Religious freedom laws: A matter of conscience or a license for bigotry?

Georgia Gov. Nathan Deal has vetoed a bill aimed at protecting the ability of faith-based organizations to deny services to those who violate their “sincerely held religious belief” and to fire employees who don’t comply with those beliefs.

As with “religious liberty” bills in other states, the Georgia act drew objections from gay-rights groups and big-name companies. The NFL warned that it could endanger Atlanta’s Super Bowl bid.

Fort Worth state Rep. Matt Krause says he’ll offer a constitutional amendment along these lines in next year’s legislative session. Is that a good idea?

I agree with Rep. Krause’s effort to sponsor a religious freedom amendment.

The basic unit in our society is the family, and it’s in disarray. We have to start over.

Go back to our Founders’ wisdom, found in the Constitution and the Bible.

These men developed a Constitution based on the Bible and, as a result, we have the greatest country in the world. But it’s on the brink of failing.

It’s a long-term effort, but we must raise a generation like the ones who started this country.

It is our government that’s under attack by Christian zealots.

If your job is to serve the public, do it, or get another job.

Religious freedom laws simply seek to show consideration to Christians and other religious people who object to the sexual immorality or sodomy that much of the country is pursuing.

People whose consciences will not allow them to participate in sodomite activity, sodomite relationships, sodomite cultural expressions or sodomite social practices must be respected.

Why does the religious liberty crowd want to focus only on beliefs about sexuality as it relates to contraception, abortion and homosexuality?

If they’re really consistent in their so-called closely held religious beliefs, they better start asking their straight customers if they’ve ever lusted after their neighbor’s wife, committed adultery or violated any of the other Commandments.

A measure that allows any person to deny services and basic human rights based on their presumptive assessment of another person’s violation of their “sincerely held religious beliefs” is the American version of Sharia, plain and simple.

Look how well that’s working in the Middle East.

So — no, Krause’s proposed hate law is not a good idea.

The U.S. Supreme Court case brought by the Little Sisters of the Poor shows that the “free exercise of religion” has been taken away by the Affordable Care Act, requiring birth control pills as healthcare coverage.

Birth control pills taken for contraception do not improve the health of a person, and using them is an immoral practice per the teaching of the Roman Catholic church.

Birth control pills are a choice, like heavy drinking, smoking and other vices.

Krause’s proposed amendment is controversial in that it’s intended to address ordinances passed in Houston, San Antonio and Plano that target business owners who exercise their religious beliefs about sexual orientation and could, therefore, alienate new businesses considering Texas for relocation.

But if its intended purpose and ultimate effectiveness is to bar counties, cities and homeowners’ associations from interfering in any way with a person’s free exercise of religion, then it probably makes sense.

The “religious freedom” laws are a drastic distortion of the meaning of religious freedom.

The founding principles of religious freedom in the First Amendment were intended to ensure citizens’ protection from religious persecution.

If Rep. Krause’s proposed amendment were to pass, it would presumably create religious exemption from laws that protect against discrimination.

If there is to be any hope for religion at all, we who believe in freedom and equality must stand against the proposed amendment.

Starbucks CEO Howard Schultz said: “Not every decision is an economic decision.”

He made the comment in support of gay marriage.

But isn’t the same true the other way around? Aren’t religious freedom laws putting principle ahead of profits?

LGBTs should have “civil rights.” But that doesn’t mean they should be able to coerce Christians into supporting and assisting in gay marriages against their consciences.

In response to a recent letter that said, “A law making people use the bathroom of their birth gender is only common sense”: How does the letter writer envision such a law being enforced?

Do we station police officers at the doors of every public restroom and have them verify that everyone entering has the appropriate genitalia?

Common sense tells me that “religious freedom” laws are stupid and they would be unenforceable and unnecessary.

Private (not government) discrimination should be legal for any reason (not solely a religious reason). This isn’t because I agree with hate, but because the best weapon against bad ideas is better ideas.

I would require that all private businesses advertise openly whom they will and will not serve, not only to avoid humiliating prospective customers, but so people know whom to boycott and criticize.

As a granddaughter of a Methodist minister, never in my career as an advertising copywriter did I encounter questions about my religious beliefs.

I would hope that, in future, Texas businesses would not have a legal excuse not to hire, or then to fire, qualified workers for religious reasons.

The question seems to be: Religious liberty for whom?

Our country is marvelously diverse in every way, including religious and/or no faith beliefs.

When elected officials believe their religious belief is the only and right one, it is no longer freedom of religion.

It is interfering with the beliefs of others, which seem to be guaranteed by the Constitution, even the Texas one.

These laws are the result of the Supreme Court illegally writing laws and the Obama administration trying to regulate all aspects of our lives.

I don’t believe that a privately owned Christian bakery should be forced to make a cake for a gay wedding or a Muslim-owned bakery required to make a cake defaming Muhammad.

Also, no pastor should be required to perform a ceremony.

These laws are nothing more than an attempt to discriminate against the LGBT community.

It seems that many Republican lawmakers insist that their Christian beliefs trump the rights of Americans to shop and work without being discriminated against.

This story was originally published April 22, 2016 at 6:15 PM with the headline "Religious freedom laws: A matter of conscience or a license for bigotry?."