freeman3 wrote:I think it would be ok to ban a burqa in public on non-security grounds as denigrating women and that outweighs the religious beliefs. The right to freely practice religion was put in the Constitution after all the persecution after the Reformation, where when Catholics had political control Protestants were persecuted and vice-versa. Here, we are talking about an undue burden on religion in their public businesss because they are being forced to do something they don't want to do to ensure that a particular group is not discriminated against.
There's a lot more to the Freedom of Religion than Catholics vs. Protestants. They didn't want a "Church of America," as in "Church of England."
Did you know the London Baptist Confession of Faith of 1689 was written in 1677, but could not be published as such until 1689, after the Act of Toleration was passed? The UK had a long history of religious strife. The different Christian sects were at the heart of the English Civil War.
So how do you balance those two rights? It's easy to say in a large city a gay couple could go somewhere else...but how about in a small rural city where there in only one bakery that does wedding cakes within 50 miles?
Unreasonable hypotheticals are not a sound basis for crafting law.
One of the main reasons that attitudes changed toward homosexuality was the realization that it was not a free behavioral choice--regardless of what combination of genetics and life history there was, homosexuals were not making so much a choice but becoming who they are.
Uh-huh. So, if I can show one person who simply chooses homosexuality does that negate your entire argument?
Also, please note: you are making a half-baked pseudo-scientific argument. In other words, we are supposed to accept as scientific fact what you are saying even though it cannot be proven and we know there are clear exceptions to your rule.
Additionally, it does nothing to negate someone's religious belief and practice.
Their ability to not make that choice was heavily limited by by factors beyond their control. And ultimately if they are not making a choice--or if at least the choice is heavily tilted one way--then they should be allowed to become who they are. If God didn't want homosexuals...he shouldn't have made them.
Denying God, invoking Him. Make up your mind.
They are making a choice to get married. They are intent on changing the definition of marriage for no urgent reason. It does not change their lives to get married.
However, in effect, using governmental power to force someone to violate the precepts of their religious faith for no reason more compelling than it hurts someone's feelings if they don't--that will, carried to its logical conclusion, eradicate religion.
A burqa is repugnant to our values because our values have evolved. We don't think women should be treated that way; it's not fair. I think our values with respect to how homosexuals are treated--and transgender and other square pegs that don't fit into the round holes of society-- are evolving as well. Of course, religion does not evolve. But I don't see why we should allow values from 2,000 years ago dictate how we treat people today in the public space.
You are welcome to try and repeal the First Amendment. I wish you the worst of luck.