Again, the Kim Davis event in Kentucky dominates most of the dialogue on religious freedom.
If the issue is that people shouldn't push their views down other people's throat, then those who are attacking Davis should be open to an opt-out option.
The law actually requires religious accommodation where it’s reasonable. It’s part of our traditions, it’s part of our history, and it’s part of our law, specifically in Kentucky. In Kentucky, you can opt out of issuing fishing and gaming licenses if you’re a vegetarian. If you have a moral conviction there, you’re respected. So why not respect the moral convictions of Ms. Davis here and provide an opt-out? All she’s asking for is to keep her name and her title off the license. And the licenses could go out to same-sex couples. And I think it’s a possible solution that should be pursued, and she should not have been thrown in jail. That was unnecessary and wrong. --Roger Severino (Director, DeVos Center for Religion and Civil Society, The Heritage Foundation)
George Takei, pushes his same-old same-old drivel claiming no one should impose their beliefs on other while vocally believing people should impose their beliefs on others:
The critique that followed cited the Constitution, an analogy to interracial marriage, and the reminder that no American is free to impose her beliefs on others, saying such appeals to belief over civil laws are "entirely un-American." --George Takei in a FaceBook post
Top Missouri officials are asking that a lawsuit brought by the Satanic Temple challenging the state’s mandated 72-hour waiting period for an abortion be thrown out. The "Satanic Temple" exists only to make a mockery of religious freedom.
“Women whose decision to terminate a pregnancy is informed by her deeply-held belief in Satanic principles of bodily autonomy and scientific deference should not be made to endure State-sanctioned proselytization of a conflicting religious perspective.” --Satanic Temple
A Miami Herald columnist hates that patriotic people who wish to uphold the US Constitution use so many patriotic words in their ideas:
The political right has long had a genius for wrapping noxious notions in code that sounds benign and even noble. The "Patriot Act," "family values," and "right to work." are fruits of that genius. "Religious liberty" is poised to become their latest masterpiece, the "states' rights" of the battle for a more homophobic America.
And from the "Christian Century" it never ceases to amaze me that liberal Christians are so willing to shoot their own freedom in the foot:
Kim Davis’s religious community has the right to define religious marriage for its own purposes. The county clerk of Rowan County, Kentucky, wants to impose that definition on the office she runs and the civil marriages it administers, and she claims her free exercise rights allow this.--Steve Thorngate The Christian Century associate editor
From the #D'oh report a writer at a extremist lefty blog Addicting Info writes:
Let’s be honest. The real persecution of “religious freedom” in the United States is against Muslims. --Antiphon Freeman--Addicting Info
Of course, the names not a real one, it's another lefty espousing their strong opinions in a cowardly anonymous way. [See "Daily Kos]
And again, from Missouri:
Republicans in Missouri are looking at expanding state protections for religious liberty after the jailing of a county clerk in Kentucky over her refusal to allow her office to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples.......................The Missouri Alliance for Freedom — a conservative political organization ran by Ryan Johnson announced earlier today that they had secured two state senators to support legislation next year aimed directly at the Davis controversy. Sen. Kurt Schaefer, who is running against Hawley for AG, and Sen. Bob Onder, a St. Louis Republican freshman, have both promised to support legislation from MAF that will “protect religious liberty.”......................Missouri already has a Religious Freedom Restoration Act that stipulates the state must accommodate government employee’s sincere religious belief, provided that doing so is the least burdensome manner possible and it does not inhibit or interfere with a compelling government interest. While Davis’ supporters say her objections should be honored by the state, groups opposed like the ACLU say Davis’ refusal to allow anyone in her office from issuing marriage licenses for gay couples did not constitute a reasonable accommodation of her belief. --Missouri Times 09.09.15
