Bill Allowing Businesses to Refuse Gays Service

[Antares]

This is the eternal dance of humankind....The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.

Your idea of 'freedom' is being free to harm another. That is not freedom, it is despotism.

That sounds like a liberal. Freedom is the ability to restrict the religious freedom of others.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights protects our rights to religious freedom; to worship at any church of our choosing or to not worship at all. But the Constitution and the Bill of Rights does not protect our right to use our religion as a weapon against fellow citizens.

Now refusing to sell someone a cake is a weapon.

You can't make this shit up.

 

[Antares]

This is the eternal dance of humankind....The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.

Your idea of 'freedom' is being free to harm another. That is not freedom, it is despotism.

That sounds like a liberal. Freedom is the ability to restrict the religious freedom of others.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights protects our rights to religious freedom; to worship at any church of our choosing or to not worship at all. But the Constitution and the Bill of Rights does not protect our right to use our religion as a weapon against fellow citizens.

Why did you leave out this part.... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ?

 

[Bfgrn]

So..."increasing freedom" means "restricting" the freedom of someone you don't agree with.

Priceless.

If that so called 'freedom' is based on hatred, is discriminatory or harmful to another person, then YES

And just so we are clear, YOU are defending discrimination.

No, we're defending THE RIGHT to discriminate. We're not leftists, so we don't necessarily have to defend someone's opinion in order to defend their right to hold and express it. And you might want to consider just how dependent you are on the god-given right to be a public dumbfuck before you go suggesting we outlaw it.

As to "harmful", I consider you one of the most pusillanimous, repulsive creatures to ever walk the Earth and erroneously refer to itself as a human being, and there is no way short of a gun to my head that you could EVER make me have anything to do with you or any event you were part of, whether you offered to pay me as part of my business or not. Have I "harmed" you by wanting nothing to do with you, or have I just hurt your feewings?

That is a keeper.

No, we're defending THE RIGHT to discriminate.

Please explain how your views differ from Vladimir Putin?

 

[Antares]

That sounds like a liberal. Freedom is the ability to restrict the religious freedom of others.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights protects our rights to religious freedom; to worship at any church of our choosing or to not worship at all. But the Constitution and the Bill of Rights does not protect our right to use our religion as a weapon against fellow citizens.

Why did you leave out this part.... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ?

Why did you leave this part out?

 

[Antares]

If that so called 'freedom' is based on hatred, is discriminatory or harmful to another person, then YES

And just so we are clear, YOU are defending discrimination.

No, we're defending THE RIGHT to discriminate. We're not leftists, so we don't necessarily have to defend someone's opinion in order to defend their right to hold and express it. And you might want to consider just how dependent you are on the god-given right to be a public dumbfuck before you go suggesting we outlaw it.

As to "harmful", I consider you one of the most pusillanimous, repulsive creatures to ever walk the Earth and erroneously refer to itself as a human being, and there is no way short of a gun to my head that you could EVER make me have anything to do with you or any event you were part of, whether you offered to pay me as part of my business or not. Have I "harmed" you by wanting nothing to do with you, or have I just hurt your feewings?

That is a keeper.

No, we're defending THE RIGHT to discriminate.

Please explain how your views differ from Vladimir Putin?

Deflection, you are losing this argument.

 

[OKTexas]

This is the eternal dance of humankind....The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.

Your idea of 'freedom' is being free to harm another. That is not freedom, it is despotism.

That sounds like a liberal. Freedom is the ability to restrict the religious freedom of others.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights protects our rights to religious freedom; to worship at any church of our choosing or to not worship at all. But the Constitution and the Bill of Rights does not protect our right to use our religion as a weapon against fellow citizens.

The Constitution gives you that right to freely exercise your religion, not just worship where you want. It's clear you haven't actually read the Constitution lately, you might want to give it a try.

 

[Bfgrn]

That sounds like a liberal. Freedom is the ability to restrict the religious freedom of others.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights protects our rights to religious freedom; to worship at any church of our choosing or to not worship at all. But the Constitution and the Bill of Rights does not protect our right to use our religion as a weapon against fellow citizens.

Why did you leave out this part.... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ?

You can exercise your right to worship at any church of your choosing. It does NOT mean you can use it as a weapon against fellow citizens.

You people are truly sub human cretins.

 

[OKTexas]

If that so called 'freedom' is based on hatred, is discriminatory or harmful to another person, then YES

And just so we are clear, YOU are defending discrimination.

No, we're defending THE RIGHT to discriminate. We're not leftists, so we don't necessarily have to defend someone's opinion in order to defend their right to hold and express it. And you might want to consider just how dependent you are on the god-given right to be a public dumbfuck before you go suggesting we outlaw it.

