e2493dt

Religious Freedom Restoration Act

180 posts in this topic

This may become and heated topic but it already is in my state. Please share your feeling but don't attack others.

 

Many states have passed RFRA. Has your state passed it? How would you feel if it hasn't already been passed but starts to?

 

Part of me sees the good and the bad to this act. Yet at the same time we have freedom in Christ so acts like this should not be so man and government centered.

 

Part of this is the wording as well. Discrimination based on race and sexual orientation is strongly felt. I believe homosexuality is wrong. But I love gay people because they are people. I don't believe segregation is the way to point others to Christ.

 

I'm also an article person so I'll give some links and please share your feeling below.

 

http://www.youngcons.com/whoa-look-at-how-many-other-states-passed-religious-freedom-bill-before-indiana/

 

http://buzzpo.com/arkansas-legislature-passes-religious-freedom-bill-despite-backlash-in-indiana/?utm_content=buffer36f81&utm_medium=social&utm_source=facebook.com&utm_campaign=positivelyrepublican

 

http://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-pence-ensuring-religious-freedom-in-indiana-1427757799?KEYWORDS=mike+pence

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should people be able to refuse to serve Muslims, women, interracial couples, or someone they saw eating a ham sandwich one time? If the answer to all of those things is 'no,' then the same reasoning should apply to serving gay couples as well. (And believe me, if these acts hold up, people WILL quickly start using it to discriminate against other groups, I'm sure of it.) I truly wish this wasn't something we had to enforce by law, but given how segregation was still quite prominent in this country within living memory...I don't think American society is ready to have it any other way yet.

 

Personally, I'm ashamed of Texan politicians and pretty much everything they get up to.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like that people are tying religion to these types of bills. I also don't like that people are conflating simply selling to customers in a store who identify as homosexual with actually being forced to be present when customers are engaging in certain acts (e.g. a ceremony involving kissing, hugging, dancing, etc). You don't have to be religious to not want to be forced by the government to witness or photograph two people of the same sex kissing or making vows to each other. Of course, I don’t believe discrimination should be a matter for government, anyway. That’s a role for the individuals, but even that part notwithstanding, people really need to learn to differentiate between discriminating against people and simply not wanting to participate in or witness a certain event.

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Should people be able to refuse to serve Muslims, women, interracial couples, or someone they saw eating a ham sandwich one time? If the answer to all of those things is 'no,' then the same reasoning should apply to serving gay couples as well. (And believe me, if these acts hold up, people WILL quickly start using it to discriminate against other groups, I'm sure of it.)

 

Agreed. I'm currently reading up on the law itself because I'm not very familiar with it, but if it will protect people who refuse to serve gay people for "religious reasons", then I'm tentatively against it.

 

Also, out of curiosity, what is the actual justification people (all Christians, from what I've seen) give for refusing to serve gay people?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't like that people are tying religion to these types of bills. I also don't like that people are conflating simply selling to customers in a store who identify as homosexual with actually being forced to be present when customers are engaging in certain acts (e.g. a ceremony involving kissing, hugging, dancing, etc). You don't have to be religious to not want to be forced by the government to witness or photograph two people of the same sex kissing or making vows to each other. Of course, I don’t believe discrimination should be a matter for government, anyway. That’s a role for the individuals, but even that part notwithstanding, people really need to learn to differentiate between discriminating against people and simply not wanting to participate in or witness a certain event.

 

If you can't handle going to a wedding and photographing two men kissing (which can also happen at straight people's weddings...), or taking pictures of a group of women in hijab, or watching people eat bacon cheeseburgers before the cake cutting, then perhaps you shouldn't become a professional wedding photographer. Same with any other profession: if you can't handle giving out birth control pills to unmarried women, don't be a pharmacist. If you can't handle teaching evolution as thoroughly solid scientific theory, don't become a public school teacher. And of course they're being tied to religion -- they're literally called things like "Religious Freedom Restoration Act."

