Republican Congress Strips Women and Gays of Rights Under Guise of ‘Religious Freedom’

a reply to: kaylaluv

When is it okay to infringe on the rights of a religious person?

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: kaylaluv

When is it okay to infringe on the rights of a religious person?

I believe I just gave a couple of examples. When they are infringing on the rights of someone else. Equal treatment in a public accommodation is a civil right. It is a civil right for blacks, it is a civil right for a religious person, it is a civil right no matter what your national origin is. And in some states (hopefully soon to be all states), it is a civil right for a gay person.

a reply to: kaylaluv

So you think that individual rights can be infringed upon.

Um, okay.

Thanks for answering the question.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: kaylaluv

So you think that individual rights can be infringed upon.

Um, okay.

Thanks for answering the question.

Do you think we should make exceptions for murder when someone says it was their religious belief that compelled them to do it? Should their individual right to practice their religion be infringed on in that case? Answer honestly.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: kaylaluv

So you think that individual rights can be infringed upon.

Um, okay.

Thanks for answering the question.

Do you think we should make exceptions for murder when someone says it was their religious belief that compelled them to do it? Should their individual right to practice their religion be infringed on in that case? Answer honestly.

Ok are gays wanting contraception also?? Or the right for employers to pay for sex change operation s?? And we wonder why people might block this bill. It is not your employers job to make sure you don't get pregnant or a gender change. It is there job to cover a pregnancy however because that directly effects the employees health.

By the way on a more serious note gays are already protected against employer firing thwm for being gay. That is against federal law so the only thing this DC law did was say the employer must pay for their employees sex life ad well as health. What amazes me is people are like yeah how dare they.

Why on earth is it an employers job to pay for you to have sex?? Or for that matter prevent you from getting pregnant seems to me thats a personal decision. God just get them to include oh I don't know vision as standard instead of extra now there is a law I can buy my own condoms.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: kaylaluv

So you think that individual rights can be infringed upon.

Um, okay.

Thanks for answering the question.

Do you think we should make exceptions for murder when someone says it was their religious belief that compelled them to do it? Should their individual right to practice their religion be infringed on in that case? Answer honestly.

No. I think that anyone who has a religion that includes murder, should not have the right to practice their religion.

So you equate a reluctance to accept gay marriage as legitamate by some Christians to murder?

a reply to: beezzer

So you agree that sometimes it is necessary to infringe on an individual's right to practice their religion.

Thanks.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: beezzer

So you agree that sometimes it is necessary to infringe on an individual's right to practice their religion.

Thanks.

In the case of murder, yes.

You equate a religious tenet to an opposition to gay marriage to murder. Correct?

a reply to: beezzer

I don't differentiate between civil rights and human rights. Rights are rights. The laws as they have been interpreted are clear - the right to practice religion exists until it infringes on an existing right. Equal treatment under the law is an existing civil right. One can believe what they want, they can worship which ever god they want, go to which ever church they want, pray however they want, and live their own life according to their principles (don't drink, don't have premarital sex, don't divorce, don't dance, don't have homosexual sex, etc.) as long as they don't infringe on someone else's human or civil rights. Equal treatment in a public accommodation is an existing right.

originally posted by: kaylaluv
a reply to: beezzer

So you agree that sometimes it is necessary to infringe on an individual's right to practice their religion.

Thanks.

So now gays are being murdered wow this law covered alot didn't it by chance did you read it?? Even the op got it wrong PS doesn't say you can't fire gays either by the way. In fact doesn't say anything about them it's a reproductive health law I figure you peobably didn't get that.

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: kaylaluv

When is it okay to infringe on the rights of a religious person?

It is never OK to infringe on someone's rights, but the trick is knowing where one person's rights end and another person's rights begin.

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: kaylaluv

When is it okay to infringe on the rights of a religious person?

It is never OK to infringe on someone's rights, but the trick is knowing where one person's rights end and another person's rights begin.

That is an excellent answer.

And that is the question we should all be asking ourselves. Not simply justifying an infringement.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: kaylaluv

When is it okay to infringe on the rights of a religious person?

It is never OK to infringe on someone's rights, but the trick is knowing where one person's rights end and another person's rights begin.

That is an excellent answer.

And that is the question we should all be asking ourselves. Not simply justifying an infringement.

We can play around with the semantics. Take the word infringement out of it. A religious person's rights end where a citizen's right to equal treatment begins.

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: kaylaluv

When is it okay to infringe on the rights of a religious person?

It is never OK to infringe on someone's rights, but the trick is knowing where one person's rights end and another person's rights begin.

That is an excellent answer.

And that is the question we should all be asking ourselves. Not simply justifying an infringement.

We can play around with the semantics. Take the word infringement out of it. A religious person's rights end where a citizen's right to equal treatment begins.

A citizens rights ends when a persons religious freedoms begin. . . .

originally posted by: beezzer

A citizens rights ends when a persons religious freedoms begin. . . .

Um that's illogical, as the religious is a subset of citizens. Therefor what you're saying is implying that the religious are a higher cast than the rest of the citizenry. Are you honestly claiming the religious should be a higher class than all other citizens?

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: kaylaluv

When is it okay to infringe on the rights of a religious person?

It is never OK to infringe on someone's rights, but the trick is knowing where one person's rights end and another person's rights begin.

That is an excellent answer.

And that is the question we should all be asking ourselves. Not simply justifying an infringement.

We can play around with the semantics. Take the word infringement out of it. A religious person's rights end where a citizen's right to equal treatment begins.

A citizens rights ends when a persons religious freedoms begin. . . .

This statement would lead to MUCH intolerance if it were actually true.

originally posted by: Puppylove

originally posted by: beezzer

A citizens rights ends when a persons religious freedoms begin. . . .

Um that's illogical, as the religious is a subset of citizens. Therefor what you're saying is implying that the religious are a higher cast than the rest of the citizenry. Are you honestly claiming the religious should be a higher class than all other citizens?

Not at all, just reversing what another poster wrote.

Oh. Waitaminute!

Are you saying that LGBT folks should be a higher class than all other citizens?

a reply to: beezzer

Nope, but the fact is the issues with LGBT has nothing to do with them actually being LGBT but with them as citizens being denied the same services of every other citizen because they are LGBT. It's not their rights as LGBT that's really being protected so much as their rights as a citizen to enjoy all the same rights and treatments as all other citizens. The only reason the LGBT aspect comes up is because the religious are attempting to use their status as LGBT to deny them the same rights and privileges as every other citizen who are not LGBT. The same rights the religious already enjoy.

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: kaylaluv

originally posted by: beezzer

originally posted by: Grimpachi

originally posted by: beezzer
a reply to: kaylaluv

When is it okay to infringe on the rights of a religious person?

It is never OK to infringe on someone's rights, but the trick is knowing where one person's rights end and another person's rights begin.

That is an excellent answer.

And that is the question we should all be asking ourselves. Not simply justifying an infringement.

We can play around with the semantics. Take the word infringement out of it. A religious person's rights end where a citizen's right to equal treatment begins.

A citizens rights ends when a persons religious freedoms begin. . . .

ALL the rights of citizens?

a reply to: beezzer

Also it can't really be reversed for the reasons I said. Reversing it is saying that a subset of a groups rights are more important than the group in whole. If you honestly think that those with a religion deserve more rights than every other citizen than you are a very scarey person.