The difference between what is legal and what is acceptable in your faith is vast. Some religions frown on drinking, gambling , dancing and adultery. These things can and are still viewed as sins by the faithful, but they are generally acknowledged to be permissible.

You’re killing me, brah. In the post I referenced bible thumpers and at various times in the comments I’ve referenced the bible. Whatever amount of meaning you put onto those references, quadruple it. I’m not talking about “religions” I’m talking about a specific subset of self-identifying Christians who believe the bible is the word of God and base their faith entirely on it. We may also read other books about religion, but the bible is first, last, always – sola scriptura. If that wasn’t clear before, then I’m sorry and now you know. Episcopalians call themselves Christian yet a branch of their church is promoting leadership that specifically contradicts the bible about sin, for example. So I’m not even including all self-identifying Christians here. I mean people who base everything on the bible.

As to what is sin and what is permissible – no sin is ever permissible. It’s acknowledged that we are sinners but the constant push, if you are among “the faithful” is to knock that crap off; repent and stop doing whatever it was. At no point would you hear, “gossip is fine after all, go to it!” I’m not looking to debate Christianity here – just to say that a big part of the core problem is we object to people not in the faith trying to redefine the faith and tell us how we may practice it.

We subsidize conduct we disagree with a million times a day. Medicare, Social Security, foreign aid, abstinence only education, misconduct by corporations.

Disagree with, yes, but don’t necessarily classify as sin. That’s why the push to include federally funded abortion and any threat to the conscience clause is met with a lot more wailing and gnashing of teeth than my distaste for pissing away money on a big inflatable alligator for Cleburn, TX.

What I would really like to see isn’t going to happen because governments never reliquish power voluntarily is:

1. Disconnect employment and insurance. Let people be responsible for buying their own. For the people below poverty level, provide vouchers or tax credits.

2. Stop allowing employees to dictate how they shall practice their religion on the job (the Christian pharmacist who does not want to dispense abortifacients is free to go start his own pharmacy or else work for a Christian pharmacy. The Muslim cabbie can go get back in the line if the fare that comes up when it’s his turn is objectionable.

3. Stop telling businesses who they must serve. If the Christian photographer doesn’t want to photograph the same sex ceremony, go get another photographer who is grateful for the job. If the doctor doesn’t want to do abortions – or in vitro for lesbians – get another doctor.

4. Stop telling businesses who they must employ. If the hospital doesn’t want to hire the doctor because his religious objects may subject them to a lawsuit, then don’t hire him and he doesn’t get to sue for discrimination. Same for the meatpackers who want extra breaks and clerks who won’t handle pork, etc. Casinos in Vegas can fire women who no longer meet their appearance standards.

Freedom of religion, freedom of association. True, you’ve got people out there with “deep, intense and tangible hurts” but the Constitution does not provide for redress for hurt feelings or for the right to access goods and services that people do not voluntarily provide.

As I said, there is pushback because the demand on Christians is that we stop treating it as a sin. It hasn’t been an issue in decades past because it just never came up before. The gay rights movement triggered the Christian pushback.

The difference between what is legal and what is acceptable in your faith is vast. Some religions frown on drinking, gambling , dancing and adultery. These things can and are still viewed as sins by the faithful, but they are generally acknowledged to be permissible. I think you see where I’m going with this one.

With regard to your third point, I guess it just strikes me as childish. We subsidize conduct we disagree with a million times a day. Medicare, Social Security, foreign aid, abstinence only education, misconduct by corporations. It’s a part of life. What if someone has a China-esque religion that believes it’s immoral for individuals to have more than two children. Are you okay with an employer denying coverage on tott two and three?

You agree that homosexuality is no greater a sin than any other. But others don’t seem to bother/consume christians to the same degree.

First – I didn’t say it was no greater a sin than any other. I don’t want to get into theology here, it’s not that relevant but I want to be clear that what I meant was there are other sins equally serious in God’s eyes but more culturally palatable. As I said, there is pushback because the demand on Christians is that we stop treating it as a sin. It hasn’t been an issue in decades past because it just never came up before. The gay rights movement triggered the Christian pushback.

B) We’re not talking about denying healthcare – don’t conflate employer subsidized insurance coverage with healthcare.

iii) You seem to be misconstruing the argument. It is not that a Christian employer would not want to pay for health care benefits for sinners. Everybody is a sinner. It is that a Christian employer might not want to subsidize marriage benefits in what we necessarily view as an invalid marriage; one created to celebrate what the bible specifically calls sin. The exact same argument for not having benefits for unmarried partners. I’m not asking you to agree, but do you understand the point? It’s a lot more specific than I think you’re getting, based on your “penalize” remark. It’s not about penalizing anyone, it’s about not wanting to subsidize something we think is wrong. Likewise abortion.

