Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
General Discussion
In reply to the discussion: Is left wing outrage as unhinged as right wing outrage? [View all]freshwest
(53,661 posts)121. FACTS from the ACLU to be disturbed by... Many very detailed cases at the link:
Using Religion to Discriminate
With increasing frequency, we are seeing individuals and institutions claiming a right to discriminate by refusing to provide services to women and LGBT people based on religious objections. The discrimination takes many forms, including:
While the situations may differ, one thing remains the same: religion is being used as an excuse to discriminate against and harm others.
Instances of institutions and individuals claiming a right to discriminate in the name of religion arent new. In the 1960s, we saw institutions object to laws requiring integration in restaurants because of sincerely held beliefs that God wanted the races to be separate. We saw religiously affiliated universities refuse to admit students who engaged in interracial dating. In those cases, we recognized that requiring integration was not about violating religious liberty; it was about ensuring fairness. It is no different today.*
Religious freedom in America means that we all have a right to our religious beliefs, but this does not give us the right to use our religion to discriminate against and impose those beliefs on others who do not share them.
Through litigation, advocacy and public education, the ACLU works to defend religious liberty and to ensure that no one is either discriminated against nor denied services because of someone elses religious beliefs.
LEARN MORE. Go to the link to see the case that are involved and the principles being violated:
https://www.aclu.org/using-religion-discriminate
And you are neglecting what Ginsburg found disturbing, that the ruling means that corporations do not have to follow US law. This is noot just about those 'wimmenz.'
With increasing frequency, we are seeing individuals and institutions claiming a right to discriminate by refusing to provide services to women and LGBT people based on religious objections. The discrimination takes many forms, including:
* Religiously affiliated schools firing women because they became pregnant while not married;
* Business owners refusing to provide insurance coverage for contraception for their employees;
* Graduate students, training to be social workers, refusing to counsel gay people;
* Pharmacies turning away women seeking to fill birth control prescriptions;
* Bridal salons, photo studios, and reception halls closing their doors to same-sex couples planning their weddings.
While the situations may differ, one thing remains the same: religion is being used as an excuse to discriminate against and harm others.
Instances of institutions and individuals claiming a right to discriminate in the name of religion arent new. In the 1960s, we saw institutions object to laws requiring integration in restaurants because of sincerely held beliefs that God wanted the races to be separate. We saw religiously affiliated universities refuse to admit students who engaged in interracial dating. In those cases, we recognized that requiring integration was not about violating religious liberty; it was about ensuring fairness. It is no different today.*
Religious freedom in America means that we all have a right to our religious beliefs, but this does not give us the right to use our religion to discriminate against and impose those beliefs on others who do not share them.
Through litigation, advocacy and public education, the ACLU works to defend religious liberty and to ensure that no one is either discriminated against nor denied services because of someone elses religious beliefs.
LEARN MORE. Go to the link to see the case that are involved and the principles being violated:
https://www.aclu.org/using-religion-discriminate
And you are neglecting what Ginsburg found disturbing, that the ruling means that corporations do not have to follow US law. This is noot just about those 'wimmenz.'
Edit history
Please sign in to view edit histories.
151 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
RecommendedHighlight replies with 5 or more recommendations
Fred, our reaction is sane and justified. These important cases are harbingers.
Anansi1171
Jul 2014
#1
You misunderstand. Of course, passion, of course. But accuracy is important, false passion based on
Fred Sanders
Jul 2014
#2
If accuracy were important you'd undrstand that why your comments about BC are in error
kcr
Jul 2014
#22
yet there are people on this board who still in the light of all that scotus is will still
leftyohiolib
Jul 2014
#3
It is a 5 to 4 court, with a couple of conservative Justices a bit wobbly on the con side.
Fred Sanders
Jul 2014
#4
and here it is, the person who would cut off their foot to spite theeir leg
leftyohiolib
Jul 2014
#11
Why do you do that? Why launch into a personal attack like that? What do you think you gain?
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2014
#14
well to me the attitude of the poster is beyond mean not only to myself but to
leftyohiolib
Jul 2014
#23
That does not explain anything. You leave the issue aside and attack the poster personally.
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2014
#56
So you'd vote for David Duke, avowed racist, because he 'ran as a Democrat'? Seriously?
