ALPB Forum Online
ALPB => Your Turn => Topic started by: Daniel L. Gard on July 01, 2016, 04:02:02 PM
-
Religious freedom (i.e. the free exercise of religion) continues to be under assault. Unless that religious freedom conforms to a particular religious perspective.
http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/07/01/484291451/judge-blocks-mississippi-law-protecting-religious-objections-to-gay-marriage
The law that was struck down (HB 1523), as enacted by the people of Mississippi through their elected legislature, protected the following (from the NPR article):
Here's Section 2 of the bill:
"The sincerely held religious beliefs or moral convictions protected by this act are the belief or conviction that:
"(a) Marriage is or should be recognized as the union of one man and one woman;
"(b) Sexual relations are properly reserved to such a marriage; and
"(c) Male (man) or female (woman) refer to an individual's immutable biological sex as objectively determined by anatomy and genetics at time of birth."
The court has ruled that this theology is outside the approved religion of the federal courts and is no longer allowed to be legally exercised. The following is also from the article and describes the new official religion:
Susan Hrostowski, one of the plaintiffs in the case, also spoke to Morning Edition after the decision was announced.
"I'm an Episcopal priest, and I'm kind of crazy about the gospel, and I'm crazy about Jesus. And his message was that we should love one another, so I found this bill to be offensive from that perspective," she said. "But then also, as a lesbian — I've been with my wife for 27 years now, and we have a son. And so for both of those reasons, I just fought to make sure that people like me weren't mistreated in the state of Mississippi."
She said she was elated with the decision, and remembered back to a moment during the hearing when the case of Obergefell v. Hodges — the Supreme Court case that legalized gay marriage in all 50 states — came up:
"The judge was asking the state, what were the nonreligious reasons for this bill? And they said, 'Well, Obergefell tipped the tables of justice away from people who are against gay marriage.'
"And Judge Reeves said, 'Well, isn't that like saying Brown v. Board of Education tipped the tables away from segregationists?'
"You know, when you have an oppressed population and they make some gains, that doesn't mean the oppressor has the right to retaliate. ...
"Everyone has the right to their own religious beliefs. But not to the point that practicing those would impinge on my beliefs, and on my freedoms."
That final line, "Everyone has the right to their own religious beliefs. But not to the point that practicing those would impinge on my beliefs, and on my freedoms" is insightful. The practice of her religious beliefs now can impinge on the beliefs and freedoms of others but not the other way around.
-
That final line, "Everyone has the right to their own religious beliefs. But not to the point that practicing those would impinge on my beliefs, and on my freedoms" is insightful. The practice of her religious beliefs now can impinge on the beliefs and freedoms of others but not the other way around.
How do my beliefs that support same-sex marriages infringe on your beliefs that oppose them? There is nothing that prohibits you from practicing your beliefs. Don't marry a man. Don't let your sons and grandsons marry men. Don't let your daughters and granddaughters marry women. You can hold those beliefs without forcing the whole nations to live by them, like Jews refusing to eat bacon without eliminating hogs from the North American continent. The laws do not infringe on you practicing your beliefs.
There were, and perhaps still are, a number of people who object to interracial marriages, even though they have been legal throughout the U.S. since a 1967 Supreme Court Case.
Many parents & grandparents believe that "sleeping together" before marriage is wrong. Then they are faced with the dilemma when children or grand-children move in with boy/girl friends about how should they respond. It can become an even greater problem with a child wants to come home for a visit with their "partner". We live in a world that often acts contrary to our beliefs; but this same world doesn't force us to act contrary to our beliefs. Young people can remain virgins until they are married even if a majority of their friends don't. Jews can refrain from nonkosher foods even if a majority of their neighbors eat them. People can worship on the Sabbath or Sunday even if a majority of Americans don't.
-
Would that it were so simple. If you are opposed to same-sex marriage you don't have to enter into one and no one will force you into it. But if your beliefs prohibit you from participating in a same-sex marriage or providing goods or services to facilitate a same-sex marriages there are a number of businesses you will have to avoid or get out of or face crippling fines. If you gather together with a group of similarly minded believers and want to establish a college in California, you'd better watch out because if a current proposed law is passed you will need to conduct the college according to approved same-sex and transgender rules.
