Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Talking Points Memo)   Old and Busted: Marriage equality. New Hotness: "Religious freedom" I'm just gonna put this out there, but I think you have an incredibly fickle God if he's threatened by the people who developed the musical Cats   (talkingpointsmemo.com) divider line 115
    More: Followup, Catz, religious freedom, opponents of same-sex marriage, Kansas House, Lambda Legal, homophobias, Tennessee Senate, civil rights  
•       •       •

1438 clicks; posted to Politics » on 19 Feb 2014 at 11:04 AM (48 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



115 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all
 
2014-02-19 09:52:16 AM  
Amazing that your religious freedom impacts the freedoms and rights of millions of Americans to marry the person they are in love with, but that them legally marrying the person they want to does not in any way affect how strongly you believe in the tenets of your faith. It's almost as if, and bear with me here, your entire argument is a bunch of hollow bullsh*t that you whine like a spoiled child about so you can continue to hate people for no good goddamn reason. F*ck you with a rake made of AIDS, you stupid f*cking douchecanoes.
 
2014-02-19 09:58:24 AM  

Kome: F*ck you with a rake made of AIDS


ow....that's like a five-finger f*ck of satan's middle finger right there
 
2014-02-19 10:00:01 AM  
All it will take is one non-straight Christian to deny service to a straight Christian.

Watch how quickly these laws get scrapped once that happens.
 
2014-02-19 10:01:20 AM  
1. Start religion requiring gay marriage
2. ???
3. Profit
 
2014-02-19 10:05:37 AM  

grumpfuff: All it will take is one non-straight Christian to deny service to a straight Christian.

Watch how quickly these laws get scrapped once that happens.


Make sure the straight Christian is remarried after a divorce first.
 
2014-02-19 10:11:44 AM  

Serious Black: grumpfuff: All it will take is one non-straight Christian to deny service to a straight Christian.

Watch how quickly these laws get scrapped once that happens.

Make sure the straight Christian is remarried after a divorce first.


You don't even need that. Just have the non-straight Christian say that judging people goes against what Jesus taught, and that by discriminating, the straight Christians are judging.
 
2014-02-19 10:13:56 AM  
You'd have a better argument for religious freedom in allowing discrimination against the wealthy, particularly for Christians. Certainly, there's much more support in the Bible for that than for being anti-love. And wealthy people are not even a quasi-suspect class, so equal protection wouldn't be much of an issue. So, how about a concerted effort to refuse service to the 1%?
 
2014-02-19 10:17:16 AM  
Religious freedom does not mean we read your mind to determine whether or not a particular belief is motivated by religious reasoning. Conservatives shouldn't want us to to do that.
 
2014-02-19 10:42:51 AM  
I thought your rights end where your fist hits my face?
 
2014-02-19 10:47:46 AM  
Jesus was very clear about shunning sinners and avoiding people you disagree with. Jesus is a very unforgiving and judgemental God.
 
2014-02-19 10:51:35 AM  

Kome: Amazing that your religious freedom impacts the freedoms and rights of millions of Americans to marry the person they are in love with, but that them legally marrying the person they want to does not in any way affect how strongly you believe in the tenets of your faith. It's almost as if, and bear with me here, your entire argument is a bunch of hollow bullsh*t that you whine like a spoiled child about so you can continue to hate people for no good goddamn reason. F*ck you with a rake made of AIDS, you stupid f*cking douchecanoes.


Letting gays marry does infringe on my right to not feel icky.
 
2014-02-19 10:56:38 AM  
"Discrimination is horrible. It's hurtful. It has no place in civilized society, and that's precisely why we're moving this bill," Kansas Rep. Charles Macheers, one of the Republicans who voted for that state's bill, said on the House floor. "There have been times throughout history where people have been persecuted for their religious beliefs because they were unpopular. This bill provides a shield of protection for that."

Discrimination of discrimination is discrimination.

encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com

I guess only Christian rights matter.  Good thing the Constitution enshrines Christianity as a state religion.
 
2014-02-19 10:57:50 AM  

DamnYankees: Religious freedom does not mean we read your mind to determine whether or not a particular belief is motivated by religious reasoning. Conservatives shouldn't want us to to do that.


