You shall not curtail someone's civil rights due to their religion.
or
Someone's civil rights shall not be curtailed because of a religion.
I assume this was posted due to the controversy about religious freedom versus gay rights. I guess the question would be is it a civil right for any person to go into any privately owned, public facility? If the answer is "yes", then, in my view the argument in Indiana is irrelevant because gay people are still people whose rights must be preserved. If the answer is "no", then, it's more problematic, because are you removing civil rights from the property owner in saying they cannot choose who to serve? It leads to another question, is it a civil right for a person to choose who may be on their privately owned property? And, does there need to be a clause qualifying whether or not that property is used for private or public functions?
Comments 4
Reply
You shall not curtail someone's civil rights due to their religion.
or
Someone's civil rights shall not be curtailed because of a religion.
I assume this was posted due to the controversy about religious freedom versus gay rights.
I guess the question would be is it a civil right for any person to go into any privately owned, public facility?
If the answer is "yes", then, in my view the argument in Indiana is irrelevant because gay people are still people whose rights must be preserved.
If the answer is "no", then, it's more problematic, because are you removing civil rights from the property owner in saying they cannot choose who to serve?
It leads to another question, is it a civil right for a person to choose who may be on their privately owned property?
And, does there need to be a clause qualifying whether or not that property is used for private or public functions?
Reply
Reply
( ... )
Reply
Leave a comment