As to "harmful", I consider you one of the most pusillanimous, repulsive creatures to ever walk the Earth and erroneously refer to itself as a human being, and there is no way short of a gun to my head that you could EVER make me have anything to do with you or any event you were part of, whether you offered to pay me as part of my business or not. Have I "harmed" you by wanting nothing to do with you, or have I just hurt your feewings?

That is a keeper.

No, we're defending THE RIGHT to discriminate.

Please explain how your views differ from Vladimir Putin?

Deflection noted, care to address my post?

 

[Antares]

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights protects our rights to religious freedom; to worship at any church of our choosing or to not worship at all. But the Constitution and the Bill of Rights does not protect our right to use our religion as a weapon against fellow citizens.

Why did you leave out this part.... or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; ?

You can exercise your right to worship at any church of your choosing. It does NOT mean you can use it as a weapon against fellow citizens.

You people are truly sub human cretins.

You aren't very bright kid.

It says that they have the "right" to freely exercise their Religion, you don't like that?

 

[KNB]

Read the Ten Commandments. Which one says, "Thou shalt not be gay"?

If it's such a terrible sin, why didn't God mention it to Moses? And why didn't Jesus ever say anything about it during his entire life on Earth? Maybe it isn't that big of a deal.

 

[Bfgrn]

That sounds like a liberal. Freedom is the ability to restrict the religious freedom of others.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights protects our rights to religious freedom; to worship at any church of our choosing or to not worship at all. But the Constitution and the Bill of Rights does not protect our right to use our religion as a weapon against fellow citizens.

The Constitution gives you that right to freely exercise your religion, not just worship where you want. It's clear you haven't actually read the Constitution lately, you might want to give it a try.

It is part of the Bill of Rights, and maybe you should do a little reading...

The Free Exercise Clause is the accompanying clause with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read:
“ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... ”

In 1878, the Supreme Court was first called to interpret the extent of the Free Exercise Clause in Reynolds v. United States, as related to the prosecution of polygamy under federal law. The Supreme Court upheld Reynolds' conviction for bigamy, deciding that to do otherwise would provide constitutional protection for a gamut of religious beliefs, including those as extreme as human sacrifice. The Court said (at page 162): "Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territory which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation." Of federal territorial laws, the Court said: "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."

 

[Antares]

So according to Bfrgn Christians have the "right" to refuse to sell the boys a cake in church.

Alrighty then

 

[Antares]

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights protects our rights to religious freedom; to worship at any church of our choosing or to not worship at all. But the Constitution and the Bill of Rights does not protect our right to use our religion as a weapon against fellow citizens.

The Constitution gives you that right to freely exercise your religion, not just worship where you want. It's clear you haven't actually read the Constitution lately, you might want to give it a try.

It is part of the Bill of Rights, and maybe you should do a little reading...

The Free Exercise Clause is the accompanying clause with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read:
“ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... ”

In 1878, the Supreme Court was first called to interpret the extent of the Free Exercise Clause in Reynolds v. United States, as related to the prosecution of polygamy under federal law. The Supreme Court upheld Reynolds' conviction for bigamy, deciding that to do otherwise would provide constitutional protection for a gamut of religious beliefs, including those as extreme as human sacrifice. The Court said (at page 162): "Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territory which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation." Of federal territorial laws, the Court said: "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."

How does "polygamy" apply here?

 

[Tank]

Read the Ten Commandments. Which one says, "Thou shalt not be gay"?

If it's such a terrible sin, why didn't God mention it to Moses? And why didn't Jesus ever say anything about it during his entire life on Earth? Maybe it isn't that big of a deal.

It's common sense

 

[NYcarbineer]

I hate to have to ruin your delusion, but gay is normal in this country. And if you're in the business of making wedding cakes, and your business is open to the public,

you have a chosen to enter into an enterprise that is prohibited by law from discrimination.

You have yet to support the assertion. You repeating it here doesn't make it a national law. There are parts of the country that treat homosexual relationships like a race or gender but we are seeing people fight back as they realize the side effects. Soon a pastor will be forced to offer gay weddings if they let the gay zealots push them around.

The courts have at least twice ruled in favor of the gay couples in these cases.

Oregon Rules Bakery Violated Gay Couple?s Civil Rights By Denying Them A Cake For Same-Sex Wedding « CBS Seattle

Colorado Judge: Bakery That Refused Wedding Cake To Same-Sex Couple Broke The Law | ThinkProgress

 

[Bfgrn]

The Constitution gives you that right to freely exercise your religion, not just worship where you want. It's clear you haven't actually read the Constitution lately, you might want to give it a try.

It is part of the Bill of Rights, and maybe you should do a little reading...

