pat Posted July 27, 2021 Report Share Posted July 27, 2021 5 hours ago, Little Earl said: Religious rights are also the law, which is also enforced through the courts. The florist can refuse to sell for a gay wedding based on religious rights. According to the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, no business serving the public can discriminate because of a customer's national origin, sex, religion, color, or race. The florist could argue that under federal law they still have the right to refuse service based on sexual orientation. However there are still state and local laws which may specifically prohibit that action. The florist could argue as you do that doing business is a form of speech. This seems a convoluted position. I'm not a lawyer but it seems weak ground that has been tried before. If the florist prevails, then it will because they have won the right to discriminate. They may indeed have that right, but I'm not going to accept the fig leaf of the First Amendment. I certainly find the argument ridiculous. Free speech doesn't mean Everything is Permitted no matter how much Alistair Crowley you read. I'm an artist. I take free speech very seriously. What's being discussed is not speech. Rather, it is about business and public accomodations. Number9 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJClown Posted July 27, 2021 Report Share Posted July 27, 2021 5 hours ago, Little Earl said: Religious rights are also the law, which is also enforced through the courts. The florist can refuse to sell for a gay wedding based on religious rights. The Establishment Clause in the 1st Amendment creates a wall of separation between religion and the government at all levels of government because of the incorporation doctrine. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison were very clear about this idea. Gentlemen The affectionate sentiments of esteem and approbation which you are so good as to express towards me, on behalf of the Danbury Baptist association, give me the highest satisfaction. my duties dictate a faithful and zealous pursuit of the interests of my constituents, & in proportion as they are persuaded of my fidelity to those duties, the discharge of them becomes more and more pleasing. Believing with you that religion is a matter which lies solely between Man & his God, that he owes account to none other for his faith or his worship, that the legitimate powers of government reach actions only, & not opinions, I contemplate with sovereign reverence that act of the whole American people which declared that their legislature should "make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof," thus building a wall of separation between Church & State. Adhering to this expression of the supreme will of the nation in behalf of the rights of conscience, I shall see with sincere satisfaction the progress of those sentiments which tend to restore to man all his natural rights, convinced he has no natural right in opposition to his social duties. I reciprocate your kind prayers for the protection & blessing of the common father and creator of man, and tender you for yourselves & your religious association, assurances of my high respect & esteem. Th Jefferson Jan. 1. 1802. The day will come when the mystical generation of Jesus by the Supreme Being in the womb of a virgin, will be classed with the fable of the generation of Minerva in the brain of Jupiter. ... But we may hope that the dawn of reason and freedom of thought in these United States will do away with all this artificial scaffolding.... Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pat Posted July 27, 2021 Report Share Posted July 27, 2021 @Little Earl a fair criticism of my post is the slide from religious freedom to free speech. It still seems to much of a loophole. Would it be fair for the florist to deny service to women, citing the same religious beliefs? The florist is not a church. We'll see what the courts do. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pat Posted July 27, 2021 Report Share Posted July 27, 2021 Not to mention, there's a Christian traditional of respecting secular government ie Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Earl Posted July 27, 2021 Report Share Posted July 27, 2021 6 minutes ago, pat said: @Little Earl a fair criticism of my post is the slide from religious freedom to free speech. It still seems to much of a loophole. Would it be fair for the florist to deny service to women, citing the same religious beliefs? The florist is not a church. We'll see what the courts do. I don't believe the florist should not provide services to homosexuals just because of their sexual orientation. It's the sin they hate, not the person. But a marriage ceremony is something different and goes against what the florist believes religiously. Just like I am utterly against having my tax dollars pay for anyone's abortion, I would not contribute in any way to a gay wedding, all based on biblical grounds. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Earl Posted July 27, 2021 Report Share Posted July 27, 2021 4 hours ago, titanruss said: LOL! omg @Little Earl... just embarrass yourself more please. The phrase “separation of church and state” appears nowhere in the Constitution, and the Founding Fathers saw nothing wrong with having religion in American culture. While Congress is prohibited from enacting a state religion, the constitution says nothing about banishing religion from the public square. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJClown Posted July 27, 2021 Report Share Posted July 27, 2021 41 minutes ago, Little Earl said: The phrase “separation of church and state” appears nowhere in the Constitution, and the Founding Fathers saw nothing wrong with having religion in American culture. While Congress is prohibited from enacting a state religion, the constitution says nothing about banishing religion from the public square. That phrase is not in the US Constitution and no one in here never said it was. It was coined by Thomas Jefferson to explain what the Establishment Clause of the 1st Amdnement meant and how it worked. Every person has their own equal religious rights to believe or not to believe but the government at all levels is to be kept absolutely secular for the protections of the religious and secular righs of all people because we all cannot have equal religious and secular rights if the government is enforcing the religious beliefs of one religion or sect as public policy. and to worship as they choose but the government at all levels is to be kept absolutey. The government cannot enforce legislate, or encourage religious belief over non-belief or encourage one religion or sect over the other. I never said that religion must be kept out of the public square but it must be kept out of public policy, government meetings, public schools, and seperate from our tax dollars. pat, and oldschool 1 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJClown Posted July 28, 2021 Report Share Posted July 28, 2021 1 hour ago, Little Earl said: I don't believe the florist should not provide services to homosexuals just because of their sexual orientation. It's the sin they hate, not the person. But a marriage ceremony is something different and goes against what the florist believes religiously. Just like I am utterly against having my tax dollars pay for anyone's abortion, I would not contribute in any way to a gay wedding, all based on biblical grounds. The florist is not part of the wedding. They aren't asked to attend or to approve of anything. There are under no expectation to even like their clients. Nobody is asking to you contribute to anything. Number9 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManningEnvy Posted July 28, 2021 Report Share Posted July 28, 2021 Hey Touched The Tard, how did your day go bitch? When it comes to this kind of shit, I guess I just have to beg to differ. