Evangelicals explain their support for Trump. It's the racism that stands out.

[Correll]

And what exactly has the government done to them that was the result of singling them out from the rest of the public?

{{meta.pageTitle}}

Employment Division v. Smith, in which Justice Scalia wrote for the majority:

Yes. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, observed that the Court has never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that government is free to regulate. Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind." Scalia cited as examples compulsory military service, payment of taxes, vaccination requirements, and child-neglect laws.
​

There is a difference between taxes, military service, child laws and forcing someone to provide a non time sensitive, non-crucial contracted service.

And even Scalia can be wrong sometimes.

And when remedies are made, as in the case of pacifists and military service, they are given other options, such as being a medic, or some other non combat role.

They aren't forced to bear arms against someone else, they are just required to serve. That is the least invasive method of resolving the issue.

"bake or else" is not the least invasive method.

It was extremely hard to get conscientious-objective status during the Vietnam War. A great number of objectors had to flee to Canada. The singer Joan Baez, a Quaker Christian, did jail time for refusing to pay taxes that went to finance the war, as did her husband. I doubt that these current "objectors" would be willing to do jail time. I think that this little cake-baker shit would ever have to guts to go to jail. He just wants to be mollycoddled. He obviously is not ready to make any sacrifice for his religion, much less sacrifice his life. Poor, poor dear.

Muhammad Ali gave up his title and a million in purses

No Vietcong ever called me n*gger

What was his justification for not serving?

Seems pretty clear from the quote. He felt less threatened by the Vietcong than by racists in his own country. He was right.

Err, no, the Vietcong might have killed him, the Evul Racist whites in this country, made him a millionaire.

If that was his justification, it was right that he was jailed.

 

[rightwinger]

There is a difference between taxes, military service, child laws and forcing someone to provide a non time sensitive, non-crucial contracted service.

And even Scalia can be wrong sometimes.

And when remedies are made, as in the case of pacifists and military service, they are given other options, such as being a medic, or some other non combat role.

They aren't forced to bear arms against someone else, they are just required to serve. That is the least invasive method of resolving the issue.

"bake or else" is not the least invasive method.

It was extremely hard to get conscientious-objective status during the Vietnam War. A great number of objectors had to flee to Canada. The singer Joan Baez, a Quaker Christian, did jail time for refusing to pay taxes that went to finance the war, as did her husband. I doubt that these current "objectors" would be willing to do jail time. I think that this little cake-baker shit would ever have to guts to go to jail. He just wants to be mollycoddled. He obviously is not ready to make any sacrifice for his religion, much less sacrifice his life. Poor, poor dear.

Muhammad Ali gave up his title and a million in purses

No Vietcong ever called me n*gger

What was his justification for not serving?

Religious objection

He claimed Islam is against killing of enemy soldiers? LOL!!!!!!

Yes he did

The US Supreme Court agreed with him

 

[rightwinger]

There is a difference between taxes, military service, child laws and forcing someone to provide a non time sensitive, non-crucial contracted service.

And even Scalia can be wrong sometimes.

And when remedies are made, as in the case of pacifists and military service, they are given other options, such as being a medic, or some other non combat role.

They aren't forced to bear arms against someone else, they are just required to serve. That is the least invasive method of resolving the issue.

"bake or else" is not the least invasive method.

It was extremely hard to get conscientious-objective status during the Vietnam War. A great number of objectors had to flee to Canada. The singer Joan Baez, a Quaker Christian, did jail time for refusing to pay taxes that went to finance the war, as did her husband. I doubt that these current "objectors" would be willing to do jail time. I think that this little cake-baker shit would ever have to guts to go to jail. He just wants to be mollycoddled. He obviously is not ready to make any sacrifice for his religion, much less sacrifice his life. Poor, poor dear.

Muhammad Ali gave up his title and a million in purses

No Vietcong ever called me n*gger

What was his justification for not serving?

Seems pretty clear from the quote. He felt less threatened by the Vietcong than by racists in his own country. He was right.

Err, no, the Vietcong might have killed him, the Evul Racist whites in this country, made him a millionaire.

If that was his justification, it was right that he was jailed.

He could have easily continued making his millions by selling out to an unjust war

 

[Correll]

It was extremely hard to get conscientious-objective status during the Vietnam War. A great number of objectors had to flee to Canada. The singer Joan Baez, a Quaker Christian, did jail time for refusing to pay taxes that went to finance the war, as did her husband. I doubt that these current "objectors" would be willing to do jail time. I think that this little cake-baker shit would ever have to guts to go to jail. He just wants to be mollycoddled. He obviously is not ready to make any sacrifice for his religion, much less sacrifice his life. Poor, poor dear.