We're going to have to have a conversation about this, and I mean all of us in Western society. Who the hell is the State to decide if a religious conviction is valid? On the other hand, do we just take as law whatever an individual says about themselves?  Maybe it was easy when there was just one church in town, but you can't say that some religions are "real" (and tax-exempt) and others aren't. On the other hand, religion cannot be a catch-all excuse for open bigotry, or for, say, failing to fill prescriptions at your job.
 
2014-02-19 11:00:49 AM  
I want to own slaves as it says in the Holy Bible:

Ephesians 6:5

Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

Therefore, anyone who is against my owning of slaves is against my religious freedom.
 
2014-02-19 11:02:17 AM  

God Is My Co-Pirate: DamnYankees: Religious freedom does not mean we read your mind to determine whether or not a particular belief is motivated by religious reasoning. Conservatives shouldn't want us to to do that.

We're going to have to have a conversation about this, and I mean all of us in Western society. Who the hell is the State to decide if a religious conviction is valid? On the other hand, do we just take as law whatever an individual says about themselves?  Maybe it was easy when there was just one church in town, but you can't say that some religions are "real" (and tax-exempt) and others aren't. On the other hand, religion cannot be a catch-all excuse for open bigotry, or for, say, failing to fill prescriptions at your job.


I believe SCOTUS has said essentially that you get to decide whether you have a sincerely held religious belief. See United States v. Seeger where they approved of people conscientiously objecting to being drafted despite not expressing conformity with the beliefs of a deity.
 
2014-02-19 11:09:21 AM  
Paying taxes is against my religion.
 
2014-02-19 11:11:33 AM  

Diogenes: I guess only Christian rights matter.  Good thing the Constitution enshrines Christianity as a state religion.


I'm glad you libs finally catching on after all this time!  Remember, it's only discrimination if it's against ME!
 
2014-02-19 11:13:33 AM  

DamnYankees: Religious freedom does not mean we read your mind to determine whether or not a particular belief is motivated by religious reasoning. Conservatives shouldn't want us to to do that.


The best is hearing someone thread the needle on religions and cults. Plenty of people will tell you Islam, Hindu, Buddhism, and other mainstream faiths deserve no such religious protections as they are cults, and I have a feeling that any Christian sect that would allow gay marriage would also fall into the "well it's not really a religion then is it?" category.
 
2014-02-19 11:14:50 AM  
Now legislation has popped up in Kansas, South Dakota and Tennessee in the last few weeks, which would give private businesses and individual government workers the right to deny services to same-sex couples if it would violate their "sincerely held religious beliefs," as both the Kansas and Tennessee bills put it.

Fark your sincerely held religious beliefs.
 
2014-02-19 11:14:59 AM  

God Is My Co-Pirate: DamnYankees: Religious freedom does not mean we read your mind to determine whether or not a particular belief is motivated by religious reasoning. Conservatives shouldn't want us to to do that.

We're going to have to have a conversation about this, and I mean all of us in Western society. Who the hell is the State to decide if a religious conviction is valid? On the other hand, do we just take as law whatever an individual says about themselves?  Maybe it was easy when there was just one church in town, but you can't say that some religions are "real" (and tax-exempt) and others aren't. On the other hand, religion cannot be a catch-all excuse for open bigotry, or for, say, failing to fill prescriptions at your job.


Well, there's 2 issues here:

First is determining whether or not a belief is sincerely held. I think thats a valid thing for a court to do - if you are going to try to claim religious freedom, you need to prove its a real religious belief you actually hold, not just a front for bigotry.

The second issue is determining whether a given action is motivated by a religious belief or something else. On this I agree with you, the state shouldn't be doing that! That's the liberal position. The liberal position is "here's a law which is applicable to everyone, and you can't disobey it. We're not going to care why you want to disobey it, just don't." The conservative position is "I should be able to disobey a law (or get it overturned) if my objection stems from a religion". That's just inviting the state to probe theology, which is a bad idea.
 
