Gorn Captain Banned

    Joined:
    Aug 7, 2012
    Messages:
    35,580
    Likes Received:
    237
    Trophy Points:
    0
    It's ironic that his source is a newspaper....


    owned by a CULT (the Moonies) that most Christian denominations acknowledge as a cult?

    :)
     
  9. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16,248
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Lets take your arguments foundation and apply it in another manner. There has never been a fire in my house, so I don't need fire extinguishers or home owners insurance, and I don't need a fire department and having such items for a fire "when none have actually happened is rather ridiculous". Even if someone is standing outside my house saying he is going to set my house on fire, worrying about fire prevention is "rather ridiculous".

    Does that make sense?

    That's what you are claiming about Iowa. You are claiming that no matter what people say or do, everyone should always look to the past, never look forwards, and certainly never use their brains and experience to anticipate future events no matter how obvious those events are.
     
  10. Perriquine

    Perriquine On hiatus Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    9,587
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Ridiculous. I've made no such claims. You're the one who alleged an infringement had taken place when none actually has. ADF found another sucker to milk for money, that's all. Nothing new, nothing really to see here. There's no 'there' there.
     
  11. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16,248
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    WRONG! I did not "allege" any infringement had taken place or that material damage had occurred.

    I and many others see the direction the Iowa "civil rights" commission was going, and pointed out the problem. And the Iowa "civil rights" commission rewrote the brochure and admit there is a problem.

    You made the short sighted argument that since there was no abuses resulting in court cases in the past that there would be no problems in the future.

    You are wrong on all counts.
     
  12. Perriquine

    Perriquine On hiatus Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    9,587
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Here ya go:

    Language in a pamphlet does not an infringement make.

    The commission realized that some were interpreting the language of the brochure differently from what was intended, and hence rewrote it to clarify the situation.

    The brochure is not law. The interpretation of the brochure's language made by the ADF and the churches it represents is also not the law. Their interpretation of the brochure's language is also clearly not the same as that of the commission that wrote it, and therefore not something the commission was going to force upon them.

    Not short sighted, but based on the fact that it's a difference in interpretation of arguably vague language - an interpretation that wasn't the commission's interpretation, and therefore not the problem that the ADF is trying to make it out to be, so that they can profit from others' misinformed fears.

    No, I'm not. You're falling for the ADF's schtick - hook, line, and stinker (<- an intentional misspelling). They are not honest people. They drum up this kind of fake drama all the time, trying to scare people into giving them money.
     
  13. Phoebe Bump

    Phoebe Bump New Member

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2010
    Messages:
    26,347
    Likes Received:
    172
    Trophy Points:
    0
    As far as I can tell, religion's war on LGBT goes back to the beginning of religion. Btw, I attack all religionists who 'predict' stuff so I don't feel guilty about a thing.
     
  14. LiveUninhibited

    LiveUninhibited Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    9,409
    Likes Received:
    2,850
    Trophy Points:
    113


    If churches regularly defamed black people for being black, the result would be the same. This isn't specific to LGBT, but rather a general attack on free speech that is becoming something I don't like about the democratic side of things. I do oppose an attack on free speech and so that's why I would oppose this. But generally I do like it when religion is undermined. Attacking religion is a good thing, but squelching free speech is not only a bad thing, but not an effective way to attack religion.

    I don't feel guilty at all for supporting LGBT equal rights. But there is such a thing as going too far. Undermining free speech is one of them.
     
  15. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16,248
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Wait, I have to step back and go to the original link -

    "Fort Des Moines Church of Christ filed a federal lawsuit against the commission on Monday, arguing that the agency&#8217;s interpretation of the Iowa Civil Rights Act violates the First Amendment."

    So there is an infringement and a lawsuit.

    The brochure sets the guidelines and defines how the Iowa "civil rights" commission will interpret and enforce the law.

    You are wrong on all points. Again.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Once again, an LGBT confirms that despite her claims to be tolerant, she wants religion attacked and destroyed. The Truth is now coming out of the closet. Thank you for stopping your charade of tolerance.
     
  16. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16,248
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113

    So you want to attack something that is the very essence of free speech (religion) but you don't want to harm free speech? And you have no problem trampling one fundamental right (the right to freely exercise religion) but are concerned about protecting another fundamental right? Have you thought through your bigotry?
     
  17. Perriquine

    Perriquine On hiatus Past Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2007
    Messages:
    9,587
    Likes Received:
    148
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Nope. You're still the one that's wrong. The claims being asserted are not based on the commission's understanding of the meaning of that passage in their flier - the claims being made are not based on the commission's actual interpretation of the law. The interpretation spoken of is the ADF's reinterpretation of some vague and easily-misconstrued language in a flier the commission created, and which they've since rewritten to clarify the matter.

    The only thing the commission is "guilty" of at this point is sloppy writing.

    Show us ANY action that the commission actually took against the churches in question. There hasn't been any. No action = no actual infringement. This is a "pre-enforcement lawsuit" filed by the churches & ADF. The Commission hasn't taken nor planned any action against these or any other churches under the law, nor its interpretation of it.

    This is a case of the ADF finding some suckers to create a big stink about nothing. The Commission states that it "&#8220;has never considered a complaint against a church or other place of worship on this issue.&#8221;

    As for "how the Iowa "civil rights" commission will interpret and enforce the law", that's pure ADF-speak (sneer quotes and all), not something coming from the commission.

    So you're just assuming that person is "an LGBT" based on the statements made? Nevermind that there is no such thing as "an LGBT". Apparently you don't even know what those letters stand for. (Hint: some are mutually exclusive to others - no person could be all of the things they represent.)

    I disagree with assertions that religion should be attacked and destroyed. The statements of one person, "LGBT" or not, do not speak for every person who is L, G, B, and/or T. Funny how persistent you are in ignoring the fact that many L, G, B, and/or T people are themselves religious - because its inconvenient to your chosen narrative.

    You are the one waging an anti-gay war. You are the one attacking "LGBTs", not the other way around.
     
  18. LiveUninhibited

    LiveUninhibited Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    9,409
    Likes Received:
    2,850
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I never said I want to ban people from being religious. I want it to die a natural death as people realize how stupid it is. That doesn't happen by banning people's expression of it. You don't destroy ideas by banning them. I've thought a lot about this. It's not the people I hate, it's their misguided beliefs. That's certainly no more bigotted than religious people declaring certain lifestyles as sinful.
     
  19. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16,248
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Again you are wrong on all points.

    The brochure is produced by the regulatory agency to educate businesses and people about the law and how it is to be enforced. To claim otherwise is simply dishonest.

    ***

    In another thread you claimed to be LGBT. At a minimum, you fully support the LGBT agenda in all its hatred and dishonesty.
     
  20. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16,248
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Wrong. I can and do declare that homosexuality is a sin, but I do not demand homosexuals be punished or forced to change their lifestyle. What you seem to object to is my personal belief itself. And you cannot divorce my religious belief my myself, you attack and hate my religion, you attack and hate me, you want to destroy my religious belief, you want to destroy me.

    And that's the difference between people who truly believe in "rights" and people who do not. I can live with people who disagree with me, even people who are fundamentally different from me. You cannot.
     
  21. Daniel Light

    Daniel Light Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 12, 2015
    Messages:
    31,455
    Likes Received:
    34,888
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Asinine assertion on your part.

    Over 30,000 same sex marriages - less than 6 lawsuits over refusal of service.
    Not ONE lawsuit directed at priests or pastors over refusal to perform marriage services.

    There were far more lawsuits filed by heterosexual couples after mixed race couple laws were struck down.

    Meanwhile, over 1,000 state and Federal bills were introduced targeting gays over the last 5 years.

    It is simply crazy talk to state that there is any type of "war" by gays against religion. When we are talking about
    incidences that involve less than .0003 % of a population, it's simply asinine.
     
  22. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16,248
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Open your eyes. Times change.
     
  23. LiveUninhibited

    LiveUninhibited Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2008
    Messages:
    9,409
    Likes Received:
    2,850
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Is there some kind of communication issue here? What exactly was wrong? I didn't demand that religious people be punished or change their lifestyle, even if I think their beliefs are immoral.

    Your god does not exist. I am sorry that you cannot handle the truth. I do not hate you, but I do hate your beliefs. This is exactly how you act towards homosexuals, so I find it kind of amusing that you act like it's different. The only difference I see is that homosexuality doesn't oppress or hurt people like religions often do.

    So to truly believe in rights, I have to accept the validity of religion? Um, no, that's not how it works. You're just having an emotional reaction. Your insecurity is understandable, given that there is no evidence for your god. I live with people every day who are fundamentally different from me, and I probably always will. You are confused about my point, I think. If everybody around you was wrong about something, and they were hurting themselves and other people because of it, you would want to correct them too, wouldn't you? I'm not going to force them, but I will not pretend that their belief is truth. Most of the time I avoid the subject out of politeness, though. It's not me telling them that they're wrong that's going to change their minds, it would be things like scientists creating life from scratch, more fully understanding evolution, and if we ever had contact with an intelligent alien civilization. Those are the kinds of things like diminish the influence of religion - lights in the darkness.
     
  24. Battle3

    Battle3 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2013
    Messages:
    16,248
    Likes Received:
    3,012
    Trophy Points:
    113

    Wrong again.

    It does not matter whether you believe Christianity is true or false. What matters is my belief in it, and my right to have that belief and to live as I see fit to live. I live my life, and you live yours, and we leave each other alone. That's how its supposed to work. That's not what you want, you want to live your life and tell me how to live mine.
     
  25. Pax Aeon

    Pax Aeon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 2, 2015
    Messages:
    7,291
    Likes Received:
    432
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Female
    `
    It's more than just BS, the OP lied. First off, the OP's article (a very poorly written piece by the Washington Times) mentioned Nothing about the LGBT other asking a member for their opinion. This is to say, the LGBT had absolutely nothing to do with this Iowa Civil Rights Commission interpretation, except in the mind of the OP. A lie is a lie. There is no war on religion, no attack on churches by the LGBT.
    `
    `
    `
    `
    `
     

Share This Page