Muhammad Ali gave up his title and a million in purses

No Vietcong ever called me n*gger

What was his justification for not serving?

Religious objection

He claimed Islam is against killing of enemy soldiers? LOL!!!!!!

Yes he did

The US Supreme Court agreed with him

Well, that is stupid on him, and them.

 

[Correll]

It was extremely hard to get conscientious-objective status during the Vietnam War. A great number of objectors had to flee to Canada. The singer Joan Baez, a Quaker Christian, did jail time for refusing to pay taxes that went to finance the war, as did her husband. I doubt that these current "objectors" would be willing to do jail time. I think that this little cake-baker shit would ever have to guts to go to jail. He just wants to be mollycoddled. He obviously is not ready to make any sacrifice for his religion, much less sacrifice his life. Poor, poor dear.

Muhammad Ali gave up his title and a million in purses

No Vietcong ever called me n*gger

What was his justification for not serving?

Seems pretty clear from the quote. He felt less threatened by the Vietcong than by racists in his own country. He was right.

Err, no, the Vietcong might have killed him, the Evul Racist whites in this country, made him a millionaire.

If that was his justification, it was right that he was jailed.

He could have easily continued making his millions by selling out to an unjust war

Why did you hit the reply button, if what you were planning on posting, had nothing to do with my post?


Err, no, the Vietcong might have killed him, the Evul Racist whites in this country, made him a millionaire.

If that was his justification, it was right that he was jailed.

 

[rightwinger]

Muhammad Ali gave up his title and a million in purses

No Vietcong ever called me n*gger

What was his justification for not serving?

Religious objection

He claimed Islam is against killing of enemy soldiers? LOL!!!!!!

Yes he did

The US Supreme Court agreed with him

Well, that is stupid on him, and them.

Ali could have easily claimed he had heel spurs

But he risked all for his religious objections

 

[Correll]

What was his justification for not serving?

Religious objection

He claimed Islam is against killing of enemy soldiers? LOL!!!!!!

Yes he did

The US Supreme Court agreed with him

Well, that is stupid on him, and them.

Ali could have easily claimed he had heel spurs

But he risked all for his religious objections

His religious objections were bullshit. HIs racist objections were bullshit.


He openly refused to serve his nation, when called.


He deserved to be fucked.

 

[rightwinger]

Religious objection

He claimed Islam is against killing of enemy soldiers? LOL!!!!!!

Yes he did

The US Supreme Court agreed with him

Well, that is stupid on him, and them.

Ali could have easily claimed he had heel spurs

But he risked all for his religious objections

His religious objections were bullshit. HIs racist objections were bullshit.


He openly refused to serve his nation, when called.


He deserved to be fucked.

Evidently not

Ali’s problem was that he was not a white Christian seeking conscientious objector status. The courts found he was wrongly prosecuted for being the “wrong religion”

Ali gave up three years of his career for his beliefs

 

[Correll]

He claimed Islam is against killing of enemy soldiers? LOL!!!!!!

Yes he did

The US Supreme Court agreed with him

Well, that is stupid on him, and them.

Ali could have easily claimed he had heel spurs

But he risked all for his religious objections

His religious objections were bullshit. HIs racist objections were bullshit.


He openly refused to serve his nation, when called.


He deserved to be fucked.

Evidently not

Ali’s problem was that he was not a white Christian seeking conscientious objector status. The courts found he was wrongly prosecuted for being the “wrong religion”

Ali gave up three years of his career for his beliefs

Ali's problem was that pretending Islam is a religion of Peace is big fat fucking lie.


It is worth noting that he made his millions beating up people for a living. A very odd career choice for a pacifist.

 

[rightwinger]

Yes he did

The US Supreme Court agreed with him

Well, that is stupid on him, and them.

Ali could have easily claimed he had heel spurs

But he risked all for his religious objections

His religious objections were bullshit. HIs racist objections were bullshit.


He openly refused to serve his nation, when called.


He deserved to be fucked.

Evidently not

Ali’s problem was that he was not a white Christian seeking conscientious objector status. The courts found he was wrongly prosecuted for being the “wrong religion”

Ali gave up three years of his career for his beliefs

Ali's problem was that pretending Islam is a religion of Peace is big fat fucking lie.