4) How an employee’s private life impedes the business – I didn’t say anything about a gay spouse there, I was specifically referencing Islamic prayer breaks and Christian pharmacists who refuse to dispense abortifacients. There are also Islamic cabbies who won’t carry dogs or alcohol, and Islamic store clerks who won’t handle pork. Rather than just get rid of these people and hire others who will do the job without being catered to, employers are required by law to make “reasonable” accommodations. But what’s reasonable is very much in the eye of the beholder.

When it becomes a central tenet of someone’s religion to not hire certain races, then people who oppose that – and it will be the vast majority – can use our free speech to shame, boycott and protest that business.

I don’t know what to tell you. It appears that, unless Christianity learns to ignore/deal with homosexuality or accept it like some denominations, you’re destined to go the way of the Amish. If you must have the ability to penalize sinners whenever you desire, outsides of regular society is probably the only option.

I would far prefer the government to butt out entirely. Do business with whom you please, allow employers to fire employees whose religious beliefs impede the business.

How does an employee’s private life “impede the business.” How is a gay spouse more of an impediment than a straight one? It seems to me that your reasons for terminating the employee have nothing to do with business at all.

And, I don’t think you’ve thought out the implications of a religious exemption to our laws. Even if we limit it only to discrimination law, it opens up a lot of doors. What happens when it becomes a central tenet of someone’s religion not to hire whites or blacks.

I would far prefer the government to butt out entirely. Do business with whom you please, allow employers to fire employees whose religious beliefs impede the business.

your right to religion is absolute and sacred. But it doesn’t extend beyond yourself. Once you try to impose those views on the public, we have a problem.

Okay, but what you call imposing those views on the public is me wanting to not use my time and resources to aid or endorse something I think is sin; a critical part of walking out my faith on a daily basis. Again, I’ve gone Galt to a great extent so it no longer is an issue, but I refused to build a website promoting bingo (gambling), as well; the only projects I ever took on are ones compatible with or at least inoffensive to my faith. I didn’t even build websites for church denominations I think are seriously off track; I referred several local churches to other companies, along with some new agey “The Secret” twit. You might say I imposed my views on the public by refusing those projects. But being required to do something is a much different kind of imposition. It’s one thing to strike down the blue laws (and I’m old enough to remember them being enforced!) so that businesses may choose to stay open on Sundays and holidays, and quite another to demand that businesses open on those days.

It cost that wedding photographer about $6k to refuse to take those photographs. She lost the case; she legally did not have the right to refuse. Given that, there’s no reason to conclude that will be the last time it happens, and surely there is a chilling effect. Christian photographers are effectively being fined for their beliefs in New Mexico, unless they submit to something they feel violates their beliefs.

With regard to health insurance, that’s my point too… it would be discrimination. And Congress is working mightily to require employers to provide coverage. So Christian businesses will no longer have the option to say, it would violate my beliefs to spend my money on something I believe is immoral, so I won’t cover anybody, I’ll just give you more pay and you spend it on health insurance if you want. At that point, what can you do but fire everybody and not have employees at all, or else close up shop? Boston Catholic Charities was required to either stop providing adoption services or else to facilitate gay adoptions. Either my right to practice my religion as I understand it is being impeded or my livelihood is.

In practice, the right to religion is no longer absolute and sacred unless one withdraws from society, which is practically impossible. Whether that is for good or ill is a fair debate, but it’s undeniably going to happen. And I believe it makes society as a whole less free.

Again, unless that christian Bed and Breakfast owner is turning away adulterers, liars and atheists, I don’t think he or she has a leg to stand on. If she is doing so, she’s probably just in more trouble.

With regard to heatlh insurance. If the employer does not want to cover unmarried partners (of either persuasion) that’s her prerogative. But should gay marriage become a reality in your state, not covering partners in those unions would be discrimination.

Again, I guess I don’t see why this particular sin is a deal breaker for you. Is it greater than the others? Just easier to identify? Why is it grounds for denial when other sins aren’t?

Ultimately, I do see where you’re going with the “zero sum” game assertion. But I’m inclined to agree that your right to religion is absolute and sacred. But it doesn’t extend beyond yourself. Once you try to impose those views on the public, we have a problem.

Likewise, your exercise of your religion is not being impeded. Your introduction of religion into the public sphere, however, is. Think of it this way, many Jews will not work on their sabbath – Saturday. Likewise, several decades ago it was common practice for Christians to rest on Sunday. Laws allowing individuals to work and sell liquor on Sunday do not affect faith or your exercise of it. You, the individual, are still free to practice your faith and rest. But you can’t stop other establishments from engaging in that activity.

Or a better example, after it became legal, you couldn’t deny service or healthcare because of miscegenation. Your personal religious beliefs might tell you that God didn’t want that to occur, but they’re subordinated when it affects others. I’m sure an orthodox Jew who took seriously god’s prohibition of marrying people of other nations might want to deny healthcare to a jewish and christian union. But the law doesn’t allow that either.

