Civil Rights Commission Against Religious Freedom

[jillian]

NOt really. Neither amendment has ever been an absolute.

It's why you can't own that machine gun you've had your eye on

Who says you can't own a machine gun?

The right to own a "machine gun" is (correctly) infringed by licensing, fees/taxation and background checks. Thus Scalia/Heller was and is correct, the 2nd A. is not an absolute prohibition of gun control; infringements exist!

See #86

See two hundred + years of Jurisprudence in America, esp. since Marbury v. Madison (1803) & most recently Heller. Understand the first issue discussed in ConLaw are First A. Issues.

Neither case law nor precedent changes the Constitution. Marbury v. Madison was the first mistake that damaged the model set by the Founders.

You should probably go back and learn what a common law country is and what constitutional construction is.

Marbury v Madison was decided when the founders were alive and no one ever implied it wasn't "constitutional". In fact by definition if the court finds it constitutional, it is. Also the founders were politicians who didn't even agree with each other so I'm not sure what the heck you think you're talking about.

 

[JoeB131]

Joe, I completely agree with you there. One of the things I have perceived about the catholic Church for years is that their focus was more on their church than on God...as proven by hiding this scandal. When you see you have a cancer, cut it out. Don't hide it. They hid it.

I think it was more of a case that they didn't understand it. The Catholic Clergy is one where sex is denied and shunned... If you don't understand normal sexuality, then you won't recognize sexual deviancy when you see it.

I think in particular, when you had a church that identified gay kids in HS and steered them towards the Clergy, they really arrested their sexual development at an adolecent level. And when these priests got involved in adolecents, that's because that's where they were stuck at.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Who says you can't own a machine gun?

The right to own a "machine gun" is (correctly) infringed by licensing, fees/taxation and background checks. Thus Scalia/Heller was and is correct, the 2nd A. is not an absolute prohibition of gun control; infringements exist!

See #86

See two hundred + years of Jurisprudence in America, esp. since Marbury v. Madison (1803) & most recently Heller. Understand the first issue discussed in ConLaw are First A. Issues.

Neither case law nor precedent changes the Constitution. Marbury v. Madison was the first mistake that damaged the model set by the Founders.

To repeal M v. M would create chaos, does that not concern you?

Notwithstanding the meme that COTUS is engraved in granite, the law evolves. Arms of war in the 17th century are not the arms of war in the 21st!.

Indeed it can evolve, through the mandated process. If altered outside of that process, it means only that the illegal result can be enforced at the barrel of a gun, not that it becomes legal.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Who says you can't own a machine gun?

The right to own a "machine gun" is (correctly) infringed by licensing, fees/taxation and background checks. Thus Scalia/Heller was and is correct, the 2nd A. is not an absolute prohibition of gun control; infringements exist!

See #86

See two hundred + years of Jurisprudence in America, esp. since Marbury v. Madison (1803) & most recently Heller. Understand the first issue discussed in ConLaw are First A. Issues.

Neither case law nor precedent changes the Constitution. Marbury v. Madison was the first mistake that damaged the model set by the Founders.

You should probably go back and learn what a common law country is and what constitutional construction.

Marbury v Madison was decided when the founders were alive and no one ever implied it wasn't "constitutional". In fact by definition if the court finds it constitutional, it is. Also the founders were politicians who didn't even agree with each other so I'm not sure what the heck you think you're talking about.

You should go back to sleep. Your posts make more sense when you're asleep.

 

[Onyx]

Okay, guy, when you talk about Mao or Trotsky, you kind of lose crediblity...

Not for people with a mind for history.

There seriously not much difference between European socialism and Trotskyism.

Fact of the matter is, the Homophobe is on the wrong side of history as much as the racist...

Irrelevant.

The question was whether or not the government should enforce equality measures.

My response on both accounts was that those discriminated against should not work for a bigoted employer. I believe in only working for those that respect you as a human being.

In literalist terms, you are asking for the corrupt corporate state to verbally intimidate business owners into employing and serving people they have differences with, and if they fail to comply, they will be forced into court where the government will rob them of a great deal of money they cannot afford to lose. If they refuse to pay, government goons will barge into their place of business and confine their personhood, and deny them of their own civil liberties. During this time, the government will undoubtedly hire a company of scumbags to do its dirty work and repossess much of the business owners livelihood.

Just describing what you want without all the bullshit. Now do you want to consider a more tempered and non-authoritarian approach towards instigating cultural change?

Future generations are going to look back at you people and cringe.

Really? It depends on what breed of fascism comes next, right or left wing?

Bigotry never changes. Ask the Jews.

 

[RicOShea]

Frankly, it's near time Christians stood up and said "fuck you". These progressive assholes have no Constitutional standing.

Ya fought for it once, remember?

It's Christians who have no Constitutional standing, they foolishly allow their religious beliefs to trash the Constitution and ignore the fact that America is a secular country.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Frankly, it's near time Christians stood up and said "fuck you". These progressive assholes have no Constitutional standing.

Ya fought for it once, remember?

It's Christians who have no Constitutional standing, they foolishly allow their religious beliefs to trash the Constitution and ignore the fact that America is a secular country.

Please provide some examples for our overall edification.

 

[Onyx]

Why should I have to go to a second bakery to find one that will treat me with human dignity?

Going to a bakery owned by a person who hates you is not very dignified.

Sorry, you are an adult now. Suck up your entitlement.

You have no moral high ground to stand on when you want to start bullying and intimidating others to think and act like you, when their thoughts and actions are causing no physical or bodily harm to your personhood.

