AGs religious objection order undercuts LGBT protections

[guillaumeb]

From the article:

In an order that undercuts federal protections for LGBT people, Attorney General Jeff Sessions issued a sweeping directive to agencies Friday (Oct. 6) to do as much as possible to accommodate those who claim their religious freedoms are being violated.

To read more:

http://religionnews.com/2017/10/06/ags-religious-objection-order-undercuts-lgbt-protections/

[MineralMan]

1. Religious liberty to restrict the liberty of others.

This crap will lead to numerous court cases, no doubt, of which most will go against the government's meddling.

We should all condemn religious liberties that restrict the liberties of others who do not follow the religion doing the restricting.

Public accommodation means public accommodation. That is the key point here, and has long judicial support.

No religion may require others to adhere to that religion's rules in any way. That is a basic principle.

I foresee many federal lawsuits.

[guillaumeb]

3. Agreed.

My beliefs determine my behavior. If the artistic baker, for example, wishes to refuse to do his job, he should find another job with no public contact.

[MineralMan]

9. And that's where the issue of public accommodation comes it.

The baker cannot refuse to bake a cake for a black person or a Hindu person, because race and religious belief are protected and public accommodations cannot discriminate on those things.

The problem for LGBTQI folks is that they are not defined as a protected group in some legal areas. That is wrong. The trend has been to add them to the protected groups, but that is not a complete thing yet. It will be. In the meantime, judicial decisions have already given them that protection in many areas, and that will, no doubt, be extended to all areas involving public accommodation.

If your business serves the public in general, you don't get to select which parts of the public you serve, really. That's the principle.

The expansion of that principle to include everyone is underway. I don't see how it will be reversed.

[trotsky]

2. Some people think that religious rights are more important than human rights.

Religion is just that important to them, and who are we to criticize someone's deeply held beliefs? Right, guillaumeb?

[guillaumeb]

4. Religious beliefs, like other types of beliefs,

should govern an individual's actions and behavior.

[trotsky]

5. So Jeff Sessions is just acting in accordance with your statement.

Neat!

[guillaumeb]

6. Not true if Sessions is attempting to impose his own beliefs on others.

If, for example, Sessions feels that abortion is morally wrong, I would counsel him to not have an abortion.

[trotsky]

8. But that's just your opinion, man.

Really no more or less valid than anyone else's, you know.

[MineralMan]

7. Such people are morons. They would scream bloody murder if

someone suggested restricting their religious rights. Religion is a choice people make. So is the exercise of other rights that have nothing to do with religion.

If someone can choose to follow religious rules, others can chose not to do so. Can't have one without the other.

[trotsky]

10. "If someone can choose to follow religious rules, others can chose not to do so."

That's the part the religiously devout just can't seem to grasp.

[MineralMan]

11. It's the choice thing. Some religious folk appear to believe

that choice is not part of religious belief. Their deity of choice says so, so that's it, as far as they are concerned.

Religious blindness is endemic, it seems.

Let those who won't see be forced to see, I say. Screw 'em.