Farmer Prevented from Selling His Crop Because He Supports Traditional Marriage

[Syriusly]

Would love to see the evidence.

Dianne Feinstein Attacks Judicial Nominee's Catholic Faith

Feinstein argued that, based on the nature of his religion and how it was engrained in him, his catholic religion should disqualify him from being a judge and / or he would have to recuse himself during cases involving abortions.

Evidently Feinstein believes that a judge who has taken an oath to uphold, defend, and protect / enforce the Constitution will elevate his own religious beliefs above that oath and the Constitution. It is obvious in her comments that she has a laser-like focus on the issue of abortions...

“When you read your speeches, the conclusion one draws is that the dogma lives loudly within you,” Feinstein said. “And that’s of concern when you come to big issues that large numbers of people have fought for for years in this country.” Feinstein is clearly hinting here at the Supreme Court decision in Roe v. Wade, a ruling that Feinstein supports so vociferously that she has even called it a “super-precedent.”

Claiming that a Christian should be disqualified for being a judge / that a Christian can not be trusted to NOT allow his own personal religious beliefs supersede the Constitution is just as arguably equivalent to claiming that a devoted liberal can not be trusted to NOT allow his / her own liberal ideology to supersede the Constitution and instead attempt to legislate from the bench.

The same concern, the same question, could be asked / brought up regarding anyone who is passionate about their beliefs, no matter what they are, religious or not....but Feinstein went THERE, questioning a Christian's ability to be a competent, fair judge based on his personal Christian faith.

Feinstein of course never claims that a Christian should be disqualified from being a judge.

Feinstein mentions the judges faith- because that judge wrote a paper discussing the Catholic faith and the role of judges- Feinstein's questions were specific to that judge

"Catholic Judges in Capital Cases" by Amy Coney Barrett and John H. Garvey

As a matter of fact- Senator Feinstein is doing exactly what Judge Barrett argued for in her paper:

Therefore, the authors argue, we need to know whether judges are legally disqualified from hearing cases that their consciences would let them decide. While mere identification of a judge as Catholic is not sufficient reason for recusal under federal law, the authors suggest that the moral impossibility of enforcing capital punishment in such cases as sentencing, enforcing jury recommendations, and affirming are in fact reasons for not participating.

 

[Syriusly]

What more can possibly be said about this topic that 480 posts haven't covered already?

Maybe we can find out the meaning of the oh so mysterious NL term that Trump voters like to use?

Nature Lover?
National Leader
Not Liquid?

 

[Syriusly]

You do know the Bible says homosexuality is an abomination. Do you agree with that or are you going to ignore it when it's not what you like to hear?

I do know that the New Testament says that Christians are supposed to follow the law- and Christians are supposed to follow the New Testament.

Of course the New Testament doesn't say homosexuality is an abomination- matter of fact Jesus doesn't even mention homosexuality. He does say that remarriage after divorce- you know like President Trump- is adultery.

Or maybe you are one of those "Old Testament" Christians- who doesn't eat shellfish or cut his beard?

In the same passage about divorce (Matthew 19), Jesus referenced what had been written in Genesis (OT) about a man (MALE) leaving his father/mother and being united with his wife (FEMALE). Even Jesus referenced the OT word of God. That reference doesn't mention a man being united with another man or a woman with another woman.

There are lots of things Jesus didn't mention specifically that I suspect you'd believe are wrong. Since He didn't, are you saying those things are OK to do? Based on your logic, they'd have to be.

I am glad to post all of the relevant parts(why are you so coy about quoting the Bible?)

3 Some Pharisees came to him to test him. They asked, “Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?”


4 “Haven’t you read,” he replied, “that at the beginning the Creator ‘made them male and female,’a]">[a] 5 and said, ‘For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh’b]">[b]? 6 So they are no longer two, but one flesh. Therefore what God has joined together, let no one separate.”


7 “Why then,” they asked, “did Moses command that a man give his wife a certificate of divorce and send her away?”


8 Jesus replied, “Moses permitted you to divorce your wives because your hearts were hard. But it was not this way from the beginning. 9 I tell you that anyone who divorces his wife, except for sexual immorality, and marries another woman commits adultery.”


