This is completely out of control.

In the two circumstances you outlined, is the freedom being granted to those with the religious objection imposing anything on others?

In the latter it is, I don't really believe that any drugs should be illegal that don't cause measurable societal harm but with the evangelical corporations being exempted to providing medical insurance that had been judged to be necessary and important, I definitely have an issue. This would be less of an issue if the USA didn't have the frankly stupid situation of employers deciding on employees medical insurance, but if that's the situation we are in, if a medical treatment is judged to be important, an employer shouldn't be able to deny their tens of thousand of employees access. That is abominable.

Again, how so? How is not wanting to participate in a gay wedding preventing anyone from getting married?

And black people are still allowed to eat, even if no establishment in town will sell them food. The possibility of an act still being performed doesn't lessen the immorality of discrimination against a whole class of people.

If what you said it true, then I can a business owner can refuse to serve someone who is gay simply for being gay. I don't know how many times I have to demonstrate to you that that notion simply is not true.

You have demonstrated no such thing, the Indiana RFRA not only grants the explicit right of religious people to discriminate as they see fit, there is evidence based on the list of lobbyists for the bill that this is the main intention for the bill in the first place. All that is required is that a religious person state that they have a religious motivation for their discrimination.

This is discrimination against secular people as well, as an atheist bigot is not granted the same right to discriminate as a religious bigot.

Religious freedom is not a special right. It is a fundamental right.

Up until the point when it affects the rights of another. As I have stated earlier, it would be great if we could give people the right to serve whoever they liked, but this caused massive problems in the past. I'm not talking about Jim Crowe, that was the government discriminating against certain classes of people, I'm talking about the laws that were required to prevent arseholes from barring blacks and interracial couples from their establishments. I am happy for you to practice any wacky religious rituals you like in the privacy of your own home, but when it interferes with the rights of other people, you're on your own.

We have already went through this. Catholics cannot participate in sin. By forcing me to participate in a gay wedding you are forcing me to sin.

And I feel an instant twinge of discomfort when I deal with a Catholic person. In Australia (where I live) the Catholic church has constantly shirked their responsibilities to compensate and help victims of child rapists in their ranks, child rapists that they have hidden and protected, shuffling them from parish to parish. They made use of what is known as the Ellis Defense, that even Cardinal Pell, the Cardinal who was in charge at the time of it's use has admitted was a dog act (though he hasn't in any way accepted the responsibility that would have come if they hadn't used that despicable legal defense). It is so bad that it now seems that those abused by the church, having found no legal recourse to attain justice are now resorting to setting fire to Catholic churches vigilante style.

I can't help but find someone who financially and socially supportive of that same organization morally culpable and yet I would not endorse the shunning, refusal of service or any other discrimination against someone who identifies as Catholic.

You are participating in sin when you donate money and support to an organisation that commits heinous crimes, you don't participate by extension when you sell someone a pizza.

/r/Catholicism Thread Parent Link -