If the law he makes is at odds with the Constitution it should be overturned. That would certainly make for an interesting court case – would the current court revoke the 1st Amendment to make way for the most fashionable of leftist causes?

As a small business owner, I did not check my client’s sexual preferences at the door, but when a particular project dealt – indirectly – with teh butt secks I had to say I could not take the job. I was very careful in how I did so because there’s no point in generating ill will and I didn’t feel any ill will. But there is no amount of money that could have enticed me to take the project on. And that may or may not have been defined as discrimination depending on where you live and the various other details.

My employees didn’t come back after Katrina and I used contractors after that – since then I’ve made the choice to go Galt to a large extent so it’s a non-issue. I would have had no qualms about hiring a gay person back when I was an employer. But I would have had qualms if I’d been asked to pay for health care benefits for that employee’s same sex partner – or for that matter, hetero unmarried partners, which some companies do provide benefits for. Arbitrary judgment? Or my religious freedom to not spend money on what the source book for my faith clearly calls sin? Again, my rights as an employer, the employee’s legal right to not have a hostile work environment + all applicable labor laws…. do you see how this must inevitably turn out?

Christians will either give in or be driven out of businesses that deal with the public or have employees, just like when the conscience clause is finally eradicated they will be driven out of some sectors of the medical field because of abortion. It IS a zero sum game when you get down to the fine details.

Christians are anti-abortion and anti-adultery. But we don’t see benefits being denied for cheaters or services being withheld from those who are pro-choice or who’ve had abortions in the past.

I’m on your side with regard to the photographer. The personal and the business side of things are intrinsically tied together. But your law firm or software company shouldn’t make arbitrary judgment about who’s covered.

But the difference in your examples is one of degree, not kind.

- Proactively requiring women to cover up to avoid offending Muslims
- Allowing gay marriage when it naturally follows that allowing it will inevitably require things from people who oppose it, like providing benefits to employees, etc. In Arizona, a human rights commission fined a photographer for declining to photograph a same-sex ceremony, and that’s the sort of thing she’ll be able to work towards on a national scale. Feldblum is spot on when she says this is a zero sum game, and I appreciate that she said it so clearly. Sooner or later you reach a point where biblical Christianity and homosexuality do not, cannot reconcile. One or the other has to give, and she’ll be in charge of deciding on that.

Trent, I do agree she’s a smart cookie. And I appreciate that her tone is moderate, even though what she’s saying is completely radical. Plus, she’s a fellow Star Trek fan, so I like her for that. I’m not sure how much worse it could be, honestly. Well, he could be trying to get her on SCOTUS. That would be worse.

Bottom line… The One, won – so he’s just enacting his radical agenda just like we all kept telling David “Pant Crease” Brooks and Buckley and Noonan the rest of the “temperament” jackasses he would.

That said, she’s a smart cookie and, honestly, Obama could’ve done worse.

It’s people’s demand for positive endorsement of their practices that’s at stake. That makes government too big, and genuinely curtails liberty — of conscience in general, not just religious liberty — for others.

Sure, but the underlying premise here is that homosexuality is analogous to race, and that religious liberty protection is akin to Jim Crow. With that in mind, Feldblum has decades of law at her disposal to move her agenda, and will be in the perfect job to do so. The joys of Orwellian postmodernism!

There can be a conflict between religious liberty and sexual liberty, but in almost all cases the sexual liberty should win because that’s the only way that the dignity of gay people can be affirmed in any realistic manner.”

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Chai could not be more wrong – at least based on the actual law.

In the collective mind of the Left, if something already exists, then it is already wrong by default.

Thus the crazed attempts of Barry and his partners-in-crime to do so much at once: they want to change everything.

Great.

No one needs to have the state order others to demonstratively accept his practices, in order to have “sexual liberty.” That’s not liberty, that’s obtaining a preferential endorsement from the state.

The question of actual US states prohibiting certain sexual practices is another matter altogether. The converse of Texas making sodomy a crime is not Texas recognizing gay marriage. The converse of Texas making sodomy a crime is Texas not making sodomy a crime. The latter can be accepted as a “sexual liberty” measure. Texas recognizing gay marriage, on the other hand, has nothing to do with “sexual liberty.” It has to do with positive endorsement from the state, and the enforcement of that on everyone under the government of that state.

Feldblum should at least not get away with whining that people’s “sexual liberty” is at stake. It’s people’s demand for positive endorsement of their practices that’s at stake. That makes government too big, and genuinely curtails liberty — of conscience in general, not just religious liberty — for others.

Congress shall make no law [dis]respecting [the] establishment of religion sexual liberty, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

Doesn’t have quite the same ring to it.

She also signed a manifesto advocating polygamy.