Meanwhile, back in Kansas...

[MrJonno]

You should be able to sack someone for being a libbo. It's only right.

While it's unlikely Seth has actually ever worked for anyone (investing Daddy's trust fund is not work) I alas would be forced to employ him. However if he mentioned he had a gun on him I would smile very nicely and call the anti-terrorist police would then do the dismissal for me)

[FBM]

Here is an excellent analysis of the Arizona RFRA (Religious Freedom Restoration Act) amendment currently awaiting the governor's signature.

I strongly suggest that you all read it carefully, because it shows that the act is nothing like what the objectors are making it out to be. It is in fact a narrowing of Arizona's existing RFRA law. It also provides some background and context for the federal RFRA and it's near-unanimous passage in Congress under Clinton.

I hope this gives some people something to ponder before they once again drag out the red herrings and straw men.

...
Given that, here are some of the main changes the Arizona bill would make:

Those covered by RFRA would include "any individual, association, partnership, corporation, church, religious assembly or institution or other business organization."
A religious freedom violation can be asserted "regardless of whether the government is a party to the proceeding."
The person asserting a religious freedom violation must show three things: "1. That the person's action or refusal to act is motivated by a religious belief. 2. That the person's religious belief is sincerely held. 3. That the state action substantially burdens the exercise of the person's religious beliefs."

In sum, the bill would essentially make three changes for RFRA: 1) Clarify that any association, including for-profit corporations, are covered. 2) Clarify that the government does not have to be a party in the case. And, 3) to prevent frivolous RFRA claims, require that those claiming a religious freedom violation show that there is an actual religious belief behind their action, that they are sincere in their religious belief, and a state action has placed a substantial burden on their religious belief.
...
Source

Fallacious appeal to common practice.

[JimC]

Freedom of religious practice is not compatible with any modern civilized country.

Freedom of religious practice is basic to any secular, modern and civilised government, but so is freedom from religious practice. Both of those fundamental tenets distinguish modern, civilised governments from theocratic ones.

But that freedom of religious practice is highly circumscribed, in that it cannot conflict with the laws of the land. Religious rituals which have no effect on anyone else are allowed, sure, but many religions want their beliefs to impinge on others, and/or the way society is structured. This is where Kansas is fucked up...

[Seth]

You should be able to sack someone for being a libbo. It's only right.

Er, you are. Political affiliation is not a protected class. You can also fire someone for being a dunce, which means you need to fire yourself.

[Seth]

Freedom of religious practice is not compatible with any modern civilized country.

Freedom of religious practice is basic to any secular, modern and civilised government, but so is freedom from religious practice. Both of those fundamental tenets distinguish modern, civilised governments from theocratic ones.

I'd like to see any founding document of any of these "modern, civilized governments" that states that citizens have a right to "freedom from religious practice" by others.

In any event, in the US, there is no such right insofar as the otherwise peaceable expressions of religious belief take place in the public sphere. Certainly you have a right to be free of the religious practice of others in your home, and you have a right not to be forced into religious (or non-religious) practices anywhere, but in public, just as they are required to tolerate your Atheist expressions of belief, you are required to tolerate their religious expressions of belief so long as neither set of expressions creates an imminent danger of civil disorder or criminal activity.

The notion that Atheists have a right to suppress the free speech and religious expression of others because such expressions annoy or displease them is childishly ridiculous and does not represent the facts on the ground in the US.

In fuckwitted socialist nations your mileage may vary.

Just remember that a law that permits the suppression of religious freedom and speech can just as easily be used (and indeed has been used in the past) to suppress Atheist speech and expression, especially in a "democracy" where the majority rules, so be careful what you wish for.

[Seth]

Freedom of religious practice is not compatible with any modern civilized country.

Freedom of religious practice is basic to any secular, modern and civilised government, but so is freedom from religious practice. Both of those fundamental tenets distinguish modern, civilised governments from theocratic ones.

But that freedom of religious practice is highly circumscribed, in that it cannot conflict with the laws of the land. Religious rituals which have no effect on anyone else are allowed, sure, but many religions want their beliefs to impinge on others, and/or the way society is structured. This is where Kansas is fucked up...