The law is that same-sex marriage is legal and while some of us believe that is a bad idea there is nothing that we can do to force it to stop. From where I sit it sure seems that there is an attempt going on to force the rest of us to accept it.
-
Would that it were so simple. If you are opposed to same-sex marriage you don't have to enter into one and no one will force you into it. But if your beliefs prohibit you from participating in a same-sex marriage or providing goods or services to facilitate a same-sex marriages there are a number of businesses you will have to avoid or get out of or face crippling fines. If you gather together with a group of similarly minded believers and want to establish a college in California, you'd better watch out because if a current proposed law is passed you will need to conduct the college according to approved same-sex and transgender rules.
Yup, and it's been that way since at least the early 3rd century. Hippolytus lists occupations that one had to give up if one was going to become a Christian. Why should the 21st century be different?
The law is that same-sex marriage is legal and while some of us believe that is a bad idea there is nothing that we can do to force it to stop. From where I sit it sure seems that there is an attempt going on to force the rest of us to accept it.
Yes, you have to accept it. It's the law. You could have neighbors that are married same-sex partners and they could be raising children. That doesn't mean that you have to believe that it is right or like the law. I don't like the speed limit on some of the highways I drive on, but I have to obey them regardless of what I like or believe. (I believe that I can drive safely at 100 mph, but my belief doesn't make it legal.)
-
Yup, and it's been that way since at least the early 3rd century. Hippolytus lists occupations that one had to give up if one was going to become a Christian. Why should the 21st century be different?
No, Brian, it has not "been that way since at least the early 3rd century." As evidence I offer the 4th through 21st centuries. As well as your own support (as a Christian pastor) for Christians to do things that, according to the same list by Hippolytus, a Christian cannot do.
And, of course, Hippolytus wasn't reporting the Emperor's list of occupations that one had to give up if he was going to become a Christian. One way in which the 21st century is different.
-
Pastor Fienen writes:
If you are opposed to same-sex marriage you don't have to enter into one and no one will force you into it. But if your beliefs prohibit you from participating in a same-sex marriage or providing goods or services to facilitate a same-sex marriages there are a number of businesses you will have to avoid or get out of or face crippling fines.
I comment
Yes, as we have said before. If you run a hotel and have "beliefs" that say you cannot rent to African-Americans, or Irish, or Catholics or gays or lesbians; then you will face civil sanctions, because society has - by large majorities - agreed that those running places of public accommodation may not discriminate against those groups. That does not prevent you from holding those beliefs. It does place some restrictions on how businesses can operate. You have a constitutional right to your beliefs; there is nothing in the constitution that says you have an unlimited right to run a hotel and discriminate. But we have said this before.
Pastor Fienen:
If you gather together with a group of similarly minded believers and want to establish a college in California, you'd better watch out because if a current proposed law is passed you will need to conduct the college according to approved same-sex and transgender rules.
Me:
No. No. No. You are being intentionally ignorant here. Run your college any way you want. But if you want to have public, tax money used to pay tuition or other costs, then there may be some restrictions on how you operate. Simple solution. Run your college with your own money and with the money of people who agree with you. But we have said this before.
Pastor Fienen:
The law is that same-sex marriage is legal and while some of us believe that is a bad idea there is nothing that we can do to force it to stop.
Me:
The law is that anyone can own almost any kind of weapon they want and while some of us believe that is a bad idea, there is nothing that we can do to force it to stop. The law could be that everyone is required to join the military services for a term of duty. If that were the law - and it could be - there is nothing that pacifists or others opposed to military service could do to stop it. But we have said this before.
Pastor Fienen:
From where I sit it sure seems that there is an attempt going on to force the rest of us to accept it.
Me:
From where I sit it sure seems that you are trying to be intentionally ignorant. You do not have to "accept" same sex unions. You are required to recognize that they exist. You do not have to "accept" couples living together before marriage; but you cannot pass laws prohibiting this from happening and you must - unless you are really dense - accept that it happens. But we have said this before.
Sometimes, faithfulness to one's beliefs means that, as testimony to that faith and those beliefs, one must suffer civil sanctions. But we have said this before.
-
If I borrow money from the bank to buy a car, can the bank insist that I only buy a Ford and that I am forbidden to buy a Chevy, and I can only buy from their list of "approved" dealers? If I borrow money from the government (in the form of student loans), can the government insist I only attend a school on their "approved" list which teaches what the government wants/approves/directs?
