PDA

View Full Version : Tea Party Stands for Liberty of Conscience



Chris
08-03-2013, 10:29 AM
A local area Tea Party stands up against city hall for liberty of conscience. Here's the story, Tea Party protests San Antonio city proposal, councilman says point is moot (http://www.ksat.com/news/tea-party-protests-san-antonio-city-proposal-councilman-says-point-is-moot/-/478452/21313372/-/xomqlg/-/index.html):


A small group with the River City Tea Party Patriots gathered outside City Hall Friday morning to protest a proposed city ordinance that they claim would ban Christians or anyone with anti-gay views from running for city council or obtaining a contract with city government.

“This one right here is just strictly going after the Christians and people that have the anti-gay views,” said Brandon Burkhardt, the group’s president. “People have the choice to vote them in or not vote them in. The people make the choice, not city council.”

But District 1 Councilman Diego Bernal, who proposed the ordinance, says the group may be misguided.

According to Bernal, anyone can run for city council -- no matter their views or religious beliefs -- and any business that contracts with the city can hold any view it chooses.

However, that business cannot engage in discrimination, Bernal says.

Earlier in the week, Mayor Julian Castro said the controversy could center around confusion....

There's a video worth viewing at the link,
http://www.kaltura.com/index.php/kwidget/wid/0_x208jihy/uiconf_id/12411332. It allows the Tea Partiers to speak for themselves rather than through the filter of the media.

Confusion is the order of the day. The first bit of confusion is the Tea Party group launched their protest just as Councilman revised the proposed ordinance to remove the parts being protested. Those parts would have, as worded, disqualified any candidate for office or any business seeking a city contract if they were against homosexulality. The revision only disqualifies for discrimination.

Now I personally have nothing against homosexuality, but I recognize some people do, and they might do so for reasons of religious belief, and they should have a right to their views, and government should not interfere. And that to me is the other bit of confusion, government should have no say in the view of individuals or a groups or their businesses or organizations, nor how they choose to discriminate. It's none of government's business.

It's a bigger problem that you might think: Yes, Threats to Religious Liberty Happen Here (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/354702/yes-threats-religious-liberty-happen-here-ryan-t-anderson): "Advocates of same-sex marriage are classifying Biblical teachings as “hate speech.” "

Singularity
08-03-2013, 10:58 AM
Citing Biblical teachings on homosexuality without also
advocating for every other part of the Book of Leviticus, etc.
reflects hatred that is simply hiding behind religion.

Either way, the ordinance in question does nothing other
than expand current protections against discrimination to
include sexual orientation and identity.

The ordinance as it existed before did not permit the govt.
to punish private views on race or sex, and it will not magically
enable persecution here. It will only enable punishment of
govt. officials who discriminate on the aforementioned criteria.

The right wing doesn't like that, and so they're blatantly trying
to stir up righteous indignation over a law that basically says
Bullying Isn't Allowed. It's happened in various places nationwide.

GrassrootsConservative
08-03-2013, 11:39 AM
Citing Biblical teachings on homosexuality without also
advocating for every other part of the Book of Leviticus, etc.
reflects hatred that is simply hiding behind religion.

Either way, the ordinance in question does nothing other
than expand current protections against discrimination to
include sexual orientation and identity.

The ordinance as it existed before did not permit the govt.
to punish private views on race or sex, and it will not magically
enable persecution here. It will only enable punishment of
govt. officials who discriminate on the aforementioned criteria.

The right wing doesn't like that, and so they're blatantly trying
to stir up righteous indignation over a law that basically says
Bullying Isn't Allowed. It's happened in various places nationwide.

Ah, something we disagree on. As a non-religious person I am very anti-gay marriage. I believe they should be able to be with whoever they want, but they shouldn't be militant about it and they shouldn't be able to call it "marriage" (Civil Union or whatever is fine). We as Americans drew a line at marriage being between an adult male and an adult female. That's where the line was. Now that the line has been moved to include more than just that, the line can be moved ANYWHERE, for any reason under the guise of "discrimination."

You can tell me I'm wrong, but I assure you that in the next 10-20 years we will be able to watch the line move further and further away from it's original point.

