"Religious Freedom" = Discrimination = Hate

"Twenty-one prominent conservative Christian leaders including Franklin Graham and James Dobson are calling on congressional leaders to oppose the pro-LGBT Equality Act because of the “threats to religious liberty” the legislation poses."

“Not only is it incompatible with God’s Word (the Bible) and the historic teaching of the church, but the Equality Act is also riddled with threats to religious liberty and the sanctity of human life,” the letter stresses. “For these reasons, we must state that we adamantly oppose this proposed legislation.”

“The Equality Act would gut religious freedom protections — even the freedom currently enjoyed by houses of worship,” the letter argues.
“Under its changes to the employment nondiscrimination provisions in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, some houses of worship would be barred from ensuring their leaders and other employees abide by their beliefs about marriage, sexual behavior, and the distinction between the sexes.”
The leaders warn that women who identify as men would have to be accepted as men and be “potentially eligible to serve in positions reserved for men,” such as a Catholic priest or Jewish rabbi.
The conservative leaders warn that religious employers who fall under Title VII law could be forced to offer insurance coverage for hormone therapy, sex reassignment surgery or other procedures that violate their consciences.   
“[T]he Equality Act would expressly do away with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act’s application to its provisions, thereby precluding any religious freedom claims which clergy or others might bring,” the letter adds. “Under such restrictions, the pathway for the gospel would slowly be closed off.”
While the Equality Act has been praised and supported by LGBT activists and Democrats, conservative-leaning think tanks and legal organizations have voiced concerns that the bill would impact those who don’t affirm the gender ideology pushed in the bill.
The Equality Act was reintroduced by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi in March. Critics have contended that it could compel speech, lead to the closing of nonprofit adoption and foster care providers, allow biological men to compete in women’s sporting events and even coerce medical professionals to do procedures that go against their consciences.
As some parents have already lost custodyfor their refusal to support a child’s wishes for gender transition, critics feel such a situation will become more common if the Equality Act were to pass.
In an op-ed this week, Perkins, a Baptist pastor, stressed the fact that the Equality Act expands the meaning of the 1964 Civil Rights Act to include “pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition.”
“In other words, under the terms of this proposal, ‘pregnancy, childbirth, or a related medical condition’ shall not receive less favorable treatment than other physical conditions,” Perkins wrote.
“Under this big new umbrella of ‘discrimination,’ any American who doesn’t want to fund, offer, perform, or participate in abortion on demand will have no real choice. They can conform — or they can be punished.

“Under its changes to the employment nondiscrimination provisions in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, some houses of worship would be barred from ensuring their leaders and other employees abide by their beliefs about marriage, sexual behavior, and the distinction between the sexes.”

From the link:

"Twenty-one prominent conservative Christian leaders including Franklin Graham and James Dobson are calling on congressional leaders to oppose the pro-LGBT Equality Act because of the “threats to religious liberty” the legislation poses."

“Not only is it incompatible with God’s Word (the Bible) and the historic teaching of the church, but the Equality Act is also riddled with threats to religious libertyand the sanctity of human life,” the letter stresses. “For these reasons, we must state that we adamantly oppose this proposed legislation.”

Not everyone is (willfully) ignorant of the fact that sexual immorality is actually a thing and in every way destructive to a society.

“The Equality Act would gut religious freedom protections — even the freedom currently enjoyed by houses of worship,” the letter argues.

“Under its changes to the employment nondiscrimination provisions in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, some houses of worship would be barred from ensuring their leaders and other employees abide by their beliefs about marriage, sexual behavior, and the distinction between the sexes.”

The leaders warn that women who identify as men would have to be accepted as men and be “potentially eligible to serve in positions reserved for men,” such as a Catholic priest or Jewish rabbi.

“[T]he Equality Act would expressly do away with the Religious Freedom Restoration Act’s application to its provisions, thereby precluding any religious freedom claims which clergy or others might bring,” the letter adds. “Under such restrictions, the pathway for the gospel would slowly be closed off.”

coerce medical professionals to do procedures that go against their consciences.

“Under this big new umbrella of ‘discrimination,’ any American who doesn’t want to fund, offer, perform, or participate in abortion on demand will have no real choice. They can conform — or they can be punished.

I don't think the law should be used to treat dandruff by decapitation.

At the same time, I believe white supremacists have the right to peaceably assemble, print their own literature, speak freely without state intervention, petition the government, own firearms, etc. 

To not respect these rights is to put your own in jeopardy even.

Making a law that says, "everybody play nice" is not going to jeopardize my freedom in any way whatsoever.

Is divorce sexual immorality? Where did legality come from?

Making a law that says, "everybody play nice" is not going to jeopardize my freedom in any way whatsoever.

This is irrational. 

You can't just say that a law symbolizes "play nice everyone", and therefore there are no actual problems with it.

“Under its changes to the employment nondiscrimination provisions in Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, some houses of worship would be barred from ensuring their leaders and other employees abide by their beliefs about marriage, sexual behavior, and the distinction between the sexes.”

In theory, this would also apply to white supremacist organizations as well.

"Making a law that says, "everybody play nice" is not going to jeopardize my freedom in any way whatsoever.

Americans don't get to choose how much tazes they pay or where that moeny goes in any way other than voting. This is how the economy works. I don't get to say "I want a refund proportional to all faith based tax exemptions, because I don't believe that bunk." Nor do I complain about it. I simply pay it as part of the price of living where I live. And again, this language makes it sound like if you're a doctor who doesn't want to provide birth control pills because of religious reasons, you're FORCED to prescribe them, or you're FORCED into the procedure of an abortion. It's an absolutely idiotic idea that's meant just to make religious old white people think "They're a-comin' for mah Jesus!" They aren't. 

Sure, sure, they can do all of these things, as long as they don't discriminate or advocate violence.

I'm sure there are plenty of gun owning minorities and gays who hate other minorities and gays just as much as anyone and would love to join.

Making a law that says, "everybody play nice" is not going to jeopardize my freedom in any way whatsoever. 

It is not only irrational to begin with, but also inconsistent with the idea that "religious freedom" can be equated with hate.   That is, unless you hate freedom of religion.

You can't just say that a law symbolizes "play nice everyone", and therefore there are no actual problems with it.

I'm not speaking about this specific legislation.  I'm distilling the idea down to its essential core concept.

Imagine for a moment that you have a room full of diverse toddlers.

You say, "everyone play nice".

One kid starts making fun of another kid's clothes, and other kids start joining in.

You say, "everyone play nice".

You tell the mean kids to find a toy or play a game.

It's really that simple.  No hitting.  No bullying.  Take turns with the toys that are available.

This is a civil society.

If you want to live in "the jungle", go to the jungle.

Indeed let us take this to it's most cartoonist extremes.

I don't hire people who are pretending to be married when they have not actually had the Shinto marriage ceremony.

I think all sex is immoral and the only reason to do it is for procreation sake. Marriage implies sex. Therefore if I deem a group cannot or should not procreate I do not offer spousal benefits. Groups like the elder, the disabled, the homeless and people of low intellect.