-
Religious Freedom Laws – the next fight for LGBT rights
[url=http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-26/marriage-won-gay-rights-battle-moves-to-religious-liberty-laws]Marriage Won, Gay Rights Battle Moves to Religious Liberty Laws[/url]
While same-sex marriage was already legal in most of the U.S. before Fridays Supreme Court ruling, 28 states dont have laws prohibiting discrimination against lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender people. Individuals in those states who lose their jobs or are refused an apartment because of sexual orientation dont have the same rights as people elsewhere, a fact largely unchanged by the landmark decision.
While the {Supreme Court gay marriage} ruling removes some obstacles to equal rights, including tax, health-benefit and even hospital visitation issues, other inequities may remain. In some states such as Wisconsin, where marriage rights had already been won, both members of a same-sex couple are barred from appearing on a childs birth certificate, a reality frustrating to gay parents who, once wed, thought theyd be treated equally.
But it is in stores and shops owned by gay rights opponents where the next battle lines are being drawn. Taylor of Lambda Legal said her group is fighting about 100 so-called religious refusal laws.
The courts ruling follows yesterdays blockbuster opinion upholding a key component of President Barack Obamas 2010 health care law. An earlier Supreme Court decision on Obamacare, however, may have the effect of perpetuating differences among states in how they view gay rights.In a 5-4 ruling last year, the court said private companies can cite religious grounds to refuse workers insurance coverage for birth control. That case spurred some states to adopt measures protecting business from lawsuits when they refused services to gay couples. Since then, lawsuits both against and in support of such laws have proliferated.
U.S. Senator Jeff Merkley, an Oregon Democrat, has said he plans to introduce legislation next month to protect lesbians, gays, bisexuals and the transgender people nationwide.
Merkley said the law is needed to replace a patchwork of state laws and guarantee the rights of the LGBT community in the workplace, education, federal programs and housing.
-
325 Replies
-
No one should discriminate, but is it right to discriminate against the discriminators who do so out of religious beliefs? It’s not prejudice per se, it’s not racial hatred (see Charleston thread) but a true religious belief.
As an aside…
[blockquote]both members of a same-sex couple are barred from appearing on a childs birth certificate, a reality frustrating to gay parents who, once wed, thought theyd be treated equally.
[/blockquote] Seriously? Any other physicians want to comment on that little piece of fantasy? Until the day science can take chromosomes from two same-sex partners and blend them into a single human being (and I’m [i]not [/i]saying that’s a good thing), one or the other of them is NOT the biological parent, which is what goes on the birth certificate. Yet another example of trying to bend reality to meet some unquenchable need.
[link]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dgp9MPLEAqA[/link]
-
What is the justification for discrimination? “God told me to discriminate?”
If 2 men or 2 women get married, how does that change your practice of religion? 2 gay men are allowed to go to temple but only if they are not married to each other? You will read the study of gay men or women but will not if they are in a homosexual marriage because your god forbids it? You know another physician who is gay, even have him/her over for dinner (I assume) but not if they are in a same sex marriage?
What? Explain the line.-
You’ll find the Christian cake bakers and such would never even think of discriminating against an [i]individual[/i], gay, straight, black, white, etc. That’s where you rabid liberals go off the rails. This isn’t discrimination of an individual, it is a refusal to condone and facilitate a particular BEHAVIOR that according to some interpretations has been forbidden by God. But you guys think any behavior except for conservative thought is a Gaia-given right, and the more perverse the better.
What? No answer on the two parent thing? Or did you actually find yourself agreeing with me and then suddenly had to throw up?-
What’s with you and the feckin’ hyperbole insults all the time? Is that what “rabid Jew” conservatives do? Is being civil against your religious practices? Does anyone talk to you at work? Only those who only think angry thoughts like you?
What if they are gay but celibate yet still in love? Or is it the love part that’s the forbidden behavior? Maybe they have an adopted child they both want legal rights for and for each other?
So far your reasons all sound like rationalizations to justify something that’s not justifiable in any rational argument.-
I do not appreciate your hate speech, and I suggest you edit it out. When I say “rabid liberal” I refer to beyond the fringe behavior and not ethnicity. Practice the love and kindness and understanding you preach.
But back to business. Either you want to attempt to see the other point of view or you don’t. Try to wear the Christian mocassins or crown of thorns or whatever for a second. Clearly you don’t want to do so. These people in question have been taught that homosexual behavior is a sin. They love the sinners, though and would sell them a cake or take their picture till the cows come home.
You can have a meltdown over their primitive beliefs all you want, but that is how they feel.
For now, the United States Constitution demands religious freedom. You would not even think of condemning a Muslim for anything, but a Christian is not allowed to demur from participating in a practice of which he doesn’t approve. Some say Freedom of Religion was just voted out by the Supremes and I’m not sure it hasn’t.-
I apologize for 2 reasons, Dalai, you are correct, I should not have said anything about your specific religion as your bias against same sex people is shared equally by other people of other religions including Christianity & Islam and is not unique to Judaism. I should have been more agnostic and therefore accurate by noting you as a “rabid religious conservative.” I will accept that I am liberal but rabid? I bite when provoked but stay in a fine mood always enjoying our exchanges.
And I should not have been so careless as to provide a distraction of the topic at hand for you to latch on.
2nd, for stating your comments are hyperbole. You are an expert at irony by calling other out for their – my? – “hate speech. You are a veritable fount of hate speech as you call everyone with whom you disagree various “endearments.”
The Old Testament has many stories of killing and murder all for the love of God I agree. But the New Testament does not and the message is about tolerance & love and turning the other cheek and non-violence. I am not aware of any passages that preach intolerance and discrimination. Perhaps someone can show me those passages? One never “loves the sinner” by discriminating against him or her and being intolerant.
Think of the lilies in the field. And the rainbow.
Christians are as free as anyone. Stop preaching victimization all the time. You are a victim of your own anger and intolerance, not of circumstance.
-
-
-
-
-
Quote from DoctorDalai
As an aside…
[blockquote]both members of a same-sex couple are barred from appearing on a childs birth certificate, a reality frustrating to gay parents who, once wed, thought theyd be treated equally.
[/blockquote] Seriously? Any other physicians want to comment on that little piece of fantasy?