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If you can't handle going to a wedding and photographing two men kissing (which can also happen at straight people's weddings...), or taking pictures of a group of women in hijab, or watching people eat bacon cheeseburgers before the cake cutting, then perhaps you shouldn't become a professional wedding photographer. 

 

Where's the line? Should a photographer be forced to photograph sex, nudity, or violence?

4 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And of course they're being tied to religion -- they're literally called things like "Religious Freedom Restoration Act."

 

They shouldn't be, though. This is not a religious issue. This is an individual freedom issue.

3 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where's the line? Should a photographer be forced to photograph sex, nudity, or violence?

 

If they weren't already in the porn business, then no. They're being asked to provide the services they *do* already give without discrimination. Photograph a Christian couple in a church, a Muslim couple in a mosque, an atheist couple in a science museum, a gay couple in city hall. Same services, all provided equally.

 

 

Agreed. I'm currently reading up on the law itself because I'm not very familiar with it, but if it will protect people who refuse to serve gay people for "religious reasons", then I'm tentatively against it.

 

Also, out of curiosity, what is the actual justification people (all Christians, from what I've seen) give for refusing to serve gay people?

 

Yes, my understanding is that it expanded rights that previously only existed for religious non-profits to secular for-profit companies. So Little Baptist Church has always had the right to refuse to conduct marriage ceremonies for gays, atheists, Muslims, etc. But now Bob's Pizza can refuse to serve those people for the same reason as Little Baptist Church, even though Bob's Pizza has absolutely nothing to do with religion.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Same with any other profession: if you can't handle giving out birth control pills to unmarried women, don't be a pharmacist. If you can't handle teaching evolution as thoroughly solid scientific theory, don't become a public school teacher. And of course they're being tied to religion -- they're literally called things like "Religious Freedom Restoration Act."

 

Public school teachers are employed by the government. This is not a private institution. Healthcare workers, while somewhat private, often receive money from the government. Besides that, they hold people's lives and health in their hands. These are not the same scenarios as private individuals who own food and photography services.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where's the line? Should a photographer be forced to photograph sex, nudity, or violence?

 

Against whom would he or she be discriminating by having a no sex/nudity/violence policy?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Johnny  Do you really think a war photographer is walking around agreeing with the dead women and children he sees in the street? Being comfortable with it? A photographer takes photos. A photographer doesn't need to agree with everything he sees!

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If they weren't already in the porn business, then no. They're being asked to provide the services they *do* already give without discrimination. Photograph a Christian couple in a church, a Muslim couple in a mosque, an atheist couple in a science museum, a gay couple in city hall. Same services, all provided equally.

There are different standards for what's considered offensive or obsene. Do we really want the government telling us that our personal standard isn't acceptable, or would it be better to have individuals choose to not use that particular provider of goods or services?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Steadfast Madcap Really???? Holy crap that sounds... so backward. They can have their religious 'freedom' and yet they can impinge on the freedom of others?

 

I hate religious people who seem to think they're the right hand man of God.  All these different variations from one religion and yet in each group, each denomination, you have people that think they're 100% correct. We have had similar issues over here. But in our case a gay couple won damages from a Christian Hotel who refused them. So many religious people think they know God's mind. It's bizarre. Although there are many, many more who don't swan around dictating to people as if God was whispering in their ear.

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@Johnny  Do you really think a war photographer is walking around agreeing with the dead women and children he sees in the street? Being comfortable with it? A photographer takes photos. A photographer doesn't need to agree with everything he sees!

 

No, but was the photographer forced to do so by the government?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Against whom would he or she be discriminating by having a no sex/nudity/violence policy?

 

It would be anyone who feels the government owes it to them to force that photographer to take the photo.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow that couple who refused to serve Pizza have made half a million... in donations.

 

Paint me cynical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are different standards for what's considered offensive or obsene. Do we really want the government telling us that our personal standard isn't acceptable, or would it be better to have individuals choose to not use particular provider of goods or services?