/Edit: As to the topic of this individual thread, I have no problem keeping religious freaks of the WBC breed out of office. I'd take marriage between a man and another man or a woman and another woman over those rednecks wanting to be able to marry their sisters and whatnot. Simply disgusting.

Chris
08-03-2013, 11:44 AM
Citing Biblical teachings on homosexuality without also
advocating for every other part of the Book of Leviticus, etc.
reflects hatred that is simply hiding behind religion.

Either way, the ordinance in question does nothing other
than expand current protections against discrimination to
include sexual orientation and identity.

The ordinance as it existed before did not permit the govt.
to punish private views on race or sex, and it will not magically
enable persecution here. It will only enable punishment of
govt. officials who discriminate on the aforementioned criteria.

The right wing doesn't like that, and so they're blatantly trying
to stir up righteous indignation over a law that basically says
Bullying Isn't Allowed. It's happened in various places nationwide.

Way off topic, singlularity, way off topic. This is not a religious question but a political one about the limits of government.

Chris
08-03-2013, 11:45 AM
Ah, something we disagree on. As a non-religious person I am very anti-gay marriage. I believe they should be able to be with whoever they want, but they shouldn't be militant about it and they shouldn't be able to call it "marriage" (Civil Union or whatever is fine). We as Americans drew a line at marriage being between an adult male and an adult female. That's where the line was. Now that the line has been moved to include more than just that, the line can be moved ANYWHERE, for any reason under the guise of "discrimination."

You can tell me I'm wrong, but I assure you that in the next 10-20 years we will be able to watch the line move further and further away from it's original point.

/Edit: As to the topic of this individual thread, I have no problem keeping religious freaks of the WBC breed out of office. I'd take marriage between a man and another man or a woman and another woman over those rednecks wanting to be able to marry their sisters and whatnot. Simply disgusting.

So you stand against liberty?

jillian
08-03-2013, 11:45 AM
A local area Tea Party stands up against city hall for liberty of conscience. Here's the story, Tea Party protests San Antonio city proposal, councilman says point is moot (http://www.ksat.com/news/tea-party-protests-san-antonio-city-proposal-councilman-says-point-is-moot/-/478452/21313372/-/xomqlg/-/index.html):



There's a video worth viewing at the link,
http://www.kaltura.com/index.php/kwidget/wid/0_x208jihy/uiconf_id/12411332. It allows the Tea Partiers to speak for themselves rather than through the filter of the media.

Confusion is the order of the day. The first bit of confusion is the Tea Party group launched their protest just as Councilman revised the proposed ordinance to remove the parts being protested. Those parts would have, as worded, disqualified any candidate for office or any business seeking a city contract if they were against homosexulality. The revision only disqualifies for discrimination.

Now I personally have nothing against homosexuality, but I recognize some people do, and they might do so for reasons of religious belief, and they should have a right to their views, and government should not interfere. And that to me is the other bit of confusion, government should have no say in the view of individuals or a groups or their businesses or organizations, nor how they choose to discriminate. It's none of government's business.

It's a bigger problem that you might think: Yes, Threats to Religious Liberty Happen Here (http://www.nationalreview.com/article/354702/yes-threats-religious-liberty-happen-here-ryan-t-anderson): "Advocates of same-sex marriage are classifying Biblical teachings as “hate speech.” "

in other words, you think the teaparty defends bigotry and hatred.

funny how pretend 'libertarians' think defending the wackos is more important than defending the freedom of gays from bigotry.

luckily real libertarians think that's absurd.

GrassrootsConservative
08-03-2013, 11:45 AM
So you stand against liberty?

Do explain.

Chris
08-03-2013, 11:46 AM
in other words, you think the teaparty defends bigotry and hatred.

we already knew that.

As is typical, nothing but made up inflammatory nonsense from you. I stand for liberty, liberty of conscience. Why you want to spin that into something hateful is beyond me. I'd ask but doubt you would or could answer.

Chris
08-03-2013, 11:47 AM
Do explain.

Your words: "As to the topic of this individual thread, I have no problem keeping religious freaks of the WBC breed out of office." That's a stance against liberty.

Singularity
08-03-2013, 11:48 AM
Way off topic, singlularity, way off topic. This is not a religious question but a political one about the limits of government.There is no reason the government should not be allowed
to punish discrimination, whatever its nature, in the civil service.
Period.