2014-02-19 11:15:04 AM  
Now legislation has popped up in Kansas, South Dakota and Tennessee in the last few weeks, which would give private businesses and individual government workers the right to deny services to same-sex couples if it would violate their "sincerely held religious beliefs," as both the Kansas and Tennessee bills put it.

We don't let racists hide under the skirt of their god, these people won't be able to either.

I suggest they pray harder, because the law of man has spoken and I ain't heard shiat from god.
 
2014-02-19 11:15:08 AM  

Mentat: I thought your rights end where your fist hits my face?


But your face looks pretty gay, so Jesus would want me to punch it. Why do you hate Jesus?
 
2014-02-19 11:15:29 AM  

Kome: Amazing that your religious freedom impacts the freedoms and rights of millions of Americans to marry the person they are in love with, but that them legally marrying the person they want to does not in any way affect how strongly you believe in the tenets of your faith. It's almost as if, and bear with me here, your entire argument is a bunch of hollow bullsh*t that you whine like a spoiled child about so you can continue to hate people for no good goddamn reason. F*ck you with a rake made of AIDS, you stupid f*cking douchecanoes.


I thought Randall posted something quite funny about this today. It's entirely consistent with the Slippery Slope argument made by conservatives.


imgs.xkcd.com
 
2014-02-19 11:17:32 AM  
I'm sorry, but I must have missed this particular verse, despite attending Southern Baptist churches for going on three decades now - but can someone please point out where the commandment "Go forth and be a giant coont to everyone who you find to be the slightest bit icky" is written down?

You'd think that a religion founded upon a guy who hung out with tax collectors, lepers, Samaritans, Romans, slaves, and a half dozen other groups of people who were reviled and despised by the orthodox leaders of his time would be a little more open-minded.
 
2014-02-19 11:19:33 AM  
Would it really be long until someone refuses service to someone because they are muslim or black and claim immunity under these types of 'religious freedom' laws?
 
2014-02-19 11:20:40 AM  
i.imgur.com
 
2014-02-19 11:21:48 AM  
I'll just leave this here:

www.pewresearch.org

Best of luck to the GOP.
 
2014-02-19 11:21:59 AM  

God Is My Co-Pirate: On the other hand, religion cannot be a catch-all excuse for open bigotry, or for, say, failing to fill prescriptions at your job.


That's exactly what it's being used for, though.  And it's such an intellectually EASY crutch for people to use to avoid stuff that makes them uncomfortable.  You don't need to sit down and think about why you're uncomfortable with [insert social issue], and you don't have to question whether your discomfort is really valid or whether you should allow that to affect other people.

I know from personal experience; when I was younger (like middle school), I was weirded out by gay people.  One of my friends (who was more thoughtful than I was at the time) asked me why.  I couldn't think of any reason, so I just said "it's against my religion" and left it at that.  It's such a conversational nuke---you can't tell someone their religion is bullshiat to their face---that you get left alone after that point, and you don't have to go to the EFFORT of considering why you feel that way and confronting your own beliefs.

Thankfully, a few years later I realized that I had just been lazy before, and that I just needed to get over my own discomfort.  I'm glad I went through that process, and I have so little respect for adults (or people who claim to be adults) who use that religious scapegoat to justify their intellectual laziness.

These guys are just trying to avoid an internal confrontation that they should have had a long time ago.
 
2014-02-19 11:22:12 AM  
"We're seeing an expansion, or a proliferation, of this effort," Jennifer Pizer, director of the law and policy project at Lambda Legal, the civil rights group that advocates for gay rights, told TPM. "This is a more aggressive, or maybe it's desperate, but certainly a more aggressive approach."

timothy 2:12
 
2014-02-19 11:22:37 AM  
Pssst. . . Hey, teatards. These laws aren't going to take hold to any significant degree. Your politicians are taking advantage of your bigotry to line their pockets with your God-fearing cash.

You're welcome.
 
2014-02-19 11:22:51 AM  
Jesus performed some of the first documented occurrences of facepalming in recorded history? And why was Jesus always facepalming? The apostles kept missing the point of his teachings.

2000+ year later...
 
