The following is just a few conflicts sited.
In America, the country's law legalize gay marriage. However, people who solemnize the marriage have religion that is against such matrimony. So when a gay couple ask a religious person to perform the solemnization, there will be issues. Both sides claim that they have the rights to do or not to do.
In recent American news, a baker refused to make a cake specifically for gay couple. Again both sides claim that they have the right.
Yet another American news is on a company applying to set aside a certain law on religious grounds. The contention is about providing contraceptive pills.
In our neighborhood country a self service laundry company decided to serve only people of the same religion on religious grounds due to "contamination" of forbidden food stuff.
How would the law provide for such different stands. Both side claim that they have the right by law or by religious belief freedoms. It is deemed that one's freedom encroaches upon another.
In the gay marriage case, it is ruled that solemnizer can refuse the service and the council must provide others who can perform the service.
In the Bakery case, it is also ruled that the baker can refuse the service since there are other similar services available.
The company that applied to set aside the law on religious ground has won the case.
For the last case, it is not brought up in court ruling, the country's ruler (head of religious matter in the state) decrees that the company refrain from such practice.
One's freedom should not be imposed on another's freedom. If there are alternatives that is available, it should be taken to avoid conflict. Obviously, there will be impasse like the case of Temple mount in Jerusalem. It is claimed by Muslims, Jews and Christians. None will give way to another.
No comments:
Post a Comment