Changes to the formatting of birth certificates had been ongoing. It was only 40 years ago that many birth certificates would have a box for “legitimate/illegitimate” depending on the marital status of the birth mother.
Many states now allow opposite sex adoptive parents to file for re-issue of birth certificates, listing the adoptive parents as the “father” and “mother” respectively even though they share no biological material with the child.
I see no reason why a same sex couple should not be able to do the same with an amended certificate listing “parent 1″ and ” parent 2″.
Changes need to be also considered to address donor conception scenarios. The ruling on same sex marriage might allow us a chance to review our birth certification processes and update them for the 21st Century.
-
Who really cares what some religious book defines as a “sin” anyway? The concept of “sin” is so ridiculous, as biology is what rules the earth, and we are not special just because we are humans.
Homo couples are unable to pass on their genes, therefore they are biologically impaired and that’s exactly how it should work in nature.
If they want to adopt kids who would otherwise be raised by the state or prison system I say go for it. Again, biologically they are impaired and can never pass on their genes, which is ultimately how nature intended it.-
Quote from macrophallus
Again, biologically they are impaired and can never pass on their genes, which is ultimately how nature intended it.
I guess you missed the boom in gay and lesbian fertility.
[link]http://www.gayandlesbianfertility.com/index.html[/link]
-
Quote from dergon
Quote from macrophallus
Again, biologically they are impaired and can never pass on their genes, which is ultimately how nature intended it.
I guess you missed the boom in gay and lesbian fertility.
[link=http://www.gayandlesbianfertility.com/index.html]http://www.gayandlesbianfertility.com/index.html[/link]
Sorry macro, I know quite a few gay people, men and women who have had children of their own.
Another fable.
-
-
-
-
-
Half-hearted apology accepted.
For the record, I do not have anything against gay people. I have several gay friends, I love them dearly and I support their rights. Period. I have a minor problem with calling a same-sex union “marriage” because that is not within the definition. But I firmly believe that a gay couple should have every single right I have. If I haven’t stated that here before, I have been remiss.
But I cannot think it is proper to force people to participate in something which they feel is wrong. That does NOT allow discrimination against an individual. If a gay person walks in to a bakery, they should be able to buy a cake that the baker is comfortable making. But would you ask a Muslim baker to make a cake decorated with pigs made of marzipan and frosting? No pork involved, you aren’t making the baker eat the cake anyway, but… Of course you wouldn’t. Courtesy, understanding, and love all go in both directions. Hate the sin but love the sinner and all that.-
Well that’s my whole point, Dalai, “they” are people who just want the same romantic and legal associations and rights as we. Rights they did not have until yesterday.
As far as suing people for not bringing flowers or making a cake, I don’t know why. But then being in the medical business, people sue for all sorts of legitimate and crazy reasons. If if were me I’d have walked away from the florists and bakers & never go back. Maybe the florist & bakers also said something that pissed off the couples enough to make a “Federal care” out of it. When do you determine that you will sue because you are told you are something the proprietor doesn’t approve of? Like being gay. Or Jewish or black? What service is to be “allowed” to be refused. Not performing a marriage ceremony? If the priest/minister/rabbi/etc doesn’t want to be there I don’t want them there. In a City Hall is another matter. So is there a list proposed of who can refuse what to whom based on religion? How far do you allow that? Forget the roast pig in an Islamic bakery, how about a Jewish one? So far I have not heard of any suits like that so maybe the suits about florists and wedding cakes are not as crazy as portrayed.
But the suits of people suing for benefits and property, etc, is entirely legitimate to bring recognition into the public consideration.
Maybe pizza announcements are unnecessary speech in order to separate & publicly disapprove. I mean what did the pizza place declare? We will serve single gay people of 2 or more gay people in a group even a group of gay couples but we will not cater their wedding? Fine distinctions based on what reality for what reason? the WORD “marriage?”
Except even calling it something else was not sufficient for the anti-crowd, no compromise allowed at all since it’s about God, a full ban was the only acceptable thing, so here we are.
It is of no moment whether advocates of same-sex marriage now enjoy or lack momentum in the democratic process, Justice Kennedy wrote. The issue before the court here is the legal question whether the Constitution protects the right of same-sex couples to marry.
The Constitution, he wrote, grants them that right.
[attachment=0]
-
My rights end where yours begin. I think that has been lost in this discussion.
You have said that companies have the right not to sell things. Why doesn’t the little bakery or pizzeria have the right not to sell something?
As an aside, one of my very favorite BBQ places was run by a Jewish couple in St Louis, sadly now closed.
-
Quote from DoctorDalai
My rights end where yours begin. I think that has been lost in this discussion.
You have said that companies have the right not to sell things. Why doesn’t the little bakery or pizzeria have the right not to sell something?
As an aside, one of my very favorite BBQ places was run by a Jewish couple in St Louis, sadly now closed.
The history of US Constitutional law has always been about finding the balance where balancing competing rights come into conflict.
The baker is free to choose to not make wedding cakes. “I don’t do wedding cakes” is a nondiscriminatory policy that fits within the guidelines. The baker can make scones and sell them to gay and straight people alike.
I believe that “I don’t do [i]gay[/i] wedding cakes is discriminatory and that on balance, the small and reasonable accommodation the baker must make in order to avoid discrimination outweighs the (sometimes strongly held, sometimes falsely claimed) right to religious expression.
I can understand how a person would feel that the balance should be tilted more in favor religious rights.
That’s what the fight is going to be over. And it will be bitter… like abortion.
That’s why I pushing/campaigning/voting for a Democratic win in 2016 … because there will be Supreme Court appointments coming (Ginsburg is 82, Scalia 79, Kennedy 78) and the rulings made by the Supreme Court in the next few years on this topic and many others will shape American society for the 21st Century.-
That’s exactly what I’m afraid of, and why I will be voting Republican.
-
Not doing the gay wedding cake is the 2015 equivalent of not serving black people. Discrimination. When your doing business I don’t think you have the right to mix in religion, the business wasn’t licensed or regulated by a religion. I’d add that fits most business except for churches, churches should still follow their beliefs up to illegal stuff, like no sacrificing people. In 2015 the places that do pull the religion card to discriminate I suspect are not going to be around long. 1 tweet or facebook post can be shared around the world. People will stop patronizing your shop and boom you’re done. I think I read something about hobby lobby business being down and heavy discounts, if I see it’ll post it. Might have been Bloomberg.
