Do you Truly believe in Freedom of Religion.

[AGENT J]

I'm fine with freedom of religion, people have the right to believe whatever they want to believe. That does not mean they have the right to act however they want to act, nor that their religious beliefs get to infringe on the rights of others. Freedom of religion is not more important than other freedoms we enjoy, nor does being free to believe make you free from criticism.

Far too many people think religion is special and it's just not.

I agree 100%

 

[ThoughtEx.]

"

"

"

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

:

Alright, this should be enough participants. Now for the second photo. With this one I want you to tell me how the photo makes you feel and why. And please try to not take offense at other people's answers.

 

[joG]

Alright, this should be enough participants. Now for the second photo. With this one I want you to tell me how the photo makes you feel and why. And please try to not take offense at other people's answers.

View attachment 67203339

There is no real question that she might be an odd ball or bigot. But the law that forces her to act against her religious belief is Unconstitutional.

 

[ThoughtEx.]

There is no real question that she might be an odd ball or bigot. But the law that forces her to act against her religious belief is Unconstitutional.

Normally, I try to keep interaction to a minimum. But I want to point you back to the question. How does the photo make you feel, and why. We are talking emotions. As they pertain to this photo. Thank You, for participating.

 

[joG]

Normally, I try to keep interaction to a minimum. But I want to point you back to the question. How does the photo make you feel, and why. We are talking emotions. As they pertain to this photo. Thank You, for participating.

Very little emotion. It's a legal question albeit of very high importance.

 

[Brochacholomigo]

Alright, this should be enough participants. Now for the second photo. With this one I want you to tell me how the photo makes you feel and why. And please try to not take offense at other people's answers.

View attachment 67203339

Honestly? I'm pretty neutral in regards to the picture. It doesn't particularly interest or bother me.

 

[Gaztopian]

Alright, this should be enough participants. Now for the second photo. With this one I want you to tell me how the photo makes you feel and why. And please try to not take offense at other people's answers.

View attachment 67203339

The photo seeps of ineptitude and recalcitrance. If personal beliefs or other reservations prohibit you from fulfilling the duties of a public office or conforming to a private enterprise, you need to leave the vacancy instead of expecting it to pander to your sensibilities. If Kim Davis was such a self-sacrificing christian, why didn't she just leave office? Bear in mind that I hold this view regardless of whether I fundamentally agree with the belief or reservation causing strife.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Alright, this should be enough participants. Now for the second photo. With this one I want you to tell me how the photo makes you feel and why. And please try to not take offense at other people's answers.

View attachment 67203339

She didn't go to jail for Jesus. She went to jail because she tried to use her government position to force Christian principles on the public. She was even given multiple chances to excuse herself and have one of her willing clerks do it, yet she decided to politicize and grandstand.

Please, show me where children have been forbidden in the US from praying to themselves in class.

There is no real question that she might be an odd ball or bigot. But the law that forces her to act against her religious belief is Unconstitutional.

Nobody even tried to force her to do anything she didn't want to do. She tried to use her government position to make a political statement. Simply excusing herself from the situation would've been perfectly fine for all parties involved.

 

[joG]

She didn't go to jail for Jesus. She went to jail because she tried to use her government position to force Christian principles on the public. She was even given multiple chances to excuse herself and have one of her willing clerks do it, yet she decided to politicize and grandstand.

Please, show me where children have been forbidden in the US from praying to themselves in class.



Nobody even tried to force her to do anything she didn't want to do. She tried to use her government position to make a political statement. Simply excusing herself from the situation would've been perfectly fine for all parties involved.

Sure. I know that is your spin on this.

 

[joG]

Honestly? I'm pretty neutral in regards to the picture. It doesn't particularly interest or bother me.

MY goodness! must you ever be a heartless one!

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Sure. I know that is your spin on this.

Please explain how letting her willing clerk do the job while she can excuse herself from the situation completely somehow violates her rights. Be specific.

 

[Brochacholomigo]

MY goodness! must you ever be a heartless one!

:shrug:

I don't have a dog in this fight, so I don't care one way or another on the subject of gay marriage. Furthermore, the SC has ruled on this issue already, so as far as I'm concerned, it's resolved for all intents and purposes.

 

[joG]

Please explain how letting her willing clerk do the job while she can excuse herself from the situation completely somehow violates her rights. Be specific.

That is up to her, to speak her conscience. You cannot look in a person's head. That is always a problem with any type of opinion or conscientious objection. It was one reason why as of the 1960s porn became a regular business. You cannot forbid opinion and porn might be that. Even when it is dirty, dirty, naughty or why conscientious objectors could not be forced to use weapons. The Supreme Court defined the criteria, but it proved a steady irritant and messy. It was tried, but eased. You can never tell, what someone is thinking and at today's technological level letting the state decide is a grossly slick slope.

 

[joG]

:shrug:

I don't have a dog in this fight, so I don't care one way or another on the subject of gay marriage. Furthermore, the SC has ruled on this issue already, so as far as I'm concerned, it's resolved for all intents and purposes.

