Do religious freedom rights supersede other rights?

[JoeShlabotnik]

I hear the term religious freedom bandied about all the time.
What us religious freedom? It it freedom of religion. The right to practice the religion of our choice. Or is it trying to impose our religious beliefs on others?

 

[amt1985]

I hear the term religious freedom bandied about all the time.
What us religious freedom? It it freedom of religion. The right to practice the religion of our choice. Or is it trying to impose our religious beliefs on others?

There seem to be plenty of folks who would insist upon the latter.

 

[o_mlly]

I’m of the opinion that all human rights are equal and none should be allowed to infringe upon any other.

One’s right to life is greater than another’s right to private property.

 

[o_mlly]

There seem to be plenty of folks who would insist upon the latter (impose our religious beliefs on others).

The Church proposes, she does not impose. There is a process required to enter the Church; none to exit.

 

[vsedriver]

Being sexually attracted to non-human species is a mental disorder.

So why is being sexually attracted to an adult human of the same sex not a mental disorder?

Just what is it that makes one a mental disorder and one not a mental disorder? Just asking, not condemning. I’m not equating them except in the case that they both deal with a sexual attraction disorder. According to natural law, sexual attraction’s purpose would be oriented toward the opposite sex in order to complete sexuality.

I may not worded that quite right but I hope you get the idea I’m dealing with.

 

[Pattylt]

Illinois tried to force Catholic Charities to adopt children to gay and lesbian couples. They ended up getting out of the adoption business

When I first heard of this case I was a bit baffled by it. Even though I am agnostic, I completely support the rights of a religion to practice their beliefs even if I don’t agree with them. So, I looked into it. The problem was the adoption service accepts government funds and because of that fact, they are required to follow government laws regarding discrimination against gay parents. If they had refused any more government funding, they would have been allowed to refuse gay parents. They felt they couldn’t continue to operate without that funding and so closed the adoption service.

I’m sure it was a sad day for them but this was a case where taking government money meant they had to obey government law. They could have gone to court to be granted a religious exception but felt that either the case wasn’t strong enough or it would have been too costly. They chose to close. I agree with the law that says you have to follow government law if you take government money.

You are free to disagree with me on this but it is one of the ways that minority people and faiths are protected from the majority. Unfortunately, the children are the ones that often suffer no matter which side you support.

 

[amt1985]

I live in Illinois and can confirm that churches here can basically do whatever they want if they don’t receive government funds. I was once turned away from a homeless shelter here in Chicago for being trans, and it was completely legal.

 

[MikeInVA]

My opinion is that religious rights are not the most important rights.

If a government does not recognize my God-given right to believe what/how I wish, then I really don’t have any state-given “rights” at all.

 

[o_mlly]

I’m sure it was a sad day for them but this was a case where taking government money meant they had to obey government law. They could have gone to court to be granted a religious exception but felt that either the case wasn’t strong enough or it would have been too costly. They chose to close. I agree with the law that says you have to follow government law if you take government money.

You are free to disagree with me on this but it is one of the ways that minority people and faiths are protected from the majority. Unfortunately, the children are the ones that often suffer no matter which side you support.

The “Road to Serfdom” warned of the danger of tyranny that inevitably results from government control of economic decision-making through central planning.

First, tax the people heavily. Begin the social engineering programs. Require conformance to the ideas of the elites in government if you want your money back.

The Catholic Hospitals are the next institution to be threatened. “Medicare for All” is the pitch to put in place the mechanism allowing government to control the procedures that can or must be done at hospitals. If the Catholic hospitals withdraw as did the adoption services then our health care system will most likely collapse.

 

[KMC]

KMC:

Illinois tried to force Catholic Charities to adopt children to gay and lesbian couples. They ended up getting out of the adoption business

Unfortunately, the children are the ones that often suffer no matter which side you support.

How did children suffer before Catholic Charities got out of the adoption business?

 

[MikeInVA]

I agree with the law that says you have to follow government law if you take government money.

I prefer to not have laws that force a secular belief system on people. The laws for providing adoption services could have been written in such a way as to allow faith-based adoption agencies to support, but the legislators chose to write them in such a way as to force compliance on faith-based organizations. It’s the same concept as the laws that are being used against bakers, florists, etc.

 

[KMC]

Every law passed by something other than unanimous consent is, in fact, one group enforcing their beliefs on another group.