2014-02-19 11:23:55 AM  

persephonemagazine.com



R.I.P. Dr. Katz

 
2014-02-19 11:24:34 AM  
Do we really  need religious freedom?  In 2014, it seems like such a quaint, antiquated notion.  People should definitely be free to  believe what ever ridiculous fairy-tale fantasy that helps them cope with the fact that some day they're going to die, but do we really need to allow that to extend beyond the confines of their skull?
 
2014-02-19 11:25:53 AM  

HMS_Blinkin: I know from personal experience; when I was younger (like middle school), I was weirded out by gay people.  One of my friends (who was more thoughtful than I was at the time) asked me why.  I couldn't think of any reason, so I just said "it's against my religion" and left it at that.  It's such a conversational nuke---you can't tell someone their religion is bullshiat to their face---that you get left alone after that point, and you don't have to go to the EFFORT of considering why you feel that way and confronting your own beliefs.


Its important to note that its not a lie though. People who are religious genuinely do believe these things, and they genuinely think that because its a religious belief, its not bigotry.

I have personal experience in this. I come from a religious Jewish family, but I'm not religious. When I got engaged to my wife (who is Chinese), some people in my family were really upset and opposed to it on the grounds she wasn't Jewish. They 100% thought that this was a valid objection, that its simply part of the religion, and that in no way were they being bigoted. They were angry and shocked at even being accused of being bigoted!

But of course they were being bigoted. They didn't want to let someone from outside the tribe into the tribe. They eventually got over it. But what if we had to respect these kinds of beliefs in matters of public policy? That's what we're being asked to do. It can't fly.
 
2014-02-19 11:27:11 AM  
pbs.twimg.com
 
2014-02-19 11:28:23 AM  

theknuckler_33: Would it really be long until someone refuses service to someone because they are muslim or black and claim immunity under these types of 'religious freedom' laws?


Nope.  That's the problem with even best laid out Conservative plans, they never think them all the way through for some reason.
 
2014-02-19 11:29:44 AM  

China White Tea: Do we really  need religious freedom?


Yes.  What would happen to the Muslims living in Tennessee without religious freedom?  It wasn't that long ago that people were getting killed for their beliefs---and we as a species still possess that capacity.
 
2014-02-19 11:30:37 AM  

China White Tea: Do we really  need religious freedom?  In 2014, it seems like such a quaint, antiquated notion.  People should definitely be free to  believe what ever ridiculous fairy-tale fantasy that helps them cope with the fact that some day they're going to die, but do we really need to allow that to extend beyond the confines of their skull?


Religious freedom is perfectly fine and dandy. Legislators attempting to put purely religious precepts into law can ride a giant f*ck-stick straight into whatever hell is most appropriate.
 
2014-02-19 11:32:15 AM  
cdn.motinetwork.net
 
2014-02-19 11:32:59 AM  
Tax breaks for churches is against my religion.

Seriously, discriminate all you want within your religion, and keep it in your church.
Don't allow lgbt, racoon-human hybrids, blah people, soul-less cloned child cyborgs, or brain-downloaded AI's inside to learn about Jesus' love for all people. We get it, we really do, that most religious people don't approve of people who aren't exactly like them.

But if you want to try to enshrine your crap in everyone's government, then turnabout is fair play and expect your sunday school to have athiesm & darwinism taught as competing theories alongside such great biblical theories such as pi = 3.
 
2014-02-19 11:33:49 AM  

neversubmit: [pbs.twimg.com image 523x720]


Not to defend them or anything, but we have some books that date to the 2nd century, and most Biblical scholars agree much of the New Testament was first written down in the late 1st to 2nd century. So no, not centuries later. Decades.

If you want to criticize something, at least have the knowledge to do it correctly.
 
2014-02-19 11:34:51 AM  
Passing a bill that puts legal force behind action done in the name of "sincerely held religious belief" could NEVER EVER backfire in any way.  Do republicans that do bills like this seriously never remember that there are other religions besides Christianity too, and that you're giving the same legal privileges to them as well?  Hell, ANYTHING can be a "sincerely held religious belief," it doesn't even have to be from a particular religion; it could just be your sincerely held religious belief.
 
