I don’t have a problem protecting a person for their beliefs but I could have a problem defending what someone does based on belief against same sex marriage. Substitute biracial marriage in there (which many people still do oppose based on religion) and I hope you can see the problem. Religion isn’t a grounds for discrimination against someone else.

Laws that prohibited biracial marriages were not remotely close to laws not allowing homosexual marriages. For instance, Obergefell and his male partner were not ever thrown in jail because they lived together, just like it happened with the Lovings. Therefore, you can’t compare the two. Apparently, there is a tactic among liberals who are trying to portray defenders of traditional definition of marriage as equivalent to racist bigots so that we would be ostracized by society just like those hateful people, ie fired from jobs and expelled from colleges. But Bible-based Christians who believe that such law does common good to society are not hateful; we love everybody and we want what is good and righteous for everybody. Under our Constitution we have the right to participate in civil political discourse. On the other hand, people who claim that God supposedly prohibits men and women of different races to marry each other are as pseudo-Christians and false teachers as those activists who claim that homosexuals are born that way and can never change or live happily abstaining from homosexual practice therefore we must create same-sex marriage laws to accommodate their feelings. 1 Corinthians 6:9-11 contradicts this theory. Opposition to same-sex marriage is not just based on biblical laws but on simple laws of nature. You don’t have to be religious to realize that only unions between a man and a woman produces children, hence it makes sense to make laws to acknowledge the importance of the definition of marriage being between a man and a woman for society. For example, Ryan Anderson makes an excellent case for this without invoking religion in his book “Truth overturned.”

I agree, Trump much more dangerous for his lack of self control. Pence though, is a political animal who follows the scent of success for himself at all cost, even fealty to a clearly immoral leader. So, should he become President, the dangers he presents would be his aberant view of Christian faith’s place in American society and how low he would sink to keep his new position. The Pences of this world are the kind of people the Trumps of this world use to gain power & wealth. We can hope for the best and pray he would be better than his past.

I absolutely get what you said, TV. I simply can’t fathom that you expect those who are now pursuing political power in order to legislate their Christian Dominionist agenda and implant it in our courts and schools will somehow cling to your high minded and praiseworthy view instead of pursuing their own motivations. I don’t believe they deserve your trust or support. And you should reconsider who the ‘false prophets’ of this era really are. God’s Peace to You and Yours this Christmas season.

Secular is different from secularism. The latter implies that religious ideologies are prohibited in public spaces. If you pay attention to my post where you quoted me from, you will see that I did not advocate anything remotely close to this:

If you think the free exercise of Christian religion means that the political majority, arguably Christian at this point, means Christianity can vote itself to rule over other faiths, nones and even among the many, many Christian denominations – you’re asking for ‘Christian’ tyranny and the death of the church as a meaningful witness to Jesus Christ’s Love. That’s the problem. Centuries of Christian wars in Europe was the result for them – not a vibrant church witnessing to Christ’s redemption. This current manifestation of Christian power grasping is a major reason for young people renouncing the church in droves – no one wants to be dominated or coerced – same as you. God Bless.

This is what I said:

I certainly do not want to make laws that would punish you for publicly disparaging Christianity, conservatives, Republicans (Trump et al.), or anybody else. This is your First Amendment right which equally applies to you as it does to me.

It negates the previous quote of yours.

I don’t see “However, you sound like you want it to be secularist, meaning that you want to totally prohibit Christianity from being exercised because you don’t like what is said in the Bible.” at all in DoctorDj’s comment. You seem to think ‘secular’ is ‘anti religion’. It means multiple faiths along with none of the aboves co-existing in mutual respect and peaceful disagreement – none achieving political power over others. Christianity as Jesus taught it, isn’t a ‘power over’ proposition, it’s a ‘power under’ proposition where prayerful, compassionate, humble faith persuades and convinces people of the best course of action as much as is possible for all concerned. If you think the free exercise of Christian religion means that the political majority, arguably Christian at this point, means Christianity can vote itself to rule over other faiths, nones and even among the many, many Christian denominations – you’re asking for ‘Christian’ tyranny and the death of the church as a meaningful witness to Jesus Christ’s Love. That’s the problem. Centuries of Christian wars in Europe was the result for them – not a vibrant church witnessing to Christ’s redemption. This current manifestation of Christian power grasping is a major reason for young people renouncing the church in droves – no one wants to be dominated or coerced – same as you. God Bless.

As a born again, spirit filled refugee of the ‘Word of Faith’ movement I wholeheartedly agree. The concept of America being ‘God’s Country’ is a monstrous fiction created by decades of propaganda by Christian media types and seized upon by ‘Moral Majority’ types as a lever to gain political power to fulfill their fancied role in their dispensationalist endtime fantasy. This is a dangerous belief system that is antithetical to Jesus’ teachings, not that they care. The last thing America needs is some form of “Christian Protectionism’ authored by a bunch of religious zealots that repeatedly lie to support their ‘anointed ones’ further lies. Self deception is a potent poison and when realised will bring deep harm to the church in America, shattering its witness for Jesus and twisting many believer’s faith in knots.

First Amendment Defense Act would surely address Susana’s problem. They list this proposed law in their 148 pages playbook, which took me a few hours to read. Btw, FADA was introduced by two Republican Senators, Mike Lee and Paul Labrador, and it is being supported by other conservative organizations besides Blitz:

When asked by Heritage Action, FRC Action, and the American Principles Project if they would pass the bill in their first 100 days in office, three of the top four Republican presidential candidates in the 2016 election said they would, the exception being Donald Trump.[4] It was also supported by the Family Research Council, the American Family Association, and the Liberty Counsel, among other groups, shortly after it was introduced.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_Defense_Act

It’s interesting that Trump used to be neutral on this.

Susana should definitely get help from ACLU. This union has a reputation of helping people to ensure their free speech rights and winning, regardless if people are religious or not.

First Amendment of the US Constitution says the following: “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” Based on this, the US is neither Christian, nor a secular nation. However, you sound like you want it to be secularist, meaning that you want to totally prohibit Christianity from being exercised because you don’t like what is said in the Bible. Under US Constitution, it’s unacceptable. On the other hand, I certainly do not want to make laws that would punish you for publicly disparaging Christianity, conservatives, Republicans (Trump et al.), or anybody else. This is your First Amendment right which equally applies to you as it does to me.

No, they believe she did something discriminatory by assigning an essay. I disagree with them but the action was the issue not her belief. I disagree that assigning such an essay is discriminatory or abusive and I suspect if she is pushed and it comes to an adjudication, she will win. I would like to read all of the evidence before I say for certain what I think but if the situation is just as she presented it, she was fine to make that essay an option.

It appears like Susana’s two gay students and her boss felt she discriminated against those students based on her belief against same-sex marriage, when she assigned to write an essay listing pros and cons of it.