This is why the police state exists. Your government does not protect people. It terrorizes them into conforming with the social standards laid out by other inherently flawed human beings.

If it makes you feel any better, outside of the established law, it is your prerogative to deny bigots a cake.

 

[Dragonlady]

So liberals are now including Christians in that "basket of deplorables" Hillary preaches to her supporters?

Please point out to me in the Gospels where Jesus said anything about homosexuality at all? The problem with you "Christians" is that you use Jesus to rationalize a lot of deplorable things that Jesus never talked about.

.

Please point out where Jesus talked of murder. Jesus never talked about it so it must be OK? Gawd you're an idiot

"Let he who is without sin among you, cast the first stone". Yes, he talked about murder, and he reinforced the 10 Commandments, as in "Thou shalt not kill". But don't let facts get in the way of your arguments.

Jesus didn't talk about homosexuality, neither did the 10 Commandments. Yet Christians will bake cake for adulterers, but not homosexuals. Odd that.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

So liberals are now including Christians in that "basket of deplorables" Hillary preaches to her supporters?

Please point out to me in the Gospels where Jesus said anything about homosexuality at all? The problem with you "Christians" is that you use Jesus to rationalize a lot of deplorable things that Jesus never talked about.

.

Please point out where Jesus talked of murder. Jesus never talked about it so it must be OK? Gawd you're an idiot

"Let he who is without sin among you, cast the first stone". Yes, he talked about murder, and he reinforced the 10 Commandments, as in "Thou shalt not kill". But don't let facts get in the way of your arguments.

Jesus didn't talk about homosexuality, neither did the 10 Commandments. Yet Christians will bake cake for adulterers, but not homosexuals. Odd that.

Jesus reinforced the Bible as a whole, does the Bible condemn homosexuality? Why yes, yes it does...numerous times. Sit down, this is the result when you loons attempt to go Biblical, you cherry pick and get caught everytime

 

[Onyx]

Jesus reinforced the Bible as a whole, does the Bible condemn homosexuality?

False.

The bible did not exist at all during the time of Jesus, nor is there one version of the bible.

All I recall is him stating that his intent was not to tear down scripture. You should be more clear on how he reinforced scripture, considering that is what most likely meant to say.

If he reinforced all scripture past and future, does that include Apocrypha and Pseudepigrapha?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Jesus reinforced the Bible as a whole, does the Bible condemn homosexuality?

False.

The bible did not exist at all during the time of Jesus.

All I recall is him stating that his intent was not to tear down scripture. You should be more clear on how he reinforced scripture, considering that is what most likely meant to say.

Oh save it, the Bible condemns homosexuality and any stupid fuck that thinks Jesus would have condoned it is too fucking stupid to live

 

[Onyx]

Oh save it, the Bible condemns homoseculaity and any stupid fuck that thinks Jesus would have condoned it is too fucking stupid to live

Nice deflection.

You made a claim, and this is you not backing it up.

Let's try again. Reference how Jesus reinforced the non-existent bible, and what constitutes the bible he is talking about.

 

[jillian]

The right to own a "machine gun" is (correctly) infringed by licensing, fees/taxation and background checks. Thus Scalia/Heller was and is correct, the 2nd A. is not an absolute prohibition of gun control; infringements exist!

See #86

See two hundred + years of Jurisprudence in America, esp. since Marbury v. Madison (1803) & most recently Heller. Understand the first issue discussed in ConLaw are First A. Issues.

Neither case law nor precedent changes the Constitution. Marbury v. Madison was the first mistake that damaged the model set by the Founders.

You should probably go back and learn what a common law country is and what constitutional construction.

Marbury v Madison was decided when the founders were alive and no one ever implied it wasn't "constitutional". In fact by definition if the court finds it constitutional, it is. Also the founders were politicians who didn't even agree with each other so I'm not sure what the heck you think you're talking about.

You should go back to sleep. Your posts make more sense when you're asleep.

In other words you have zero understanding about what I said. Maybe you should take a con law class, dum dum

Now go look up what a common law system is, idiota

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Oh save it, the Bible condemns homoseculaity and any stupid fuck that thinks Jesus would have condoned it is too fucking stupid to live

Nice deflection.

You made a claim, and this is you not backing it up.

Don't care, homosexulaity is called an abomination in the Bible. Refute that, asshole

 

[Onyx]

,

Don't care, homosexulaity is called an abomination in the Bible. Refute that, asshole

More deflection. You are ace at this.

The question was not whether homosexuality was declared an abomination in the bible, but rather did Jesus ever indicate that homosexuality was abominable?

 

[SassyIrishLass]

,

Don't care, homosexulaity is called an abomination in the Bible. Refute that, asshole

More deflection. You are ace at this.

The question was not whether homosexuality was declared an abomination in the bible, but rather did Jesus ever indicate that homosexuality was abominable?

Sigh..I have little patience for your BS....you may go

 

[Onyx]

Sigh..I have little patience for your BS....you may go

Wah! Mommy, that mean boy tried to hold me accountable for my assertions!!!

Good talking to you.

 

[SassyIrishLass]

Sigh..I have little patience for your BS....you may go

Wah! Mommy, that mean boy tried to hold me accountable for my assertions!!!

Good talking to you.

You got the "boy" part right, now fug off

 

[Onyx]

You got the "boy" part right, now fug off

No.

If you want to act your own age, you know where to find me.

I will probably keep responding whether or not you choose to act like a mature adult.