10 The disciples said to him, “If this is the situation between a husband and wife, it is better not to marry.”


11 Jesus replied, “Not everyone can accept this word, but only those to whom it has been given. 12 For there are eunuchs who were born that way, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others—and there are those who choose to live like eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. The one who can accept this should accept it.”

So here Jesus says two relevant things:

1. That marriage is between and man and a woman and
2. That any man who divorces his wife and remarries unless she is cheating on him- is guilty of adultery.

I don't disagree with the Christians who say the Bible says marriage is between a man and woman. But other than the Catholics and a few Protestant sects- none forbid divorce.

More to the point- nowhere does the Bible say that Christians should not sell to either homosexuals- or adulterers like Donald Trump.

Instead- the Bible says specifically that Christians must obey the law.

And the law says that gay couples- and adulterers like Donald Trump can be legally married- and the law in that town says that is a violation of the law to discriminate against Christians or Jews or Muslims or blacks or Mexicans or gay couples that want to get married.

Why do Christians want to ignore the teachings of the New Testament- so that they can refuse to do something the Bible never tells them that they should refuse to do?

And why do those same Christians have no problem providing their services to men marrying their second or third or fourth wives?

Some of these "Christian" bible translations are really wild.

'Certificate of divorce' -- yeah that was a thing back then… duh!

Another one that ignores marriage being between a man/woman is the only acceptable kind.

Another one that ignores the Biblical prohibition of divorce and Bible demand that Christians obey the law.

 

[Syriusly]

Diane Feinstein and a few other Democrats reportedly made that argument last week about a Catholic Judge up for appointment / confirmation....

So did some posters on here.

Just what I thought.....misrepresenting: Analysis | Did Dianne Feinstein accuse a judicial nominee of being too Christian?

And yet some here have no problem with christian sharia, do they?

I have no problem with mandating this type of indecent shit goes back into the strip clubs and variety adult shows where it belongs.

Because of course- you don't want local communities to decide what is appropriate.....

1% to 3% of weirdos don't get to rule over the other 99% to 97% with their nasty shit.

Yep- that is why you don't get to tell the rest of us Americans what to do.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Unconstitutional is a legal term.

People are innocent until proven guilty.

Unconstitutional is a term that denotes something goes against the Constitution. Are you saying something that can't change it's wording isn't unconstitutional when it's written?

They're guilty when they commit the crime. Telling them so doesn't change that what they did was illegal when they did it.

You're making comically circular arguments.

Did you think the mandate in Obamacare was unconstitutional?

Absolutely.

During an interview with George Stephanopoulos where George asked him several times about the mandate being a tax, Obama said, "No. That's not true, George. The - for us to say that you've got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it's saying is, is that we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase. People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I'm not covering all the costs."

Strange thing is the Supreme Court upheld the mandate using the reasoning, wait for it, that the mandate could be considered a tax. When they did that, why didn't Obama step up and say that's not what it is, you're wrong?

As far as other parts of that statement, Obama's full of shit and not very knowledgeable about the difference between auto and health insurance. He said that "we're not going to have other people carrying your burdens . . ". The subsidies one person receives that others have to pay for is just that. If the burden on someone was (fill in the blank $) before Obama care and the burden on someone is the same amount to fund subsidies, how is that not carrying a burden for someone else? Can you tell me the difference between the purpose of auto insurance and the purpose off health insurance? If you can, you'll know Obama's full of shit. If you can't, you'll realize you are.

So you were wrong about the mandate. See? You aren't the one who decides.

Apparently the black boy President was, too since he said it wasn't a tax. Why didn't he do the honorable thing by standing up and saying it absolutely is not when the Supreme Court decided? He's just like the looters after the hurricane that think taking things that don't belong to them are theirs because they have them in their possession.

You need to put your racism on the back burner in this debate. it's not helping you.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Jesus didn't mention interracial marriage either.....Tell me he didn't think it was a valid kind either.

As long as it was a man and woman, he didn't have to.

Why would he not have to mention their race? How about their religion? How about their ages?

You seem to be presuming a lot on what Jesus believed.

I DO know he condemned those who divorce......and yet we have all these modern day christians who ignore that one clear and concise bit of teaching.

