Posted on 12/14/2022 8:01:28 AM PST by PhxRising
This week, the Supreme Court will hear a case that will reignite a continuing conversation about what to do when long-established religious convictions clash with gay people’s civil rights. In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, a Colorado web designer, Lorie Smith, wants to create websites for clients’ weddings. She is a Christian, and because of her religious beliefs, she does not want to offer these services for same-sex weddings. However, she serves L.G.B.T.Q. customers for other design projects. This week’s legal arguments will most likely focus primarily on questions around free speech: Can the government compel artists or designers to express messages that contradict their beliefs? In the public discourse more broadly though, this case, like the Masterpiece Cakeshop case in 2018, poses a question to us as a culture: How committed are we to true pluralism? Pluralism is not the same as relativism — we don’t have to pretend that there is no right or wrong or that beliefs don’t matter. It is instead a commitment to form a society where individuals and groups who hold profoundly different and mutually opposed beliefs are welcome at the table of public life. It is rooted in love of neighbor and asks us to extend the same freedoms to others that we ourselves want to enjoy. Without a commitment to pluralism, we are left with a society that either forces conformity or splinters and falls apart. Millions of Americans have irreconcilable views of sex and marriage, and this is unlikely to change any time soon. The historic teaching of the Christian faith is that holy matrimony is between a man and a woman. The Roman Catholic Church still holds to this definition, as does Eastern Orthodoxy, the majority of Anglican churches worldwide and most Protestant denominations in the United States and elsewhere.
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
Read rest here https://archive.ph/ty4fE#selection-305.0-305.44
.
I see Jo Jo the pedophile disguised the White House as a box of Crayolas last night trying to draw in some toddlers. Friggin’ freak.
It’s much more than religious freedom. It’s free speech and freedom of association. When the government goes after your rights instead of protecting them, they really go after your rights. It’s about the only thing they do that isn’t half-assed.
Gay people can live however the hell they want. Nobody on this planet has a right to my time or resources.
I am going to say something unpopular here but I think it needs to be said. When people put themselves out there like this, it makes you a magnet. I am catholic and how I run my business is reflective of my beliefs, however, I do not lead with I am a christian, or a republican or a Yankees fan or anything else that may set my business up to be targeted by anyone else. We never have. Usually people that do not have the same fundamental beliefs as you do not choose you to work with anyway and they go somewhere else rather without me having to interject anything. I just wonder what and how these people are approaching things that cause their businesses to be targeted in this manner or who has the money to go to the supreme court over this. I do not hide from who I am but I also don’t put my business in a box that way either. This whole thing is just weird to me.
Interesting that the title is worded “Gay Rights Clash With Religious Freedom” instead of Gay Rights Clash with Religious Rights.
The simple truth that nobody wants to address is that most “public accommodation” laws, as applied to private business establishments, have no place in a free society. A business owner should be able to accept or reject any customer/client for any reason whatsoever without having a government bureaucrat or court tell him otherwise.
There are no “gay rights”. They have always had the same rights as anyone else. As far as I am concerned, they will never have special rights made just for them.
AMEN
I will not be supportive of their ‘lifestyle’ any more than I would support the lifestyle of a drug addict/criminal.
I should NEVER be told who I should be friends with-—whom I should support with MY EARNINGS-—who I should be admiring for anything.
They are a small part of society—I cannot call them a part of ‘civilized society’-—
Blacks are about 13% of the USA-—LBGT, etc about 3%——WHAT ABOUT THE REMAINING 84% who are productive & do not have criminal tendencies—and are NOT living the “GIMMEDAT” life???
This is ALL BACKWARDS
They're pretending to attempt fairness.
Don't fall for it. They're as horrible as the worst kiddie porn twitter executive before Musk fired 'em. If we really want to know who pulls the strings at the NYT - Musk would have to buy it and show everyone the 'stories' come from DNC War Room News Packets.
bump
“Gay rights”… ok, they lost me at that title right there. When was religious freedom incompatible with rights or gay freedoms for that matter?
This is ridiculous. “Gay right” has to be a euphemism here if it is adopted as a zero sum game with religious freedom. The cynicism of it all competes with the sexual schizophrenism.
Yes, when Bezos gave life support to the Washington Compost, there were no revelations indeed. The whole thing was a scheme amongst tech billionaires , the media and their degenerate democrat ba$tardization of America agenda.
Queers have EXACTLY the same civil rights as normal people. EXACTLY. There are no exceptions. I will not comply with special rights for queers.
"When Gay Rights Clash With Religious Freedom"
FR: Never Accept the Premise of Your Opponent’s Argument
We'll never hear the corrupt mainstream media mention the following.
Just as the words "abortion" and "marriage" are not found in the Constitution, neither are the terms "gay" or "LGBT." So the so-called “constitutional” civil rights protections concerning these agendas are nothing more than political correct "civil rights" being pushed by desparate Democrats and RINOs to try to win votes to stay in power, attacking both people who value their constitutionally enumerated freedom of religious expression, and also state sovereignty, in the process.
If anything, the fact that the Supreme Court is willing to hear such a case tells “us” that institutionally indoctrinated Supreme Court justices are probably supporting this scandal as much as Democrats and RINOs are imo.
Same here.
Yes, “in your face” “ I am gay” sht is typical of the lack of chivalry and gallantry of these schizophrenics. It is like, would even a woman be screaming “I am a person with a uterus”? No. Yet this is what these technocrato schizo lawyers are coming up with.
Yes, rights, this obsession on equality, has superseded gallantry, politeness and chivalry. Now, no more can the integrity of women and their reproductive system be protected at the sight and soon touch of these mental loser schizophrenics. And judges consider this sht! Roberts and another Rino does.
For some reason the access to the pill and abortion has resulted in a free for all assumption that a womb is only an option.
Good job ladies and feminists for that slippery slope making bed with social ba$tards typical of the democrat and corrupt traitorous Rino party.
They laugh at conservatives calling them traitors or Benedict Arnolds, but ruth is, they all are social ba$tard children-adults.
A more accurate headline might be something like: “When Gay Rights Conflict With The Right of Religious Freedom”
A more accurate first sentence might be something like: “... when the Constitutionally protected right to freedom of religious expression conflicts with gay people’s civil rights.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.