Religious Liberty?

originally posted by: Benevolent Heretic

Gay people have morals, ethics, and religious beliefs.

What religious beliefs? Every time I mention any religious idea here on ATS the gays and lesbians attack it. They attack poor Kim Davis, for her religious beliefs. Is there a separate "gay religion"? I never heard of it. But, it would be interesting to find out what the gay religious beliefs are. Is there a book I could read that would enlighten me?

They are no more likely to defraud the system than anyone else. This shows your prejudice and bigotry towards them.

That just shows you are unable to read what I say. The gays and lesbians have destroyed the concept of marriage.

Anyone can get married today. You don't have to be gay.

Two "monks" can get married.

Any two men, regardless of their sexual orientation, or religion, or morals, or ethics, can get married.

Two heterosexual men can get married. There's no "test" for gayness.

Two immoral heterosexual men can engage in a sham marriage for profit. No gays or lesbians involved !

That was my point. But, you seem to think only gays and lesbians exist.

There are other people in the world, who will jump at the chance to profit from the opportunity that gays and lesbians have opened up for them. And since there's no standard for homosexual marriage, there's no way to "separate" out the other folks.

now all someone has to do to come into our country is to travel to mexico or canada and walk across the border, get themselves some new identities and low and behold...they are here!! no fake marriage necessary at all, no hassles at all...

They don't want any standards that might then be used to deny them that married license. They want to be "free", all rights and no obligations. But, in doing so, they have destroyed the concept of marriage. It no longer means anything, but a piece of paper from a county clerk. So, anybody can be married, even two "monks" that abstain from sex. This has a tremendous impact on the society that I live in

seems to me, that if they wanted to be free they wouldn't want to get married. once they are married they are under the same obligations as any heterosexual marriage and they can't walk away from that marriage any easier than any heterosexual couple could, divorce might even be more difficult for them since well, it's a new territory without set guidelines yet. As far as those great "benefits" that the gov't bestows upon married couples, well, I still say most of them were put into place because traditionally, women were expected to stay in their place and out of the workforce!
Thus why that great tax benefit you seem to want to preserve for just heterosexuals becomes a penalty for many women who really would rather work than sit home and let the husband work double shifts all his life to support the family!

originally posted by: dawnstar
now all someone has to do to come into our country is to travel to mexico or canada and walk across the border, get themselves some new identities and low and behold...they are here!! no fake marriage necessary at all, no hassles at all...

Yes. But when they come in via marriage, they immediately get all the legal rights of residents. They don't have to hide. They have it easy.

seems to me, that if they wanted to be free they wouldn't want to get married. once they are married they are under the same obligations as any heterosexual marriage

I've heard this argument made many times from the lesbian camp, but never from the gay camp. Many lesbians do feel that marriage is a tyrannical institution invented by men to keep them subservient to the dominant male. It was almost a way of making a "sex slave", ready at all times to satisfy the male sexual appetite. Now that they are "free" from male domination, they don't want anything to do with that oppressive institution. They enjoy their lesbian relations where "mutual desire" governs the relationship, and not some silly oppressive contract that says what they must do, and when they must do it. They don't want to "go back" to the times when the social environment was governed by the institution of marriage, nor the expectations that society puts on people to get married, to be accepted as a couple.

But, the lesbians are obviously divided on this issue of marriage.

From the gay perspective, it seems that marriage is considered a desirable thing. Not sure why that is, or if the lesbians are right, that men like the idea of being dominant, and the institution of marriage "resonates" with their psychological type more so than with women.

The gay men don't say why they want marriage, other than the "benefits".

a reply to: AMPTAH

Can we get one thing straight (no pun intended) No one attacked Kim Davis because of her Beliefs, people started speaking out when she used her Religion and Government Job as a shield to promote her Discriminatory beliefs. people started speaking out when she decided to violate the Constitution and try and hide behind the same constitution to "Protect her"

originally posted by: Darth_Prime
a reply to: AMPTAH

Can we get one thing straight (no pun intended) No one attacked Kim Davis because of her Beliefs, people started speaking out when she used her Religion and Government Job as a shield to promote her Discriminatory beliefs. people started speaking out when she decided to violate the Constitution and try and hide behind the same constitution to "Protect her"

Agreed. She has protection of her religious beliefs under the constitution, but she doesn't have the right to force them upon others. When she realized that her job description would go against her conscience, then she should have resigned her position. She has no right to force her views upon others.

There are plenty of people who would see nothing wrong with taking her job.

originally posted by: JackReyes
She has no right to force her views upon others.

But, of course, gays and lesbians have the right to force their views on her.

a reply to: AMPTAH

No, but they do have the right to compel her to follow the law.

That trumps all other considerations.

a reply to: IShotMyLastMuse

Honestly, I think people that dont do their jobs should be fired. If its your job to dish out marriage licenses, then do it. If you think its wrong then find a new job. Simple really

originally posted by: TrueBrit
a reply to: AMPTAH

No, but they do have the right to compel her to follow the law.

