Quote:
Originally Posted by Twosugars
Then we should make it clear in constitution or wherever that religion trumps equality and be done with it.
Would you defend if someone had a religion that made him discriminate racially? And refuse to bake cakes for black people? Would you deploy the same arguments how those seeking equality disturb, distress and don't care?
Also, why do you say "there's little to no room for respecting the private practices of other people's cultures/way of life"?  |
Religion is protected in the Constitution, that's why they had won the ruling. Escaping religious persecution has always been a huge factor for people immigrating to the States.
Race itself is a protected class so no, that wouldn't be expected to fly. Eventually sexual preference will make itself into there as well. The baker though didn't discriminate against them on the basis of their homosexuality. The disagreement was that their practice (same-sex marriage) came into conflict with his practices, so he couldn't play a part in that ritual. It would be like if someone walked in and wanted food for a cake featuring a celebrating eating and devouring a specific animal and the baker would maybe have to decline because the animal was a spiritual God, etc. The concept of Man+Woman is a sacred union in Christianity and marriage is considered a religious practice, just as sex is considered a sacred practice. That's why we don't really see any orthodox Christians working at adult sex shops. (Editx9000)
Anyway, it would be difficult to find a reasonably-sized religion that discriminates on the basis of race. Just because, how else would that religion thrive if it's narrowing that much it's potential pool of worshipers...
It would be a failed experiment at best...