 

[francisca.chapter3]

As I’ve said in this forum before, if a product can be sold to another person and youre not selling it then it is discrimination. If you don’t provide that service to anybody then there is no discrimation.

So in your examples, the Baker doesnt make a cake that says ‘support gay marriage’ to Anybody (not even heterosexual couples) hence there is no discrimination and no conflict of rights. In the second scenario if the Baker can provide an exactly same cake to another heterosexual couple then there is discrimination and the gay couple deserve equal treatment.

So the right for equal treatment demands the context of an equal product.

The couple could go to other baker.

Moral freedom begins with confronting one’s disordered behaviors. For instance, continually strawmannning posters is disordered. I suppose your counsel to the young anorexic girl is to tell her, “Yes, you do look fat” or to the bulimic girl, “Yes, go ahead and binge eat now. You’ll feel better.”

…or to a homosexual person, " it’s okay, you are created that way"

I think you are confusing two (or perhaps more) things. Certainly you can say that homosexual activity is regarded as being “disordered” in the terminology used by Catholic moral philosophers.

The argument being presented is not merely philosophical. It is supported by science. So in this case, it is not merely religious freedom neither equality right. It is against science too

Even the term “disdordered” (of same sexual behavior) can be explained by merely basic middle school biology. It is not necessarily religious argument.

 

[Trader]

How did we get to 94 posts about rights without a single mention of a duty? Since the constitution recognized a right to the free exercise of religion, should there be a duty to respect that? In the cake cases, same sex couples deliberately chose a baker they knew had a religious objection to a same sex wedding. He did not refuse to serve gay people, but refused to use his artistic talent to promote something he was known to consider disordered. They were not seeking a necessity of life and they could have chosen another baker to satisfy their request. The were seeking the forced affirmation of their beliefs.

Of course there can be reasonable limitations on freedom of religion, but it needs to be for a serious reason. If your religion practices human sacrifice, or female genital mutilation, or plural marriage, or withholding of lifesaving medical care, the state has both the right and the duty to protect the victims of those practices.

 

[Londoner]

The argument being presented is not merely philosophical. It is supported by science. So in this case, it is not merely religious freedom neither equality right. It is against science too

Even the term “disdordered” (of same sexual behavior) can be explained by merely basic middle school biology. It is not necessarily religious argument.

I went to school in the UK, so I don’t know what is covered by middle school biology. I took biology up to GCSE level, which is typically taken at age 16. That’s enough biology to have left school having more than satisfied the government’s expectations, but not enough to study biology at university. Certainly none of the biology I learned at school gave me any reason to think that same-sex sexual activity is “disordered” in any scientific sense.

Same-sex sexual activity is observed in non-human species. So are other kinds of sexual activity that serve no reproductive purpose, such as masturbation, oral sex, and sexual activity when the female is not fertile (e.g. not sexually mature, not ovulating, pregnant, or lactating). This shows that in many animal species sexual activity is not necessarily (or even usually) connected with reproduction. Sexual activity can also occur for the purpose of pleasure and/or bonding between individuals or for other social purposes.

As I say, I don’t know what is included in middle school biology, but unless it is very much more advanced than UK GCSE biology I’d say that it’s unlikely that it demonstrates any scientific basis for homosexuality being “disordered”. Scientifically speaking, it seems that same-sex sexual activity is probably quite normal and even beneficial to those taking part in it. Of course, that is not to say that it is not also proscribed by moral values based on religion, but one cannot say that those moral values are based on science.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Or is it trying to impose our religious beliefs on others?

Huh? If anyone is imposing it would the person making demands.

 

[francisca.chapter3]

Same-sex sexual activity is observed in non-human species.

I am sure there isn’t lesbianism among any animals. Male to male only happens to mamals in captivity in female absence.

So your argument cannot be used for lesbianism. And for male to male animal in captivity, it is not their normal living condition resulting disordered behavior.

So are other kinds of sexual activity that serve no reproductive purpose, such as masturbation, oral sex, and sexual activity when the female is not fertile (e.g. not sexually mature, not ovulating, pregnant, or lactating). This shows that in many animal species sexual activity is not necessarily (or even usually) connected with reproduction. Sexual activity can also occur for the purpose of pleasure and/or bonding between individuals or for other social purposes.

Sex taken out of reproductive purpose completely becomes one of mere entertainment purpose. The existance of these sex (sex as mere entertaintment detached completely from reproductive context)-- the existance of these-- cannot be used to prove that those are not disordered simply because they exists.