If a homosexual wants to marry, can a baker refuse to bake them a cake (we already know the answer to that one)? If a Christian wants to attend a Christian college, can the government prevent them (it looks like we know what that answer will be, at least in California)?
-
I'm sure there are good arguments against the Mississippi law, but the argument against it being on this thread seems make the 1st Amendment superfluous. If all it means is that in matters of religion people and organizations are free to do what the government decides to permit them to do, it doesn't amount to much.
-
In this case I tend to agree with the personal opinion of State Attorney General Jim Hood.
-
In this case I tend to agree with the personal opinion of State Attorney General Jim Hood.
Thank you for pointing that out. That is a helpful critique of the law in question and of similar laws proposed in other states.
-
Pastor Bohler asks (and you will have to relay my answers, I'm not sure he reads my postings):
If I borrow money from the bank to buy a car, can the bank insist that I only buy a Ford and that I am forbidden to buy a Chevy, and I can only buy from their list of "approved" dealers?
I answe
They might have something to say about the kind of car you buy. And if a bank gives you a mortgage, they have a right to insist that the house meets certain standards.
Pastor Bohler asks:
If I borrow money from the government (in the form of student loans), can the government insist I only attend a school on their "approved" list which teaches what the government wants/approves/directs?
I answer:
In a way, yes. The government can insist that its money not be spent in ways that will sustain or advance discrimination or racism or other things deemed harmful to the public good. It is the public's money and those caring for that money - government and regulatory agencies - have the responsibility to see that it is not spent in ways that work against the public good.
Pastor Bohler asks:
If a homosexual wants to marry, can a baker refuse to bake them a cake (we already know the answer to that one)? If a Christian wants to attend a Christian college, can the government prevent them (it looks like we know what that answer will be, at least in California)?
I answer:
No, the government cannot prevent a Christian from attending a Christian college. You tell me how they could do that. If you want to spend your own money on a Christian college, you can go wherever you want. If you are using public money, that may not be the case; but in no way can the government prevent anyone from attending a Christian college.
-
Guys! Guys! Guys! (and assorted Gals, too!)
Calm down! There is no need to worry. They are only coming for stupid people who don't hold the right opinion. So we really don't need to say anything. After all, when if they come for us, there will be plenty of people to say something, amiright?
Guys? Hello? Anyone there?
-
Guys! Guys! Guys! (and assorted Gals, too!)
Calm down! There is no need to worry. They are only coming for stupid people who don't hold the right opinion. So we really don't need to say anything. After all, when if they come for us, there will be plenty of people to say something, amiright?
Guys? Hello? Anyone there?
Yep.
Another development that is nothing to worry about.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/1/christianmingle-loses-lawsuit-must-now-include-gay/
You will conform. You will be silent and never ever exercise your religion if you do not conform.
Nothing to worry about here. Nothing at all.
-
That is quite different, Dr. Gard, from suggesting that the judge's decision in the Mississippi case might virtually repeal the 1st Amendment.
[Sorry. Auto correct strikes again. :-( ]
-
That is quite different, Dr. Garden, from suggesting that the judge's decision in the Mississippi case might virtually repeal the 1st Amendment.
I am not "suggesting" anything. I am stating what I believe to be a fact. The "free exercise" clause is meaningless under recent judicial legislation. Yes, you may believe whatever you want. You may even advocate for it in public (though soon that will be challenged as well). But just as "sex" once meant male or female and now has been redefined to mean whatever a court chooses for it to mean, so also "free exercise" is being redefined to mean holding beliefs but not actually living by them.
This is, in my opinion, the de facto judicial repeal of the 1st Amendment.
Anyone who is OK with this has to understand that they will come after you eventually.
-
That final line, "Everyone has the right to their own religious beliefs. But not to the point that practicing those would impinge on my beliefs, and on my freedoms" is insightful. The practice of her religious beliefs now can impinge on the beliefs and freedoms of others but not the other way around.
How do my beliefs that support same-sex marriages infringe on your beliefs that oppose them? There is nothing that prohibits you from practicing your beliefs. Don't marry a man. Don't let your sons and grandsons marry men. Don't let your daughters and granddaughters marry women. You can hold those beliefs without forcing the whole nations to live by them, like Jews refusing to eat bacon without eliminating hogs from the North American continent. The laws do not infringe on you practicing your beliefs.