It is worth noting that he made his millions beating up people for a living. A very odd career choice for a pacifist.

Hardly
He remained a devout Muslim his entire life

Unlike fake Christian Donnie Bonespurs

 

[Correll]

Well, that is stupid on him, and them.

Ali could have easily claimed he had heel spurs

But he risked all for his religious objections

His religious objections were bullshit. HIs racist objections were bullshit.


He openly refused to serve his nation, when called.


He deserved to be fucked.

Evidently not

Ali’s problem was that he was not a white Christian seeking conscientious objector status. The courts found he was wrongly prosecuted for being the “wrong religion”

Ali gave up three years of his career for his beliefs

Ali's problem was that pretending Islam is a religion of Peace is big fat fucking lie.


It is worth noting that he made his millions beating up people for a living. A very odd career choice for a pacifist.

Hardly
He remained a devout Muslim his entire life
...

That did not address my points that

1. pretending Islam is a religion of Peace is big fat fucking lie.

and

2.It is worth noting that he made his millions beating up people for a living. A very odd career choice for a pacifist

 

[rightwinger]

What countries have been invaded by Muslims?

 

[Correll]

What countries have been invaded by Muslims?

Are you fucking serious?

 

[martybegan]

Judging implies a binding verdict, you can critique, you can opine, but you can't judge.

A binding verdict means the decision of a tribunal that has legitimate authority and meets its obligation to rule in a neutral manner. All else is critique and opinion. USMB posters are up to our ears in it. Every day. You don't accept all of the beliefs of all of the world's religions, do you? Don't you find some of them silly or offensive or dangerous to others?

They can be silly all they want. Unless their practices create an actual harm (and butt hurt is not harm) the government should leave them the hell alone.

And what exactly has the government done to them that was the result of singling them out from the rest of the public?

{{meta.pageTitle}}

Employment Division v. Smith, in which Justice Scalia wrote for the majority:

Yes. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, observed that the Court has never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that government is free to regulate. Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind." Scalia cited as examples compulsory military service, payment of taxes, vaccination requirements, and child-neglect laws.
​

There is a difference between taxes, military service, child laws and forcing someone to provide a non time sensitive, non-crucial contracted service.

And even Scalia can be wrong sometimes.

And when remedies are made, as in the case of pacifists and military service, they are given other options, such as being a medic, or some other non combat role.

They aren't forced to bear arms against someone else, they are just required to serve. That is the least invasive method of resolving the issue.

"bake or else" is not the least invasive method.

It was extremely hard to get conscientious-objective status during the Vietnam War. A great number of objectors had to flee to Canada. The singer Joan Baez, a Quaker Christian, did jail time for refusing to pay taxes that went to finance the war, as did her husband. I doubt that these current "objectors" would be willing to do jail time. I think that this little cake-baker shit would ever have to guts to go to jail. He just wants to be mollycoddled. He obviously is not ready to make any sacrifice for his religion, much less sacrifice his life. Poor, poor dear.

That was for overall, not joining objector. Being a medic was an easier route, and usually even more dangerous. And a lot of people faked objector status in Vietnam as opposed to WWII.

And now your anti-religious bias shows, wow, it only took 4 posts.

And refusing taxes is different then saying "I don't want to fight". Again plenty of medics in WWII were objectors, they still went there and risked their lives.

 

[martybegan]

A binding verdict means the decision of a tribunal that has legitimate authority and meets its obligation to rule in a neutral manner. All else is critique and opinion. USMB posters are up to our ears in it. Every day. You don't accept all of the beliefs of all of the world's religions, do you? Don't you find some of them silly or offensive or dangerous to others?

They can be silly all they want. Unless their practices create an actual harm (and butt hurt is not harm) the government should leave them the hell alone.

And what exactly has the government done to them that was the result of singling them out from the rest of the public?

{{meta.pageTitle}}

Employment Division v. Smith, in which Justice Scalia wrote for the majority:

Yes. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, observed that the Court has never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that government is free to regulate. Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind." Scalia cited as examples compulsory military service, payment of taxes, vaccination requirements, and child-neglect laws.
​

There is a difference between taxes, military service, child laws and forcing someone to provide a non time sensitive, non-crucial contracted service.

And even Scalia can be wrong sometimes.

And when remedies are made, as in the case of pacifists and military service, they are given other options, such as being a medic, or some other non combat role.

