What intolerence? Religious beliefs and structural biases have no business in government or law. She's not talking about changing the law, she's talking about enforcing the law. Something these religious freedom restoration laws attempt to circumvent, which is why the courts are not upholding them. What? Her comment twenty years ago was that she decided to work instead of staying home herself. How is that looking down on anyone? http://cooking.nytimes.com/recipes/4016-hillary-clintons-chocolate-chips
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2014/oct/20/idaho-citys-ordinance-tells-pastors-to-marry-gays-/ You where saying? How long until someone trys this at a church and then sues?
No! That there is a push by some to force churches to marry LBGT couples in spite of religous positions. This would be a violation of the separation of church and state don't you think? Would HRC back this? Is it a slippery slope? Those are valid questions. BTW I fully support same sex marriage and any equal rights up to the church door.
It depends. Separation of church and state was enacted to prevent a state-sponsored religion, as in Saudi Arabia and Israel. It does not extend to governments insisting that no discrimination based on race, gender, sexual orientation or religion can be permitted just because it offends ones personal religious tenets. Marriage is complicated because it is currently both a legal status and a religious institution. Governments have a right to decree that legal marriages cannot condone discrimination. So Justices of the Peace, Clerks of Court, etc. cannot discriminate, based on their religious belief, against anybody wishing to be legally married. However marriage as a religious institution is conducted in churches, by pastors, as a religious ceremony is a private matter and religions should be able to conduct them as they please. The tricky part is that pastors are currently permitted to legally marry people which makes them subject to discrimination laws. I think the solution is to simply separate the legal status from the religious ceremony. People should get a marriage license, do the legal forms, and have the marriage certified by the government. Then people can choose to have a religious ceremony privately or choose not to. Pastors can then freely choose who they will choose to perform a religious ceremony on, but the legality of it remains with the court.
You are correct sort of. Actually that is the way things are now. What do you think a marriage license is? It's the legal marriage and all that is required. The religous ceremony is let's say the icing on the cake. If you get a marriage license but don't have a religous ceremony you're still married. If you get only a religous ceremony the state doesn't recognize it until the license is obtained. Basically the religous ceremony is no longer and legally hasn't been for years the determination of a legal marriage. Again I'm good with that but not good with forcing any religon to perform a religous ceremony that conflicts with their doctrine.
All that needs to happen is a gay couple go to a Muslim establishment and ask to be married. In which they will shut the doors. Majority of the world believes in a region of some sort. The government will soon find itself on the wrong side of the social norm if they don't start to pump the breaks here.
I've seen the clip. Her superiority complex and complete disdain for moms who stay at home was clearly evident. She was not making a simple statement about choosing to work. She had a clear disrespect for women who did not pursue work after having children. Her further disdain for women not like herself was her infamous comment about not standing by her man. " You know, I'm not sitting here like some little woman standing by my man, like Tammy Wynette" But, despite her obvious condescension.....she did.
That already happened. I posted a video somewhere in this forum from a gay dude who went into several Muslim bakeries in Dearborn, MI and asked for gay-themed wedding cakes. He was flat out refused and nothing happened.