Actually, it is the "religious beliefs" of gays that are impinging on others in this case. The belief that homosexual marriage is a sin is every bit as valid and worthy of protection as is the belief that homosexual marriage (or any other kind of marriage) is right and proper. The law may permit any grouping of individuals to be "married" in the secular, legal sense of the word but no law can force a person who believes that "marriage" is wrong or sinful or whatever to believe otherwise. And to force those persons to participate in an activity that they believe imperils their religious beliefs is just exactly as wrong as forcing gays to live a hidden, secret life out of fear of being persecuted because public opinion is against them...Uganda is a prime example of intolerance breeding intolerance. Uganda is an example of "democracy" enshrining public opinion in the law to the detriment of one specific group of individuals, in this case homosexuals, because there is no overarching societal principle of respect for the rights of the individual to live as he or she pleases in a peaceable manner such as we have in the US.

What goes around comes around. That's what we are seeing now in Kansas and Arizona among others. People of religion who believe gay marriage to be sinful and who refuse to participate in such events are being persecuted by those who want to force their beliefs on others. What we are seeing is the push-back from what is very likely to be the majority against being forced into unwanted association in violation of their constitutional rights.

In the same way that Protestants objected to the Catholic church imposing its dogma on them, and Catholics objected to widespread Protestant discrimination against them in the 1800s, gays have protested (and rightly so) against the oppression of laws enacted by religious majorities that infringed on their rights to live as they see fit. But now we see the reverse, where Christians are being forced to violate their religious beliefs to accommodate the commercial desires of gays. So predictably there is going to be resistance, as there always is when there is a clash of rights.

My solution to the whole problem is to remove the word "marriage" from the statutes, starting at the federal level and going right down to your local city council. It should be replaced universally with the phrase "domestic contract" and absolutely anyone should be allowed to form a domestic contract with any other person or persons regarding the benefits, duties and obligations of a domestic relationship that can be enforced as a matter of civil contract law. The ONLY function of the state in such relationships should be as the recorder of the contract in the public records.

"Marriage" is, always has been, and should be confirmed in the law as a personal philosophical, ethical, moral and/or religious practice that is an entirely private matter and in which the state has no power to meddle to even the smallest degree.

[Seth]

You should be able to sack someone for being a libbo. It's only right.

While it's unlikely Seth has actually ever worked for anyone (investing Daddy's trust fund is not work) I alas would be forced to employ him. However if he mentioned he had a gun on him I would smile very nicely and call the anti-terrorist police would then do the dismissal for me)

Well, that's why they call it a "concealed" weapon. You won't know about it until about seven-tenths of a second before I put it into action, and if you have given me legal cause to do so you won't be able to call anyone. That's the whole point.

I could be standing beside you at the bus stop right this moment and you'll never even know it. So be afraid, be very afraid!

[Seth]

Religion has special status. And like all good bullshit stories, it changes over time. It shits me it has special status.

Welcome to "democracy" rEv.

Edit: And thank your lucky stars that you weren't born in Iran, where you would be bowing and scraping five times a day whether you believe or not.

[piscator]

The US Justice System would be feeble indeed if it couldn't dispose of assertions and questions of free religious exercise contrary to civil or criminal law.
A certain Colorado judge outlines one standard and its thresholds in a recent decision:

CHARLIE CRAIG and DAVID MULLINS,
Complainants,
vs.
CASE NUMBER: CR 2013-0008
MASTERPIECE
CAKESHOP,
INC.,
Respondents.

INITIAL DECISION
GRANTING COMPLAINANTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
AND DENYING RESPONDENTS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT


...

