They believe "religious freedom" entitles them to discriminate against persons who don't believe what they do.
I remember learning in grade school history that Europeans first came here to escape such discrimination.
Anyway, they are wrong. Religious freedom means you don't get to discriminate or force your beliefs onto others who dont' believe as you do, because they have the freedom to believe as they wish.
The Pilgrims didn't actually come here to escape religious discrimination, as such; they just wanted to practice their own kind of religious discrimination. They wanted to be on the top of the heap for a change.
As each country had an official state religion, those who did not belong to the official state religion were seen as a threat to the power of the state, and were often suspected of sedition, arrested and were definitely discriminated against
Some countries were worse than others.
Unless this particular path is blocked, we can expect to see more of the same.
The believers want to change the entire nation into a theocracy.
They are WELL on their way to succeeding.
I think this year is going to determine whether or not this nation remains THIS nation.
So far, it doesn't look good.
I hope that the Christian university gets its ass handed to it in court.
Unless it's a Christian court. That's next
Religious freedom- the right to bigotry.
This is why freedom from religion is just as important as freedom of religion. The masses do not understand the difference or the importance of distinguishing the two.
Now now they don't want any non-of-their-kind-of-Christians doing art. And the law, (Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964) allows discrimination on the basis of religion if the organizations purpose and character are primarily religious.
I once thought I would apply for an adjunct teaching position at a local religious college. But when I got the application one of the questions was, "What was your most important religious experience". Since I hadn't had any I didn't apply.
Kentucky is a right to work state!
You can be removed, dismissed, or fired at will by the employer, no reason has to be given!!!
Most significant religious experience: Discovering it is all bunk. Of course, such an answer wouldn't help you get hired.
@Imatheistically "Right to work" is, of course, a scam. It was a brilliant catch phrase thought up by anti-Union forces. It's the "right to work" without joining a union; except that the union is what protects you from arbitrary firing and gets you better wages- 3% higher in non-RTW states.
It's gotten even better recently- the laws in several states have fixed it so that the unions have to represent you, even if you decline to pay dues. And the courts have upheld this. Just one more step in trying to dismantle the unions.
@Imatheistic
maybe You should search the subject and investigate before making statements from out of your butt!!!
@of-the-mountain I call "right to work" states, "right to work for less" states... because on adopting "right to work" wages have always fallen.
Right to work basically undermines the power of organized labor, so workers take home less of what their own labor actually produces.
@of-the-mountain Right to work sounds like the right to be fired.
@Imatheistically "right to work" was coined as an anti-Union concept....you could get all the benefits the union negotiated for everybody, but you didn't have to join the Union & support your fellow workers with your dues. Freeloaders, another words.
@Imatheistically "Right to Work" is the republican way of telling you "You now have the right to work for nothing and you cannot bitch about it."
What does "absorbed" mean. Does it mean the Christian faculty will get their pay from private sources. If any public money is forthcoming it will be illegal and there will be lawsuits which will cost the new school money. I also suspect many students will look for another place to go where their creative talents won't be censured. It, hopefully, will be another wake up call for people to understand the damage unfettered religion can and does cause to the community.
Don't forget the Dept. of Ed is run by Betsy and Donald is King and trying to channel money to religious institutions and the teaching of religion in public schools.
@ArthurK How can we forget. Thing is it's still illegal.
When has being illegal stopped this administration from doing what they want.
@ArthurK Seems we are no longer a nation of laws (except when the conservatives want to punish the atheists, LGBTQ and others not of their liking.
Confusing christians with good people....christians flock to church for forgiveness and absolution....ie they are so bad they stress about it to the point they will grasp at imaginary absolvers.
Oh, well said Sir.
Anyway, they are wrong. Religious freedom means you don't get to discriminate or force your beliefs onto others who don't believe as you do, because they have the freedom to believe as they wish.
I have posted your exact words because this is what is correct here.
Such people suffer from debilitating personal insecurity and they use that as an excuse to bully other people.
Isn't that like... ILLEGAL?
It was before tRump.
@johan17 True... who knows anymore ;(
According to AG Barr you have this "Religious freedom means you don't get to discriminate or force your beliefs onto others who dont' believe as you do, because they have the freedom to believe as they wish." exactly backwards.
Their religious belief says people should discriminate against Gays, therefore any law telling them they cannot do so is restricting their freedom of religion.
Amendment I
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
Barr says the militant secularist desire to prohibit the free exercise thereof, ie their bigoted religious ideas, same argument used by the slaveholders VS abolitionists.
This is a false argument anyway, any religion sacrificing children is seen as criminal, so too with child bride Mormons and so forth. Religious Liberty however, gives them a legal shield.
The supreme court is stacked the insane religios shits will never lose.
Interesting...i guess they don't realize they are about to get sued and will pay a lot of money.
And they will no doubt get some form of severance package draw unemployment & be thrilled to not be stuck there having to quit &/or get nothing but weirdness! Good luck to you all!
BUT...because they pay no taxes and are not subject to Government Rules they are allowed to select whoever they please to attend their Religious Followers funded Institution (of lower learning...LMAO). It is a double edged sword...as long as we do not fund them they can do this. The minute they are given TAXPAYER DOLLARS then we will see them in COURT...and there is NO WAY the SCOTUS can allow them to get away with it. If they do then it is time to IMPEACH the JUDGES.
I guess that's OK if I can post job openings at my company with the note, "Christians need not apply". Can you imagine the Christian uproar of how they are being persecuted?
With the current reasoning about religious persecution, you may be able to get away with it if you said "only atheists and agnostics meed apply. If you ever got sued, whether you win or lose it would be a win for nonbelievers, because as they say "the sword cuts both ways".
Not that I have anything against you personally, but I think if you were sued an lost that would be a better outcome for all over the long run. In that it would mean no discrimination at based on belief or non belief.
That’s in the Bible Belt isn’t it? Might as well go break stones all day.
Is this legal?
Tennessee, like North Carolina where I live, is a right-to-work state. Therefore, it's unfortunately completely legal. There are very little actual regulations or protections for employees, if you're fired employers are not required to show any sort of cause, they can just fire you without reason.
Before Trumpism, I'd have said definitely "no". However, Trump has appointed about a fourth of the Federal judges and two supreme court judges, who may hnto follow legal precedents.
If you wonder how he appointed so many judges, in the last years of the Obma administration, republicans would not confirm any judicial appointments and so there were a lto of vacancies when Trump came it. They (republicans) did the same thing at the Clinton administration too. They have been and are stacking the courts with extreme right wing judges.