Religious Freedom as code for the ability to limit Homos

[_subgenius]

exactly which "civil rights" are the LGBT being unjustly deprived of....(ie. blind people don't qualify for driver license - a just deprivation)

[_The Erotic Apologist]

exactly which "civil rights" are the LGBT being unjustly deprived of....(ie. blind people don't qualify for driver license - a just deprivation)

Why don't you go and and ask them?

[_LittleNipper]

People do not have the "right" to kill themselves -----yet. People do have the right to eat, drink and sleep. They do not have the right to embarrass or act immodestly in front of others. People have a right to propagate the species but not to amuse themselves at the expense of their neighbors.

[_The Erotic Apologist]

People do not have the "right" to kill themselves -----yet. People do have the right to eat, drink and sleep. They do not have the right to embarrass or act immodestly in front of others. People have a right to propagate the species but not to amuse themselves at the expense of their neighbors.

What's bothering you, Nipper? Whatever it is, I get the feeling it's a bit more serious than a few noisy neighbors who like to sunbathe naked in their backyard. So why are you always in street preacher mode? And why do us Mormons bug you so much?

[_ludwigm]

People do not have the "right" to kill themselves -----yet. People do have the right to eat, drink and sleep. They do not have the right to embarrass or act immodestly in front of others. People have a right to propagate the species but not to amuse themselves at the expense of their neighbors.

What's bothering you, Nipper? Whatever it is, I get the feeling it's a bit more serious than a few noisy neighbors who like to sunbathe naked in their backyard. So why are you always in street preacher mode? And why do us Mormons bug you so much?

And exmormons?

And nevermormons, if I may mention somebody as nothingness as I am?

[_moksha]

... Homosexuals and heterosexuals enjoy the same civil rights as whites, blacks, and handicap people...

Excellent point. Now that the determination has been made that homosexuals should have equal access to having their marriages recognized, at least on the federal level, then it is absurd to argue that religious freedom to impinge on this equal access has been lost. Impinging on individual civil rights was never a freedom granted to religion in the first place. To claim that religious freedom has been abridged is a code term for "return our presumed imaginary right to limit homosexuals by making them follow our dictates".

Personally, I think it is wrong to ever request an extension of unholy and unrighteous dominion over others. Let them have their agency as we have our own, please.

[_LittleNipper]

People do not have the "right" to kill themselves -----yet. People do have the right to eat, drink and sleep. They do not have the right to embarrass or act immodestly in front of others. People have a right to propagate the species but not to amuse themselves at the expense of their neighbors.

What's bothering you, Nipper? Whatever it is, I get the feeling it's a bit more serious than a few noisy neighbors who like to sunbathe naked in their backyard. So why are you always in street preacher mode? And why do us Mormons bug you so much?

Social religion never saved anyone. Only coming to the personal truth that Jesus Christ is God and died to save sinful man, can one be truly saved from eternal separation from God. It is not through works or a set of instructions but by Christ alone. And that is the truth of the Bible. But if one doesn't fully believe the Bible (God's Word) one can hardly fully place one's faith in Jesus without doubt.

[_subgenius]

Religious freedom can mean the right to worship as we see fit.

It can also be used as a code phrase for the ability to limit the civil rights of homosexuals. The trick is to see through the trickery in the use of this phrase. That way you can avoid using a benign concept like religious freedom to harm others. http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormon-apostle-holland-faith-family-freedom

Your thoughts about this issue of using phrases like Religious Freedom or States Rights to mask your true intent?

Or maybe you want too insert your narrative into some benign phrase... you call it"code" so you can make all the assumptions you want and twist it so you can feel better about your position without any facts to back it up! And create an enemy that does not exist! ! ! !

[_subgenius]

... Homosexuals and heterosexuals enjoy the same civil rights as whites, blacks, and handicap people...

Excellent point. Now that the determination has been made that homosexuals should have equal access to having their marriages recognized, at least on the federal level, then it is absurd to argue that religious freedom to impinge on this equal access has been lost. Impinging on individual civil rights was never a freedom granted to religion in the first place. To claim that religious freedom has been abridged is a code term for "return our presumed imaginary right to limit homosexuals by making them follow our dictates".

Personally, I think it is wrong to ever request an extension of unholy and unrighteous dominion over others. Let them have their agency as we have our own, please.

but following your dictates is a better policy, got it!

The narrow overturning of only portions of DOMA is hardly a determination and hardly affirms that marriage is a civil right for which every LGBT is entitled to...again, blind people do not qualify for a driver license but in your mind they are being denied a civil right to drive.

and the irony of Obama and other teet-sucking liberals condemning those who do not want to enforce ACA because "it is a passed law" while themselves refusing to enforce DOMA when it was a "passed law".

My criticism of your OP stands, and upon further though consider the following:
While I completely disagree with your tin-foil hat "code" conspiracy, i must note that "limiting homos" is not a bad thing....i am not advocating them wearing little star-of-david patches (they already wear their own rainbow equal sign badges voluntarily...like the little fascists they are)...no, i am advocating that the resources of society should not subsidize their chosen lifestyle because it is neither virtuous or progressive to our society.
Just because the LGBT have gained political power and money may have caught many an opportunistic politician eye for the moment does not justify their position as being "good".

So, be LGBT of you want...its your choice....but it is my choice, as well as others', when you want a tax benefit for it.

[_Jutta]

Religious freedom can mean the right to worship as we see fit.

It can also be used as a code phrase for the ability to limit the civil rights of homosexuals. The trick is to see through the trickery in the use of this phrase. That way you can avoid using a benign concept like religious freedom to harm others. http://www.mormonnewsroom.org/article/mormon-apostle-holland-faith-family-freedom

Your thoughts about this issue of using phrases like Religious Freedom or States Rights to mask your true intent?

As far as I understand the American law system, there is a separation from church and state. The state decides the laws and guidelines with which all people shall live. And the churches may freely and unhinderedly perform their religion if they observe rules also applying to them for a long time. Have I said this correctly?
Christian churches, such as the RCC, the LDS and evangelicals now, however; making this separation from church and state sodden. Besides the evolution teaching the teaching shall be taught of the "intelligent Design" in schools. The school prayer and religious instruction shall be permitted again in public schools. And, only a certain "sexual education lesson" shall take place in schools.
The founding fathers Jefferson, Washington and Adams were for a separation from church and state. Because they knew how frightfully can it be if a religious connection between church and state could be. I only remind of the "monkey process" ; where a teacher was dismissed because he taught the evolution teaching (I think this was around 1920).