Homosexuality is literally prohibited by Christianity, not so inter racial marriage. And I know this as a non Christian.
What the people behind these lawsuit really seem to believe in is dominionism/Christian Reconstructionism - the political belief that the United States should be a Christian theocracy. The idea that you need to shun people for not following Christian religious laws is neither in the Bible, a tenant of mainstream Christianity, nor a political belief compatible with a free society.
> nor a political belief compatible with a free society
So in a free society, one cannot point out contradictions or hypocrisy?
I say this as an Atheist - it goes both ways. Countries where a lack of religion is forced can be pretty abhorrent too. Think of North Korea or Stalin's USSR.
Perhaps the problem doesn't lie in the fact that the state-enforced ideology is religious, but instead that there is a state-enforced ideology at all.
The short answer is "The Civil Rights Act curtails the right to freedom of association." It declared protected classes and then made illegal telling those classes "We don't serve your kind here." Subsequent court precedent upheld Congress's right to do this without a Constitutional amendment to adjust the First Amendment (IANAL so I unfortunately cannot direct you to that precedent quickly; the thumbnail sketch as I understand it is that the right to association is derived from the right to assembly, and that right is for political purposes, i.e. the government can't tell people "you can't get together and complain that government sucks," but refusing to serve people of a particular race or hire people of a particular gender is not political association and not protected by 1A).
The reason this case is even in question (as opposed to the Courts just saying "We already settled this") is that the precedent for whether the Civil Rights Act burdens freedom of expression (i.e. speech) is much thinner on the ground. They're both First Amendment rights, but they're rights with different sets of precedent (and different understanding of magnitude; the right to association is derived from protection of "peaceable assembly," but expression is synonymous with speech and directly and clearly protected by 1A).
Cutting arms for thievery, or jailing converts/gays/whatever or forcing raped women to marry their rapists or go to jail/get lashed for having sex outside of marriage are "normal" things in many theocracies. Are those things not extremist, abhorrent and abnormal for your average Westerner?
We're proud of our "barbaric" laws that punish the thieves and rapists and murderers and fornicators. Don't force your "enlightenment" on us, we saw where it got your culture OP.
> Rape and sexual harassment are much much more prevalent in the decadent sexually immoral West that's a fact.
That's just absolute bullshit. Yes, women are forced to be married to their rapists, and do get punished getting raped. Not everywhere, but it happens. Sexual assault and the like are underreported in the West, let alone countries like Pakistan and India where femicides and brutality against women are close to being normal and usually go without any consequences ( point in case, a brutal case in Pakistan made the international news because the perpetrator got punished after sustained media and public outcry).
> Yes, women are forced to be married to their rapists
Maybe in some fringe cases or countries like India which already have a huge problem due to many factors, including a religion that does not seem to prohibit such actions.
Now compare to when we had actual enforcement of Shariah and the evil doers were punished, before the West occupied us and forced their "tolerant and liberal" policies under the guise of "human rights", suspending the death penalty for criminals like murderers and those who spread corruption in the land, and it's no wonder these things are happening.
Oh. I bid you good day sir ( i highly doubt a woman would speak the bullshit you've said about sexual assault and champion Sharia law), because the mere notion that laws based on a religion, especially one of those that treats half of the people as second class, and forbids conversions/atheism/agnosticism is anything but literally one of the worst possible ways to govern a country, is ludicrous and doesn't deserve engaging. There's nothing good to be said about a religious legal system. You can have tough punishments if the people so want based on actual legal principles, not because an old book people consider sacred said so.
We also have countless Muslim women, who by definition support Shariah (actually, the belief of any Muslim who does not accept Shariah is suspect - by definition, a Muslim supports Shariah [i.e. the Law (of God)]). But if you take your news from far leftist and far rightist sources, I wouldn't be surprised you'd be making such claims.
Islam does not treat women as second class, and in fact, has elevated her status and guaranteed her rights. Islam allows freedom of religion and belief. If you took some time to actually read how things were, you wouldn't be saying such things. Even Jewish historians admit that Jews had it best under Islam.
It's trivial to disprove your false claims, that honestly show ignorance with all due respect.
Now i know you're lying. Right to need to ask for permission to go out/drive/get married, or right to dress exactly as required? Or right to be married off at 14? Or maybe right of divorce ( because of course it's different for men and women). And how does freedom of religion work when the law is religious itself?
> Even Jewish historians admit that Jews had it best under Islam.
That is such bullshit. Had it best? Compared to Israel or compared to Jews who emigrated to the New World? Or maybe you're making some very narrow comparison with Spain under the Inquisition to fit your crazy narrative?
Your worldview is completely incompatible with a free country. You're, of course, free to espouse it and practice it, in any country compatible with it (just don't try anything different there or you might get in prison/killed).
Men have restrictions as well. It's not a free for all you know. Just because the secular West has decided that humans should behave like animals, we are not going to blindly follow. We protect our women so that they don't end up being raped and harassed like they are in the West. God created us, and he knows how we behave in a world where anything goes. We're seeing the results in front of our own eyes. You wouldn't walk into a bear cave then come crying when you get mauled would you? Or walk in a sketchy alley knowing you might get mugged. Same here.
> Or right to be married off at 14?
Islam does not specify a particular number for marriage. What's required is both physical and mental maturity for both sexes. Permission from the girl is also required, and she cannot be married off by force.
Each sex has their rights and responsibilities when it comes to marriage. Marriage is a contract, where both have roles and responsibilities. Divorce is also permitted, unlike Christianity where marriage is forever.
> And how does freedom of religion work when the law is religious itself?
Islam guarantees and protects the rights of non-Muslims, this is in many Hadiths. So much so that if a Muslim wrongs or diminishes the rights of a non-Muslim living on Muslim lands, or forces him to work beyond his capacity, or takes anything from him without his consent, then Muhammad Peace be upon him will plead for the non-Muslim on the Day of Judgment [1].