Free Exercise of Religion
The state and federal constitutions also guarantee broad protection for the free
exercise of religion. The First Amendment bars congress from making any law
“respecting an establishment of religion or prohibiting the free exercise thereof,” and the
Fourteenth Amendment applies that protection to the states. Article II, § 4 of the
Colorado Constitution states that, “The free exercise and enjoyment of religious
profession and worship, without discrimination, shall forever hereafter be guaranteed;
and no person shall be denied any civil or political right, privilege or capacity on account
of his opinions concerning religion.” The door of these rights “stands tightly closed
against any governmental regulation of religious beliefs as such.” Sherbert v. Verner,
374 U.S. 398, 402 (1963).
The question presented by this case, however, does not involve an effort by the
government to regulate what Respondents believe. Rather, it involves the state’s
regulation of conduct; specifically, Respondents’ refusal to make a wedding cake for a
same-sex marriage due to a religious conviction that same-sex marriage is abhorrent to
God. Whether regulation of conduct is permissible depends very much upon the facts
of the case.
The types of conduct the United States Supreme Court has found to be beyond
government control typically involve activities fundamental to the individual’s religious
belief, that do not adversely affect the rights of others, and that are not outweighed by
the state’s legitimate interests in promoting health, safety and general welfare.
Examples include the Amish community’s religious objection to public school education
beyond the eighth grade, where the evidence was compelling that Amish children
received an effective education within their community, and that requiring public school
education would threaten the very existence of the Amish community, Wisconsin v.
Yoder, 406 U.S. 205 (1972); a Jewish employee’s right to refuse Saturday employment
without risking loss of unemployment benefits, Sherbert v. Verner, supra; and a religious
sect’s right to engage in religious soliciting without being required to have a license,
9Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296 (1940).

On the other hand, the Supreme Court has held that “activities of individuals,
even when religiously based, are often subject to regulation by the States in the
exercise of their undoubted power to promote the health, safety, and general welfare.”
Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. at 220. To excuse all religiously-motivated conduct from
state control would “permit every citizen to become a law unto himself.” Employment
Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 879 (1990). Thus, for example, the Court has upheld a
law prohibiting religious-based polygamy, Reynolds v. United States, 98 U.S. 145
(1879); upheld a law restricting religious-based child labor, Prince v. Massachusetts,
321 U.S. 158 (1944); upheld a Sunday closing law that adversely affected Jewish
businesses, Braunfeld v. Brown, 366 U.S. 599 (1961); upheld the government’s right to
collect Social Security taxes from an Amish employer despite claims that it violated his
religious principles, United States v. Lee, 455 U.S. 252 (1982); and upheld denial of
unemployment compensation to persons who were fired for the religious use of peyote,
Employment Division v. Smith, supra.

As a general rule, when the Court has held religious-based conduct to be free
from regulation, “the conduct at issue in those cases was not prohibited by law,”
Employment Division v. Smith, 494 U.S. at 876; the freedom asserted did not bring the
appellees “into collision with rights asserted by any other individual,” Braunfeld v.
Brown, 366 U.S. at 604 (“It is such conflicts which most frequently require intervention
of the State to determine where the rights of one end and those of another begin”); and
the regulation did not involve an incidental burden upon a commercial activity. United
States v. Lee, 455 U.S. at 261 (“When followers of a particular sect enter into
commercial activity as a matter of choice, the limits they accept on their own conduct as
a matter of conscience and faith are not to be superimposed on the statutory schemes
which are binding on others in that activity.”)...

http://www.adfmedia.org/files/MasterpieceDecision.pdf

[Hermit]

Freedom of religious practice is not compatible with any modern civilized country.

Freedom of religious practice is basic to any secular, modern and civilised government, but so is freedom from religious practice. Both of those fundamental tenets distinguish modern, civilised governments from theocratic ones.

But that freedom of religious practice is highly circumscribed, in that it cannot conflict with the laws of the land. Religious rituals which have no effect on anyone else are allowed, sure, but many religions want their beliefs to impinge on others, and/or the way society is structured. This is where Kansas is fucked up...

What's the "but" for? Did you miss the "freedom from religious practice" part of my post?

[JimC]

Freedom of religious practice is not compatible with any modern civilized country.

Freedom of religious practice is basic to any secular, modern and civilised government, but so is freedom from religious practice. Both of those fundamental tenets distinguish modern, civilised governments from theocratic ones.

But that freedom of religious practice is highly circumscribed, in that it cannot conflict with the laws of the land. Religious rituals which have no effect on anyone else are allowed, sure, but many religions want their beliefs to impinge on others, and/or the way society is structured. This is where Kansas is fucked up...

What's the "but" for? Did you miss the "freedom from religious practice" part of my post?

I took your reference to "freedom from religious practice" (which of course I agree with) to mean the freedom from having a government prescribe a particular religion in a given nation.