Funny. You do have a dog in the race, as marriage impacts taxes, Social Security etc. Also, the Constitution is important beyond the individual ruling. If the citizens allow the definition to change instead of changing the Constitution, then the citizens lose a degree of protection by the precedence. Otherwise, I wouldn't give a flying doughnut for what the boys are doing to each other.

 

[RabidAlpaca]

That is up to her, to speak her conscience. You cannot look in a person's head. That is always a problem with any type of opinion or conscientious objection. It was one reason why as of the 1960s porn became a regular business. You cannot forbid opinion and porn might be that. Even when it is dirty, dirty, naughty or why conscientious objectors could not be forced to use weapons. The Supreme Court defined the criteria, but it proved a steady irritant and messy. It was tried, but eased. You can never tell, what someone is thinking and at today's technological level letting the state decide is a grossly slick slope.

This makes absolutely no sense. You seriously think it's someone's right to use their government positions as political platforms? Nobody was forcing her to have anything to do with gay marriage licenses. She was given an exemption to not have to deal with it but she decided to get political. Explain to me where it is defined as a right that you can use public office as a religious political platform to promote your own ideology. By your logic, a Muslim government worker has the RIGHT to use his power to enforce shariah law, and anyone saying he can't is crushing liberty.

And WTF does this have to do with porn? Did you just decide to ignore what I said or the topic altogether and rant on about nonsense?

 

[Brochacholomigo]

Funny. You do have a dog in the race, as marriage impacts taxes, Social Security etc. Also, the Constitution is important beyond the individual ruling. If the citizens allow the definition to change instead of changing the Constitution, then the citizens lose a degree of protection by the precedence. Otherwise, I wouldn't give a flying doughnut for what the boys are doing to each other.

The SC defended their decision by counting sexual orientation as protected by the due process clauses in the 5th and 14th amendments, and based on previous rulings that allowed interracial marriage; that is their argument for the constitutionality of their decision, and it is sufficient for me. If it isn't for you, I recommend filing your case with the court once they have a new justice appointed, or waiting longer until the court's makeup suits your needs.

Personally, I've always viewed this bit of code as the justification for gay marriage; https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/42/1981 . However, that's mostly because I attach no religious significance to the institution of marriage, and view it purely as a government contract to make inheritance a streamlined process, and to help ensure that children go to the proper family members in the case of one or both parents dying.

 

[blarg]

This is a thought experiment. It may be bs or it may be revealing. I hope to find out. Please answer truthfully. And try to not be offended by other people's answers. And keep in mind it is not asking if we should have school prayer, only if the children should be allowed to do it on their own, while in school. If you wondering how this is an experiment, just wait. :mrgreen:

View attachment 67203305

if they want to thinck a prayer to themselves that's fine so long as the staff is not telling them to

if they need to go off some place for a ritual version i guess thats ok so long as its not disruptive

 

[Gaugingcatenate]

This makes absolutely no sense. You seriously think it's someone's right to use their government positions as political platforms? Nobody was forcing her to have anything to do with gay marriage licenses. She was given an exemption to not have to deal with it but she decided to get political. Explain to me where it is defined as a right that you can use public office as a religious political platform to promote your own ideology. By your logic, a Muslim government worker has the RIGHT to use his power to enforce shariah law, and anyone saying he can't is crushing liberty.

And WTF does this have to do with porn? Did you just decide to ignore what I said or the topic altogether and rant on about nonsense?

Did you really mean to say the bolded? You are either joking or seriously voluntarily naive...that it is done from the other side so frequently is a fact of modern life. Then do you disagree that Obama should use his government position to further his political platforms, exampled by the Federal government issuing guidelines directing schools on how they should handle the transgender bathroom access situation?

Or is it only one side can do it, the other is not allowed?

 

[calamity]

This is a thought experiment. It may be bs or it may be revealing. I hope to find out. Please answer truthfully. And try to not be offended by other people's answers. And keep in mind it is not asking if we should have school prayer, only if the children should be allowed to do it on their own, while in school. If you wondering how this is an experiment, just wait. :mrgreen:

View attachment 67203305

I don't believe in freedom of religion. I think it's a terrible thing. I believe in freedom from religion. So...I guess that would mean I am for banning prayer from schools and other government institutions.

But, then again, I also believe religious indoctrination of children is child abuse.

 

[joG]

This makes absolutely no sense. You seriously think it's someone's right to use their government positions as political platforms? Nobody was forcing her to have anything to do with gay marriage licenses. She was given an exemption to not have to deal with it but she decided to get political. Explain to me where it is defined as a right that you can use public office as a religious political platform to promote your own ideology. By your logic, a Muslim government worker has the RIGHT to use his power to enforce shariah law, and anyone saying he can't is crushing liberty.

And WTF does this have to do with porn? Did you just decide to ignore what I said or the topic altogether and rant on about nonsense?

