"Your religion does not prohibit me from anything. It prohibits you."

[kpete]

[MiHale]

1. Not fair I can only like this once...

It deserves at least 3 million.

[Progressive Lawyer]

38. If religion prohibits the practitioner, wouldn't that mean a certain "Christian" baker...

...is prohibited from baking a cake for a certain couple?

[MiHale]

40. Thought food...

It is not well written but the intent comes through.

[Marcuse]

46. No, it means the practitioner is prohibited from marrying the same sex. The cake is irrelevant.

[Progressive Lawyer]

48. So if someone interprets, rightly or wrongly, their religion prohibits servicing certain people...

...that certain religion is still not prohibiting the practitioner?

[stopdiggin]

50. you are of course correct

but you are going to encounter a blind wall here. Don't try to do logic ...

[Marcuse]

51. My judgmental opinion is no, it does not.

[icymist]

55. Do you mean the hypothetical, imaginary client who would never ask a bigot in the first place?

Just so that bigot could get the issue in front of a stacked court in order to ban all the people they hate?

[Celerity]

64. The prohibition is strictly on a personal basis, for actions that only impact

the religious person on a discreet, personal basis.

The act of refusing service due to another person's inherent characteristics (race, sexual orientation, etc) is not covered via the personal self-prohibition the religious person claims they have due to the self-percieved diktats of their particular religion (diktats that are very much open to challenge, as other memebers of the same religion often disagree over them).

Their actions have crossed the boundary from the personal into the public/interpersonal sphere.

[mike_c]

53. I'm comfortable with that

And said couple is equally able to boycott said baker to do business with someone else. I've always thought that small, owner operated businesses should be free to turn away any commerce they don't want. Invester owned businesses are different in the sense that the business operator has a larger responsibility to the shareholders and would need objective evidence that turning away customers doesn't violate their fiduciary responsibilities.

Of course, business owners can frame rejections way better than "because I hate you." "I'm sorry, I'm just full up until after the wedding, but you should try Smith's Event Catering on Third Street. Let me see if I have their phone number." Or an online business if there aren't any local alternatives. The real problem is the hate. You can reject customers for legitimate business reasons without making it personal.

[Pacifist Patriot]

54. No. And here's how I get to that.

If you believe your religion forbids sexual relations with someone of the same sex, that prohibits you from engaging in homosexual acts. Baking a cake for someone who engages in an act you find sinful or proscribed does not in any way equate to having engaged in the prohibited act yourself.

Of course that doesn't stop the religiously indoctrinated from believing they should take it several steps further and shun those they think are violating this religious law, i.e. the bigotry and refusal of service because of a misguided notion that doing your damn job "promotes the sin."

But this is ridiculous because according to Christianity, everyone is a sinner. So baking a cake for literally anyone would "promote the sin." The baker just doesn't know which sins they are promoting for any given customer. Should they refuse to bake cakes for people who tell lies? Where does it end?

For me, it all goes back to "get a life," stop fixating on what your neighbor is doing, focus on yourself, and be a kind person. Someone who can't do that is simply not a good person to me regardless of whether they are religious or not.

This is why people who refuse to serve LGBTQ+ people or fill prescriptions for women can eff right on off. They are being utterly hypocritical. Let those without sin cast the first stone.

[Lemonwurst]

57. Such a good point

“Would they refuse to bake a cake for a liar?” Of course not - I cam imagine one particular liar they’d be thrilled to bake a cake for.

So yes, it’s really the hypocrisy snd hatred. And if they didn’t fixate on that, maybe they could Get A Life like the rest of us normal people.

[stopdiggin]

2. would that were true

Or was ever true.

[Bernardo de La Paz]

23. It is true in America. That A1 is so frequently broken doesn't make it false, just broken. . . .nt

[stopdiggin]

41. repeating - would be nice if it was true

And - I think the fact that our courts (primarily, but also other branches) have - both currently and historically, interpreted the 'separation' inherent in that amendment - almost invariably as 'flexible and negotiable' - points to exactly that unavoidable reality.

We have never treated the 1st Amendment as saying and embracing what many of of us wish it did.

[malaise]

3. That simple

Rec

[MayReasonRule]

4. Hear, hear!!!

May reason rule where delusion dwells!

[GreenWave]

5. Down goes Frazuh!

[Takket]

6. freedom of religion also implies freedom FROM religion

[Wounded Bear]

10. Without freedom from religion, there is no freedom of religion...nt

[paleotn]

11. The problem is, many forms of Christianity don't play freedom of religion.

It's their way or the highway.

[SouthernDem4ever]

13. Kind of like Islamic states

I don't see the difference in thinking.

[paleotn]

18. There isn't much difference.

Seems to be a monotheism thing. Polytheists generally didn't make a thing out of making everyone worship their particular god. Except maybe that burn incense to Caesar thing (Decian edict), but that was political not religious.