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Number9 Posted July 28, 2021 Report Share Posted July 28, 2021 There are more Bibles than the christian bible. The Seven Valleys And The Four Valleys, The Tipitaka, The Bible, The Vedas And The Upanishads, The Quran And The Hadiths, The Agamas, The Tanakh And The Talmud, plus many others that aren't as widely known. When the Bible was written people couldn't read, there was no radio/TV, there wasn't even Tic Tok. So if God is all knowing, why would God just give one group of people the book? Would it not be easier to give it to all people? The Bible was given to the Jews. Let's not labor under the belief that God didn't know where England was located. In fact, none of the major religious books was given to the Europeans. The Europeans have used the Bible to conquer people all over the world and take their natural resources. There is nothing godly about that. Look at the Pope's blind eye to priests molesting and ruining the lives of little boys. Imagine how bad it is in South America with those pretty little latin boys. God would not give such a brutish people the book of salvation for the world. To believe that makes you a damn idiot. God loves you. God is in you. God loves itself. Take away everything outside you and find God inside you. God has been here long before the Bible and all the other books. The books are aids to our understanding, but things like @Little Earl 's "Jabob I loved, but Esau I hated (Romans 9:13). Or the Lord tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence (Psalm 11:5)." can be confusing, especially when taken out of context. Therein lies the problem of having people take something out of the Bible and justifies some position over you. I would hear verses quoted and then I would read the chapter to try to understand what the verse meant. Often, quite often I found the verse quoted didn't even mean close to what the person was trying to say it meant. Power over YOU is often the goal of Bible verse quoters. titanruss 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Little Earl Posted July 28, 2021 Report Share Posted July 28, 2021 13 hours ago, Number9 said: There are more Bibles than the christian bible. The Seven Valleys And The Four Valleys, The Tipitaka, The Bible, The Vedas And The Upanishads, The Quran And The Hadiths, The Agamas, The Tanakh And The Talmud, plus many others that aren't as widely known. When the Bible was written people couldn't read, there was no radio/TV, there wasn't even Tic Tok. So if God is all knowing, why would God just give one group of people the book? Would it not be easier to give it to all people? The Bible was given to the Jews. Let's not labor under the belief that God didn't know where England was located. In fact, none of the major religious books was given to the Europeans. The Europeans have used the Bible to conquer people all over the world and take their natural resources. There is nothing godly about that. Look at the Pope's blind eye to priests molesting and ruining the lives of little boys. Imagine how bad it is in South America with those pretty little latin boys. God would not give such a brutish people the book of salvation for the world. To believe that makes you a damn idiot. God loves you. God is in you. God loves itself. Take away everything outside you and find God inside you. God has been here long before the Bible and all the other books. The books are aids to our understanding, but things like @Little Earl 's "Jabob I loved, but Esau I hated (Romans 9:13). Or the Lord tests the righteous, but his soul hates the wicked and the one who loves violence (Psalm 11:5)." can be confusing, especially when taken out of context. Therein lies the problem of having people take something out of the Bible and justifies some position over you. I would hear verses quoted and then I would read the chapter to try to understand what the verse meant. Often, quite often I found the verse quoted didn't even mean close to what the person was trying to say it meant. Power over YOU is often the goal of Bible verse quoters. Best of luck to you Number9. You apparently think you have figured it all out based on your own intellect, which means it is based on nothing. The Bible is the word of God, everything else is worthless. There are answers to all your questions, but I'm sure you wouldn't like all of them. For instance yeah, people have used the bible to wrongly justify bad stuff. It's not like there has ever been any other religion or non religion with a better track record. In fact I challenge you to name a group that has done a better job providing for the needy than Christians. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
ManningEnvy Posted July 28, 2021 Report Share Posted July 28, 2021 13 hours ago, Number9 said: Power over YOU is often the goal of Bible verse quoters. Hey Touched, I thought retards love lemonade. Number9 1 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AJClown Posted July 28, 2021 Report Share Posted July 28, 2021 32 minutes ago, Little Earl said: Best of luck to you Number9. You apparently think you have figured it all out based on your own intellect, which means it is based on nothing. The Bible is the word of God, everything else is worthless. There are answers to all your questions, but I'm sure you wouldn't like all of them. For instance yeah, people have used the bible to wrongly justify bad stuff. It's not like there has ever been any other religion or non religion with a better track record. In fact I challenge you to name a group that has done a better job providing for the needy than Christians. Now you're shifting the argument. No one said anything about a religious American culture. Your original premise was that it's ok for government to base our laws off of religious principles (laws against homosexuality being the main point). Except it literally states that the US government can't do that. Number9, and titanruss 2 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alzarius Posted July 29, 2021 Report Share Posted July 29, 2021 On 7/27/2021 at 5:35 PM, pat said: Not to mention, there's a Christian traditional of respecting secular government ie Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's That doesn't mean you have to agree with everything the government says. You also left out half of the statement. It's easy to dismiss that part for a non believer. Not so easy for a believer Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alzarius Posted July 29, 2021 Report Share Posted July 29, 2021 (edited) On 7/27/2021 at 7:47 PM, unauthorizedcinnamon said: The florist is not part of the wedding. They aren't asked to attend or to approve of anything. There are under no expectation to even like their clients. Nobody is asking to you contribute to anything. Contribute: give (something, especially money) in order to help achieve or provide something You really don't think providing services to a wedding is contributing to it? You complain about our logic, then say that. This is where it gets easy for a Christian to get frustrated and start going full non Christian on people. Edited July 29, 2021 by Alzarius Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.