There were, and perhaps still are, a number of people who object to interracial marriages, even though they have been legal throughout the U.S. since a 1967 Supreme Court Case.
Many parents & grandparents believe that "sleeping together" before marriage is wrong. Then they are faced with the dilemma when children or grand-children move in with boy/girl friends about how should they respond. It can become an even greater problem with a child wants to come home for a visit with their "partner". We live in a world that often acts contrary to our beliefs; but this same world doesn't force us to act contrary to our beliefs. Young people can remain virgins until they are married even if a majority of their friends don't. Jews can refrain from nonkosher foods even if a majority of their neighbors eat them. People can worship on the Sabbath or Sunday even if a majority of Americans don't.
It is not that difficult to find if you really care to understand how those whom you disagree with are impacted. Just search for Catholic adoption agencies being forced to close due to changing laws.
http://www.usccb.org/issues-and-action/religious-liberty/discrimination-against-catholic-adoption-services.cfm
"In 2006, Catholic Charities of Boston, which had been one of the nation's oldest adoption agencies, faced a very difficult choice: violate its conscience, or close its doors.In order to be licensed by the state, Catholic Charities of Boston would have to obey state laws barring "sexual orientation discrimination." And because marriage had been redefined in Massachusetts, Catholic Charities could not simply limit its placements to married couples.Catholic leaders asked the state legislature for a religious exemption but were refused.As a result, Catholic Charities of Boston was forced to shut down its adoption services."
This was 2006 Brian, consider the magnitude of the change since then, and give thought to what is coming. This is all quite logical. When we codify into law a new definition of 'family', it naturally follows that adoption agencies will be encouraged (forced) to comply with the states newly discerned image of the family. It does not take much thought to come up with other examples.
-
Pastor Bohler asks (and you will have to relay my answers, I'm not sure he reads my postings):
If I borrow money from the bank to buy a car, can the bank insist that I only buy a Ford and that I am forbidden to buy a Chevy, and I can only buy from their list of "approved" dealers?
I answe
They might have something to say about the kind of car you buy. And if a bank gives you a mortgage, they have a right to insist that the house meets certain standards.
Pastor Bohler asks:
If I borrow money from the government (in the form of student loans), can the government insist I only attend a school on their "approved" list which teaches what the government wants/approves/directs?
I answer:
In a way, yes. The government can insist that its money not be spent in ways that will sustain or advance discrimination or racism or other things deemed harmful to the public good. It is the public's money and those caring for that money - government and regulatory agencies - have the responsibility to see that it is not spent in ways that work against the public good.
Pastor Bohler asks:
If a homosexual wants to marry, can a baker refuse to bake them a cake (we already know the answer to that one)? If a Christian wants to attend a Christian college, can the government prevent them (it looks like we know what that answer will be, at least in California)?
I answer:
No, the government cannot prevent a Christian from attending a Christian college. You tell me how they could do that. If you want to spend your own money on a Christian college, you can go wherever you want. If you are using public money, that may not be the case; but in no way can the government prevent anyone from attending a Christian college.
In Re the proposed California Law and similar legislative attempts. Is there anything that I have not noticed about the California law that suggests that the concern is that the religious schools that would be impacted by the law may not be academically adequate? Is one or the primary reason for disallowing students from using their Cal Grant money at a particular school that it would not be academically acceptable?
Going to college is a financial burden. Very few families can simply write a check and put their children through college. For the vast majority of students there needs to be a mix of financial aid - scholarships and grants, student work during college, family support and student loans. The more of the former, the less of the latter which eventually will need to be paid back. Cal Grant is offered to California students who have financial need, have a qualifying academic record and enroll in a California college or university. It is a major part of a financial aid package and loss of it would greatly increase the cost of college.
The proposed law would change that in that schools that otherwise qualify to receive students with Cal Grants would be prohibited unless they reduce the schools religious involvement. Religious schools because they are religious schools would be disqualified they segregate their religious involvement to church work preparation and the state would determine what that can be.
In other words, the state would have a anti-religious litmus test for the schools to pass. You could still go there but at a much greater expense than if you would go to a school that has an ideology that the state approves. Among colleges and universities in California, the state would pick winners and losers. Religion as religion would be a loser. Is it right for the state to discriminate against schools on the basis of religion?