[SouthernDem4ever]

21. And if you look at all the religions that have popped up in the last 200 years

They all exist on a diet of fascism within the organizations and mind control tactics demanding exclusivity over their flocks. Catholics always have been the same but after centuries of nothing coming to fruition people became numb to the threats.

[Takket]

15. That's why SCOTUS is supposed to "have our back" on that issue

instead they are forcing religious views on others, under the limit view of artistic creation at this point... but I worry just how "open" Pandora's box is

[Lonestarblue]

27. Pandora's box is wide open.

This court has made it clear that white evangelical religious beliefs will win out over the prohibition against establishing a religion. Even without this court’s latest rulings, we were already kowtowing to one religion—the Christian religion in many ways. Here’s a quick list, though I’m sure I’m forgetting some.

—nonprofit Catholic hospitals that get both tax breaks and federal healthcare dollars but are allowed to refuse some medical treatment based on religious beliefs
—no taxes for churches, even when they are clearly using their money for political purposes
—corporations allowed to violate anti-discrimination laws by claiming personal religious beliefs when a corporation is not a sentient being and is nothing more than a legal construct
—taxpayers forced to use public monies for nonprofit Christian schools that violate federal anti-discrimination laws and teach content that is not in the public interest
—state legislatures allowed to use personal evangelical religious beliefs to decide women’s reproductive healthcare, including life and death decisions being made by legislators
—business owners authorized to violate federal and state anti-discrimination laws based of religious beliefs that have nothing to do with operating a public business

Feel free to add more!

[Emrys]

7. That's the line I've heard from the most truly devout. n/t

[paleotn]

8. Except for the fact that they're mandated to make the world evilgelical.

Cramming their bullshit down everyone's throats by force if necessary.

Matthew 28 verses 19 and 20

Go therefore and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, to the close of the age.

In the last 2K years, their Great Commission has caused more death and destruction than nearly anything else. They've even fought amongst themselves in incredibly destructive wars over what kind of "make disciples of all nations" is the right kind.

[spike jones]

14. When Jesus told his followers to spread his words throughout the lands,

do you think he knew that when that was done in in “New World” the disease spread would cause the death of millions of people? Is he sitting in the basement of his father’s mansion saying, “My Bad. My Bad?’

[paleotn]

20. So much for being omniscient.

[not fooled]

30. Cato approves

of your signature line.

[pandr32]

31. A historical 'Jesus' never told followers that.

After the death of 'Jesus' and then his brother James, the destruction of the Temple in Jerusalem the deaths and enslavement of Jewish people not favorable to Rome, the destruction and looting of the texts and treasures during the Roman conquest of Jerusalem and surrounding territory, the early gospels were written in Greek with a distinct pro-Roman flavor. Paul (Saul of Tarsus) was a Roman citizen and a friend of Romans of influence and power. He was at odds with James and who we consider the first Christians (who were Jewish and against Rome).

The Matthew verses were not written until the fourth century. Pagan influences increased while Christianity spread through the Roman Empire. "When Jesus told his followers to spread his words throughout the lands..." it was a mythical Jesus who was designed to unite the Roman Empire under a religion that incorporated many Pagan ones and keep favorable holidays and customs already popular.

[MayReasonRule]

37. Well Said Pandr32!

I adore mythology, it reveals and informs.

I abhor religion, it obscures and deceives.

Here's to reason's revelations!!!

Happy Sunday!

[pandr32]

42. Thank you and a happy Sunday to you as well!

[Silver Gaia]

52. YES. Thank you very much for this post.

My major was religious studies (meaning ALL religions), both as an undergraduate and in grad school, and I agree with you wholeheartedly. That passage was heavily influenced by Paul in the interests of Rome. It did not originate with any Jesus, whether historical or mythical, nor any true early Christian. And yes, you are correct about the timeline, too. Thank you for your post.

[pandr32]

56. You are most welcome.

[mnhtnbb]

16. Written by the patriarchy to ensure

the masses would be devoted to the patriarchy forever.

[ShazzieB]

26. "They" who?

The op doesn't mention any "they."

It's quite true that some members of some religions are hellbent (so to speak) in trying to make our society follow their rules regardless of our own personal values and beliefs, but an unqualified "they" is waaaaay too broad.

Seriously, it's quite unfair and just plain inaccurate to talk about any religion as a monolith whose adherents all believe in the same exact things and have the same exact goals. I really wish people would realize that.

[anciano]

9. "Religion is just mind control." -- George Carlin

[2naSalit]

17. +1

[Hugin]

12. Right on!

What part of this simple concept do they not get? It’s pretty straight forward.

[markie]

19. religion

created to control the masses.... the dictate has been to "spread the word" it is an illness

[BlueWaveNeverEnd]

22. oh wow.. i want this on a sticker

[Martin68]

24. I believe the issue is whether religion gives someone the right to refuse to serve you as a customer

because your beliefs differ from theirs.

[The Magistrate]

36. It Does Not, Sir, Not Justly

When someone says they are required by their religion to be a bigot, this hardly means they are not bigots: justification by religious inspiration washes nothing clean.