-
-
Quote from DoctorDalai
My rights end where yours begin. I think that has been lost in this discussion.
You have said that companies have the right not to sell things. Why doesn’t the little bakery or pizzeria have the right not to sell something?
As an aside, one of my very favorite BBQ places was run by a Jewish couple in St Louis, sadly now closed.
In the pizzeria not selling pizza or just not calzones? So what, that’s not a problem. They can sell shawarma. Or not for all anyone cares. Or cheeseburgers. Or not. Even for religious reasons.
Your “right to discriminate” against me is another matter.-
Now marriage is out of the way. Next is discrimination in housing & jobs.
Some keep trying to ram discrimination down our throats but progress moves on.
“Today the pits, tomorrow the wrinkles…”
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/28/us/gay-rights-leaders-push-for-federal-civil-rights-protections.html]http://www.nytimes.com/20…ights-protections.html[/link]
-
Fine. No discrimination against an individual is acceptable in this country. Who is trying to ram what down your throat?
As far as the cake thing, let the market decide. If a bakery won’t make a cake celebrating a gay wedding, find one that will. I wouldn’t want to patronize an establishment that didn’t want me. At the risk of setting Noah off into another episode of incoherent word salad regurgitation, I have no intention of imposing my ethnic self upon the country club across the street from my house that doesn’t want me. The only reason to do so is to ram an agenda down the throat of the dissenter, and that is just as wrong as pushing discrimination.
Look at this whole “evolution” (or devolution) about gay marriage. Society’s opinion changed gradually. Now to be fair, this was due in no small measure to constant attrition and erosion over time, but look where we are now. I’m amazed you Liberals haven’t learned patience yet.-
Discrimination is. I recall at least 2 posts on AM for example complaining about us liberals, “Ramming non-discrimination down our [i](conservatives’)[/i] throats!”
The country club across the street doesn’t want you – because you’re Jewish? [i](not a hate question, just asking)[/i] – & you’re OK with that? That itself is an example of some (country club) living with concrete shoes in the past. I assume it’s a rhetorical statement on your part, not literal.
It was only during Dubbya’s elections that gay marriage was successfully used by his campaign & others on the right as a divisive issue, so it wasn’t that long ago at all – you’re not that young anymore if I may say so so I know you should remember.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
And here we go:
[url=http://www.latimes.com/nation/nationnow/la-na-texas-same-sex-marriage-20150629-story.html#page=1]Texas Attorney General issues proclamation allowing denial of same sex marriage certificates by government employees citing “religious freedom” [/url]
The U.S. Supreme Court decision establishing that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry has left some state officials grappling with another legal question: Are government employees with conflicting religious beliefs obligated to issue licenses and perform weddings for gay partners?
The issue has come quickly to a boil in Texas, where the state attorney general issued a nonbinding opinion over the weekend suggesting that justices of the peace, judges, county clerks and their employees have a constitutional right of their own to refuse to facilitate such marriages, especially when there may be other county employees and judges willing to do the job.
Backers of same-sex marriage have insisted that issuing marriage licenses is a fundamental governmental responsibility that under the Supreme Courts decision last week now includes the obligation to issue them without regard to sexual orientation.
Issuing a marriage license is no different than issuing a hunting license, a fishing license or a driver’s license. It’s a basic function of governance, and you don’t have a right to withhold it based on the individual employees religious beliefs, said Neel Lane, a San Antonio attorney for same-sex couples who challenged Texas gay marriage ban.
Texas overwhelmingly passed the ban as a state constitutional amendment in 2005, and some opponents were prepared to continue to fight even after the Supreme Court ruling.
Paxton wrote that county clerks with religious objections are also protected by the federal Religious Freedom Restoration Act as well as a state version of the law. They can ask another employee in their office to issue licenses, but he warned that those who refuse may well face litigation and/or a fine.
-
[url=http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/nation/2015/07/02/kentucky-county-clerk-sued-marriage-licenses/29648237/]ACLU files lawsuit over Kentucky clerk refusing to issue any marriage license due to “religious beliefs”[/url]
Kim Davis is among a handful of clerks who have refused to grant licenses to any couples in order to avoid handing them out to gays and lesbians. The suit alleges four couples in Rowan two same-sex and two straight who have sought marriage licenses are having their 14th Amendment rights violated as a result.
“We certainly respect the religious beliefs and whatever conscientious choices these clerks make, but it can’t infringe on their job duties and it can’t infringe on the constitutional rights of the citizens that they’re there to serve,” said attorney Dan Canon, one of the lawyers who is representing the four couples.
Davis could not be reached for comment, but in previous interviews with The Courier-Journal she said her “deep religious convictions” forbid her from giving out licenses to same-sex couples and that she decided not to issue them to any couples in the county. She also has suggested those seeking a marriage license obtain one in a neighboring county.
Get ready for a lot of these. “Religious freedom” is the next conservative rallying cry in the culture war.
-
[url=http://www.nytimes.com/2015/07/18/us/politics/republicans-setting-sights-on-same-sex-marriage-law.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=first-column-region®ion=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0] GOP considers “religious freedom” legislation in response to SSM ruling[/url]
Legislation granting protections for tax-exempt organizations and individuals objecting to same-sex marriage on religious or moral grounds is gathering momentum in the House. The bills, drafted by Representative Raúl R. Labrador, Republican of Idaho, and Senator Mike Lee, Republican of Utah, already have 130 co-sponsors. On Thursday, the Republican Study Committee, the largest, most organized group of conservatives in the House, demanded a vote.
At the same time, wary Republican moderates have quietly drafted a novel alternative that would actually expand legal protections for gay men and lesbians. Their legislation would narrow the scope of protection offered to groups declining services to same-sex couples seeking to marry.
Republican leaders have found themselves once again caught in a wedge between the conservative sentiments of the majority of their conference and the more liberal social trends in the nation at large. Asked about the First Amendment Defense Act, which is the name of the bill to protect tax-exempt organizations and individuals objecting to same-sex marriage on religious grounds, House Speaker John A. Boehner of Ohio on Thursday was careful not to dismiss it even as he declined to embrace it.
-
I heard some of the press conference on this. I think it’s pretty silly. They want to protect tax status. Like Notre Dame should be tax exempt anyway. They should toughen up regulations to be tax exempt.