If so, how does that square with the First Amendment?
-
I am not "suggesting" anything. I am stating what I believe to be a fact...
This is, in my opinion, the de facto judicial repeal of the 1st Amendment.
Indeed, it is your opinion. It is not one, however, one that is based on a jurisprudential analysis. As the State AG stated, "... the law 'doesn't accomplish anything,' because it doesn't grant anyone rights they didn't already have [with proper action under the 1st Amendment]."
-
I am not "suggesting" anything. I am stating what I believe to be a fact...
This is, in my opinion, the de facto judicial repeal of the 1st Amendment.
Indeed, it is your opinion. It is not one, however, one that is based on a jurisprudential analysis. As the State AG stated, "... the law 'doesn't accomplish anything,' because it doesn't grant anyone rights they didn't already have [with proper action under the 1st Amendment]."
If the law did not "grant anyone rights they didn't already have", then what is the effect of the courts decision? The court declared the law to be unconstitutional. Thus the court has determined that the rights we already had (per the AG) were not actually constitutional rights. That is why the law was challenged and, as judicial decisions now go, the challenge was successful.
-
I am not "suggesting" anything. I am stating what I believe to be a fact...
This is, in my opinion, the de facto judicial repeal of the 1st Amendment.
Indeed, it is your opinion. It is not one, however, one that is based on a jurisprudential analysis. As the State AG stated, "... the law 'doesn't accomplish anything,' because it doesn't grant anyone rights they didn't already have [with proper action under the 1st Amendment]."
If the law did not "grant anyone rights they didn't already have", then what is the effect of the courts decision? The court declared the law to be unconstitutional. Thus the court has determined that the rights we already had (per the AG) were not actually constitutional rights.
No, that is an incorrect analysis. It assumes that the judge and the AG are looking at it from the same perspective.
If you do want to look at it that way, then one can conclude that the law did not grant any legitimate rights that we don't already have and, furthermore, had the potential to excuse otherwise illegal mischief.
The law was a waste of time and money.
-
I am not "suggesting" anything. I am stating what I believe to be a fact...
This is, in my opinion, the de facto judicial repeal of the 1st Amendment.
Indeed, it is your opinion. It is not one, however, one that is based on a jurisprudential analysis. As the State AG stated, "... the law 'doesn't accomplish anything,' because it doesn't grant anyone rights they didn't already have [with proper action under the 1st Amendment]."
If the law did not "grant anyone rights they didn't already have", then what is the effect of the courts decision? The court declared the law to be unconstitutional. Thus the court has determined that the rights we already had (per the AG) were not actually constitutional rights.
No, that is an incorrect analysis. It assumes that the judge and the AG are looking at it from the same perspective.
If you do want to look at it that way, then one can conclude that the law did not grant any legitimate rights that we don't already have and, furthermore, had the potential to excuse otherwise illegal mischief.
The law was a waste of time and money.
I'm sorry that I cannot agree with you on this. When rights are threatened, as religious freedom in our country is threatened, then restating those rights through elected legislatures is time and money well spent, not "wasted". To have a court rule those rights unconstitutional is chilling.
I wish I could be a part of the clear majority comprised of you, the court, the AG and those who brought the suit. Then maybe I would have your approval and the "correct analysis." That would be nice and make me feel good.
-
Yup, and it's been that way since at least the early 3rd century. Hippolytus lists occupations that one had to give up if one was going to become a Christian. Why should the 21st century be different?
No, Brian, it has not "been that way since at least the early 3rd century." As evidence I offer the 4th through 21st centuries. As well as your own support (as a Christian pastor) for Christians to do things that, according to the same list by Hippolytus, a Christian cannot do.
And, of course, Hippolytus wasn't reporting the Emperor's list of occupations that one had to give up if he was going to become a Christian. One way in which the 21st century is different.
So, it's OK for a Christian to continue working as a prostitute or a drug pusher or a thief? Even in the 21st century, if one's occupation could be in conflict with Christian beliefs - they should give it up.
-
Yup, and it's been that way since at least the early 3rd century. Hippolytus lists occupations that one had to give up if one was going to become a Christian. Why should the 21st century be different?
