Grave Violation of Liberty

The left- which seems to be 75% of the people on this board- in the name of their perverse concept of freedom- are avid to restrict one of the most basic liberties, viz. the freedom of association.

A very good example of this is a law passed recently in Virginia, which has trended "blue" in recent years (meaning more government control over people's freedom). Ref 1 is a pretty good description:


This insidious law makes a mockery of freedom of association. Here is the nub of it:

“For the Ministries, personnel is policy; and so they intentionally employ staff and recruit volunteers who further their respective Christian missions. Virginia’s new laws, however, make this free religious exercise and association impossible — and label these liberties ‘discrimination,'” the lawsuit argues.


S.B. 868 and H.B. 1429 require the ministries to hire employees who disagree with their beliefs on marriage, sexuality, and gender; mandate that the ministries hire employees whose beliefs and lifestyles are “antagonistic to the ministries’ convictions”; prohibit the ministries from firing employees who oppose their missions; require the ministries to provide services in a manner that violates their beliefs; ban the ministries from even communicating their biblical beliefs; make the ministries use their facilities in a way that contradicts their beliefs; and force the ministries to pay for “gender reassignment” procedures in their health plans, even though the ministries object to these procedures.

These laws put the ministries “in an impossible position: they must either abandon the religious convictions they were founded upon, or be ready to face investigations, an onerous administrative process, fines up to $100,000 for each violation, unlimited compensatory and punitive damages and attorney-fee awards, and court orders forcing them to engage in actions that would violate their consciences.”

This law strikes at the heart of freedom of conscience and association, as well as being a serious assault on religious freedom (which I know is of little significance to the left, at least as it applies to Christians).

I am no lawyer or even a close follower of the law, but I suspect SCOTUS would rule this law a violation of the First Amendment, particularly if Amy Barrett joins the Court. Nevertheless, Christian groups will have to spend considerable resources fighting it through the courts- and they shouldn't have to. But I would go further: religious organizations should not receive special consideration here. Your local bakery, hairdresser (or barber) should be equally free to not be obliged, as a condition for being in business, to hire homosexuals if they do not want to (despite the fact that a pretty high percentage of hairdressers are gay).

If Democrats come to power in this country, you can expect a lot more of this kind of thing at the federal level. In so doing, the nation slips slowly into a condition of servitude.

Virginia Forces Christian Ministries to Adopt 'Government Ideology' or Pay $100K

 

Aw

 

We are not talking about a whole lot of jobs there.

Wondering just how many employees this law would cover.

Why are Ministry employees receiving such attention, such consideration? Instead of, say, convience store workers?
Are Ministries firing a lot of people and are there a lot of court cases in Virginina?

Or, could it be the specific type of employer who is the target of the legislation?

 

Other than major national companies, should any company be required to hire any quota of people.

The results rarely help the population and result in companies (for example) hiring black people as cleaners, simply to meet a badly thought out legislation.

Left to itself, most situations equal out and people are a lot happier in THEIR choices in life.

However, discrimination of any type should never be accepted. It can sometimes be a fine line.

 

Does the OP want the same policy for Muslims or would they find things in the Quran that clash with US law. If a church wants to exist in the borders of the USA it has an obligation to respect American laws. I am all for religious freedom and separating it from goverment but American Christians usually don't like laws on gay people and abortion. If you don't like those things it's fine but America's law has no basis in your religion. The men who founded the country were actuly very pro science and anti religion. Don't forget that.

The church was fine with abortions until you could feel the child moving for many centuries after the death of Jesus. Moving means the soul has come from heaven. Until then it is a husk. Kind of like what science says now. And I doubt Jesus would hate gay people the way they do. So really American law is already pretty Christian it's the church that needs to catch up.

 

Prohibited discrimination: public accommodations, employment, credit, and housing – SB 868 (Ebbin): A comprehensive nondiscrimination policy that prohibits discrimination in public accommodations and employment on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity

Health insurance; nondiscrimination, gender identity or transgender status – HB 1429 (Roem): Prohibits a health carrier from denying or limiting coverage or imposing additional cost sharing or other limitations or restrictions on coverage to a transgender individual on the basis that the individual’s sex assigned at birth, gender identity, or gender otherwise recorded is different from the one to which such health services are ordinarily or exclusively available. In addition, prohibits health carries from discriminating on the basis of gender identity or being a transgender individual

 

Srg

So you favour bigotry and discrimination?