2014-02-19 11:36:15 AM  

SpankyPinkbottom: I'll just leave this here:

[www.pewresearch.org image 707x384]

Best of luck to the GOP.


You forget that those numbers are skewed. Polling organizations do not attain an accurate sampling of the general populace, and those who oppose legal recognition of same-sex marriage are substantially undercounted because many of them lack the intellectual ability to operate a telephone.
 
2014-02-19 11:37:22 AM  

theknuckler_33: Would it really be long until someone refuses service to someone because they are muslim or black and claim immunity under these types of 'religious freedom' laws?


Or female!  Don't forget that they could deny service to women as well!
 
2014-02-19 11:37:37 AM  
You know what? You don't want homosexuals marrying in YOUR church, that's fine. That is an exercise in the freedom of your faith. Hold to it. Just stop expecting OTHER faiths to hold to YOUR interpretations.

YOUR church? Fine and dandy. Unitarians, Methodists, or atheists, that's a whole different story.

I am fine with expecting folks who walk through your doors, and attending services at your church to comply with the teachings of your faith. I am not good with expecting folks who aren't members of your congregation to comply with the teachings of your faith. That's why we use "your" in the first place. That belongs to you. Other folks, they maybe don't hold to it, and the free practice of your faith doesn't include keeping OTHERS from exercising their own.

...and if your faith demands you be a dick to people, and discriminate, then your faith is kind of like a store that ain't got no Mojo Nixon, and sure could use some fixin'...
 
2014-02-19 11:38:43 AM  

SpankyPinkbottom: I'll just leave this here:

[www.pewresearch.org image 707x384]

Best of luck to the GOP.


I love that the graph looks like a penis ejaculating.
 
2014-02-19 11:39:49 AM  

WraithSama: Passing a bill that puts legal force behind action done in the name of "sincerely held religious belief" could NEVER EVER backfire in any way.  Do republicans that do bills like this seriously never remember that there are other religions besides Christianity too, and that you're giving the same legal privileges to them as well?  Hell, ANYTHING can be a "sincerely held religious belief," it doesn't even have to be from a particular religion; it could just be your sincerely held religious belief.


That's precisely when "good ol' boy" networks of the judiciary and law enforcement spring into action, to make sure the "right" cases are being brought to the courts in the backwards sorts of place that enact this kind of legislation.
 
2014-02-19 11:40:01 AM  
"Discrimination is horrible. It's hurtful. It has no place in civilized society, and that's precisely why we're moving this bill," Kansas Rep. Charles Macheers

Translation: We had to destroy the village in order to save it...
 
2014-02-19 11:40:08 AM  
If the Church took as strong a stance against adultery, bribery, failure to render unto Caesar, working on the Sabbath (that one even made the Big 10, whereas gay sex didn't), disrespecting or not fearing a parent (also from the Big 10), making graven images, taking the Lord's name in vain, failure to shoo away a mother bird before harvesting her eggs (Numbers 22:6-7), rebellious kids (put them to death, folks - Deuteronomy 21:18-21), or any of a thousand other prohibitions as they do on gay sex (really, gay LOVE, since a pastor doesn't have to bust you en flagrante delicto to discriminate), pews would be empty.

Also, I notice the US didn't have a problem violating Biblical law when it came to returning fugitive slaves - the Bible says they stay free (after saying that anyone who beats a slave is unfit to own any, so his slaves go free; on top of the rules about feeding/clothing/housing/caring for them, which were similarly disregarded).

So kindly set yourselves (or your kids) on fire as an offering to Moloch, conservatives. It's not like you'd know that was prohibited anyway...

// Leviticus doesn't prohibit scissoring or all-male orgies (so long as there's more than two men)
 
2014-02-19 11:47:39 AM  

grumpfuff: neversubmit: [pbs.twimg.com image 523x720]

Not to defend them or anything, but we have some books that date to the 2nd century, and most Biblical scholars agree much of the New Testament was first written down in the late 1st to 2nd century. So no, not centuries later. Decades.

If you want to criticize something, at least have the knowledge to do it correctly.


Dating the Oldest New Testament Manuscripts by Peter van Minnen

most biblical scholars?
 
Displayed 50 of 115 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report