Skip to main content

Home/ Dr. Friedman's AP Government/ Group items tagged religious discrimination

Rss Feed Group items tagged

Filter: All | Bookmarks | Topics Simple Middle
Joanne Kim

Supreme Court To Hear Holt V Hobbs - Business Insider - 3 views

www.businessinsider.com/rt-to-hear-holt-v-hobbs-2014-9

religious discrimination supreme court

shared by Joanne Kim on 10 Oct 14 - No Cached
  • That case was brought by a Muslim inmate named Gregory Houston Holt who claims his prison violated his religious rights by refusing to let him grow a beard as his faith requires. 
    • Joanne Kim
      Joanne Kim on 11 Oct 14
       
      Does prisoners still deserve religious rights?
  • Last term, the Supreme Court ruled that corporations have religious rights when it found some employers didn't have to pay for insurance that covered birth control. This is a different twist on the topic of religious freedom.
    • Joanne Kim
      Joanne Kim on 11 Oct 14
       
      Will the supreme court take the side of the religion when the case is about prisoners too?
  • Joanne Kim on 11 Oct 14
     
    I thought this court case is very interesting in that it deals with religious rights verses safety problems in prison.
  • danielacon on 13 Oct 14
     
    I think the with the case of the beard it could be dangerous to allow inmates to have a long beard because it could endanger people's lives especially since it's a prison. I don't think they should allow inmates to have long beards because inmates who are not religious could easily say that they are Muslims and use that to their advantage.
kyrranielson

Same-Sex "Marriage" Is Not a Civil Right | The Center for Public Justice - 3 views

www.cpjustice.org/...storyReader$1178

shared by kyrranielson on 10 Oct 14 - No Cached
  • constitutional principles of equal protection and equal treatment.
  • civil right of equal treatment cannot constitute social reality by declaration.
  • A homosexual relationship, regardless of how enduring it is as a bond of loving commitment, does not and cannot include sexual intercourse leading to pregnancy. Thus it is not marriage.
  • ...9 more annotations...
    • kyrranielson
      kyrranielson on 10 Oct 14
       
      I do not believe that this is true. Marriage isn't defined by your ability to reproduce.
  • A marriage and a homosexual relationship are two different kinds of relationships and it is a misuse of civil rights law to use that law to try to blot out the difference between two different kinds of things.
    • kyrranielson
      kyrranielson on 10 Oct 14
       
      There is no difference between a straight or homosexual relationship. You can't compare it to brothers and sisters living together or an eight year old wanting to get married. This is a civil rights issue because it is infringing on people's personal rights to enjoy the benefits of marriage.
  • The only thing that will change is that the law will mistakenly use the word "marriage" to refer to two different kinds of sexually intimate human relationships.
  • Judges and public officials will then be required to recognize as a marriage any sexually Intimate bond between two people who want to call themselves married.
    • kyrranielson
      kyrranielson on 10 Oct 14
       
      Judges are not being called upon to accept the idea of marriage between any individual that claims that. The only relationship that is asking to be recognizing is between two people of the same gender, nobody is asking them to allow brother and sister marriage or marriage between a 12 year old and a 20 year old. This is just a matter of mature relationships being recognized to the next level.
  • In that regard, the question of marriage is not about a civil right at all. It is about the nature of reality and interpretations of reality that precede the law.
  • the question of marriage is not first of all a religious matter in the sense in which most people use the word "religion."
    • kyrranielson
      kyrranielson on 10 Oct 14
       
      marriage is not a matter of religion, then why is it a standard of moralistic values that a man and a woman can be married but not homosexuals?
  • sebasgm on 10 Oct 14
     
    I agree with you Kyrra, it shouldn't be defined by your ability to reproduce. I also agree with the statement that marriage is a "civil matter, not a church affair." There is really no argument against the restrictions put on same-sex marriage being discriminatory and unconstitutional, hopefully society will soon come to understand this.
  • ...1 more comment...
  • Joanne Kim on 11 Oct 14
     
    I also agree with Kyrra and Sebastian and think this article is using ridiculous reasons to oppose same sex marriage. I think same sex marriage is not different from any other types of marriage, and therefore should be allowed.
  • paigedeleeuw on 11 Oct 14
     
    I completely agree with the statement that marriage is a civil matter rather than a church affair. I do not, however, believe that just because same-sex marriage cannot physically create pregnancy, it does not count as marriage. You are all right to say that this article is using absolutely ridiculous reasons to support their ideas on same-sex marriage. As Sebastian said, hopefully society will lessen their biased minds on the subject matter.
  • danielajallath on 18 Oct 16
     
    First, I was not very familiar with the legalities of this issue until I read this. To my surprise I realized how many factors went into the process of legalizing same-sex marriages. I agree with Kyrra's comments, which I think are on point. This issue is an example of how religion does tie into law at times. The Constitution does not point at any religion in specific. However, if in law marriage did not tie up to religion... What said that only a man and woman could be married and not same sex people? There was no one definition for this. At the end of the day, same-sex marriage was passed at a federal level. There cannot be any discrimination towards these individuals, or if there is then they are protected by the law. Going back to "Civil Rights", this law was passed in response to civil rights. How the law should not discriminate. Many of the excuses that this article uses of why same sex marriage is different are ridiculous in my opinion. Just like my older fellow classmates said marriage should not be based on wether a couple can procreate. In conclusion, its is 2016 and same sex marriages are legal, respected and protected against the law. So, justice was served!
1 - 2 of 2
Showing 20▼ items per page