How about on grounds of race or skin colour, would that be acceptable to you - how about on grounds of religion?

Maybe you would favour some type of apartheid or segregation system

Yes I’m a leftie and an atheist, but if I had an organisation or business I wouldn’t bar any law abiding person not even right wingers or the religious I’d feel that was morally wrong, why do you think it morally right to enact such discrimination?


PS : and I like the stereotyping you just throw in at the end there, classy

 

Srg

This seems to be about Christianity but there are many gay Christian’s even gay Christian priests so why would people chose to be part of a bigoted version of Christianity? I mean people could chose to be part of a tolerant and inclusive Christianity why have they chosen not to be?

You have to wonder what came first the prejudice or the choice of Christian sect.

 

Yes, I agree, you are no lawyer. You see, the Supreme Court of the United States of America has always held the state governments can regulate Health, Safety, and Public Morals. And this is a good time to explain to you: "regulate" does not equal "prohibit" and it means to set limits and parameters. So, the state government where you live can regulate who you associate with when you are suspected of planning to drive to the poor side of town so you can burn a cross on some poor Black family's front yard. You and your friends can meet and speak freely, as long as you don't conspire to hang a Muslim man. You can pray with your friends, but can not prevent women from entering an abortion clinic.

 

Yes she does favor bigotry ... a Muslim hater through and through ... all the way to the bank.

 

I know Christians from the other side of the world who would wonder what she smokes?

 

LGBT clergy in Christianity - Wikipedia

While most Christian churches ban the ordination of sexually active LGB clergy because they view homosexuality as incompatible with biblical doctrine and do not allow those identifying as transgender to be ordained for the same reason,[1] a growing number of churches are allowing openly LGBT clergy to serve.

I dispute your statement of MANY...some or a few maybe but many is a stretch at best... does not the old testament out right condemn?

Homosexual clergy in the Catholic Church - Wikipedia
priests in Roman Catholic dioceses make vows of celibacy at their ordination, thereby agreeing to remain unmarried and abstinent throughout their lives. The 1961 document entitled Careful Selection and Training of Candidates for the States of Perfection and Sacred Orders stated that homosexual men should not be ordained.

just points of contention

 

When we say "ministries", does this mean, like for example Christian youth ministries, or... What does ministries refer to? I'm unclear on that.


But also....

I did a research project for Sociology of Gender, and in it I looked at gender reassignment surgery.

The experts; scientists, other officials, etc. agree with the community on this. Gender reassignment is, how shall I put it... ?

It is a medical procedure that treats a legitimate psychological condition. So whether or not it's medically necessary really depends on your definition of necessary. Insurance providers hate this. Incidentally, they also won't fill prescriptions for Viagra (or generic) for Medicare recipients. Lol...



BUT... the position of the official science is that sex reassignment surgery is a legit option for treating gender dysphoria.

Gender dysphoria - Symptoms and causes. < --- Mayo Clinic

I feel like it's still unclear, though I know nothing gets by greene.... Anyway, it bears repeating.

The official position of the medical community, science, and the officials that decide these things is that gender dysphoria is a "going concern", treatable, and can be addressed by reassignment.





Not to throw around reassignment surgery... I take it very seriously, and actually don't agree with the surgery most of the time - I don't think you have to have surgery to re-identify as something/someone else. But I'm not transgender, and I can't begin to know how uncomfortable it must be to have the wrong body.

Perhaps I lean too heavily on perception. When it comes to sex, gender identity, or sexual orientation, I tend to want to think about it as some special journey that one can take into the expansion of thought... or that you can simply, over time, change. To just change your mind... That's my inclination*. This is probably not realistic in the majority of people.

People don't use their minds, and that's not a criticism as much an observation. SO... I guess in my heart of hearts I want to believe in people's ability to change without the surgery. I desperately cling to their native biology, and would like to think they can simply adjust to whatever discomfort - or really, dysphoria - they are experiencing without surgery. @KathyL typically sets me straight on this though.

So the assertion that it's all just fantasy anyway; that it's a perception issue and not a medical one that can actually be remedied by correction is probably quite wrong, unfair, and typical of cisgender straight-identifying people such as myself.