-
Quote from DICOM_Dan
I heard some of the press conference on this. I think it’s pretty silly. They want to protect tax status. Like Notre Dame should be tax exempt anyway. They should toughen up regulations to be tax exempt.
The entire tax exemption for religious institutions should be scrapped. Hell, while we’re at it scrap it for non-profits too….it just gets abused.
-
[url=http://www.macleans.ca/politics/washington/for-republicans-protecting-religious-freedom-is-the-new-gay-marriage/]For Republicans, protecting ‘religious freedom’ is the new fight: [/url][b]When opposition to same-sex marriage is part of your political tradition, whats a party to do? Change the topic to freedom, of course[/b]
A decade ago, Republicans could run openly on opposing gay marriage: George W. Bush advocated a constitutional amendment to define marriage as the union of a man and a woman. But the world has changed since then, and the party has become apathetic on the issue. Sen. Marco Rubio says he doesnt support the constitutional amendment Bush once backed, and few would-be presidents are even promising that their judges will overturn this ruling. Instead, theyre saying that gay marriage will infringe on other rights: those of Christians who believe in traditional religious teachings on homosexuality.
Some conservatives fear that equating gay marriage with interracial marriage will force traditional Christianity out of public life. In June, a nonprofit called the Catholic Vote released a black-and-white video where people express their belief that theyll be shamed for being differentnamely, opposing gay marriage. Adweek blasted it for trying to position conservative Christians as a persecuted group for not having their message of intolerance widely accepted these days. {T}hese fears provide an opportunity for Republican presidential candidates. Now that gay marriage is here, promising to roll it back might make them seem like culture warriors in a country where, according to polls, more people support gay rights every year. Even many Republican voters, I think, would rather just see them let it go, Posner says.
Religious liberty allows candidates to talk about something thats more broadly popular than banning gay marriage. Cruz told the Texas Tribune that he believed county clerks should absolutely have the right to refuse to issue same-sex marriage licences, but he added: Theres no right in society to force a Jewish rabbi to perform a Christian wedding ceremony. Theres no right in society to force a Muslim imam to perform a Jewish wedding ceremony. Republican candidates still dont know exactly what voters want to hear about gay marriage, but when in doubt, change the subject to freedom. Everyone likes that.
-
It’s just a cycle of very basic problems and misunderstandings. There is no such thing as a right to marry. It’s not in the Constitution. It is a privilege. And it should be left up to the States, as clearly laid out in the tenth amendment.
It should have never been an issue, but other people want to coerce others into accepting their views. Ironically, this is what they claim “religious” people do, except the religious people don’t use threats of central authority control and scare tactics, at least in America.-
“as clearly laid out in the tenth amendment,” but “There is no such thing as a right to marry. It’s not in the Constitution.”
Those are contradictory arguments. The 9th Amendment was specifically included in support of the argument that “rights” were not specifically limited to only those enumerated in the previous 8 Amendments, that there are more rights that exist than just those 8.
In Griswold the Supreme Court was asked to review the constitutionality of a Connecticut law that banned adult residents from using Birth Control and prohibited anyone from assisting others to violate this law. In the majority opinion, Justice william o. douglas, writing for the Court,[b] rejected the notion that the judiciary is obligated to enforce only those rights that are expressly enumerated in the Constitution. On several occasions in the past, Douglas wrote, the Court has recognized rights that cannot not be found in the written language of the Constitution.[/b]
Only briefly discussed in Douglas’s majority opinion, the Ninth Amendment was the centerpiece of Justice arthur goldberg’s concurring opinion. [b]The language and history of the Ninth Amendment, Goldberg wrote, demonstrate that the Framers of the Constitution intended the judiciary to protect certain unwritten liberties with the same zeal that courts must protect those liberties expressly referenced in the Bill of Rights. The Ninth Amendment, Goldberg emphasized, reflects the Framers’ original understanding that “other fundamental personal rights should not be denied protection simply because they are not specifically listed” in the Constitution.[/b]
And the Court ruled that their ruling was about the uneven application of the right to marry.
-
But that would make the 10th Amendment useless. The X Amendment also makes perfect sense of the negative rights focus of the Bill of Rights. It flows perfectly.
-
It is what it is.
-
You mean the Constitution is vague not the stone clad rules passed down from on high by the most brilliant people to walk this earth and only if you have Scalia’s wisdom can you understand the unequivocal exact meaning of every word and phrase?
This is not about the right to marry, it is about the right to have the same benefits that are conferred to married couples. If you take away all the state and federal benefits applied to being married the case goes away
-
-
Quote from Cigar
But that would make the 10th Amendment useless. The X Amendment also makes perfect sense of the negative rights focus of the Bill of Rights. It flows perfectly.
Here, from Britannica:
While the Ninth Amendment, which states that those rights enumerated in the Constitution did not disparage other unenumerated rights retained by the people, the Tenth Amendment clearly indicates that the states are entitled to the rights not delegated to the federal government. The Tenth Amendment does not impose any specific limitations on the authority of the federal government; though there had been an attempt to do so, Congress defeated a motion to modify the word delegated with expressly in the amendment. It thus does not grant states additional powers, nor does it alter the relationship that exists between the federal government and the states. It merely indicates that the states may establish and maintain their own laws and policies so long as they do not conflict with the authority of the federal government.
In a test of the Constitutions necessary and proper clause (found in Article I) against the Tenth Amendment, in McCulloch v. Maryland (1819), Chief Justice John Marshall wrote in the Supreme Courts opinion that the federal government was not prohibited from exercising only those powers specifically granted to it by the Constitution:
Even the 10th Amendment, which was framed for the purpose of quieting the excessive jealousies which had been excited, omits the word expressly, and declares only that the powers not delegated to the United States, nor prohibited to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people, thus leaving the question whether the particular power which may become the subject of contest has been delegated to the one Government, or prohibited to the other, to depend on a fair construction of the whole instrument. The men who drew and adopted this amendment had experienced the embarrassments resulting from the insertion of this word in the Articles of Confederation, and probably omitted it to avoid those embarrassments.
So yes, the Constitution is “alive” and requires constant interpretation.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Boy Scouts ending the ban on gay scout masters.
Progress marches on.-
Believe it or not, I’m happy to hear that one. Its time has come.