They aren't forced to bear arms against someone else, they are just required to serve. That is the least invasive method of resolving the issue.

"bake or else" is not the least invasive method.

It was extremely hard to get conscientious-objective status during the Vietnam War. A great number of objectors had to flee to Canada. The singer Joan Baez, a Quaker Christian, did jail time for refusing to pay taxes that went to finance the war, as did her husband. I doubt that these current "objectors" would be willing to do jail time. I think that this little cake-baker shit would ever have to guts to go to jail. He just wants to be mollycoddled. He obviously is not ready to make any sacrifice for his religion, much less sacrifice his life. Poor, poor dear.

mohamed ali stood by his convictions & went to jail. he was a bigger man than most 'stand behind the cross' warriors..

So you want to make not baking a cake a crime instead of just a civil violation?

Fascist.

 

[martybegan]

They can be silly all they want. Unless their practices create an actual harm (and butt hurt is not harm) the government should leave them the hell alone.

And what exactly has the government done to them that was the result of singling them out from the rest of the public?

{{meta.pageTitle}}

Employment Division v. Smith, in which Justice Scalia wrote for the majority:

Yes. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, observed that the Court has never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that government is free to regulate. Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind." Scalia cited as examples compulsory military service, payment of taxes, vaccination requirements, and child-neglect laws.
​

There is a difference between taxes, military service, child laws and forcing someone to provide a non time sensitive, non-crucial contracted service.

And even Scalia can be wrong sometimes.

And when remedies are made, as in the case of pacifists and military service, they are given other options, such as being a medic, or some other non combat role.

They aren't forced to bear arms against someone else, they are just required to serve. That is the least invasive method of resolving the issue.

"bake or else" is not the least invasive method.

It was extremely hard to get conscientious-objective status during the Vietnam War. A great number of objectors had to flee to Canada. The singer Joan Baez, a Quaker Christian, did jail time for refusing to pay taxes that went to finance the war, as did her husband. I doubt that these current "objectors" would be willing to do jail time. I think that this little cake-baker shit would ever have to guts to go to jail. He just wants to be mollycoddled. He obviously is not ready to make any sacrifice for his religion, much less sacrifice his life. Poor, poor dear.

mohamed ali stood by his convictions & went to jail. he was a bigger man than most 'stand behind the cross' warriors..

Thank you! These people who style themselves as "Christians" are not willing to step forward and endure anything for their "faith." I remember touring the Roman Colosseum and the Catacombs. I don't think that any of these "Christian" boys and girls now are willing to endure any form of discrimination or mistreatment for their "beliefs," much less real peril. They can't even endure a legal judgment and some fine, much less being burned to death or cast into gas chambers and ovens, or shot in front of graves that they were forced to dig for themselves.

Why should they have to endure persecution for not wanting to bake a cake for a single type of ceremony, when they all agree they can't deny point of sale services?

Why do you have to be so extreme in your views? Why do you feel the need to force compliance with your world view via government "OR ELSE?"

How can you be such a petty twat?

 

[rightwinger]

What countries have been invaded by Muslims?

Are you fucking serious?

Show us a Muslim nation that is invading others

 

[Lysistrata]

A binding verdict means the decision of a tribunal that has legitimate authority and meets its obligation to rule in a neutral manner. All else is critique and opinion. USMB posters are up to our ears in it. Every day. You don't accept all of the beliefs of all of the world's religions, do you? Don't you find some of them silly or offensive or dangerous to others?

They can be silly all they want. Unless their practices create an actual harm (and butt hurt is not harm) the government should leave them the hell alone.

And what exactly has the government done to them that was the result of singling them out from the rest of the public?

{{meta.pageTitle}}

Employment Division v. Smith, in which Justice Scalia wrote for the majority:

Yes. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, observed that the Court has never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that government is free to regulate. Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind." Scalia cited as examples compulsory military service, payment of taxes, vaccination requirements, and child-neglect laws.
​

There is a difference between taxes, military service, child laws and forcing someone to provide a non time sensitive, non-crucial contracted service.

And even Scalia can be wrong sometimes.

And when remedies are made, as in the case of pacifists and military service, they are given other options, such as being a medic, or some other non combat role.

They aren't forced to bear arms against someone else, they are just required to serve. That is the least invasive method of resolving the issue.

"bake or else" is not the least invasive method.

