In response to:

Religious Freedom? Yeah, Right!

du2 Wrote: Jan 20, 2013 11:24 AM
Actually, the infringement is on gays exclusively and the gov't invoked to do so. DOMA is an example of that. All other legally married couples have federal rights, where legally married gay couples do not. DADT was another example where ONLY gay people were exclusively affected. THEIR rights ARE legitimate, because their responsibilities are compelled equally. You have it backwards. The impetus for this unequal treatment has some religious basis, or rationale. But equal treatment of gay people will not infringe on anyone, although that is what the complaint is and there is no proof of THAT.

A former British airlines worker was just told by a European human-rights court that she does, in fact, have the right to wear a crucifix on her neck. That such a thing would even have to go to court seems quite the sign of the times.

It comes as Brits are faced with same-sex-marriage legislation that, if passed, would likely leave churches facing lawsuits when some clerics inevitably refuse to carry out such weddings.

The decision came down on "Religious Freedom Day" here in America.

"Foremost among the rights Americans hold sacred is the freedom to worship as we choose," proclaimed the White House....