 

I would like to speak about the title of this thread: GRAVE VIOLATION OF LIBERTY. That one is a powerful statement, "Grave" and "Violation" and "Liberty" all in one statement, which amounts to an indictment of Democrats who like in the case of marching for Black people's civil rights; now, the Republican Evangelicals want to badmouth the Democrats, who wish to see LGBTQ persons afforded full rights. At the same time this false claim of violations of Evangelical Republican extremists happens, the same Evangelical Republican extremists cry out about the Deep State. They again falsely claim that Democrats in positions of government agencies (Deep State) have some sort of nefarious agenda. But when we take time to look at their false claims, we can see the direct opposite happening. It is in fact that Republicans who are situated in government jobs throughout the Republican controlled states like Alabama who have passed administrative requirements on poor people to prevent voting. In Alabama they invoked a notary public requirement or two witnesses to sign off on a ballot application before a poor old person could vote. That is a Grave Violation of Liberty. In Kansas, the Republicans moved the only voting location five miles out of town, to make it harder to vote. That is a Grave Violation of Liberty. In Republican Texas, college students were told they could not vote in Texas, if they were from another state, even if they did reside in Texas. In Florida and Ohio we can see similar Grave Violations of Liberty. In Indiana we have a case where Governor Mike Pence at the time sent the state police to raid a voter registration drive which was helping Black people to vote. Their documents were confiscated by the police and later returned. The raid amounted to Intimidation as a form of voter suppression, intended to scare minorities. And Indiana required me to produce three picture identification documents before I could vote. That was a Grave Violation of Liberty. Now we have the Republicans in California who have just gotten caught using FAKE DROP OFF BOXES to collect absentee and early voter ballots. They did the nefarious deed without permission from the California Secretary of State. They also did not bother with a chain of custody protocol. Their actions amounted to a way to steal and destroy Democrat votes. The State of California has started a criminal investigation, because the actions of the Republicans are deemed to be a Grave Violation of Liberty.

 

Srg

I'll repeat something i said in the taxation thread you ran away from -

Now what was it I said when you claimed that you didn't run away from debates, that you did answer questions and did address criticisms of your views and called on me to give any examples of these things happening....It was probably was something snotty like you only need to look in any thread you have ever been in.

As i say you might call me snotty but this is serious you are good at putting claims out there about supposed 'Grave viloations of liberty' but when it comes to defending such claims you (as with so many on the right) are lacking - its basically just the spreading of fake news.

 

The Southern Republicans today -- like SRG -- wish to revive the Confederate States of America, so they can rule the country, avoid taxation, and enforce slavery. When they operated their cotton production empire, they were some of the wealthiest people on Earth. They want that Southern Glory again, complete with chained Negroes, and horse whips.

 

Both measures were passed by the Virginia House and Senate, and signed into law by the Governor. Virginians have the liberty to vote for their representatives, vote against them, or run against them. Virginians have the liberty to challenge the application of these laws in court.

Instead of posting on this site and in this forum, where there are few Virginians, use the liberties you have and encourage Virginians who agree with you to work with you to achieve your goals.

Being on the losing side of these two particular legislative contests hardly constitutes a grave violation of liberty. You identify your position to be a 25% minority position. The outcome you complain about doesn't reflect a violation of liberty. It reflects exactly how representative democracy and the exercise of liberty therein works.

Don't like the laws? Change the laws or get a series of courts to rule in your favor in declaring them unconstitutional. Those are your liberties. Those are everybody's liberties.

 

Problem comes when you pack the courts with your own biased cronies then strike down democratically elected for measures that your side doesn't like

 

Remember, Mitch McConnel lowered the bar to get Republican appointed judges confirmed by just 51 votes. That's now the way it was done when Democrat judges got confirmed. The standard for Democrats was 67 votes. The seriousness of the matter results pursuant the life time appointment. The judge is intended to be there for ever to ensure independent rulings based on law and constitutionality. Our very first Supreme Court Case established the concept of Judicial Review. The judges get to review the laws to ensure they are not repugnant to our constitution. The fact that Mitch McConnell sat on hundreds of Obama nominated judges is repugnant to our Constitution. The fact that Mitch McConnell denied Judge M. Garland a fair hearing for fourteen months was repugnant to the Constitution. The fact that Trump nominated a radical Evangelical Republican Catholic woman with an agenda to over-turn established Constitutional precedent cases and also be there to throw out ballots in the coming election to ensure Trump's victory is very repugnant to our Constitution. In fact, Boys and Girls, it is a criminal conspiracy against our country.

 

I'd just like to say that even the Pope is now saying same sex unions are ok

Pope Francis, in Shift for Church, Voices Support for Same-Sex Civil Unions