I DO know he supported only heterosexual marriages . . . and yet we have all these folks claiming to know religion ignoring it.

How do you know that? Did he say "only hetero marriages, folks"?

He said man and a woman. That is the very definition of a heterosexual marriage.

Just for the record, who do you believe should determine the constitutionality of laws?

 

[Syriusly]

Why do you believe that Christians are disqualified form serving as judges?

Piss-poor, and very transparent, attempt to spin douche-bag. It was Feinstein's argument that a catholic could possibly not be trusted to be a good judge based on his own personal religious beliefs.

Except of course- as usual- you are lying.

Feinstein never said that.

However- the judge she was questioning- wrote a paper specifically on that issue:

"Catholic Judges in Capital Cases" by Amy Coney Barrett and John H. Garvey

The Catholic Church's opposition to the death penalty places Catholic judges in a moral and legal bind. While these judges are obliged by oath, professional commitment, and the demands of citizenship to enforce the death penalty, they are also obliged to adhere to their church's teaching on moral matters. Although the legal system has a solution for this dilemma by allowing the recusal of judges whose convictions keep them from doing their job, Catholic judges will want to sit whenever possible without acting immorally. However, litigants and the general public are entitled to impartial justice, which may be something a judge who is heedful of ecclesiastical pronouncements cannot dispense. The Catholic Church's opposition to the death penalty places Catholic judges in a moral and legal bind. While these judges are obliged by oath, professional commitment, and the demands of citizenship to enforce the death penalty, they are also obliged to adhere to their church's teaching on moral matters. Although the legal system has a solution for this dilemma by allowing the recusal of judges whose convictions keep them from doing their job, Catholic judges will want to sit whenever possible without acting immorally. However, litigants and the general public are entitled to impartial justice, which may be something a judge who is heedful of ecclesiastical pronouncements cannot dispense. Therefore, the authors argue, we need to know whether judges are legally disqualified from hearing cases that their consciences would let them decide. While mere identification of a judge as Catholic is not sufficient reason for recusal under federal law, the authors suggest that the moral impossibility of enforcing capital punishment in such cases as sentencing, enforcing jury recommendations, and affirming are in fact reasons for not participating.While mere identification of a judge as Catholic is not sufficient reason for recusal under federal law, the authors suggest that the moral impossibility of enforcing capital punishment in such cases as sentencing, enforcing jury recommendations, and affirming are in fact reasons for not participating.

Feinstein was doing exactly what Judge Barrett recommended in her paper

Therefore, the authors argue, we need to know whether judges are legally disqualified from hearing cases that their consciences would let them decide.

 

[RodISHI]

So did some posters on here.

Just what I thought.....misrepresenting: Analysis | Did Dianne Feinstein accuse a judicial nominee of being too Christian?

And yet some here have no problem with christian sharia, do they?

I have no problem with mandating this type of indecent shit goes back into the strip clubs and variety adult shows where it belongs.

Because of course- you don't want local communities to decide what is appropriate.....

1% to 3% of weirdos don't get to rule over the other 99% to 97% with their nasty shit.

Yep- that is why you don't get to tell the rest of us Americans what to do.

I sure do get to tell you what will happen to you if you try to shove your nasty shit into my space when you are uninvited.

 

[Syriusly]

Jesus didn't mention interracial marriage either.....Tell me he didn't think it was a valid kind either.

As long as it was a man and woman, he didn't have to.

Why would he not have to mention their race? How about their religion? How about their ages?

You seem to be presuming a lot on what Jesus believed.

I DO know he condemned those who divorce......and yet we have all these modern day christians who ignore that one clear and concise bit of teaching.

I DO know he supported only heterosexual marriages . . . and yet we have all these folks claiming to know religion ignoring it.

But you oddly enough don't know that Jesus condemned divorce and remarriage.

Jesus never condemned same gender marriage- but he did condemn the kind of marriage Donald Trump is in right now.

So of course the marriage that bothers you is Bob marrying Gary- not Donald marrying Melania.

I know it enough to not have done it.

Jesus was clear about what types of marriages were acceptable. Fag marriages weren't one of them.

Jesus never mentioned 'fags' at all.

He did say that Donald Trump is an adulterer though.

 

[RodISHI]

As long as it was a man and woman, he didn't have to.

