11 Comments

1. Sw
   Posted August 31, 2011 at 8:12 am | Permalink

   purely an attack on christians.

2. Kevin
   Posted August 31, 2011 at 11:55 am | Permalink

   Ah yes, because making sure employers provide the otherwise legally necessary benefits to their employees is an assault on religious freedom.

3. Lefty
   Posted August 31, 2011 at 1:13 pm | Permalink

   The American *Civil Liberties* Union doesn't live up to its name. Freedom of conscience deserves more attention and defense than the short shrift they've given it whenever it's been thrust into conflict with one of their special pet causes.

4. Louis E.
   Posted August 31, 2011 at 2:19 pm | Permalink

   Religious and non-religious opponents of SSM alike should be free to refuse to associate with those who practice or advocate it.My family stopped supporting the ACLU when they helped the Nazis march through Skokie.

5. Anselmo
   Posted August 31, 2011 at 3:42 pm | Permalink

   How far then should a religious exemption go? If I believe it is wrong to sign a marriage certificate for a couple who has lived together prior to marriage even though that is my job should that be okay? What if my beliefs are against interfaith or interracial marriages? Where does it end? I coud claim enough exemptions that I could be paid for doing nothing.

6. Carolyn
   Posted August 31, 2011 at 4:37 pm | Permalink

   ACLU is merely a smoke screen, used to systematically weed out any/all religious liberties in this country. "American Civil Liberty Union" is a misnomer. They advance everyone's cause but Christians'.

7. Jeff
   Posted August 31, 2011 at 4:55 pm | Permalink

   “Marriage Equality Act”? How is it more equal than before?

   Before: any currently unmarried adult can get married.

   After: we’ve changed the definition of the word “marriage” to include homorrhages, but any unmarried currently adult can get married.

   How does this have anything to do with “equality”? This is nothing more than language-based mind control.

8. leo
   Posted August 31, 2011 at 6:02 pm | Permalink

   Jeff agree !

9. DR
   Posted August 31, 2011 at 7:54 pm | Permalink

   Why would a religious organization hire such an individual anyway? What do they mean by "religious organization"? Even King Uzziah was not allowed to burn incense and when he did (which was reserved for priests), he became a leper.

10. John Noe
    Posted August 31, 2011 at 11:00 pm | Permalink

    The ACLU is more interested in using the courts to take away our liberties.

11. Paul Mc
    Posted September 1, 2011 at 8:19 am | Permalink

    Freedom of thought and religion is not the same thing as freedom to express ones thoughts or religious beleifs which in turn is not the same thing as manifesting ones thoughts or religious beliefs.

    There is no general right to manifest ones thoughts or religious beleifs regardless of the curcumstances. There is always a context.

    Hence the circumstriction related to points of conflicts between the rights of one group with certain beleifs and the rights of another to equal access to lawfully sanctioned activity.