Indiana's Religious Freedom law
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
I am sure you can find two disabled humans unable to communicate but still able to enjoy sex with one another. Lack of ability to consent via words isn't the determinative factor. What you find highly objectionable is similar to what many practicing religious folks find objectionable too, but you want to be the one to identify what the objectionable criteria is. Anal sex and anal sex betw men is unnatural in most monotheistic or abrahamic faiths. So is sex w a child. So is sex with animals. That criteria is well established in these faiths. Respect for such beliefs is codified in US law and confirmed via the Boy Scouts of America decision of the SCOTUS. |
Anonymous
THIS. I can't wait until someone refuses to serve a white Christian woman because she's not veiled, or she might be menstruating, or otherwise religiously unclean.... let's see how long religious freedom lasts then. I blame Hobby Lobby, |
Anonymous
I think you'll find I didn't specify it had to necessarily be verbal, but clear unambiguous informed consent (which most would agree is unable to be communicated between animal and human, even if the animal had understanding sufficient to grant informed consent) is ABSOLUTELY the only, and essential, determining factor for whether sex is acceptable or not. Any sort of sex with of age consenting person -- fine. Doesn't harm anyone, everyone involved enjoys it, no one else is directly impacted so it's no one else's business. Lack of consent, or insufficient consent due to being too young or lacking the current cognitive/mental state necessary to grant informed consent, -- nope, that sounds like the very definition of rape. The above is the only set of standards that US law should have the right to impose. Other standards based on religion would be to me an unacceptable violation of separation of church and state. People should be free to choose to conform to the requirements of their religion, but we are not a theocracy with a single state religion and nobody who does not believe in a religion should be forced by law to make their personal choices on the basis of the requirements of a religion to which they do not adhere. "That government is best which governs least" and respecting individual freedoms and different choices means that the law should be as non-restrictive as possible while still protecting people's fundamental rights to live without harm and to have the freedom to make their own decisions and choose their own standards for their personal lives (more restrictive if they wish), without their consent being violated. |
Anonymous
You are exactly right. When something like this happens to a white Christian woman, you will see OUTRAGE. Just wait. |
Anonymous
Let's all be clear about what the Boy Scouts ruling from the Supreme Court really says. It's not really a decision about religion, but rather about the First Amendment. It essentially says the First Amendment's guarantee of "freedom of association" (the right to group together with like-minded people, and not join groups with people you disagree with) is important enough to trump state laws prohibiting groups from discriminating. The Boy Scouts claimed (somewhat weakly IMHO) that exclusion of homosexual members was a core tenet of the organization, so the Supreme Court supported the Boy Scouts' freedom of association rights to refuse to admit homosexual members. It's the same freedom of association that allows the Boy Scouts to exclude girls. I've never researched this, but I suppose this same logic would allow the KKK to exclude black people from membership, or maybe to permit the "He-Man Woman Haters Club" to exclude women (even though they let Darla join!). So when you point to the Boy Scouts ruling to claim the Supreme Court confirmed the right to discriminate against homosexual citizens, or to claim the Supreme Court upheld the importance of religious beliefs, you're misinformed. An interesting side note - In 2014, the Boy Scouts voted to change their policies and admit openly homosexual youth. It sounds like there is also a lot of support for permitting gay scout leaders, but that proposal did not get a majority vote yet. Nevertheless, I suspect the Supreme Court might rule differently if faced with another gay scout leader case today, because the Boy Scouts can no longer claim excluding gays is a core belief of the organization. |
Anonymous
| The supreme court may not undo their decisions if the law does not change. |
Anonymous
That's simply not true. The Supreme Court has reversed itself many times. The most famous might be Brown v Board of education, which reversed the Court's prior separate-but-equal ruling. http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/GPO-CONAN-2002/pdf/GPO-CONAN-2002-12.pdf http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_U.S._Supreme_Court_decisions http://money.howstuffworks.com/10-overturned-supreme-court-cases.htm |
Anonymous
And to be clear, if another Boy Scouts case arrived at the Supreme Court, and the Court ruled differently, it probably wouldn't even be reversing itself because the case would involve different facts (since the Boy Scouts have changed their position on gay members). |
Anonymous
YES, You are correct. BSA was permitted to reject Dale, a homosexual scout leader, based on the US' Freedom of Association laws. However, this law permits associations to discriminate homosexuals if it is in the furtherance of the group's expression of social, religious, or cultural values. Here, religion was clearly the foundation for WHY they did not want homosexuals in their association, based on their mission statement and scout law: "To do my duty to God and my country "and to obey the Scout Law; "To keep myself physically strong, "mentally awake, and morally straight.[b] BSA was asked by the Supreme Court what it meant by "morally straight" and they clearly said for their group it meant NOT being homosexual. BSA was founded on Christian principles. Because it's an association, the decision to reject Dale was upheld on freedom of association principles. If they were a religious entity, it would have been upheld on freedom of religion. As for why the BSA is admitting homosexual youth now - it's because of pressure from WITHIN, not from the Supreme Court or from US laws, which is relatively meaningless to my point. My point is that the US law upholds the right of religious entities and associations to reject homosexuals. That just the way it is. |
Anonymous
In the Plessey case, the court said segregation was permissible SO LONG AS THE SEGREGATED SCHOOLS WERE EQUAL. In the Brown case, it was determined that segregated schools were actually NOT equal, thus requiring a reversal of decision. That's a reversal based on mistaken information. That kind of reversal of decision is not likely to happen in the BSA case. Totally different situation. |
Anonymous
Let there be a thousand new gay member cases, the freedom of association and the freedom of religion will never permit the admission of homosexuals to associations or religious entities if it impinges on the associations right of expression and if it impinges on the faith of the religious entities. There are many such groups and homosexuality goes completely against their principles. The law defends their right to reject homosexuals. It's not the purpose of government to determine if it's a fair, just, or right view. The law has to permit groups to associate and practice religion even if the views espoused by these groups are in the minority or unpopular. |
Anonymous
| I don't think you understand what the Constitution actually says. You seem only to understand what you'd like it to say. |
Anonymous
| Explain what YOU think it says then and how my interpretation is different. |
Anonymous
This. I once tried to go to a gay restaurant with friends and they were so bitchy, we walked out. It was an absolute case of reverse discrimination. Gays are actually elitist in my experience and they don't believe they have to be courteous to straight people in their restaurants. You don't here about that in the media. |
Anonymous
All you Christians know that you need to give up all your iPhones, iPods, iPads and Macs, right? RIGHT? |