I have a good friend from college who came out years after we graduated, got married to his friend Ralph, and are raising an autistic son. My friend worked very hard for the BSA, and was actually employed by them for several years. Until now, he could not help his own son’s troop. Now he can.
I can understand some of the trepidation that kept this from happening for years and years. Many were afraid of gays being predators, “recruiting” their young sons to the homosexual lifestyle. This is a situation where knowing the individual involved trumps any other consideration. My friend, happily united (call it married if you wish) would never allow harm of any sort to come to his charges. I would have trusted my son to his care without reservation.
Now I will confess to some hesitation about placing a gay kid whose sexual orientation has him desire other boys, in the same tent as a straight kid. We would not consider placing girls and boys in the same tent, although there the attraction would be mutual. I don’t have the answer to that one.-
It happens all the time without incident. Barring “rape,” there has to be a mutual attraction. We think of boy/girl as default normal attraction but a gay boy & a straight boy would not be mutually attracted to one another. Same for a gay boy or straight girl. Or a gay girl and straight boy. Straight girl & gay girl.
-
Agreed, as long as the boys and girls in question have mutual respect for each other and get that no means no. My son is an Eagle Scout (always say it in present tense) and I think scouting is a good program, although there were a few too many dads getting their Eagle. It does teach respect, and one would hope that would extend to a gay vs. straight tent-mate.
But if one “rape” ever occurs, I’m not sure what will happen to the policy. Maybe all the boys will have to have their own tents with locks on the flap. -
[url=http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/omni-pr/1459055-anti-discrimination-laws-vs-religious-freedom-21.html]Colorado Court of Appeals Rules Against Baker Who Refused to Serve Same-Sex Couples[/url]
The decision is the latest in a series of similar rulings across the country that have been cheered by civil rights groups but attacked by conservative Christians as assaults on religious liberty.
In the Colorado case, the court squarely said that this is discrimination based on sexual orientation and its not to be tolerated, even if its motivated by faith, said Louise Melling, deputy legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union, which represented the gay couple. Religious liberty gives you the right to your beliefs but not the right to harm others.
But lawyers for the cake shop said the appeals panel got it wrong and that they would probably appeal to the Colorado Supreme Court.
-
How is it harm? Non-action is harm?
Are we changing the definition of “harm” now too?
-
-
-
-
A society that is delusional about the historical and biological roles of sex can never be one that “progresses.”
A society that says it is ok for someone to select “what they are” divorced from reality, will never “progress.” It is, by definition, a confused society.
I’m not sure what progress is, but I do know that lying about reality can never be it.
Decadent societies also (and this is the most important point) also have too much time on their hands that they create new things to worry about, meaningless things, that are so few and far between but act like they are meaningful and common, which they aren’t.
Spoiled materialists can never defeat what humans really are, especially not in the span on 40 years. After the fall of the decadent, it always comes back to man/woman/family.
Sorry, that’s just how it is. But the liberal premise is to get mad at how the world [b]is[/b], so I get it.
That’s why they talk about “fairness” and “justice” all the time, terms that only they can define, and which can change whenever they wish them to. They are accountable to nothing but their own, delusional state and emotions.
People with integrity (go look the word up) would never have this worldview.-
Your argument makes it sound like humans are more like robots processing 1’s and 0’s. People are different and have different souls, consciousness, minds or whatever you want to call it. It’s not as dumbed down as a man + woman and that’s the right equation for everyone.
-
You are missing the point. I’m talking about societies that are healthy and not in decline indeed have this as the right equation.
We are the latter, and thus we pay all this attention to confused people who are maybe .00000005% of the population, yet act like they mean diddly dck in the big picture.
Man + woman isn’t dumb.
You act like the west is not in decline. They built the greatest societies and civilizations ever seen, and now are selling out their people and their history. Soon, they might not exist or at the very least, civil wars may turn commonplace.-
The west is not in decline because of gay people. The idea that civilization will go away because of gay people is absurd. The idea that gay people are confused about their own sexual orientation is absurd. I didn’t say that man + woman is dumb. I said that you can’t dumb it down to that only being the right answer. It doesn’t fit everyone, like gay people.
I guess I shouldn’t have bit on the downward spiraling turn towards gay people are making a lifestyle choice BS. I tap out.
-
-
-
couldn’t see this one coming …
[link=https://www.washingtonpost.com/dc-md-va/2023/07/11/supreme-discrimination-303-catholic-school/]Firing of gay Catholic school teacher could test latest Supreme Court ruling[/link][/h2]
A substitute drama teacher in North Carolina sued after being fired for marrying his partner. The school says such discrimination is allowed.-
This has nothing to do with the latest ruling. It’s not remotely in the sea of hypotheticals.
-
-
-
-
Quote from DICOM_Dan
The west is not in decline because of gay people. The idea that civilization will go away because of gay people is absurd. The idea that gay people are confused about their own sexual orientation is absurd.
+1
-
Quote from dergon
Quote from DICOM_Dan
The west is not in decline because of gay people. The idea that civilization will go away because of gay people is absurd. The idea that gay people are confused about their own sexual orientation is absurd.
+1
Read, and re-read. You read what you want to — which is silly in a conversation. I didn’t say anywhere near what you assume I said.-
No one knows exactly what it is you say, no matter how many times it is re-read.
-
-
-
[url=http://thinkprogress.org/lgbt/2015/08/18/3692553/rnc-first-amendment-discrimination/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter] RNC endorses FADA (First Amendment Defense Act[/url]
Ellen Barrosse, RNC chair of the Conservative Steering Committee, told The Daily Signal that neither the resolution nor the bill have anything to do with discrimination, but are instead an attempt, for those of us who are people of faith, to protect religious organizations. She offered the following example: Does Catholic Charities have to place children with gay couples, or will they have to shut down? This is a free market, there are other agencies that will place children with them.
The RNC resolution specifically references multiple cases when private business owners have faced legal consequences for refusing to serve to same-sex couples in violation of nondiscrimination laws. It also mentions several individuals who faced public scrutiny for their anti-gay views, suggesting that all of these people are victims of intensifying hatred and intolerance.