 

I wish that things were simple enough so that could be feasible. Unfortunately, all too recently, we've seen what happens when we do have that world. It resulted in every business owner in the South acting on their belief that white and black people should be separated -- and it did not end well for black people. I don't want members of *any* minority to be subject to that kind of wide-spread shut-out again. That does involve curtailing the freedom of business owners to an extent, but, in my opinion, it is by far the better choice to make.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wish that things were simple enough so that could be feasible. Unfortunately, all too recently, we've seen what happens when we do have that world. It resulted in every business owner in the South acting on their belief that white and black people should be separated -- and it did not end well for black people. I don't want members of *any* minority to be subject to that kind of wide-spread shut-out again. That does involve curtailing the freedom of business owners to an extent, but, in my opinion, it is by far the better choice to make.

 

That's an answer to the question, but like I said, there's a difference in business owners discriminating against people who come into their places of business who are gay, black, etc and being forced to participate in a certain event. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This may become and heated topic but it already is in my state. Please share your feeling but don't attack others.

 

Many states have passed RFRA. Has your state passed it? How would you feel if it hasn't already been passed but starts to?

 

To answer the question, it looks like my state established a religious freedom act back in 1999 soon after the federal law was put in place. It also looks like it applies to any corporation or organization, which I'm not sure I support. I don't think I support public businesses and corporations having special protections for religious beliefs.

 

 

 

Part of me sees the good and the bad to this act. Yet at the same time we have freedom in Christ so acts like this should not be so man and government centered.

 

Could you explain what you mean by this?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If a private pizza business doesn't want to cater a gay wedding based on their beliefs, why should they feel forced to? The folks officiating the wedding could have easily gotten pizza from somewhere else, it's not like Chicago is short on those in any capacity.

7 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure how I feel about this law. I think passing more laws does not necessarily equal more freedom, especially if G0V is involved. It seems like this is granting freedoms to one side and taking them away from another. However, the first amendment grants religious freedom. I love gay people, but there have been a lot of things I don't agree with here. Suing the company who refused to make them a cake is extreme to me. They should have just gone to another bakery. In this video you see the guy trying to get a Muslim bakery to make them a cake. They refuse. Okay... so why isn't the news reporting that? Hm.

 

This is helping me decide on my journey to figure out what I think. It's worth the watch.

 

 

Also, I must repeat what I've read from other sites. If a black guy owned a t-shirt store and a white supremacist walked in and asked him to make him a shirt, he probably would. If he asked to make it saying "kill blacks" he probably would refuse strongly... and the same with a Nazi and a Jew. This is freedom of belief and expression AND religion, and I believe you can refuse someone from your business if you own a business. It makes you an a**hole, sure, but I think you should be able to. Here is an example of the opposite: “anti-gay†statement that was refused.

http://www.chieftain.com/news/politics/3270437-120/cake-gay-religious-colorado

 

The media has also blown up with this pizza place:

 

Memories Pizza -- the first Indiana business to declare it would refuse LGBT business -- got blasted on the Internet and by phone, but the owner says there's been a huge misunderstanding ... sorta.

Kevin O’Connor tells TMZ he's had to temporarily close his business after he told a reporter he would refuse to cater a gay wedding under Indiana's new Religious Freedom Restoration Act. O'Connor says he was immediately flooded by threatening phone calls, and social media postings.

O'Connor wants to clear up one thing: He says he would never deny service to gay people in his restaurant. However, due to his religious beliefs, he does not believe in gay marriage ... and that's why he wouldn't service one.

Read more: http://www.tmz.com/2015/04/01/memories-pizza-closes-indiana-deny-service-gay-wedding/#ixzz3WGooqE4y

 

See. He would serve gay people in his restaurant, just not cater their wedding. Yet a gay woman threatened to burn down his business. Hahahaha so extreme. Man I am so sick of reading all of this stuff it just makes me angry how hostile people get.