Each biology process has a purpose. Anything that goes away from its biological purpose is a disordered condition. Example our lungs function for our breathing. A lung that cannot do this function is not a normal lung. It is a disordered lung. On the other hand, supposedly somebody who is healthy decide he do not like one of his lungs, and ask his dr to change its look. Can his dr, based on patient’s request-- is it ethical for the surgeon to “reshape” his healthy lung based on the request from the lung owner,-- but after the procedure-- this lung would not function anymore?

The above patient desire is psychologicaly disordered, and following this desire medically will bring his psychology disordered condition its manifestation unto his biological body.

As I say, I don’t know what is included in middle school biology, but unless it is very much more advanced than UK GCSE biology I’d say that it’s unlikely that it demonstrates any scientific basis for homosexuality being “disordered”. Scientifically speaking, it seems that same-sex sexual activity is probably quite normal and even beneficial to those taking part in it. Of course, that is not to say that it is not also proscribed by moral values based on religion, but one cannot say that those moral values are based on science.

Same-sex argument rejects science completely.

And divert it to religious freedom / equality right argument.

 

[francisca.chapter3]

How did we get to 94 posts about rights without a single mention of a duty? Since the constitution recognized a right to the free exercise of religion, should there be a duty to respect that?

Of course there can be reasonable limitations on freedom of religion, but it needs to be for a serious reason. If your religion practices human sacrifice, or female genital mutilation, or plural marriage, or withholding of lifesaving medical care, the state has both the right and the duty to protect the victims of those practices.

Exactly

 

[francisca.chapter3]

As I say, I don’t know what is included in middle school biology, but unless it is very much more advanced than UK GCSE biology I’d say that it’s unlikely that it demonstrates any scientific basis for homosexuality being “disordered”. Scientifically speaking, it seems that same-sex sexual activity is probably quite normal and even beneficial to those taking part in it. Of course, that is not to say that it is not also proscribed by moral values based on religion, but one cannot say that those moral values are based on science.

Basic science: there are two genders in mamals according to biology. A female body work hard to prepare an egg at each biological cycle. This egg waits for a sperm to fertilize it. Same sex does not function in this manner. It cannot be categorized as sex. It only shows similarity to/ mimics the real sex, but it is not sex.

Lets say I have a pump. I use this pump to blow baloons. Then I call it “My. Lung”, because I can blow baloons using my lung too. Just because I name the pump “My Lung”, it is not a lung. I cannot breath using this pump, eventhough I can use it for my entertaintment (blowing baloons).

 

[Londoner]

I am sure there isn’t lesbianism among any animals.

I wouldn’t want to anthropomorphise non-humans by using the term “lesbianism”, but sexual activity between females is definitely observed in bonobos, macaques, marmots, cattle, and lions.

Male to male only happens to mamals in captivity in female absence.

Not true. It is observed in the wild. It is even observed in domesticated livestock (especially sheep) where the males are positively encouraged to mate with females.

Sex taken out of reproductive purpose completely becomes one of mere entertainment purpose.

That is my point. In humans and non-humans sexual activity serves purposes other than reproduction. You may not approve of this morally, but it is a demonstrable fact that it occurs. Humans participate in a range of activities that involve the male ejaculating outside the female’s vagina. Humans also participate in activities that are oriented solely towards the female achieving orgasm. You may think that that is immoral, but you cannot say that it does not take place. You also cannot say that it does not occur in non-human species. It may serve a number of ends, e.g. pleasure, social bonding, and establishing social dominance.

Each biology process has a purpose.

A biological process may serve more than one purpose. Humans (and some other species), for example, commonly have sexual intercourse during pregnancy when the likelihood of the female becoming pregnant again is negligible. It is argued that the benefit of this is bonding the couple and ensuring that the male stays with the female to help care for the offspring instead of breeding with other females.

Your lung analogies are irrelevant. Of course nobody should have healthy lung tissue removed and of course a pump isn’t a lung.

More interesting would be to ask why animals eat different kinds of foods. It’s not just to acquire necessary nutrition from those foods. Many species can survive on a much more limited range of foods than they choose to eat. Seemingly animals are curious about different foods and enjoy different foods. In that instance eating does not only serve the end of physical survival, but also pleasure and satisfying curiosity.

And if you really think that you need to explain sexual reproduction to me, perhaps you should be aware that it is not only mammals that reproduce sexually!