As the ACLU puts it: [url=https://www.aclu.org/blog/washington-markup/disingenuous-first-amendment-defense-act-indiana-steroids][b]The Disingenuous First Amendment Defense Act Is Indiana on Steroids[/b][/url]
Its parade of horribles would:
allow federal contractors or grantees, including those that provide important social services like homeless shelters or drug treatment programs, to turn away LGBT people or anyone who has an intimate relationship outside of a marriage
let commercial landlords violate longstanding fair housing laws by refusing housing to a single mother based on the religious belief that sexual relations are properly reserved for marriage
permit a university to continue to receive federal financial assistance even when it fires an unmarried teacher simply for becoming pregnant
permit government employees to discriminate against married same-sex couples and their families federal employees could refuse to process tax returns, visa applications, or Social Security checks for all married same-sex couples
allow businesses to discriminate by refusing to let gay or lesbian employees care for their sick spouse, in violation of family medical leave laws
…
The bill defines a person to include for-profit corporations, and it would allow anyone to assert an actual or threatened violation of this Act as a claim or defense in a judicial or administrative proceeding. FADA would allow any individual, group, or business, including recipients of federal funds, to file a lawsuit and potentially receive damages from taxpayer money. All they have to do is believe they may somehow be required by the federal government to do something that implicitly condones marriage for same-sex couples or sexual relationships outside of marriage.-
1st Amendment right to discriminate, “Because God demands it.” That’s why I love the Constitution.
NewSpeak from 1984. Take an idea & turn it on its head.
[h2][i] [/i]War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength.[/h2]
[h2]Doublethink means the power of holding two contradictory beliefs in ones mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them.[/h2]
-
in regards to the first amendment defending thing it’s more like they’re trying to solve a problem that doesn’t exist. It’s all hypothetical problems born out of the gay marriage fight. The Catholic Charity adoption thing, why do Catholic Charities have custody of orphans, shouldn’t they be ward of the state anyway?
I wonder if hobby lobby sells to gay people, they certainly seemed to have religious objections.-
The problem that exists is that some use religion to hide behind because they don’t want to deal with LGBT people at all or have them around.
-
-
-
-
[link=http://www.protectthyneighbor.org/posts/2015/8/24/john-oliver-makes-us-love-him-more-with-his-take-on-lgbt-discrimination]http://www.protectthyneig…on-lgbt-discrimination[/link]
John Oliver takes on LGBT discrimination v. religious freedom on [i]Last Week Tonight[/i]
-
[url=http://www.thenewcivilrightsmovement.com/davidbadash/breaking_6th_circuit_slaps_down_kim_davis_request_for_stay_must_issue_licenses_monday]6th Circuit Court of Appeals refuses Rowan County clerk request for a stay on a lower federal court judge’s ruling ordering her to issue marriage licenses to couples regardless of gender.[/url]
The decision from the 6th Circuit states the “injunction operates not against Davis personally, but against the holder of her office of Rowan County Clerk. In light of the binding holding of Obergefell, it cannot be defensibly argued that the holder of the Rowan County Clerks office, apart from who personally occupies that office, may decline to act in conformity with the United States Constitution as interpreted by a dispositive holding of the United States Supreme Court.”
“There is thus little or no likelihood that the Clerk in her official capacity will prevail on appeal,” the judges state.
-
Tim Cook bringing Apple more and more into discussion.
[link=http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2015/08/tim-cook-apple-washington-politics-121821]http://www.politico.com/m…ington-politics-121821[/link]
And this time Apple seemed even more apoplectic. It was seething over a flurry of reports that the NSA had quietly cracked its servers and gained access to untold millions of its customers personal communications.
Cook and Holder hotly debated security and privacy during their first-ever meeting on that freezing December day, but the attorney general said he sat across a much different leader than he had expected. We found we had a mutual Alabama connection, Holder recently explained in an interview. The sister of Holders wife had helped desegregate the University of Alabama, and Cook, a gay man born and raised in the South, knew firsthand the impact of discrimination.
In the months since Edward Snowdens surveillance leaks rattled the tech industry, Cook has become one of corporate Americas loudest activists on a range of issues. Hes met with members of Congress. Hes reached out personally to top administration officials, including, most recently, Holders replacement, the newly minted Attorney General Loretta Lynch. The first openly gay CEO of a Fortune 500 company, Cook has brought his name and Apples brand to bear in major national debates, especially same-sex marriage and equality. And his brand of passionate, targeted political activism has furthered his companys vast political agenda, from advancing tax reform in Congress to addressing the pitfalls of surveillancea privacy debate that continues to confound the nations capital.
-
[url=http://www.newrepublic.com/article/122701/put-kentucky-clerk-kim-davis-jail]Throw Kim Davis in Jail[/url]
Davis isn’t the first opponent of gay equality to become a martyr for engaging in discrimination, but more than the conservative entrepreneurs and artisans who came before her, she exemplifies the governmental implications of the idea that religious liberty protections should trump civil rights law. In most of these cases, the government’s imprimatur is obscured behind a gloss of neutral-seeming claims to property rights, but here it’s crystal clear. And precisely because she’s an elected government official who cannot be fired, and is engaged in an egregious abuse of power, she should be put behind bars until she relents one way or another.
…Lawyers for the couples to whom Davis has denied licenses have asked only that Davis be finedas opposed to jailedfor contempt of court, on the grounds that Davis has failed to fulfill the obligations of her office, and thus hasn’t earned her salary. But theyre being too magnanimous. As a hero to the religious right, Davis will likely never feel the pinch of court fines. Shes much more likely to reap a windfall from GoFundMe than to respond to the incentive court fines are meant to create.
Any attempt to force her hand risks making her a bigger martyr than she already is on the religious right, but that risk is small compared to the risk that allowing her to continue abusing her power without consequence will create a terrible precedent. There are surely other religious clerks in the South and elsewhere whod love to get away with discriminating against gays and lesbians, in defiance of the country’s highest court. The only way to assure this doesnt happen is to jail Kim Davis until she agrees to issue the licenses, resigns, or is removed from office.
I’m Dergon and I approve this message.
-
[link=http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/kim-davis-found-in-contempt-and-taken-into-federal-custody-by-us-marshals/]http://www.rawstory.com/2…ustody-by-us-marshals/[/link]
Judge agrees.
Kim Davis remanded into federal custody on contempt of court charges.-
she can quit….4 husbands…pleez..
Quote from dergon
[link=http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/kim-davis-found-in-contempt-and-taken-into-federal-custody-by-us-marshals/]http://www.rawstory.com/2…ustody-by-us-marshals/[/link]
Judge agrees.