No, Brian, it has not "been that way since at least the early 3rd century." As evidence I offer the 4th through 21st centuries. As well as your own support (as a Christian pastor) for Christians to do things that, according to the same list by Hippolytus, a Christian cannot do.
And, of course, Hippolytus wasn't reporting the Emperor's list of occupations that one had to give up if he was going to become a Christian. One way in which the 21st century is different.
So, it's OK for a Christian to continue working as a prostitute or a drug pusher or a thief? Even in the 21st century, if one's occupation could be in conflict with Christian beliefs - they should give it up.
Huh? I have no idea where you got this from Pastor Tibbetts' post.
-
Yet another case, this one with on online Christian dating service:
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jul/1/christianmingle-loses-lawsuit-must-now-include-gay/
-
Yup, and it's been that way since at least the early 3rd century. Hippolytus lists occupations that one had to give up if one was going to become a Christian. Why should the 21st century be different?
No, Brian, it has not "been that way since at least the early 3rd century." As evidence I offer the 4th through 21st centuries. As well as your own support (as a Christian pastor) for Christians to do things that, according to the same list by Hippolytus, a Christian cannot do.
And, of course, Hippolytus wasn't reporting the Emperor's list of occupations that one had to give up if he was going to become a Christian. One way in which the 21st century is different.
So, it's OK for a Christian to continue working as a prostitute or a drug pusher or a thief? Even in the 21st century, if one's occupation could be in conflict with Christian beliefs - they should give it up.
Huh? I have no idea where you got this from Pastor Tibbetts' post.
I'm saying that our Christian faith can cause people to give up their jobs when they see that it is in conflict with that faith. That's what Hippolytus said in the 2nd century, and it can still be true today. (Pastor Tibbetts stated that it wasn't true today. I gave examples where I think it still applies.) If it goes against one's Christian beliefs to place an adopted child in a family with two men or two women, then perhaps the faithful response means finding a different job. If a pharmacist has come to believe that dispensing contraceptives is contrary to her beliefs, then perhaps the faithful response means finding a different job. Would you expect a Christian with a pro-life conviction to work in an abortion clinic?
-
I am not "suggesting" anything. I am stating what I believe to be a fact...
This is, in my opinion, the de facto judicial repeal of the 1st Amendment.
Indeed, it is your opinion. It is not one, however, one that is based on a jurisprudential analysis. As the State AG stated, "... the law 'doesn't accomplish anything,' because it doesn't grant anyone rights they didn't already have [with proper action under the 1st Amendment]."
If the law did not "grant anyone rights they didn't already have", then what is the effect of the courts decision? The court declared the law to be unconstitutional. Thus the court has determined that the rights we already had (per the AG) were not actually constitutional rights.
No, that is an incorrect analysis. It assumes that the judge and the AG are looking at it from the same perspective.
If you do want to look at it that way, then one can conclude that the law did not grant any legitimate rights that we don't already have and, furthermore, had the potential to excuse otherwise illegal mischief.
The law was a waste of time and money.
I'm sorry that I cannot agree with you on this. When rights are threatened, as religious freedom in our country is threatened, then restating those rights through elected legislatures is time and money well spent, not "wasted". To have a court rule those rights unconstitutional is chilling.
I wish I could be a part of the clear majority comprised of you, the court, the AG and those who brought the suit. Then maybe I would have your approval and the "correct analysis." That would be nice and make me feel good.
I'm sorry that I generated your ire and sarcasm, Dr. Gard. Had I given my personal opinion on the surrender of US boats to Iran, and you told me that my analysis was wrong under Naval standards, I hope that I would not take such
I too lament recent Supreme Court decisions, but the federal judge's decision in the Miss case was a no-brainer, and the State AG and, I suspect, many in Miss gov't, know it. The governor's statement about a vigorous appeal simply is political posturing.
-
Same song, next verse: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437499/other-news-iowas-civil-rights-commission-seeks-regulate-church-services
Might be of interest to those of you who are still foolish enough to make your services "open to the public."
-
Same song, next verse: http://www.nationalreview.com/corner/437499/other-news-iowas-civil-rights-commission-seeks-regulate-church-services
Might be of interest to those of you who are still foolish enough to make your services "open to the public."
"News flash — virtually every church service is open to the public."