Why would he not have to mention their race? How about their religion? How about their ages?

You seem to be presuming a lot on what Jesus believed.

I DO know he condemned those who divorce......and yet we have all these modern day christians who ignore that one clear and concise bit of teaching.

I DO know he supported only heterosexual marriages . . . and yet we have all these folks claiming to know religion ignoring it.

But you oddly enough don't know that Jesus condemned divorce and remarriage.

Jesus never condemned same gender marriage- but he did condemn the kind of marriage Donald Trump is in right now.

So of course the marriage that bothers you is Bob marrying Gary- not Donald marrying Melania.

I know it enough to not have done it.

Jesus was clear about what types of marriages were acceptable. Fag marriages weren't one of them.

Jesus never mentioned 'fags' at all.

He did say that Donald Trump is an adulterer though.

You are clueless about the word in the Bible and what is said in that word. That does happen when you are spiritually dead though so no biggy it is on you.

 

[HappyJoy]

Religious freedom brings in an entire new ball game. Hence why SCOTUS agreed to hear the Colorado baker's case.

If the baker wins, your PA laws are worthless

Aren't those that argue PA laws rank higher on the scale than what's in the Constitution constantly telling us something about a Supremacy Clause?

Nobody is arguing PA laws take precedent over the Constitution. But, you be you.

That's exactly what NYCarbineer did. That's exactly what Seawytch did.

PA laws are not unconstitutional.

Anyone that supports them when compared to the 1st Amendment, as in this case, is arguing that laws passed by a legislative body are superior to what the Constitution says.

First amendment? What does the first amendment have to do with PA laws?

 

[hazlnut]

Another one that ignores marriage being between a man/woman is the only acceptable kind.

Only Acceptable to whom? Homophobes.

And there are really only two major homophobic groups left in the world -- So called evangelical "Christian" Americans and Islamic countries…

 

[Timmy]

It's not okay. Thus the ordinance. Scumbag.

That bunch of commies who passed that ordinance are going to learn they screwed the pooch with that dumb ass law. That farmer will take it to the Supreme Court. He knows the law and Constitution are on his side. Thank God for the 2nd Amendment. (It protects the 1st)

More like the ACLU protects the first .

The only people the ACLU protects are the Free Shit Generation, deadbeats and trash.

They protect our rights more than anyone . They even take on cases for nasty people .in order to secure our rights .

Are you saying someone else has a right to what you earn?

Huh? How did you get that from supporting the ACLU ?

 

[hazlnut]

I know it enough to not have done it.

Jesus was clear about what types of marriages were acceptable. Fag marriages weren't one of them.

That fact that you'd even use the word 'fag' shows you know nothing of Jesus.

Please don't used His name or attempt to associate with Him.

And he never said anything about Homosexuality or Gay Marriage. In fact, Peter and Jesus, they were a thing.

 

[Seawytch]

Our Constitution has made it our business.

Where does the Constitution say one person has to sell to another? I need the specific location.

Federal law says it and the Constitution protects the supremacy of federal law in the Supremacy Clause.

So you can't show me the specific location? Got it. Much like when I've asked for the location of where the Constitution says healthcare, food stamps, etc. you couldn't provide it. The 10th Amendment says things like that belong at the State level yet you big government idiots still want them at the federal level.

42 U.S. Code § 2000a - Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation

PA laws have been challenged and found Constitutional.

Religious freedom brings in an entire new ball game. Hence why SCOTUS agreed to hear the Colorado baker's case.

If the baker wins, your PA laws are worthless

I hope so. It's not right that the hypocritical, hateful Christian can deny me service but I can't deny him. I hope the SCOTUS destroys decades of precedent because a small minority of "Christians" hate gays.

 

[RodISHI]

Where does the Constitution say one person has to sell to another? I need the specific location.

Federal law says it and the Constitution protects the supremacy of federal law in the Supremacy Clause.

So you can't show me the specific location? Got it. Much like when I've asked for the location of where the Constitution says healthcare, food stamps, etc. you couldn't provide it. The 10th Amendment says things like that belong at the State level yet you big government idiots still want them at the federal level.

42 U.S. Code § 2000a - Prohibition against discrimination or segregation in places of public accommodation

PA laws have been challenged and found Constitutional.