> That is such bullshit. Had it best?
You might want to check with an actual Jewish historian Shelomo Dov Goitien who made these claims and tell him they're bs. Anyone honest with himself will also come to the same conclusion [2]. Israel is a false state formed on the blood of innocents who were killed, kicked out, and displaced.
> just don't try anything different there or you might get in prison/killed
Baseless FUD.
That being said, we're proud of our "barbaric" laws that punish the evil doers like thieves and rapists and murderers and fornicators. We saw what "enlightenment" has done to your culture. You can also stop making lies like forcing women to marry their rapists. What a straw man.
There's nothing wrong with punishing murderers or rapists, but if the punishments are very severe ( chopping up heads or hands) the downsides for a wrong court decision become enormous. I'm not sure what the crime of fornication is supposed to be though.
For mary your rapist laws:
https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/apr/14/m...
I never said they are everywhere, but they tend to be more present in religious countries that put importance on the "purity" and "virginity" of a woman. Like with "honour killings", which are also a thing only in that type of country. And for the "the woman had sex outside of marriage because she was raped", there were a few recent cases in countries as supposedly developed as Qatar and UAE of foreign women being convicted of it.
> but even the flawed ones are better to live in
Easily disproven by contradiction, specifically if by democracy you mean today's Western definition of it where anything is up for voting by any fool from the street. The Islamic Golden Age is a shining example of a prosperous nation that did not abide by today's Western definition of democracy. We have something called "Shurah" in Islam, which is a restricted form of opinion seeking and consultation of experts on the subject matter, a much more superior approach.
What's ironic is that today the West doesn't even follow its fabled democracy and freedom of expression. We've literally just witnessed the double standards in what happened in Canada in the past few weeks. Rules for thee but not for me as they say.
> the downsides for a wrong court decision become enormous
That is why in Islamic Law, punishments are fended off with any ounce of doubt. Today, the West threw out the baby with the bath water, where even in clear cut cases like the Boston Marathon bomber, or the countless other cases where confessions were had not under duress, the killers and serial rapists are left to live.
Fornication is having sex outside of marriage. Normalizing this behavior, as we see in the West today, leads to many casualties like the spread of STD's, teen pregnancies, destruction of families, call for so called "abortion rights", mixing of lineages, even siblings who don't know they're siblings grow up separate from each other and get attracted to each other, and countless other messes that are causing a decline in morality and dragging down society with it. It's known that sexual immorality produces new diseases that did not exist in previous nations, HIV being one clear example.
We don't have marry your rapist laws in Islam, so it's a non issue for us. As a matter of fact, a rapist is severely punished, and can be executed depending on the situation.
Yes, we value purity and virginity, not just for women, but for men as well. Honor killings are not part of Islam, and in fact, the punishment for and honor killing is to execute the killer.
> there were a few recent cases in countries as supposedly developed as Qatar and UAE of foreign women being convicted of it.
I heard about some of those cases, and they were not clear cut. e.g. the woman was drunk (another thing that should be prohibited and punished), so the testimony is difficult to prove. Ideally in such a scenario, both parties involved are to be punished.
You can't have it both ways if you claim absolute freedom. This is one major place where liberalism falls apart.
Instead it suggests you kill them on sight.
"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them" Leviticus 20:13
The New Testament compares homosexuality to greed and says that you won’t “inherit the kingdom of heaven.” If this woman wants to have a consistent world view, she should also check to make sure the websites she builds won’t be used for any greedy purposes such as usury. In fact, if she accepts payments by credit card…
That is not accurate. The old testament is something like 80% of the bible. It contains the ten commandments, the story of creation and many other things that are still in use today. Like any other religion, different sects have different interpretations of the Bible, but I'm not aware of anyone who throws the old testament out entirely (it also wouldn't make much sense, Jesus is fulfilling a prophecy from the old testament, without that he's just some guy). Further, you will often hear about a "personal relationship with Christ" that the faithful have, that is to say everyone interpets the Bible differently.
So it says they will not enter heaven, why would you want to force her to go against what her religion tells her?
It’s also plain offensive to call having a family an “ideology.” It’s just a thing people do, they’re living their lives.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christianity_and_homosexuality...
As was every transliteration, translation and revised version of their religious texts over time. As was the new testament to the old. Likely very little that is practiced today reflects the "original" version of the religions, whatever that may be.
Many things are written in many bibles that are recognized as uncivilized, unethical, immoral, and ultimately illegal.
Whatever tennets of a religion that say to harm a other, fall outside of any freedom of religion protection, and are just as illegal for the practitioners as for anyone else.
The case will merely decide if this sort of discrimination constitutes harming another.
Think the store mysteriously always being out of flour for the black family.
I think if you want to be selective in who you work for, you have the right not to operate a business. You can bake cakes for your friends all you like.
But if you want to operate a business then you have no right to discriminate. A customer only needs to bring legal tender and not cause problems in any way that the law recognizes as a problem, applying equally to anyone anywhere. If the law of the land does not recognize gayness as illegal or harmful, then neither do any businesses.
Although this case sounds like they are trying to make a finer point that they don't want to produce a message they don't agree with. IE, they claim they would service a gay customer if the work didn't happen to promote a gay message.
That will probably be a bit messier. I'm no lawyer or judge so maybe this distinction is no great "gotcha" for a professional. But it seems to me like that idea opens up a lot of hard to argue grey areas, like how they are trying to invoke both violence and homosexuality in the same complaint.
I can think of lots of examples of things that are not illegal that I would not like to participate in. I can think of lot's of legal businesses that I would not like to help with their IT or web site. I just happen to be revolted by other things than gay people.