When Religious Freedom Should Be Restricted

[cbayer]

http://www.religiondispatches.org/dispatches/darnellmoore/7713/when_religious_freedom_should_be_restricted/

March 21, 2014 11:12am
Post by DARNELL MOORE

A few years ago, in a panel on same-sex marriage I shocked a lot of folk when I, a Black gay man, admitted that while I self-identify as gay and am wholly committed to fighting for the right to marry as an option of several, I am not a strong supporter of the same-sex marriage movement (emphasis on “movement”). But don’t pull my progressive rainbow coalition card just yet.

I begin with that confession to illuminate the obvious fact that LGBT people maintain diverse perspectives as it relates to same-sex marriage. Some of us maintain the view that the “institution of marriage” is a social construct-become-social fact created to preserve heteronormative (read, “traditional,” “normative,” “respectable,” “straight”) relational formations.

And if LGBT people think differently about same-sex marriage, it should be completely understandable if same-sex supporters, LGBT and heterosexual, hold different views regarding religious freedom.

According to the The Christian Post’s Napp Nazworth, “Supporters of same-sex marriage appear to increasingly hold the view that for gay rights to expand, religious freedom must shrink. Some same-sex marriage supporters, though, are pushing back against that trend.”

more at link

[skepticscott]

1. Good grief, what drivel

Do you really spend your whole day searching this stuff out? "heteronormative relational formations"?? Sounds like something you'd barf up after reading a PoMo tract.

And this: "Supporters of same-sex marriage appear to increasingly hold the view that for gay rights to expand, religious freedom must shrink."

Um..no. It's opposers of same-sex marriage who keep whining that making same-sex marriage legal somehow shrinks their religious freedom. But they're only right if they're talking about the right to be asshole homophobic bigots, and to have that bigotry enshrined into law, because the buybull says so.

And yes, I know..you don't agree with everything they said, but you thought they made some good points. And everything is the same for believers and non-believers. Etc., etc.

[rug]

2. I've heard similar sentiments from people who oppose any marriage as a social construct.

Some feminists hold similar views. Certainly so do some anarchists.

It's a legitimate position to take. And here, it's well articulated. At least to anyone who doesn't have to wipe foam from the screen to read it.

[cbayer]

3. He is essentially advocating a pro-choice position.

It is fine to personally believe that something is wrong, but it's not fine to impose your personal belief on others who have a different belief.

Foam on the screen, lol? I once spilled some hot tea on my screen and had sugar crystals in it until its eventual death.

But foam? That's not happened.

[rug]

4. You rarely post while rabid.

[Humanist_Activist]

5. I absolutely hate this definition of "freedom" your freedom ends where it infringes on another's...

I was taught this all throughout public school, by teachers, by my parents, etc. I was taught that this was a reasonable, I believe it is reasonable, hell, from what I can tell, I can even objectively prove that this standard for freedom, is the best one to have in a pluralistic society. Why the fuck is this concept so fucking hard for other people to understand?

[Warren Stupidity]

6. you don't have a "freedom" to impose your bigoted views on others

Nobody's rights are being impaired by them gays getting married.

As for the issue of how you conduct your affairs in public, we decided a long time ago that you can be a fucking bigot in private all you want, but if you choose to operate your affairs in public, for example by operating a business open to the public, that business must conform to all legal regulations, including those that mandate non-discrimination. If that offends your religious sensibilities you are still perfectly free to not run a business open to the public. You can, for example run an appallingly bigoted private club, you can even make a living running that club, as long as it remains private.

[AtheistCrusader]

7. Fuck these beliefs.

"What, for example, should happen if one’s religious beliefs (in the case of wedding photographers), keeps them from providing services to, say, a couple whose race is objectionable to the photographers?"

The same thing that happens to photographers that refuse to shoot an interracial marriage. THE SAME THING.



If you electively belong to a religion that holds homosexuality to be a sin, you are my enemy.
If you electively belong to a religion that holds women to be pets or property, you are my enemy.
etc.

[pinto]

8. That's a convoluted read. I kind of get where he's going but not sure.