 

5 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Also, I must repeat what I've read from other sites. If a black guy owned a t-shirt store and a white supremacist walked in and asked him to make him a shirt, he probably would. If he asked to make it saying "kill blacks" he probably would refuse strongly... and the same with a Nazi and a Jew. This is freedom of belief and expression AND religion, and I believe you can refuse someone from your business if you own a business. It makes you an a**hole, sure, but I think you should be able to. Here is an example of the opposite: “anti-gay†statement that was refused.

 

I think it generally has been determined that while you have to serve people who come into your store, they can't force you to write anything they want, so the owner of the t-shirt store would be protected in that case.

 

Edit: I don't have time to watch the video at the moment, but I absolutely support holding members of all religions to the same standards, so Muslim caterers would have to serve without discrimination exactly the same as Christian caterers. But, since the vast majority of the country is Christian, it only makes sense that most of the cases which have gotten attention have been about Christian-run businesses.

 

Keep in mind, while in many major metropolitan areas it is very easy to just go to another bakery and find someone willing to serve you, in small towns that is not always possible.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Goldwater was completely right on his opposition to the Civil Rights Act, he knew this would be the next step. Freedom of association has been robbed from Americans under the guise of equality, which is nothing more than slavery to the lowest common denominator. The nation indoctrinates children under the guise of political correctness to such an extent that they are willing to murder or imprison others for rights that have never existed as long as there is an approving mob.

 

If you want to refuse people based on sexual orientation or yes, even race, there should be no rules preventing you from doing so. If you see a need in the gay community feel free to court businesses that will serve you or start your own.

 

It never ceases to amaze me that there are people who believe that sending armed government agents to someone's place of business to imprison them or destroy their livelihood is somehow acceptable as long as the "rights" of others are being protected. What about the person owning the business? Why should they be subject to imprisonment or ACTUAL SLAVERY (forced/unwilling labor) at the barrel of a gun? Their lives are ruined but, of course, that's no big deal as long as you've "made a difference."

 

People who support these laws have never had the moral high ground and never will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow 2pm at it's at 23 comments already!

 

I think part of the problem here is the issue of state's rights. Historians always say that the Civil War was started by slavery. When in fact it was state's rights ideals upon the issue of slavery.

 

I wish as a country we could have come to a conclusion of this act and added it yes or no to  all our state's rights. Now it's just like a tidal wave up and down seeing which states will pass it and which ones will refuse it.

 

Indiana in particular is very Republican and would support this act. My city South Bend is very liberal and having a grand time debating the act. More like a headache.

 

As far as the Christian photographer goes here are my thoughts. Honestly I think he should have taken the pictures. I believe homosexuality is wrong. That's what is says in the Bible. However, taking their pictures doesn't mean you support gay rights. If we segregate ourselves from them then soon they will need their own city, photographers, doctors, hairstylist and so on. This is not the way to show them the truth. I love them as people, but hate their sin.If they ask what I think I will share and tell them right from wrong. But I don't condemn people that is God's job.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

To answer the question, it looks like my state established a religious freedom act back in 1999 soon after the federal law was put in place.

 

 

 

Could you explain what you mean by this?

 

I wish other states would have decided back then on this bill.

 

Part of me sees the good and the bad to this act. Yet at the same time we have freedom in Christ so acts like this should not be so man and government centered.

 

I'm merely stating that the approval of man is not needed when Christians decide yes or no on a topic based on their own personal convictions. God is the final judge and the government finally saying yeah it's okay doesn't impress me, because I already know right and wrong from the Word and Holy Spirit inside me.

 

This whole bill being a topic of "Religion" puts the focus on what man thinks is right from wrong. Instead we should ask "What does God say is right from wrong in His Word?"  I don't like to say I'm religious I like to say I have a intimate relationship with God. True believers have already had freedom in Christ from the beginning of time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now