http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OE2TQcalQcw

(I only scrolled through the first page, so I hope I'm not posting something that was already discussed.)

Was it not Oaks who was arguing that religious freedom had to include the right to impose ones own religious values on others? I might be remembering wrong, but did he not say that if the religious did not have the right to discriminate, that in itself would be a discrimination against the religious?

Religious Liberty: You're doing it wrong.

Holy the Ghost Wrote:
--------------------------
if the religious did not have the right to discriminate,
> that in itself would be a discrimination against
> the religious?
>
> Religious Liberty: You're doing it wrong.

Oh man, I've heard that so many times by the anti gay bigots.
The thing is, discrimination itself, according to the first amendment is certainly their right, to express their hate speech, but that doesn't mean we won't shame them nonstop, making it universally socially unacceptable. However, I certainly believe *imposing* their beliefs on others as a right: that is not, nor has it ever been their right.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 05/04/2013 03:27PM by FormerLatterClimber.

if I recall correctly, he made an analogy to the civil rights movement. The religious people of today are in the same position as the black people of 50's and 60's. If the religious can't discriminate, they are oppressed like the black minority.


...offensive on so many levels...

and if it was in the Onion it would be hilarious.

religious freedom is tolerance of their intolerance.