Tuesday, January 15, 2013

'Religious protection' argument is a dangerous con

The battle over marriage equality in Rhode Island is heating up. The governor, Lincoln Chaffee, said he will not put up marriage equality for a public vote, therefore it will be decided by the legislature.

And already religious right groups are using the "religious protection" argument as a way to derail the potential bill.  Alliance Defending Freedom attorney Kellie Fiedorek told One News Now the following:

"Religious freedom belongs to everyone, not just a handful of people. The government cannot limit constitutionally protected religious liberties in a way that's foreign to our Constitution. This bill fails to ensure that those liberties of every Rhode Island citizen will be respected. The First Amendment's guarantee of religious freedom for all Americans is not limited to the four walls of a church."

That sounds nice, but what the article says next should be looked at with much negative scrutiny:

The legislation contains protections for clergy who refuse to do homosexual "wedding" ceremonies, but not people of faith who serve as justices, judges, or court commissioners.Another provision in H. 5015 prohibits penalties against churches and religious denominations that oppose same-gender marriage, but it fails to protect businesses operated by people of faith and Christian counselors who do pre- or post-marriage counseling.

So it seems that some people's ideas of "religious protection" is to discriminate against gays, even though they may be elected or appointed officials or own a secular business such as a restaurant and an apartment complex.

Elected or appointed officials should not get to pick and choose who they serve and secular businesses should not have the option to discriminate, not matter the faith of the owner.

Where exactly is the line drawn when it comes to "religious protection."  If you allow discrimination against gays under the guise of "religious protection," then just which group of Americans would be next?



Patrick Fitzgerald said...

“Where exactly is the line drawn when it comes to "religious protection."”

Between the Golden Rule Christians and the get-into-heaven-free-card christians.

EvilI said...

Religious protection means you can't do that stuff.

I know these people are not big on definitions, and that I've even said these words before, but that is literally the exact opposite of what religious liberty is.
Those things they want are banned by the First Amendment, not required by it.