If someone takes employment at a job which at times requires they do things that go against their religion, they can get a new job or a new religion. People may have a right to a job, this is quite different from a right to be hired for this particular job....

[Martin68]

44. You seem have read a great deal in my post that was not there. You completely mischaracterized both

my post and the subject of the meme above.

[The Magistrate]

59. Not Arguing With You, Sir

"Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right."

[stopdiggin]

43. that is one (fairly tiny) corner of the culture wars

but the 'wars' are being fought on fairly broad fronts.

(As in - does your religious beliefs give you the right to pass laws in the state legislature - to prohibit me receiving medical treatment that I require? Among others .. )

[Martin68]

45. I agree it is but one corner of a larger debate. I don't think religion should be used as an excuse

to discriminate against anyone for an reason, ever. However, I was responding to the narrow interpretation of the meme that was posted here.

[stopdiggin]

49. and I didn't see that in the OP posting

at all. So - differing perspectives and starting points. Overlapping in agreement. Peace.

----- -----

[The Jungle 1]

25. So true

Problem is the radical religious right does not accept that they can't control us.

[republianmushroom]

28. Totally agree

[Layzeebeaver]

29. Hey you! It's my religion not yours...

I reserve the right to believe, speak, write and pontificate my religion to everyone everywhere. It’s my right. And it’s also my right to make you listen to me. And to make you believe me. And to make you fear me and my religion because of things. And most importantly, if you don’t join me, then you will be doomed to an existence that doesn’t deserve my religions rewards. So there…

[Sessuch]

32. See: Freedom Caucus

Republicanism is a religion. The questions in their catechism of rights and wrongs give us the cultural wars.

[keithbvadu2]

33. Freedom of religion... For some more than others.

Freedom of religion... For some more than others.

[keithbvadu2]

34. The point is rule by God's chosen.

The point is rule by God's chosen.

What will they say/do when it is not their version of Christianity in charge?

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/americas-true-history-of-religious-tolerance-61312684/?no-ist= ;

Madison also made a point that any believer of any religion should understand: that the government sanction of a religion was, in essence, a threat to religion. "Who does not see," he wrote, "that the same authority which can establish Christianity, in exclusion of all other Religions, may establish with the same ease any particular sect of Christians, in exclusion of all other Sects?" Madison was writing from his memory of Baptist ministers being arrested in his native Virginia.

[dembotoz]

35. growing up my school lunch NEVER had meat on friday

the catholic church won that battle decades before

and i understand the dietary desires of the many
blah blah blah

and it wasn't always fish.....
but the rule was followed like the 10 commandments

[3catwoman3]

58. Fish sticks alternating every other week with...

…cheese pizza.

[Major Nikon]

63. Blue laws still persist to this day

I can’t buy liquor or a new vehicle in Texas on Sunday. The only possible explanations are either the zealots were trying to force their hocus pocus beliefs on everyone, or they thought their own followers couldn’t manage to follow their superstitious rules without the force of law.

[Trust_Reality]

39. When they yell for "freedom", they seem a bit confused about freedom from whom or what.

In the realm of politics, they are thoughtless followers of the manipulators.

In the realm of religion it is all about fear. The challenge of someone who thinks different from their religious orthodoxy is someone to hate - because fear is very scary. Challenged orthodoxy with the assumption (belief) in eternal consequences is terrifying.

It sure would be nice if they just mind their own business.

[LiberalLovinLug]

47. I think deep down many are envious of those that reject the strict code of conduct

that comes with adherence to one of the fundamentalist religions.

So they either "sin" anyways, behind closed doors.

Or they internalize the frustration and lash out even stronger

[lindysalsagal]

60. if gawd is real, why does he require governments to force adherance?

Also, why does everyone "know" what gawd wants, and why do those people are argue with each other?

Oh, right. Because religion is sanctified political power.

[Effete Snob]

62. I've never met a religious person...

...whose opinions were different than their gods'.

[lindysalsagal]

65. True, that.

[DallasNE]

61. It Seems Like The Arguments Take The Eye Off The Ball

In the latest case involving the web designer (ignore that it was based on a hypothetical) it pits the 1st Amendment against the 14th Amendment and ends up siding with the 1st Amendment. (My thinking is that the latter of the 2 Amendments should prevail because it would negate any discrepancy between the Amendments). The cake designer was an earlier decision and it was identically decided, so why was this web designer case even taken up - but I stray.

But let's go back to an earlier period and see how this decision conflicts with earlier decisions. Here I am talking about the cases where Woolworth's lunch counters refused to serve black people in the South. These recent cases appear to nullify the logic in those cases because all of these cases involve refusing to serve a class of people. If gay people can be refused service, what stops the haters from refusing service to other classes of people, such as black, Muslim, or Jewish people? Where does the Court draw the line?

These inconsistent decisions by the Court are the prime example of how far down the rabbit hole the Roberts Court has plunged. And the only way back out of the rabbit hole is to reverse direction. I see no chance of this happening with this Court.

[ChazII]

66. Thank you for this comment. n/t