SeeBS Snooze: Christians are practicing discrimination every time they take a stand against sin!
Posted on 05/17/2016 12:55:08 PM PDT by Zakeet
In a slanted hit piece against religious freedom laws for CBS Sunday Morning, correspondent Mark Strassmann proclaimed: "North Carolina's public bathrooms are the new frontier in American civil rights law....Just since the beginning of this year, lawmakers in 34 states have proposed so-called 'bathroom' bills and 'religious freedom' laws that, critics say, target gay, lesbian and transgender people."
The reporter argued that the source of such supposed discrimination was signed into law decades earlier: "These state actions descend from a little-known bipartisan bill signed into law by President Clinton back in 1993....The Religious Freedom Restoration Act, or RFRA, prohibited the government from unduly interfering in the way Americans express religious beliefs."
A soundbite played from left-wing University of Pennsylvania law professor Marci Hamilton, who expressed her disgust over the legislation: "It's really hard to explain what was happening. Basically, the civil rights groups dropped the ball. Everybody was just so excited about religious freedom - how could you be opposed to religious freedom? But the very smart, very conservative evangelical groups knew what their agenda was."
Strassmann declared: "...she argues that RFRA, in effect, granted a license to discriminate."
(Excerpt) Read more at newsbusters.org ...
SeeBS Snooze: Christians are practicing discrimination every time they take a stand against sin!
The networks hate religion. Any other reading of the facts is erroneous.
The 4 big networks should be anti-trusted and broken up
BUMP
The smarmy CBS hypocrites don’t hesitate to discriminate against certain religious persons or groups. What makes them exempt from discrimination rules? For that matter, what makes the lying, liberal, lunatic left’s brand of offense any more worthy of government sanction than mine?
According to the demented left all cultures are equal...unless they don’t like it.
Totally agree with that.
In 100 years I wonder if the Atheists of this age will regret their life’s decisions as they ponder their eternal existence separated from any comfort or good.
It unfortunately will take a lot of women and children being molested for this to change back.
The discernment of right and wrong must be outlawed!
A classic!
Allowing perverts to use whatever restroom they “identify with” has nothing to do with religious freedom. It’s insanity and an indicator of cultural rot.
Really? Only Christians care about men using women’s bathrooms?
To the extent there is a God, yes.
In other words, no.
—— an atheist
Thanks, I stole it fair and square...
Decent Americans continue to shovel dirt on the sh-t pooped out by the so-called Progressive atheist asshats.
Let’s not get hung up on the word “discriminate.” We discriminate all the time, and it is usually a good thing to do so.
I try to steal from the best too!
Regarding the so-called “license to discriminate,” please consider the following.
The states are free to discriminate on the basis of anything that they have never amended the Constitution to expressly protect, the states having never amended the Constitution to protect so-called LGBT “rights.”
So regardless what lawless Obama’s pro-LGBT, state sovereignty-ignoring activist justices want everybody to think about the constitutionality of gay “marriage” for example, the Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constitution’s silence about things like marriage means that such issues are automatically and uniquely state power issues, not the business of the feds.
It can also be argued that pro-LGBT activist officials in both the state and federal governments are wrongly using government power to effectively make LGBT people a privileged / protected class. The problem with doing so is that the Founding States had expressly prohibited both the state and federal governments from establishing protected classes.
Article I, Section 9, Clause 8: No Title of Nobility shall be granted by the United States [emphasis added]: And no Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under them, shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State.
Article I, Section 10, Clause 1: No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility [emphases added].
Also note that a previous generation of state sovereignty-respecting justices had clarified in United States v. Cruikshank that only the state and federal governments, not private citizens, are obligated to respect constitutionally enumerated rights.
Waiting for CBS to argue that FREEDOM OF ASSOCIATION = RACISM/DISCRIMINATION/BIGOTRY/HOMOPHOBIA.
Dummies.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.