Kim Davis remanded into federal custody on contempt of court charges.
-
It is unsightly to see an American be put in jail for being a religious conscientious objector. This is a freedom of religion issue. The SCOTUS decision overstepped into some dangerous territory. The dissenting opinion by justice Scalia warned of these unintended consequences. The gay lobby is making a huge mistake using tyranny tactics to put religious conscientious objectors in jail. This is going to go over like a turd in the punch bowl. This is still a religious country. I see this landing back on SCOTUS’s lap for a Mulligan.
-
Quote from aldadoc
It is unsightly to see an American be put in jail for being a religious conscientious objector. This is a freedom of religion issue. The SCOTUS decision overstepped into some dangerous territory. The dissenting opinion by justice Scalia warned of these unintended consequences. The gay lobby is making a huge mistake using tyranny tactics to put religious conscientious objectors in jail. This is going to go over like a turd in the punch bowl. This is still a religious country. I see this landing back on SCOTUS’s lap for a Mulligan.
Gay marriage is not going back to the Supreme Court. Full stop.
What will almost certainly start to work through the courts are various cases on the legal boundaries of claims of “religious freedom” as they relate to how the public interact with the LGBT community.
(Hence the title of this thread).
And in this case, you now have the Deputy Clerks, freed from the capricious threats of lawless elected official, willing to perform their duties as demanded. The court ruling was appropriate and effective.
Her legal defense tested the boundaries once. We now know at least one margin of the limits of “religious expression” versus public accommodation/ duty. We will surely see more in the coming years.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
I’d rather just see her removed from office than put in jail. In jail she’s just a financial burden on society (not that being a government employee isn’t also a burden).
Should be a good test of convictions for someone who’s been married multiple times.-
Quote from DICOM_Dan
I’d rather just see her removed from office than put in jail. In jail she’s just a financial burden on society (not that being a government employee isn’t also a burden).
Should be a good test of convictions for someone who’s been married multiple times.
Unfortunately she is not a “government employee”. She is an elected official who can only be removed from office by an act of State legislature. That eventuality is likely to come, but with the KY House and Senate not set to convene until after New Year of 2016, the wheel of justice are set to move too slowly for the miscarriage of justice that Davis’ actions represent to be allowed to continue.
She can step down at any time and walk out of jail that day. She can comply wit the US Constitution and sign off on marriage licenses and be out of jail the same day.
What she can’t do is thumb her nose at the Court, The judge felt the same way and acted accordingly.-
I can see the difference now, elected not the same as hired. However, either is drawing benefits from the government, which makes me think of them as burden on the tax payer. Plus this seems like the kind of thing computers should be able to handle. If I can renew my license plates online, file taxes online, why not figure out how to do marriage certs. Then you take the human aspect out of it.
-
“Burden on the taxpayer?” She is entitled to wages just as taxpayers have to pay for services.
Her burden is the inability to do her job because, “Jesus hates gays.” She is such a holy-roller, AKA “hater.” Isn’t there a special place in hell for sanctimonious holy-rollers? In the secular world it’s called “jail.”
-
-
-
-
And we’ll see how long Ms. Davis’ resolve holds while she sits in prison, things get back to normal in Rowan county, KY, and the media moves on to the next story ….
Like this one:
[url=http://www.slate.com/blogs/outward/2015/09/03/tennessee_judge_refuses_straight_divorce_because_of_gay_marriage.html]
A Tennessee Judge Is Refusing to Let a Straight Couple Get DivorcedBecause of Gay Marriage[/url][/h1]
When Thomas and Pamela Bumgardner decided to get divorced, they likely assumed the process would be straightforward. The Tennessee sexagenarians have no children and provided no reason why Chancery Court Judge Jeffrey Atherton [i]shouldnt [/i]grant their request. Yet Atherton ordered [i]four days [/i]of testimony from the couplethen held that their marriage wasnt irrevocably broken and denied their divorce. [link=http://www.timesfreepress.com/news/local/story/2015/sep/03/judge-declines-divorce-case-citing-gay-marria/323201/]His justification[/link]?
[i]”The conclusion reached by this Court is that Tennesseans have been deemed by the U.S. Supreme Court to be incompetent to define and address such keystone/central institutions such as marriage, and, thereby, at minimum, contested divorces.”[/i]
The high court, Atherton concluded, must explain when a marriage is no longer a marriage. Until then, he contended, state courts cannot decide marriage and divorce cases.
Atherton has gone far beyond the limit of his position, not only protesting [i]Obergefell [/i]by halting his judicial duties but also to taking a blameless couple hostage in the process. He has, in short, proved himself unfit for the bench. The Tennessee legislature can impeach and remove Atherton during its upcoming legislative session. It should do so as soon as possible.
-
Tyranny of the minority is stupid policy, because it leads to backlash tyranny of the majority. Not a good strategy. The gay community is treading on thin ice.
-
resign or be impeach
-
Davis is the minority who is trying to impose the tyranny, Alda.
-
-
-
-
[url=http://www.latimes.com/opinion/editorials/la-ed-clerk-20150902-story.html]’God’s authority’ doesn’t apply in the Kim Davis case[/url]
{Kim Davis suggests she} is bound not only by the law and the Constitution but also by the moral law of God, natural law and her own “sincerely held religious beliefs and convictions.” Those convictions tell her that she must not issue a marriage license “which conflicts with God’s definition of marriage” an assertion that confuses civil marriage, in which Davis’ office plays a role, with marriage in the sight of God. The question is whether that misunderstanding qualifies as a religious belief that must be accommodated. Her lawyers have suggested several such accommodations, including deputizing clerks in other counties to issue licenses in Rowan County, modifying the marriage license form to remove the clerk’s name and distributing licenses on a statewide basis.
Yet none of these contortions is required by the 1st Amendment or Kentucky’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act any more than they would be if a clerk had a sincere religious objection to issuing a marriage license to interracial couples. Like its federal counterpart, Kentucky’s religious freedom law allows the government to override religious objections in furtherance of a “compelling government interest.” Insisting that all public officials enforce the law and the Constitution as opposed to their personal understanding of God’s law is clearly such an interest. That may be why the Supreme Court on Monday refused to extend a temporary stay of a court order requiring Davis to issue licenses to both same-sex and opposite-sex couples.