The Free Exercise Clause is the accompanying clause with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read:
“ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... ”

In 1878, the Supreme Court was first called to interpret the extent of the Free Exercise Clause in Reynolds v. United States, as related to the prosecution of polygamy under federal law. The Supreme Court upheld Reynolds' conviction for bigamy, deciding that to do otherwise would provide constitutional protection for a gamut of religious beliefs, including those as extreme as human sacrifice. The Court said (at page 162): "Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territory which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation." Of federal territorial laws, the Court said: "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."

How does "polygamy" apply here?

Hello? Is there an adult in the room who can assist you? Polygamy was the original 'issue' in in Reynolds v. United States that led the Supreme Court to "interpret the extent of the Free Exercise Clause"

The Supreme Court upheld Reynolds' conviction for bigamy, deciding that to do otherwise would provide constitutional protection for a gamut of religious beliefs, including those as extreme as human sacrifice.

Of federal territorial laws, the Court said: "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."

 

[OKTexas]

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights protects our rights to religious freedom; to worship at any church of our choosing or to not worship at all. But the Constitution and the Bill of Rights does not protect our right to use our religion as a weapon against fellow citizens.

The Constitution gives you that right to freely exercise your religion, not just worship where you want. It's clear you haven't actually read the Constitution lately, you might want to give it a try.

It is part of the Bill of Rights, and maybe you should do a little reading...

The Free Exercise Clause is the accompanying clause with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read:
“ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... ”

In 1878, the Supreme Court was first called to interpret the extent of the Free Exercise Clause in Reynolds v. United States, as related to the prosecution of polygamy under federal law. The Supreme Court upheld Reynolds' conviction for bigamy, deciding that to do otherwise would provide constitutional protection for a gamut of religious beliefs, including those as extreme as human sacrifice. The Court said (at page 162): "Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territory which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation." Of federal territorial laws, the Court said: "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."

Jumped right over answering my questions in post #135, why is that?

As for this one. If the government has the right to dictate something so personal as religious practices, why would they not be able to dictate sexual practices? I think the supremes fucked up on that one as they have many time before. Do you really think the federal government should have all that power?

 

[Antares]

It is part of the Bill of Rights, and maybe you should do a little reading...

The Free Exercise Clause is the accompanying clause with the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause together read:
“ Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof... ”

In 1878, the Supreme Court was first called to interpret the extent of the Free Exercise Clause in Reynolds v. United States, as related to the prosecution of polygamy under federal law. The Supreme Court upheld Reynolds' conviction for bigamy, deciding that to do otherwise would provide constitutional protection for a gamut of religious beliefs, including those as extreme as human sacrifice. The Court said (at page 162): "Congress cannot pass a law for the government of the Territory which shall prohibit the free exercise of religion. The first amendment to the Constitution expressly forbids such legislation." Of federal territorial laws, the Court said: "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."

How does "polygamy" apply here?

Hello? Is there an adult in the room who can assist you? Polygamy was the original 'issue' in in Reynolds v. United States that led the Supreme Court to "interpret the extent of the Free Exercise Clause"

The Supreme Court upheld Reynolds' conviction for bigamy, deciding that to do otherwise would provide constitutional protection for a gamut of religious beliefs, including those as extreme as human sacrifice.

Of federal territorial laws, the Court said: "Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious beliefs and opinions, they may with practices."

Dude do you have ANY idea how easy it is to yank your chain and make you dance?

But hey YOU have declared not selling a cake to someone is a "weapon".....

YOU have declared that you support ONLY enforcing the parts of the Bill of Rights and Constitution that YOU agree with.

YOU have declared that "freedom" is a zero sum game....and that the ONLY way to "increase" someone's "freedom" is to "restrict" someone else's....

YOU have asserted the same totalitarian approach to things that ALL Lefty's do.....silencing and shutting down all dissent.

Never mind that there is NO logic at all to any of your positions....you believe them therefore they are "right"

You know full well that they were "free" to choose another bakery but they wanted to get their 15 minutes of fame.

 

[KNB]

It's okay. Homosexuals and lesbians are free to find other places to shop, and society in general is free to tell Christians that there never was a talking snake and it's just stupid for grown adults to believe that Noah was able to get two of every animal on Earth onto one boat.

 

[Cecilie1200]

This is the eternal dance of humankind....The history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.

Your idea of 'freedom' is being free to harm another. That is not freedom, it is despotism.

That sounds like a liberal. Freedom is the ability to restrict the religious freedom of others.

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights protects our rights to religious freedom; to worship at any church of our choosing or to not worship at all. But the Constitution and the Bill of Rights does not protect our right to use our religion as a weapon against fellow citizens.

Not exactly the first time we've heard this canard about "religious beliefs are only for church" from leftists. I've stopped wondering why they can't grasp the idea that beliefs, by definition, are not just what you say in a cathedral on Sunday, but what you do in your life the other six days of the week.