It was extremely hard to get conscientious-objective status during the Vietnam War. A great number of objectors had to flee to Canada. The singer Joan Baez, a Quaker Christian, did jail time for refusing to pay taxes that went to finance the war, as did her husband. I doubt that these current "objectors" would be willing to do jail time. I think that this little cake-baker shit would ever have to guts to go to jail. He just wants to be mollycoddled. He obviously is not ready to make any sacrifice for his religion, much less sacrifice his life. Poor, poor dear.

That was for overall, not joining objector. Being a medic was an easier route, and usually even more dangerous. And a lot of people faked objector status in Vietnam as opposed to WWII.

And now your anti-religious bias shows, wow, it only took 4 posts.

And refusing taxes is different then saying "I don't want to fight". Again plenty of medics in WWII were objectors, they still went there and risked their lives.

What "anti-religious bias"? What exaggeration! Do you except all faiths in the world? It sounds like you are likely recruit for the Taliban or ISIS. Perhaps you are some Haredi guy who gets on an El-Al flight and actually expects another passenger to move because he needs to sit his fat butt down and he won't sit next to a woman. He needs to book his flights better, perhaps booking two seats together since he is under this restriction.

Religion is a choice, and people who choose to adhere to religions that have out-of-the-ordinary restrictions need to make plans for themselves when interacting with the public. It is not anyone else's responsibility to take up the slack or take their shit. The rest of the general public have things that they have to get done, too. If you follow such a religion, figure out how to follow it in modern society without involving anyone else.

 

[martybegan]

They can be silly all they want. Unless their practices create an actual harm (and butt hurt is not harm) the government should leave them the hell alone.

And what exactly has the government done to them that was the result of singling them out from the rest of the public?

{{meta.pageTitle}}

Employment Division v. Smith, in which Justice Scalia wrote for the majority:

Yes. Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority, observed that the Court has never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that government is free to regulate. Allowing exceptions to every state law or regulation affecting religion "would open the prospect of constitutionally required exemptions from civic obligations of almost every conceivable kind." Scalia cited as examples compulsory military service, payment of taxes, vaccination requirements, and child-neglect laws.
​

There is a difference between taxes, military service, child laws and forcing someone to provide a non time sensitive, non-crucial contracted service.

And even Scalia can be wrong sometimes.

And when remedies are made, as in the case of pacifists and military service, they are given other options, such as being a medic, or some other non combat role.

They aren't forced to bear arms against someone else, they are just required to serve. That is the least invasive method of resolving the issue.

"bake or else" is not the least invasive method.

It was extremely hard to get conscientious-objective status during the Vietnam War. A great number of objectors had to flee to Canada. The singer Joan Baez, a Quaker Christian, did jail time for refusing to pay taxes that went to finance the war, as did her husband. I doubt that these current "objectors" would be willing to do jail time. I think that this little cake-baker shit would ever have to guts to go to jail. He just wants to be mollycoddled. He obviously is not ready to make any sacrifice for his religion, much less sacrifice his life. Poor, poor dear.

That was for overall, not joining objector. Being a medic was an easier route, and usually even more dangerous. And a lot of people faked objector status in Vietnam as opposed to WWII.

And now your anti-religious bias shows, wow, it only took 4 posts.

And refusing taxes is different then saying "I don't want to fight". Again plenty of medics in WWII were objectors, they still went there and risked their lives.

What "anti-religious bias"? What exaggeration! Do you except all faiths in the world? It sounds like you are likely recruit for the Taliban or ISIS. Perhaps you are some Haredi guy who gets on an El-Al flight and actually expects another passenger to move because he needs to sit his fat butt down and he won't sit next to a woman.

Religion is a choice, and people who choose to adhere to religions that have out-of-the-ordinary restrictions need to make plans for themselves. It is not anyone else's responsibility to take up the slack or take their shit. The rest of the general public have things that they have to get done, too. If you follow such a religion, figure out how to follow it in modern society without involving anyone else.

If you have to equate not baking a cake in one specific situation with ISIS, you lost the argument.

El Al of all airlines should expect this stuff and try to accomodate. If they can't, then the Hasidic guy has the option to get off the plane.

So you basically want Religion to "get back into the fucking closet"?

Interesting.

 

[Correll]

What countries have been invaded by Muslims?

Are you fucking serious?

Show us a Muslim nation that is invading others

Wow. Already moving the goal posts.


They expanded by the sword and fire until they were stopped in all directions.

That they are not currently launching formal wars of aggression right now, is because they have been getting their asses kicked for quite some time, not a change to peace and love.


Dumbass.