That trumps all other considerations.

But she is already following the law. She is following two laws, the Constitution that guarantees her freedom of religion, and God's law which says not to approve of homosexual behavior. Why doesn't she have the right to follow those laws, which she believes in and understands. The poor woman is confused about what law is more important. That's why Pope Francis called her in to tell her to "stay strong".

Just kind of hijacking a dead thread here. I'm still discussing "Religious Liberty" here which is what the title is, so well, why not. Maybe if others are interested in discussing this, they will start a thread about it.

Just how much "religious liberty" is too much? Should it really extend to the point where it is endangering women's lives, causing them needless suffering and pain? Should there be a limit on the religious institutions growth to prevent monopolies from forming, since they don't seem to want to fullfill the needs of everyone?

One in nine hospital beds in this country now sits in a catholic affiliated hospital, with the ten largest catholic sponsored hospitals and clinics, if combined, would be the largest health care provider in the country today.

These hospitals aren't obligated to provide information as far as their policies when it comes to women's reproductive health and in some cases, the only alternative hospital could be over 160 miles away.

These hospitals might refuse you tubal litigations after your c-section and thus force you to undergo another hospital stay and surgery at a later date.

When it comes to birthing care in particular, the influence of religious doctrines is especially evident when patients request procedures like tubal ligation, which in many cases is the standard of care following labor and delivery. “It makes no sense to tell a woman who is pregnant and wants to have a tubal ligation upon delivery of the child that she has to wait and do that later at another time because the hospital won’t allow it,” said Uttley. “It makes great medical sense to do it at the same time because the woman is already in the hospital, you are paying for the delivery, and in many cases if it is a c-section it makes great sense to do a tubal ligation while the woman is already under anesthesia. It is not good quality to send her away and force her to go back either into the hospital or the doctor’s office and to have a tubal ligation.”

rhrealitycheck.org...

And, they seem to feel quite comfortable sending you away if your pregnancy begins to endanger your life.

Such restrictions on care have yet to be successfully challenged in the courts. In 2010, a then-18 weeks pregnant Tamesha Means showed up at Mercy Health Partners in Muskegon, Michigan, in the middle of having a miscarriage. Her water had broken and she was experiencing severe cramping. Mercy Health, a Catholic-sponsored facility, told Means there was nothing it could do for her, because treatment would have terminated the pregnancy, and sent her home. Means came back the next day, this time in more pain and bleeding, and was again told the course of action was to wait and see.

As detailed in court documents, Means, a mother of three, returned to Mercy Health a third time, this time suffering from a significant infection from her untreated miscarriage. In response, the hospital gave Means some aspirin to treat her fever and prepared to send her home. Before the hospital discharged Means for a third time, she started to deliver. It wasn’t until then that the hospital decided to admit Means and to treat her condition. Means eventually delivered a baby who died within hours of birth.

(same source as above)

The doctors are even complaining about this. And well with all the griping about the half a billion dollars or whatever planned parenthood gets from the government, mostly in the form of medicaid payments and all this talk about how there's so many other options open to women.... I have to ask, do we really need to be paying out this kind of money for such crappy care???

From a government perspective, investing in high-quality, cost-effective care is especially fiscally relevant because at this point, medical services at Catholic facilities are heavily subsidized by taxpayers. In 2011, Catholic-sponsored or -affiliated hospitals billed the federal government approximately $115 billion related to patient care and reported receiving $27.1 billion in net government revenues in 2011, principally from Medicaid.

(same source)

so, well we shell out billions to groups that won't refer the best treatment options to women who are having problematic pregnancies, or perform a tubal even when their desire for it is based on the medical facts, nor will they offer birth control as a viable option. But we will strip the half a billion that planned parenthood gets from the gov't for to provide these family planning services.

So, should a large group of hospitals and clinics, so large that 1 in 9 beds are found within them have the religious liberty of refusing treatment that endangers the women who have no other alternative but to go to them for their care?

a reply to: AMPTAH

But she is already following the law. She is following two laws, the Constitution that guarantees her freedom of religion, and God's law which says not to approve of homosexual behavior.

Yep. So who is denying her right? The only right being denied is those gay couples from HER.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: AMPTAH

But she is already following the law. She is following two laws, the Constitution that guarantees her freedom of religion, and God's law which says not to approve of homosexual behavior.

Yep. So who is denying her right? The only right being denied is those gay couples from HER.

I think the judge tried to deny her rights, by throwing her in jail. Hence, the 'stay strong' comment from the Pope.

a reply to: AMPTAH

I think the judge tried to deny her rights, by throwing her in jail.

No she was in contempt of court. That's why she was "thrown in jail".

Hence, the 'stay strong' comment from the Pope.

