Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Religious convictions vs. gay rights: A modest proposal
Christian Post ^ | 12/09/2022 | Richard Land

Posted on 12/09/2022 8:29:51 AM PST by SeekAndFind

click here to read article


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

1 posted on 12/09/2022 8:29:51 AM PST by SeekAndFind
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

The alphabet mafia better enjoy their power while they can, because their eternal destinations won’t be so pleasurable, if you know what I mean.


2 posted on 12/09/2022 8:33:42 AM PST by No name given (Anonymous is who you’ll know me as. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
The left does not believe in equal rights.

They believe in a zero sum game of all or nothing.

When they have the power, they get all and we get nothing.

3 posted on 12/09/2022 8:34:49 AM PST by marktwain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Like the jihadist Muslims, when the perverts get critical mass, they will not be civil. They will not agree to disagree. It is the war of all against all because they would have it be so.


4 posted on 12/09/2022 8:36:34 AM PST by Dr. Sivana (But yet the Son of man, when he cometh, shall he find, think you, faith on earth? (Luke 18:8))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: No name given

Right on.


5 posted on 12/09/2022 8:45:29 AM PST by Tommy Revolts
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

“When they have the power, they get all and we get nothing.”

What people of the left don’t realize is the definition of “all” changes over time and eventually they will get nothing.


6 posted on 12/09/2022 8:47:15 AM PST by alternatives? (The only reason to have an army is to defend your borders.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“For example, we allow Islamic truck drivers not to be required to transport distilled spirits. Are we now to force a Black restaurant owner to cater an initiation ceremony for the Sons of Confederate Veterans or to bake a cake with the Confederate “stars and bars” flag on it, a flag that symbolizes the enslavement and subjugation of their ancestors? Of course not.”

Why of course not? It is exactly the same type of misapplied closed stance actions based upon theory rather than fact. There hasn’t been a confederate soldier in the US since the last one died probably in the late 1800’s. The people now that the writer identifies are not people afraid of something. they are people being told to be afraid of something.

History is a teacher. It can be taught for successes or failures. And either can be repeated. But that is history that hasn’t been accomplished yet and has no outcome. So what was learned is all we have in this case. And history can only harm you if you want it to or it is accomplished by people who use it for such.

So, your problem isn’t what happened. It’s what could happen used questionably. And if we didn’t spend so much time recognizing our differences and more time on trying to avoid harm, we might get better. After all, we can make a person leave a restaurant if they don’t have a shirt or shoes on. Then why is that so far away from a lawsuit because I want to go barefooted? The dirt is still on the floor whether I’m there or not.

wy69


7 posted on 12/09/2022 8:52:29 AM PST by whitney69
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

I rarely read the argument that it is not the government’s role to compel an business or individual to enter into a contract. There is also the matter of whether an artist really owns their self expression. If they can be forced to produce work they object to then it is obvious they do not own their self expression but are only talent for hire.


8 posted on 12/09/2022 9:01:52 AM PST by lastchance (Credo.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: marktwain

The default needs to be freedom. The government should as rarely as possible intervene to force people to do something.

This is one reason I am dubious about folk who want government control of social media or Russian style anti-LGTB propaganda laws.

Once the principle is established that the government can control speech it won’t be good for conservatives.


9 posted on 12/09/2022 9:03:32 AM PST by Renfrew
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Western states were created on the condition of perfect religious freedom.

The Supreme Court should zap an infringing one out of existence when a relevant case is presented.

No senators, no public pensions, etc.


10 posted on 12/09/2022 9:15:48 AM PST by Brian Griffin
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

“society should come down on the side of protecting the liberty of LGBT people.” She believes that in such conflicts it is a “zero-sum” game in which one side must always surrender their rights to the other.“

Ok then, make the letter people surrender to normal people. That’s “democracy”, right? Let’s all vote whether to throw the queers into the sea.
See how they like their “democracy.”


11 posted on 12/09/2022 9:17:18 AM PST by bk1000 (Banned from Breitbart)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

THE problem is, the Commies trying to take over this country are trying to separate us from our heritage, ESPECIALLY our Judeo-Christian heritage. That part of our heritage is not congruent with Marxism and therefore, is utterly unacceptable to the Commies. That is why their fight is taken to the courts. A Christian or practicing Jew should, therefore, NEVER EVER EVER vote for a Commie Rat.


12 posted on 12/09/2022 9:18:27 AM PST by RatRipper
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Homosexuals already have all the rights afforded any American citizen by the Constitution.

They don’t want equal rights. They want special privileges.


13 posted on 12/09/2022 9:21:06 AM PST by metmom (...fixing our eyes on Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our faith…)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Renfrew

Bullcrap. The sodomite lifestyle was illegal for most of our nation’s history, right up to little over 2 decades ago.
From 1776 to the 1990s, America wasn’t free?

I am dubious about those who want the sodomites and perverts to be free to spread their filthy lifestyle and even push it to children.