Certainly not. Using the government job as a platform should be off limits, though, I am not sure it is illegal. Obama and others has done so after all. If you have a link for that topic it would be interesting.
But she should find protection from restriction of free religious practice, which she does not seem to have been. That we do not like a number of the consequences of the Constitution might be the case and it might be that the consequences are enough important to require change. But it is a very irresponsible citizen that prefers redefining the Constitution to doing it right. Though, this is a government and the baker was a private sector job the same "Congress shall make no law ...." should apply until the Amendment is changed.

As to porn being covered by the First Amendment, you are right. That has not direct connection to this case. Where the similarity is, is in the protection of the individual. She says it is a protected opinion then porn is protected. He says it is conscience, then it is protected. Yes, I already mentioned that there can be tests and why they were messy.

PS: I do not really understand, why you act like nasty whatever. I don't think I was rude to you.

 

[Socrates1]

Alright, this should be enough participants. Now for the second photo. With this one I want you to tell me how the photo makes you feel and why. And please try to not take offense at other people's answers.

View attachment 67203339

It shows we are not very tolerant of her religion and we go to extremes for others .

 

[RabidAlpaca]

Certainly not. Using the government job as a platform should be off limits, though, I am not sure it is illegal. Obama and others has done so after all. If you have a link for that topic it would be interesting.
But she should find protection from restriction of free religious practice, which she does not seem to have been. That we do not like a number of the consequences of the Constitution might be the case and it might be that the consequences are enough important to require change. But it is a very irresponsible citizen that prefers redefining the Constitution to doing it right. Though, this is a government and the baker was a private sector job the same "Congress shall make no law ...." should apply until the Amendment is changed.

As to porn being covered by the First Amendment, you are right. That has not direct connection to this case. Where the similarity is, is in the protection of the individual. She says it is a protected opinion then porn is protected. He says it is conscience, then it is protected. Yes, I already mentioned that there can be tests and why they were messy.

PS: I do not really understand, why you act like nasty whatever. I don't think I was rude to you.

I do apologize that I was rude. You do however have a tendency to completely ignore everything someone is saying then talk about completely unrelated topics. (IE: porn)

You already agreed that she shouldn't be able to use her position at the courthouse to force her religious beliefs on others and prevent other government workers from doing their jobs. That is the only thing she was held for. She was given every opportunity to abstain but decided to block it from happening altogether.

Did you really mean to say the bolded? You are either joking or seriously voluntarily naive...that it is done from the other side so frequently is a fact of modern life. Then do you disagree that Obama should use his government position to further his political platforms, exampled by the Federal government issuing guidelines directing schools on how they should handle the transgender bathroom access situation?

Or is it only one side can do it, the other is not allowed?

If you would've continued reading you'd see the context that I meant a government service worker can not use their position to advance their religion and personal beliefs. She was given every opportunity to abstain and she decided instead to block ANYONE from granting licenses. Do you think a Muslim DMV manager should be able to prevent his workers from issuing drivers licenses to non-Muslims? We wouldn't want to violate his first amendment right to proselytize and obstruct, right?

It shows we are not very tolerant of her religion and we go to extremes for others .

We were very tolerant when we gave her the opportunity to have one of her willing clerks issue it instead of her so that she would've had absolutely nothing to do with it. She decided instead to try to force her religion on others by trying to block it from happening altogether. Would you like it if a Muslim courthouse clerk prevented all Christians from getting marriage licenses?

 

[joG]

I do apologize that I was rude. You do however have a tendency to completely ignore everything someone is saying then talk about completely unrelated topics. (IE: porn)

You already agreed that she shouldn't be able to use her position at the courthouse to force her religious beliefs on others and prevent other government workers from doing their jobs. That is the only thing she was held for. She was given every opportunity to abstain but decided to block it from happening altogether.

If you would've continued reading you'd see the context that I meant a government service worker can not use their position to advance their religion and personal beliefs. She was given every opportunity to abstain and she decided instead to block ANYONE from granting licenses. Do you think a Muslim DMV manager should be able to prevent his workers from issuing drivers licenses to non-Muslims? We wouldn't want to violate his first amendment right to proselytize and obstruct, right?

I agreed that an official should not use their position to force their opinions on third parties. I probably erred in saying that someone reporting to her should be allowed to perform the activity. That is not the same as refusing to participate in activities the official believe are against their conscience, but it is participation nonetheless. So it is rather iffy.

I would certainly feel much better, if we reworded the Constitution instead of redefining it all the time though.

 

[Howler63]

No.

You can worship as you see fit as long as it's not tax-payer funded. And in a school? That's funded by taxes. Pray at church or at home.

 

[Brochacholomigo]

No.

You can worship as you see fit as long as it's not tax-payer funded. And in a school? That's funded by taxes. Pray at church or at home.

...But the act of praying doesn't draw on those taxes, and hurts no one. You might as well ban reading non-curricular books at school, or ban daydreaming. They're about as reasonable, and almost as impossible to enforce.