I was trying to make that broader, in the sense that a modern democratic society does (or should) prevent the practice of religion by certain groups from interfering in any way with the activities of other citizens, which connects to the Kansas thing. You may have meant your reference to include this issue as well...

[Hermit]

Freedom of religious practice is not compatible with any modern civilized country.

Freedom of religious practice is basic to any secular, modern and civilised government, but so is freedom from religious practice. Both of those fundamental tenets distinguish modern, civilised governments from theocratic ones.

But that freedom of religious practice is highly circumscribed, in that it cannot conflict with the laws of the land. Religious rituals which have no effect on anyone else are allowed, sure, but many religions want their beliefs to impinge on others, and/or the way society is structured. This is where Kansas is fucked up...

What's the "but" for? Did you miss the "freedom from religious practice" part of my post?

I took your reference to "freedom from religious practice" (which of course I agree with) to mean the freedom from having a government prescribe a particular religion in a given nation.

I was trying to make that broader, in the sense that a modern democratic society does (or should) prevent the practice of religion by certain groups from interfering in any way with the activities of other citizens, which connects to the Kansas thing. You may have meant your reference to include this issue as well...

In that case I obviously was not clear enough. "Secular government", as opposed to "theocracy" (I mentioned both terms) already implies freedom from religion in so far as government won't impose a religion on its population. (Even in the UK the CoE is only nominally a state religion now, except for the monarch having to be an Anglican.) With "freedom from religion" I meant precisely that while people are free to adhere to any religion they desire, their freedom does not extend to their practice of it adversely affecting those who don't subscribe to the edicts of that religion. Thus, they have every right to, say, oppose abortion. Their right does not extend to murdering doctors who perform abortions, though, or to intimidate and bully women who want to have one.

The line between what is acceptable and what is not is neither a clear nor a thin one. What do you do about the Quakers and other people who refuse military service on religious grounds in times of conscription, for example? By their refusal they clearly can be argued to be endangering the very lives of people in the nation they are asked to defend. What about the Phelps mob? Do they have the right to protest about fags and whatnot even if that means they severely disrupt a funeral in a non-physical, yet extremely intrusive manner? Should pharmacists be allowed to pick and chose which products they will sell? If they won't sell condoms because their bible prohibits any means of contraception bar the rhythm method, can they even be regarded as fit to operate a pharmacy? What exactly gives a cake shop owner the right to refuse to sell a wedding cake on the grounds that his or her bible describes homosexual acts as an abomination?

[JimC]

Hermit wrote:

The line between what is acceptable and what is not is neither a clear nor a thin one. What do you do about the Quakers and other people who refuse military service on religious grounds in times of conscription, for example? By their refusal they clearly can be argued to be endangering the very lives of people in the nation they are asked to defend. What about the Phelps mob? Do they have the right to protest about fags and whatnot even if that means they severely disrupt a funeral in a non-physical, yet extremely intrusive manner? Should pharmacists be allowed to pick and chose which products they will sell? If they won't sell condoms because their bible prohibits any means of contraception bar the rhythm method, can they even be regarded as fit to operate a pharmacy? What exactly gives a cake shop owner the right to refuse to sell a wedding cake on the grounds that his or her bible describes homosexual acts as an abomination?

These are certainly interesting questions. Perhaps one way to to address them is to consider whether another, non-religious group may have a similar behaviour pattern, and make sure that a religious motivation does not change the societal response. For example, if conscientious objection to serving in the army is given generally, then it is also available to the Quakers; if not, not. Being Quakers is not their ticket to army avoidance...

[pErvinalia]

You should be able to sack someone for being a libbo. It's only right.

Er, you are. Political affiliation is not a protected class. You can also fire someone for being a dunce, which means you need to fire yourself.

Well apparently in the UK you can't. But Libbo's should be fair game. Live by the sword, die by the sword...

[pErvinalia]

Religion has special status. And like all good bullshit stories, it changes over time. It shits me it has special status.

Welcome to "democracy" rEv.

Edit: And thank your lucky stars that you weren't born in Iran, where you would be bowing and scraping five times a day whether you believe or not.

Yeah, but that doesn't mean it doesn't overstep it's mark here in the West.

By the way, since you aren't commenting in other threads on the forum lately, you might have missed that I know a secret about you. I expect much baksheesh from you to withhold going public with this information.