Religious freedom brings in an entire new ball game. Hence why SCOTUS agreed to hear the Colorado baker's case.

If the baker wins, your PA laws are worthless

I hope so. It's not right that the hypocritical, hateful Christian can deny me service but I can't deny him. I hope the SCOTUS destroys decades of precedent because a small minority of "Christians" hate gays.

Hate and not wanting to take any part with them are two different issues that you are attempting to conflate.

 

[Seawytch]

Oh look...You're deflecting again. Jesus actually mentioned divorce did he not? Jesus himself actually condemned divorce in no uncertain terms, is that not correct? Why are no bakers, florists, photographers, pizza kitchens or farmers refusing to serve divorced people? Jesus never said diddly about gays but "Christians" feel it's their "god given" duty to refuse to serve them....but happily bake wedding cakes for fat couples (gluttony is a deadly sin) and divorcees remarrying. Why the selective enforcement?

Oh look, you're ignoring that Jesus didn't mention your type of marriage and but mentioned my type.

No, I'm acknowledging he said nothing about gays...but he did mention divorce. Why aren't divorced people being denied service by these "good Christians"?

He also mentioned marriage being between a man and a woman. Why do you ignore that?

What's to ignore? It was pretty much the only kind there was over 2,000 years ago. So what? It has nothing to do with the questions posed. Your continued deflection is noted.

Things you don't like that the Bible addresses. It has to do with you claiming things the Bible says then ignoring it when you don't like. Jesus didn't mention your kind of marriage. Tell me He didn't think it was a valid kind either.

No, that's you ignoring what is inconvenient for you to answer...like why all these so called christian merchants aren't refusing to serve other "sinners".

There was no "my kind of marriage" at the time and place that Jesus walked the earth. There were gay people but he didn't see fit to mention them. Guess it wasn't that big a deal to him. Divorce was though. It was a huge deal to him. He talked about it in no uncertain terms. Why aren't christians upset about divorced people like they are about gay people?

 

[Syriusly]

Why would he not have to mention their race? How about their religion? How about their ages?

You seem to be presuming a lot on what Jesus believed.

I DO know he condemned those who divorce......and yet we have all these modern day christians who ignore that one clear and concise bit of teaching.

I DO know he supported only heterosexual marriages . . . and yet we have all these folks claiming to know religion ignoring it.

But you oddly enough don't know that Jesus condemned divorce and remarriage.

Jesus never condemned same gender marriage- but he did condemn the kind of marriage Donald Trump is in right now.

So of course the marriage that bothers you is Bob marrying Gary- not Donald marrying Melania.

I know it enough to not have done it.

Jesus was clear about what types of marriages were acceptable. Fag marriages weren't one of them.

Jesus never mentioned 'fags' at all.

He did say that Donald Trump is an adulterer though.

You are clueless about the word in the Bible and what is said in that word. That does happen when you are spiritually dead though so no biggy it is on you.

Yeah- unlike you I actually read the Bible- I don't rely upon what some "God will make you rich" preacher is selling to you.

 

[bodecea]

Why would he not have to mention their race? How about their religion? How about their ages?

You seem to be presuming a lot on what Jesus believed.

I DO know he condemned those who divorce......and yet we have all these modern day christians who ignore that one clear and concise bit of teaching.

I DO know he supported only heterosexual marriages . . . and yet we have all these folks claiming to know religion ignoring it.

But you oddly enough don't know that Jesus condemned divorce and remarriage.

Jesus never condemned same gender marriage- but he did condemn the kind of marriage Donald Trump is in right now.

So of course the marriage that bothers you is Bob marrying Gary- not Donald marrying Melania.

I know it enough to not have done it.

Jesus was clear about what types of marriages were acceptable. Fag marriages weren't one of them.

Jesus never mentioned 'fags' at all.

He did say that Donald Trump is an adulterer though.

You are clueless about the word in the Bible and what is said in that word. That does happen when you are spiritually dead though so no biggy it is on you.

Now, what makes you think that we, as Americans, have to pay attention to your bible and what it says?

 

[Timmy]

They shouldn't be able to claim religious protection because they are not actually religious ! They are a bunch of fakes .