-
Here's (http://thefederalist.com/2016/07/06/iowa-bureaucrats-force-trans-bathrooms-on-churches-forbid-non-pc-preaching/) another article on the Iowa regulations.
-
A church has already filed a lawsuit against the Iowa Civil Rights Commission. If the commission is indeed attempting to enforce the "rules" in the brochure on churches, the church has an excellent case and I hope that they win. Churches, who operate without state funds, cannot be told by the state what can be said within those churches.
It would seem clear that while the provisos of the Civil Rights Commission sometimes apply to churches, they do not always apply. This needs clarification.
-
From the post at The Federalist:
The guidelines state: “if [a business or organization] offers some services, facilities, or goods to the
general public, it will be treated as a public accommodation”
The thinking here follows the rationale in the HHS mandate promulgated a few years ago by the current administration under the Affordable Care Act, which essentially asserted that an organization doesn't have the enumerated free exercise rights of a religious organization if it serves the public. The HHS mandate seemed to make an exception for a public worship service. The so-called Iowa Civil Rights Commission seems not to. Of course, Vacation Bible School, Sunday School, a food pantry operated by a congregation, allowing the congregations facilities to be used by a 4-H group, Cub Scouts, or for a Red Cross blood drive all would seem to run afoul of the regulations if non-members are served.
Note well that the guideline says, "offers some services." Any of these things offered to the general public causes the organization to be treated as a public accommodation even if it's only a small part of the organization's activities. And as a public accommodation, no free exercise rights remain.
-
A church has already filed a lawsuit against the Iowa Civil Rights Commission. If the commission is indeed attempting to enforce the "rules" in the brochure on churches, the church has an excellent case and I hope that they win. Churches, who operate without state funds, cannot be told by the state what can be said within those churches.
It would seem clear that while the provisos of the Civil Rights Commission sometimes apply to churches, they do not always apply. This needs clarification.
You have long said that if there ever came a time where churches and religious organizations were forced to behave contrary to their stated and long-held beliefs, you would lead the charge in fighting against such First Amendment violations (although you were on record as not thinking such a movement was eminent, and lampooned those who raised a warning as being paranoid and over-reactionary). Now as we move inexorably toward being a nation that no longer values freedom of religion as an inalienable right, I hope to see you manning the ramparts, fighting shoulder-to-shoulder with those whose ideas you might not share, but whose freedom you treasure. Remember, "First they came for the Fundamentalists ..."
-
Well, I'm a little too decrepit to "lead a charge," but you have already heard me say it seems the Iowa Civil Rights Commission has reached too far. (When did all those radical, anti-religion, non-church folk get into my home state?)
-
Well, I'm a little too decrepit to "lead a charge," but you have already heard me say it seems the Iowa Civil Rights Commission has reached too far. (When did all those radical, anti-religion, non-church folk get into my home state?)
That's what I, too, would like to know! Born and raised in Hampton.
I predict that it will die a quick and painless death. ;D
Peace, JOHN
-
Well, I'm a little too decrepit to "lead a charge," but you have already heard me say it seems the Iowa Civil Rights Commission has reached too far. (When did all those radical, anti-religion, non-church folk get into my home state?)
That's what I, too, would like to know! Born and raised in Hampton.
I predict that it will die a quick and painless death. ;D
Peace, JOHN
John- your lips to God's ear. But I recall people telling me not to be hysterical when I predicted actions of this nature as a logical and necessary outcome of the project to construct a tower of sexual Babel. Cardinal George seems to have it about right.
-
This isn't Canada and this overreach will go nowhere
-
First Things has weighed-in on Iowa.
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/firstthoughts/2016/07/iowas-law-gospel-dialectic
-
Will the rules promulgated by the Iowa Civil Rights Commission have the results that have been feared, e.g. treat worship services as public accommodation and censor sermons? Likely not. It is not altogether clear that the Commission actually had that extremity in mind and even if so, it likely would not survive judicial review. However with the activist trends in the judiciary these days one should not be sanguine.
Is it paranoid to be concerned about those regulations and other laws that could have the effect of infringing religious freedom or burdening the free exercise of religion? Absolutely not. The world is not one vast conspiracy against us (unless you're a Clinton with a vast right wind conspiracy to contend with). But just because everybody isn't out to get you, doesn't mean that nobody is. There is a noticeable trend to narrow the scope for the free exercise of religion and restrict the exercise of religion when dealing in public.