Why bring in the Pope? Are you a Catholic?

originally posted by: dawnstar
Just kind of hijacking a dead thread here. I'm still discussing "Religious Liberty" here which is what the title is, so well, why not. Maybe if others are interested in discussing this, they will start a thread about it.

There is no more religious liberty. I'm not sure there ever was. The US constitution was based on Christian doctrines, so Christians generally felt free in America. When you hear talk of religious liberty, it really meant Catholics, Protestants, Evangelicals, Lutherans, Quakers, and all denominations related to the Christian faith, were generally free to propagate their particular view of the doctrines. Since the Jews formed the foundation of Christianity, Judaism was welcome too. Since Islam accepts Jesus, they too found a place in America. The Buddhists were kinda on the side, they never bother anybody, so they fit in just fine. The other religions had so few followers, that whatever they taught, never got in the way of the majority. So, they fit in by simply being too small to matter.

The big movement against religious liberty really began with the gay movement. Since gays practice a form of sexuality that is contrary to the doctrines of the Christian faith, and there are many gays in positions with a "voice", politicians, reporters, etc..the attack on the Christian faith began.

If you notice, there are no gay attacks on Islam, Judaism, Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.. because these doctrines aren't at the foundations of the US Constitution. So, it's the Christian faith that is the target, because it's the Christian faith that holds the keys to the founding principles of the Constitution. By altering and misinterpreting the constitution, the gays get their leverage.

Notice, nobody in Islam is holding meetings to discuss how to accept gays into their fold. The Christian Church is doing this. The Christian church is making gay priests. There are no Jewish gay rabbis', no gay Buddhists.

The attack is all on Christianity, because to attack Christians is to attack the Constitution, and to bend the Constitution, is to get rights.

a reply to: AMPTAH

The big movement against religious liberty really began with the gay movement.

LOL. Isn't that the way around? For centuries the the movement was from the religious people AGAINST those who do not follow.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien
a reply to: AMPTAH

The big movement against religious liberty really began with the gay movement.

LOL. Isn't that the way around? For centuries the the movement was from the religious people AGAINST those who do not follow.

I thought it was when our forefathers wisely understood the need for Separation of Church and State.

a reply to: Annee

I thought it was when our forefathers wisely understood the need for Separation of Church and State.

Apparently some of our esteemed ATS members failed to understand.

originally posted by: Deaf Alien

"Hence, the 'stay strong' comment from the Pope."

Why bring in the Pope? Are you a Catholic?

I bring in the Pope, because it is a matter of fact, and a recent event.

Moreover, it's is very relevant to the current discussion.

Why would anyone leave it out?

I'm not even sure whether Kim Davis is even a Catholic, all I know is she is Christian. But, these are her words:

"To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience. It is not a light issue for me. It is a Heaven or Hell decision. For me it is a decision of obedience. . . .It is a matter of religious liberty, which is protected under the First Amendment, the Kentucky Constitution, and in the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Our history is filled with accommodations for people’s religious freedom and conscience." -- KIM DAVIS

I know that the Pope is trying to woo homosexuals, to get them into the Church, to hear the word of the Lord, because Jesus preached among the sinners; it is what Jesus would do. It is the gays and lesbians that are most in need of hearing the word today. But, the Pope can't approve gay marriage, because he, more than anyone else, understands what marriage is all about. The problem he is having is that the gay community is a touchy group, who easily feel slighted at the simplest remark, that conflicts with their desires. So the Pope has to play diplomat, and try on the one hand to appeal to the gays, while at the same time supporting the true believers in their time of struggle to maintain the faith. It's a tightrope between the likes of Kim Davis, those already in the fold, and the gay lobby, the potential new recruits. Hence all the low key meetings, and attempts to cover activities. Whatever the Pope does, however, is extremely important, because he is the captain of the ship, at least the captain that stands here on earth in the flesh.

a reply to: Deaf Alien

It's easier to blame the "Gay" "Pink Mafia" "Militant Gay Nazi's" instead of seeing the real problem, and that is those that take their Religion to an extreme of trying to control everyone's lives and make "Law" with it, and become a Religious Tyranny

a reply to: AMPTAH

Why would anyone leave it out?

Because (according to you) the Pope goes against our rights?

"To issue a marriage license which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage, with my name affixed to the certificate, would violate my conscience. It is not a light issue for me. It is a Heaven or Hell decision. For me it is a decision of obedience. . . .It is a matter of religious liberty, which is protected under the First Amendment, the Kentucky Constitution, and in the Kentucky Religious Freedom Restoration Act. Our history is filled with accommodations for people’s religious freedom and conscience." -- KIM DAVIS

So she has no problem refusing to issue marriage licenses to others that are also against the Bible? I don't see her doing that, only the gay people. If she was so worried about going to hell she wouldn't issue the licenses to anyone ever.