Singularity
08-03-2013, 11:49 AM
As a non-religious person I am very anti-gay marriage. I believe they should be able to be with whoever they want, but they shouldn't be militant about it and they shouldn't be able to call it "marriage"Do you believe that gay couples should receive the same legal benefits
that the state awards to straight couples?

GrassrootsConservative
08-03-2013, 11:50 AM
Your words: "As to the topic of this individual thread, I have no problem keeping religious freaks of the WBC breed out of office." That's a stance against liberty.

They are of a stance against Liberty. My stance is anti-anti-Liberty.

Chris
08-03-2013, 11:51 AM
There is no reason the government should not be allowed
to punish discrimination, whatever its nature, in the civil service.
Period.

Seems to come into conflict with religious liberty.

And the original ordinance would have had government intruding upon private business in this regard.

GrassrootsConservative
08-03-2013, 11:51 AM
Do you believe that gay couples should receive the same legal benefits
that the state awards to straight couples?

Sure, as long as they're not in everybody's faces over the fact that they are gay.

Chris
08-03-2013, 11:52 AM
They are of a stance against Liberty. My stance is anti-anti-Liberty.

How is their stance one against liberty? They condemn people, they don't try to control and coerce people the way government does.


ANd why shift the topic from the SA city council to the WBC?

Chris
08-03-2013, 11:52 AM
Sure, as long as they're not in everybody's faces over the fact that they are gay.

There's no right not to be offended.

GrassrootsConservative
08-03-2013, 11:53 AM
There's no right not to be offended.

Never said there was. Why are you making things up?

GrassrootsConservative
08-03-2013, 11:55 AM
How is their stance one against liberty? They condemn people, they don't try to control and coerce people the way government does.


ANd why shift the topic from the SA city council to the WBC?

I refer to the WBC breed whenever I talk about those with anti-gay views due to their Religion.

And since when do those in the church have a right to condemn people?

Singularity
08-03-2013, 11:55 AM
Seems to come into conflict with religious liberty.Total religious liberty stops when you go to work for the government.
The establishment clause comes into effect. Either way, we're not talking
about curtailment of legitimate beliefs; we're talking about the restriction
of the impression of those beliefs upon others without their consent or
fair treatment, simply because of their personal status. Within the govt.

Singularity
08-03-2013, 11:57 AM
Sure, as long as they're not in everybody's faces over the fact that they are gay.

Their manner of expression is a matter of free speech, isn't it?
Either way, the legal question is by far the most important one.
If you don't have a problem with giving them benefits,
then the rest is a bunch of stuff.

GrassrootsConservative
08-03-2013, 11:58 AM
Their manner of expression is a matter of free speech, isn't it?
Either way, the legal question is by far the most important one.
If you don't have a problem with giving them benefits,
then the rest is a bunch of stuff.

Free speech isn't omnipotent. There are restrictions on the things we say.

/Edit: Agree about it being a bunch of stuff. There are far bigger worries in America right now than all this abortion, gay marriage, trayvon martin, and other crap that gets tossed around as political discussion these days.

Why do you think people want to discuss this "stuff" so much?

Chris
08-03-2013, 12:02 PM
Never said there was. Why are you making things up?

I said that because you said it: "Sure, as long as they're not in everybody's faces over the fact that they are gay."

Chris
08-03-2013, 12:03 PM
I refer to the WBC breed whenever I talk about those with anti-gay views due to their Religion.

And since when do those in the church have a right to condemn people?

Free speech. Liberty of conscience. If you don't believe what would it even mean to you to be condemned?

GrassrootsConservative
08-03-2013, 12:03 PM
I said that because you said it: "Sure, as long as they're not in everybody's faces over the fact that they are gay."

I'm talking about things like that cake shop that wouldn't make a cake for a lesbian wedding.

Singularity
08-03-2013, 12:05 PM
Free speech isn't omnipotent. There are restrictions on the things we say.

/Edit: Agree about it being a bunch of stuff. There are far bigger worries in America right now than all this abortion, gay marriage, trayvon martin, and other crap that gets tossed around as political discussion these days.

Why do you think people want to discuss this "stuff" so much?

