Sunday, September 11, 2016

Apparently, the thing about a "living Constitution" is that it means that....

...the power elites can decide what freedom you can have.

The US Commission on Civil Rights isn't concerned with the First Amendment that protects religious freedom so long as it gets in the way of what really counts, i.e., the freedom men to marry men, which was invented a few years ago.

//The chairman of the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights said that “religious freedom” and “religious liberty” have become merely “code words” for intolerance, “Christian supremacy” and committing every form of identity-politics sin, and thus they must yield before anti-discrimination laws.
The remarks, released Thursday in a report on “Peaceful Coexistence: Reconciling Nondiscrimination Principles with Civil Liberties,” is the latest example of an increasingly hostile reception in liberal circles to one of the six specified rights at the core of the First Amendment — the “free exercise” of religion.
“The phrases ‘religious liberty’ and ‘religious freedom’ will stand for nothing except hypocrisy so long as they remain code words for discrimination, intolerance, racism, sexism, homophobia, Islamophobia, Christian supremacy or any form of intolerance,” said Martin R. Castro, a Chicago Democrat named USCCR chairman by President Obama in 2011.
“Religious liberty was never intended to give one religion dominion over other religions, or a veto power over the civil rights and civil liberties of others,” he said in the 307-page document.
At the heart of the “Peaceful Coexistence” report is a USCCR assertion that granting religious exemptions to nondiscrimination laws “significantly infringe” on the civil rights of those claiming civil rights protections on the basis of “race, color, national origin, sex, disability status, sexual orientation, and gender identity.”//


1 comment:

Lauran said...

...it can be stretched into whatever shape the Left would prefer at any given time.

(There’s an interesting article in the Harvard Journal of Law & Pub. Policy that discusses this very issue, in Vol 39, No. 3, Summer 2016 issue, titled, “Linguistic Relativism and the Decline of the Rule of Law.”)

 
Who links to me?