I support marriage equality. I support a woman’s reproductive rights. I support freedom of conscience…I support the right to practice my faith without government interference.
This is a really important point in many ways.
Not true at all. Liberals want equal rights for everyone who agrees with their view of “rights”. Everyone else is intolerant, homophobic, racist or bigoted.
And yet there are some ramifications to that which seem to turn out in the opposite way. Liberal courts have forced Catholic adoption agencies to provide children to gay couples or close. HHS forces Catholic institutions to act against their conscience by providing for birth control, sterilization, and abortifacients. Schools will force children to be taught the acceptability of same sex marriage, making them reject their own religious beliefs. What it comes down to is that we will all be forced to accept the tenets of the state religion, which include acceptance of gay marriage, contraception, abortion.
Well, you could minimize, be disdainful even, of a baker’s business decision which will not conflict with his faith.
Were those agencies which closed of their own choosing accepting federal/government monies and thereby placed themselves under the guidelines of the government which require non-discrimination?
You have the right to hold your beliefs…you do not have the right to discriminate against a minority because your personal beliefs conflict with the law of the land…a law that was agreed upon to be obeyed when a business license was issued to you.
In many states, prohibitions against discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation apply regardless of whether or not anyone receives federal funding. Yes, they would have had to close or cease being Catholic, federal funding or not. The baker who was sued by a gay couple was not receiving federal funding. It’s either adhere to the state approved religion or close up shop.
The reason for withholding the service or product in the contested cases is not the client’s sexual orientation, or the customer being a homosexual person, which would be discrimination. It is for an action or behavior with which a person of faith in the course of a business transaction has the right to NOT take a part in. It is expression of a deeply held religious belief, a first amendment right.
If you don’t see the crumbling of society then you are not looking around you. SSM is the next brick to crumble.I’m waiting to see how and when the “undermining” of “civilization” occurs…been hearing a lot about it…but don’t see it in those countries or states that already have same sex marriage…I think the “end of civilization” is just a bunch of smoke and mirrors the conservative like to tout to strike fear in people…thinks are going along just fine.
Well…I don’t hold a “Chicken Little” mentality.
A definition of marriage as between one man and one woman has been put into the constitution of some states. That will not stop appeals courts from overturning such provisions, since the U.S. Supreme Court considers itself in some respects to be the supreme lawmaker, rather than states, legislatures, Congress, or the people.
I’m optimistic by nature but there seems to be little doubt that societal changes – that are good for quality of life – have no doubt contributed to the erosion of our Judeo-Christian values. Technology, leisure time and disposable income would be the major factors.Well…I don’t hold a “Chicken Little” mentality.
You realize federal funds have nothing to do with the HHS mandate to pay for contraception, correct? The old federal funding argument is a myth. It is no longer a factor on whether the heavy hand of the government can force you to violate your religious beliefs.
No, you don’t have an issue with the further spread of SSM and its legitimacy. Why would you see any problem with it?Well…I don’t hold a “Chicken Little” mentality.
It’s great to be alive.