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2014
#69
Listen up VR. I'm a second generation Democrat with elected officials in my family history
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2014
#57
It's as if you did not even read what I wrote. Afraid to discuss issues, much like the OP.
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2014
#71
As far as I can tell, you and that mouse in your pocket ONLY stand for wishy washy Democrats.
TheKentuckian
Jul 2014
#70
Not feeling exactly as you do perpetuates the two party system that is strangling democracy.
Fred Sanders
Jul 2014
#21
How is this weird....to we women...NOT voting for the Democratic Primary winner IS exactly
VanillaRhapsody
Jul 2014
#104
What Blue Dogs....most of em got taken out by teabaggers in the last Midterm...
VanillaRhapsody
Jul 2014
#109
My Congressman Kurt Schrader is a blue dog. Loves him some Cat Food Commission aka
neverforget
Jul 2014
#140
Yet they help enable Republicans and their policies and they call themselves Democrats.
neverforget
Jul 2014
#144
But they are not an influential power to the rest of the Democrats so you were off the mark there
VanillaRhapsody
Jul 2014
#147
Lol! 19 is a pretty large number of Democrats that vote with Republicans on economic
neverforget
Jul 2014
#148
principles are a luxury that wont do you any good without the power to hang on to them
leftyohiolib
Jul 2014
#28
It is a quandary, the standing on principals thing, because then what was the black voting for
Fred Sanders
Jul 2014
#36
Nope, you said that sticking to principles would empower the Tea Party. I can't disagree more.
Scuba
Jul 2014
#37
you cant disagree more? people stuck to their principles in 2010 and what did that give us?
leftyohiolib
Jul 2014
#59
To suggest that the Tea Party victories in 2010 were due to the Democratic Party running ....
Scuba
Jul 2014
#63
Do you disagree that these are traditional Democratic Party principles? Do you disagree ...
Scuba
Jul 2014
#91
Abandoning our principles in favor of corporate donations is killing the Democratic Party.
Scuba
Jul 2014
#118
i have been saying this anytime i get the chance SCOTUS is the most important issue
leftyohiolib
Jul 2014
#5
I have been posting and commenting, not here, for 6 years that the whole tea party idiocy based
Fred Sanders
Jul 2014
#6
Lots easier to say "calm down" when one doesn't have a uterus or is a union member.
bullwinkle428
Jul 2014
#9
Fred, your posts always strike me as not just conservative but also religious in nature
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2014
#17
I note that you failed to answer any of three very simple yes or no questions
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2014
#24
And yet you are an internet preacher, using insults and personal invective willy nilly.
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2014
#33
Fred refues to state his positions on the very issues he wants to advise us to remain silent about.
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2014
#46
More hair needs to be lit on fire. The lack of fire on the Dem side is what kills us
Armstead
Jul 2014
#19
Only one thing needs to happen, and Obama repeats it until he must be crying himself to sleep.
Fred Sanders
Jul 2014
#20
I don't disagree with the importance of that , but it is much bigger than that
Armstead
Jul 2014
#25
I do not mean to offend. It turns out that internet chatting has that affect, I just call it like I
Fred Sanders
Jul 2014
#38
Please post a paragrahp describing your personal views on a woman's right to reproductive choice.
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2014
#39
Women's equal right to healthcare coverage is nowhere near as important as men talking about sports!
redqueen
Jul 2014
#45
This poster is advising silence about the SCOTUS decisions so I asked if he is Pro Choice
Bluenorthwest
Jul 2014
#49
That isn't about priorities, it is about ducking and dodging for the purposes of intellectually
TheKentuckian
Jul 2014
#67
I'm waiting with bated breath to hear what issue Fred will allow us wimminfolk to have
Arugula Latte
Jul 2014
#76
so basically , you don't understand the decisions or the ramifications. Why not just say so?
bowens43
Jul 2014
#51
In these cases, yup. But that is par for the course at Du. There is always a contingent that has
quinnox
Jul 2014
#65
Wrong it's only four types- and wrong to make excuses for it- IF you are a Dem. Cannot belive I am
bettyellen
Jul 2014
#80
What's with all these people mistyping words to make a liberal site look stupid?
valerief
Jul 2014
#102
FACTS from the ACLU to be disturbed by... Many very detailed cases at the link:
freshwest
Jul 2014
#121