In a statement released by her lawyers, Davis said that for her, issuing a marriage license to a gay couple was a “Heaven or Hell decision.” But if an elected official believes that complying with the law and the Constitution as interpreted by the Supreme Court threatens her with eternal damnation, her choice is obvious: Give up the office.
-
Celebrity martyrdom. “I’m doing this ‘cuz God told me to…could you get my good side in the picture…”
-
Apparently the Westboro Baptists have her on their list. Didn’t see that one coming. I would have thought she’d be their martyr.
[link=http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/godhatesadultery-westboro-baptist-church-turns-on-kim-davis-for-causing-fg-marriage/]http://www.rawstory.com/2…r-causing-fg-marriage/[/link]
-
Kim each of those licenses are valid…the world does not revolve around U
Quote from Frumious
Celebrity martyrdom. “I’m doing this ‘cuz God told me to…could you get my good side in the picture…”
-
[link=http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/09/us/kim-davis-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=0]http://www.nytimes.com/20…sex-marriage.html?_r=0[/link]
Kim Davis freed by Judge who imprisoned her for contempt.
In a two-page order issued Tuesday, the judge who sent her to jail, David L. Bunning of the Federal District Court, said he would release Ms. Davis because he was satisfied that her office was fulfilling its obligation to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples.
Judge Bunning ordered that Ms. Davis shall not interfere in any way, directly or indirectly, with the efforts of her deputy clerks to issue marriage licenses to all legally eligible couples. He he said that any such action would be regarded as a violation of his release order.-
Huckabee’s last gasp at this kim rally…even TRump said the law is the law..Huck can you say Josh Duggard
-
Huck says he will go to jail in her place…well
-
the Rocky music was stupid..Cruz couldn’t get on stage because imho Huckabee was like this is my publicity event…given her tone at the rally..let’s bet on when Kim goes back to jail
-
CNN just reported this child makes 80,000 for her job in kentucky
-
[link=http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/kim-davis-files-appeal-to-continue-denying-same-sex-marriage-licences-1.3225550]http://www.cbc.ca/news/wo…age-licences-1.3225550[/link]
Kim Davis has filed an appeal requesting a delay in the court order contempt release agreement to continue to not issue marriage licenses.
Guess she might be heading back to jail on Monday.-
and the Huck PR event/rally will be for what..oh the drama and Cruz fought to get a piece of the action
Quote from dergon
[link=http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/kim-davis-files-appeal-to-continue-denying-same-sex-marriage-licences-1.3225550]http://www.cbc.ca/news/wo…age-licences-1.3225550[/link]
Kim Davis has filed an appeal requesting a delay in the court order contempt release agreement to continue to not issue marriage licenses.
Guess she might be heading back to jail on Monday.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
[link=http://www.rawstory.com/2015/09/new-billboard-slams-kim-davis-biblical-anti-gay-hypocrisy-you-cant-trade-your-daughters-for-livestock/]http://www.rawstory.com/2…ughters-for-livestock/[/link]
And now she’s getting trolled with a billboard.
-
I respect her desire to disagree on this issue but as a public official you are in that postion to do a job and if you cannot do that job then you should resign in good faith
-
I think that’s a fair assessment. She’s saying now she won’t block but she will not authorize marriage certificates. So I guess that leaves other people in the office to issue certificates. She claiming religious freedom, but she’s really imposing her religion on others. Separation of Church and State. So I don’t see how she has any leg to stand on in regards to governmental duties.
-
Quote from DICOM_Dan
I think that’s a fair assessment. She’s saying now she won’t block but she will not authorize marriage certificates. So I guess that leaves other people in the office to issue certificates. She claiming religious freedom, but she’s really imposing her religion on others. Separation of Church and State. So I don’t see how she has any leg to stand on in regards to governmental duties.
If her signature or “authority” is needed to make the licenses valid then she is absolutely still impeding the licensing process.
Given that her attorneys have previously stated that licenses are invalid without her signature (the Kentucky AG says differently), I think that refusal to have her signature used equates with obstructing the process and may be a violation of her Contempt release order.
There might be a “reasonable accommodation” to be made here in which she does does not physically sign the licenses. But if someone calls into question the validity of them later, then constitutional rights are being infringed and that accommodation will no longer be able to be made.
-
-
-
-
Loved Huckabee’s false equivalency in the debate last night.
Kim Davis should be able to deny marriage licenses to same-sex couple because we allow Muslims at Gitmo to grow beards.-
I wonder what Mike thinks about how the constitution applies in Cuba.
-
[link=http://talkingpointsmemo.com/livewire/kim-davis-deputy-clerk-disobeyed-judges-order]http://talkingpointsmemo….disobeyed-judges-order[/link]
Kim Davis confiscated licenses upon her arrival back to work and replaced them with ones without her name or mention of the County.
May have violated court order.-
[link=http://www.npr.org/2015/12/11/458969192/conservatives-call-for-religious-freedom-but-for-whom]In Conservative politics “religious freedom” and anti-Muslim sentiment create tension[/link]
…
For some conservatives, however, recent events may bring a decision point. They may need to choose between opposing Islam and advocating for religious freedom. To wage both fights at the same time is likely to become increasingly awkward.-
Lefties love their false narratives. Pathetic.
-
Quote from IR_CONSULT
Lefties love their false narratives. Pathetic.
Which false narrative, IR? When you have even AM posters claiming Islam as a “criminal” religion.
Please explain the falsity of the “narrative.” I agree with dergon, there is a contradiction of religious freedom here with the Conservatives stating what the Constitution means or should mean is “Christian” freedom of religion & maybe others, just not Islam. The “Christian” filtering was explicitly stated about the refugees.-
Frumious, ANSWER the question:
Is death for apostasy criminal?
Is charging protection money/tax to subservient religious groups and restricting their building of worship places criminal?
Is unequal inheritance for males vs. females and honor killings criminal?
This is Shari’a. Stop the lies. It is a political, legal system. Or are you saying that Shari’a isn’t Islam?
If so, please explain.
Otherwise, stop posting idiotic lies over and over again.
Do you support these things in Islam? If not, why aren’t you speaking out against them.
I’m sick of your posts that cannot refute any of these facts. Are you in league with those that find Muhammad a good example? If so, please just be honest and tell us.
-
-
-
-
-
-
