Bad Bob wrote:
https://www.yahoo.com/news/personal-free-religion-153026994.html
The following sentences are excerpted from your yahoo.com link to illustrate the utter hypocrisy of their, and I presume, your argument:
Begin Quotes:"Nobody likes to have their rights taken away. Liberals and conservatives can agree on that, but they can’t agree on which rights to protect and which ones to eliminate."
"I’d been watching a woman on CNN make the argument she had a right to refuse to create a wedding website for a same same-sex couple...."
"What stunned me was the context through which we perceive 'personal freedoms' in this country."
"The woman said same-sex marriage goes against her religious beliefs and the government shouldn’t force her to create a unique piece of art (the website) that goes against the basis of her religion."
"Here was a woman angry that her freedom to choose who she works with could be taken away when all over the country state legislatures, as well as the Supreme Court,
are taking away the freedom of women to control their own bodies. While all rights are important, the discrepancy in immediate relevance to someone’s life is obvious."
"This is basically the argument the religious right continues to make:
You can’t make me do something (make a website) because it offends my religion, but I can force you to do something (have a baby) because my religion says you have to."End Quotes
This is a completely bogus argument, Bob.
For decades, our nation's children have been brought to maturity (since 1973's horrific Supreme Court decision) under the illusion that murdering one's own child in the womb is a perfectly natural, normal and moral way of "practicing birth control," i.e., "restricting the size" of one's own family.
It isn't.
It is murder.
This is a nation that needs to relearn the bygone concepts of assuming personal responsibility and self-control.
A woman exercises control over her body when she engages in protected or unprotected sex. That is the decision she has made.
To answer the inevitable objection that prohibiting a******n is "inhumane because...:
The Guttmacher Institute reports that nationwide, fourteen thousand a******ns per year are due to rape or incest, which amounts to only 1 percent of all a******ns. Other studies show that pregnancies due to rape are much rarer than is generally thought, perhaps as few as one in a thousand cases. Statistics are often self-serving.
There are many potential parents who would love to enrich their own lives by bringing a new born home from the hospital and create a loving family around the child.
Two males or two females cohabiting and calling it "marriage," i.e., Holy Matrimony (an institution created and ordained by God for the purpose of conceiving, birthing, and nurturing each new generation) is called an "a*********n" by God, because it creates not a culture of life, but a culture of death, as it negates the possibility of new life as surely as does the practice of a******n.
Murdering children, born or unborn, can never be construed as a "right."