And the courts, like they're supposed to, have weighed the value of
the government dicking around in people's romantic lives and ruled
accordingly. If it's that important to you, I'll agree to disagree on the
actual "expression" of marriage. The legal benefits are 99 percent of
my concern, because equal protection under the law is important.

Up until recently, I can understand people wanting to focus on
social issues because some people really were getting the shit end
of the stick with the way it was before. However, in today's world,
I do think that people get angry and all that over simpler, more
easily solved problems so they don't have to think about the harder ones.

"I don't have a job and my car just got repo'd, but (Insert demographic here) Rights Now!"

Chris
08-03-2013, 12:07 PM
Total religious liberty stops when you go to work for the government.
The establishment clause comes into effect. Either way, we're not talking
about curtailment of legitimate beliefs; we're talking about the restriction
of the impression of those beliefs upon others without their consent or
fair treatment, simply because of their personal status. Within the govt.


According to the Constitution there shall be no religious test.

The establishment clause does not come into play. A public official expressing private views is not establishing religion.

The impression of, what? Makes no sense. Laws about impressions?

GrassrootsConservative
08-03-2013, 12:07 PM
Free speech. Liberty of conscience. If you don't believe what would it even mean to you to be condemned?

What it means to me doesn't matter. It's the definition of what "condemn" actually is that scares me.

Why don't you look it up?

Chris
08-03-2013, 12:08 PM
I'm talking about things like that cake shop that wouldn't make a cake for a lesbian wedding.

I was going to include reference to that. Government has no business intruding on private business like that.

GrassrootsConservative
08-03-2013, 12:10 PM
I was going to include reference to that. Government has no business intruding on private business like that.

I'm talking about that stuff. You know other stories like that I'm sure, I just can't think of them.

Singularity
08-03-2013, 12:10 PM
According to the Constitution there shall be no religious test.No religious requirements, no establishment of religion. Religion is a private matter
for those in the employ of the state. It cannot be applied to other people who are
not involved in one's religion. That extends to treatment of gays.

Chris
08-03-2013, 12:23 PM
No religious requirements, no establishment of religion. Religion is a private matter
for those in the employ of the state. It cannot be applied to other people who are
not involved in one's religion. That extends to treatment of gays.



No, no religious test. Period. Don't start adding to the Constitution.

And public officials expressing private opinions does not establish religion. I agree, government cannot discriminate, and that has been incorporated--no argument there. But the private opinions of public officials are protected, or ought to be protected rights. Ditto the private opinions of businesses who may or may not contract with government.

Singularity
08-03-2013, 03:47 PM
And public officials expressing private opinions does not establish religion.
That's not what this ordinance concerns. It's a protection against discrimination.

If you believe that homosexuals should receive the same protections against
discrimination that other demographics do, we have no argument.

Chris
08-03-2013, 05:13 PM
That's not what this ordinance concerns. It's a protection against discrimination.

If you believe that homosexuals should receive the same protections against
discrimination that other demographics do, we have no argument.

Read the OP, that is what the ordinance initially meant. Because of protests it was reworded.

As I said earlier, government should restrict itself from discrimination, of any sort--equality before the law. But to restrict the personal beliefs and private opinions of citizens even office holders is wrong.

Let us note that you raise no concern over this religious discrimination.

Singularity
08-03-2013, 05:37 PM
Let us note that you raise no concern over this religious discrimination.The law should protect freedom of conscience. It does not protect discrimination
motivated by "conscience." Believe what you will about gays. I have zero problem
with that. I believe that the law should uphold your right to believe that and to
express that view under personal circumstances. But the moment you use your
position or public office to "express" your view to the detriment of these people,
you deserve to lose that position you've just abused, barring a full recantation.

Chris
08-03-2013, 06:33 PM
The law should protect freedom of conscience. It does not protect discrimination
motivated by "conscience." Believe what you will about gays. I have zero problem
with that. I believe that the law should uphold your right to believe that and to
express that view under personal circumstances. But the moment you use your
position or public office to "express" your view to the detriment of these people,
you deserve to lose that position you've just abused, barring a full recantation.



Agree, a person acting in the capacity of government should not be allowed to discrimination for any reason, but that same person should be free to express personal beliefs and private opinions.