These Iowa Civil Rights Commission rules were not promulgated by an extremist activist advocacy group but by a commission of the state government. This makes it not a nuisance from an extremist group but an attempt by the government, with governmental powers, to enforce rules on churches. That suggests that we need to keep an eye on governmental agencies so that these kinds of rules don't sneak up on us but are challenged. Paranoia is not helpful, but rights are protected by vigilance. We keep our rights by protecting them. Some in our society feel that their rights and privileges are better protected if ours are not.
It has been observed for a long time that some would like to restrict religion from the public areas of life. Elements of this go all the way back to the 50s and William F. Buckley Jr.'s God and Man at Yale and of course Richard John Neuhaus' The Naked Public Square in the 80's. This movement has not waned but is finding its way in to government action as exemplified by the proposed HHS contraceptive mandates in the implementation of the ACA, the California Law that would penalize Christian colleges and universities for not restricting the religious nature of their schools to the training of professional church workers, and now these Iowa Civil Rights Commission rules that propose to subject public worship services (how many churches maintain member only worship services?) to commission scrutiny for content as a "public accommodation". We do not need paranoia, but we do need vigilance and action when necessary.
-
Will the rules promulgated by the Iowa Civil Rights Commission have the results that have been feared, e.g. treat worship services as public accommodation and censor sermons? Likely not. It is not altogether clear that the Commission actually had that extremity in mind and even if so, it likely would not survive judicial review. However with the activist trends in the judiciary these days one should not be sanguine.
Is it paranoid to be concerned about those regulations and other laws that could have the effect of infringing religious freedom or burdening the free exercise of religion? Absolutely not. The world is not one vast conspiracy against us (unless you're a Clinton with a vast right wind conspiracy to contend with). But just because everybody isn't out to get you, doesn't mean that nobody is. There is a noticeable trend to narrow the scope for the free exercise of religion and restrict the exercise of religion when dealing in public.
These Iowa Civil Rights Commission rules were not promulgated by an extremist activist advocacy group but by a commission of the state government. This makes it not a nuisance from an extremist group but an attempt by the government, with governmental powers, to enforce rules on churches. That suggests that we need to keep an eye on governmental agencies so that these kinds of rules don't sneak up on us but are challenged. Paranoia is not helpful, but rights are protected by vigilance. We keep our rights by protecting them. Some in our society feel that their rights and privileges are better protected if ours are not.
It has been observed for a long time that some would like to restrict religion from the public areas of life. Elements of this go all the way back to the 50s and William F. Buckley Jr.'s God and Man at Yale and of course Richard John Neuhaus' The Naked Public Square in the 80's. This movement has not waned but is finding its way in to government action as exemplified by the proposed HHS contraceptive mandates in the implementation of the ACA, the California Law that would penalize Christian colleges and universities for not restricting the religious nature of their schools to the training of professional church workers, and now these Iowa Civil Rights Commission rules that propose to subject public worship services (how many churches maintain member only worship services?) to commission scrutiny for content as a "public accommodation". We do not need paranoia, but we do need vigilance and action when necessary.
To the highlighted sentence: I heard a presentation on church and state recently that included a brief review of cases before the high court having implications on religious freedom. I was surprised to learn that Supreme Court decisions over the past century reveal an expansive understanding of the non-establishment clause and a rather more narrow understanding of the free exercise clause. That is to say, the court has tended to accept arguments that seemingly innocuous and non-preferential brushing up of the state against religious institutions transgresses the non-establishment clause. On the other hand, it has tended to draw rather narrow limits around religious activity protected by the free exercise clause. As comments by justices Alito and Thomas have noted, recent actions of the court--including the court declining to grant cert with regard to the pharmacists in Washington--are quite worrisome as to what they might portend. They are not, however, a reversal of the way the court has handled questions of free exercise, merely a more extreme limitation than has previously been applied.
Mostly I believe it is important to recognize that what an ordinary reasonable believer understands the free exercise clause to mean is rather more expansive than Supreme Court decisions over a long period of time have taken it to mean. While there are reasons to be concerned by recent actions, it's helpful to understand that free exercise has not been broadly understood and applied by the court for a long time.