14 posted on 12/09/2022 9:28:30 AM PST by DesertRhino (Dogs are called man's best friend. Moslems hate dogs. Add it up..)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; All
There’s definitely an all or nothing attitude on he Left. There are also “my way or the highway” types on the Right. But the article is making a good point, the genius of the United States is pluralism not fascist dictates.

I argued for years on FR the problem is in the confiscation of the term “marriage” by the State. Everyone with a “marriage license” is in a civil union. As an American, I have no issue with a two men or two women entering into a legal contract with all the rights and responsibilities to one another as in any heterosexual marriage. It’s not a zero sum game. Their marriage wouldn’t change mine and pairing off should have a positive stabilizing effect on society. I argued it’s an opportunity for that community to grow and begin to find stability rather than hedonistic promiscuity and self destructive coping mechanisms of alcoholism, drug addiction and rituals of abuse. It’s still early days.

I don’t believe in compelling speech that betrays someone’s strongly held religious beliefs any more than members of the gay community should be compelled to endorse only heteronormativity. There must be some compromise.

My experience with people tells me transgenderism is a disorder (an extreme self hate often reflecting a pattern of abuse) that should not be rewarded by mutilation of children. I am also consistent as I oppose circumcising infants. Absent medical intervention needed to restore normal function, let men decide when they are older.

I am compelled to use personal pronouns for people at work who have them and indulge their disconnection with reality. No one wants to help these people heal. Health professionals are afraid to go against the heterodoxy of the militant advocacy groups and be seen as uncaring. Homosexuals can’t seek reparative therapy because it’s seen as self-hatred (yet transagenda mutilation isn’t???) and medical professionals won’t touch it.

As long as she’s serving LGBT customers in general, her personal faith and creativity should be left to projects that bare out who she is. A free marketplace will decide if she can make a living or not. Calling for boycott or attempts to intimidate current or future clients is bigoted harassment and should be a civil rights violation and perhaps tortious interference. I am hoping this SCOTUS can find the right balance.

15 posted on 12/09/2022 9:41:59 AM PST by newzjunkey (How does GA end up with 2 Dem senators & 100% GOP statewide officials??? UGH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: newzjunkey

heterodoxy should be orthodoxy*


16 posted on 12/09/2022 9:47:29 AM PST by newzjunkey (How does GA end up with 2 Dem senators & 100% GOP statewide officials??? UGH)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind; All
Thank you for referencing that article SeekAndFind. Please note that the following critique is directed at the article and not at you.

"Religious convictions vs. gay rights: A modest proposal"


FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument

The Christian Post? There is nothing profound about this case imo.

There is no mention of Section 1 protections of 14th Amendment (14A) in the referenced article, correction welcome.

Excerpted from 14A:

Regarding the case as described by the article, what's worse, activist states that try to get away with religious violations of 14A protections. or Christians, and people in general who value their freedom of religious expression, but were possibly never taught the law of the land well enough to protect themselves from violations of 14A by activist state courts?

Patriots are reminded that the drafters of the Bill of Rights (BoR) had decided that the states did not have to respect the rights expressly protected by the BoR. Only the federal government was originally obligated to respect BoR rights.

In other words, if this case had taken place before 14A was ratified, then Ms Smith would not be a happy camper with the state court's honest decision about her failed BoR religious expression protections by state abridgment.

But while some Christian denominations seemingly wash their hands of government authority because it is "evil", 14A in this example, note that Acts 22:23-29 shows that the Holy Spirit led Apostle Paul to claim his Roman citizenship to get out of a flogging.

Also consider that 14A was successfully applied in a relatively recent UC Berkeley, California case to win a judgment against abridgment of free speech, although I wouldn't be surprised if California taxpayers ultimately paid the compensation.

UC Berkeley settles landmark free speech lawsuit, will pay $70,000 to conservative group (12.4.18)

Consider that Justice Reed had put it this way about 10th Amendment-protected state powers versus 14A personal protections.

"Conflicts in the exercise of rights arise and the conflicting forces seek adjustments in the courts, as do these parties, claiming on the one side the freedom of religion, speech and the press, guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment, and on the other the right to employ the sovereign power explicitly reserved to the State by the Tenth Amendment to ensure orderly living without which constitutional guarantees of civil liberties would be a mockery." —Justice Reed, Jones v. City of Opelika, 1942.

17 posted on 12/09/2022 10:19:19 AM PST by Amendment10
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
Religious convictions vs. gay rights: A modest proposal

It's not about religion, it's about fairness. Who was the idiot who proposed that Sodomites were deserving of rights not available to Heteros?

18 posted on 12/09/2022 11:04:10 AM PST by Paal Gulli
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind

Considering they are openly and self righteously ruining children, I’d say there’s no room for compromise. Also see my tagline.


19 posted on 12/09/2022 1:31:13 PM PST by Salman (It's not a slippery slope if it was part of the program all along. )
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: SeekAndFind
I think a more "modest" proposal should go on the lines of something like,


20 posted on 12/09/2022 2:14:40 PM PST by nicollo ("I said no!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-2021 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Religion
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson