Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
No we do not
That is not defining legal religious beliefs it is defining illegal practices masked by religion.
That is irrelevant.
Religious beliefs may be and usually are made up by the individual and are still legally protected
Human sacrifice was never practiced with the intent of dealing with harmful defects it was done to appease fake godsNo, human sacrifice is a legitimate religious believe and practice, based on not only appeasement of Gods, but of dealing with potentially harmful genetic defects that can harm future generations.
The Old Testament is about "The Chosen People" taking "the Promised Land" from others illegally.
So then laws had to stop these religious practices and beliefs, since they were harmful to society.
Wrong every lawyer and legislator agrees with meNot according to the lawyers, legislators, etc.
No religious belief is protected unless it can be proven to be traditional, mainstream, and required by a group organization.
No sexual perverts allowed! Good news for our children and grandchildren.
Correct.Wrong.
Law is based on the inherent delegated authority from the defense of the right of others.
The impeachments and indictments of Trump were not based on the protection of anyone's rights from harm.
Burisma Holdings is required to be investigated by law, and it is illegal to not investigate Burisma Holdings.
The Jan 6 protests were protected political expression based on beliefs, so were legal even though the beliefs were wrong.
WTF?It is absolutely clear that presidents are above and the author of almost all classified doc laws, and are explicitly exempt from them. Which includes ex-presidents as well.
So...............That makes Jack Smith a criminal for trying to illegally bias the upcoming election.
No you have not moron the one does not follow the other.Wrong.
If you give the government or anyone, the power to deny personal sexual preferences, then you have also given the government the power to mandate sexual activities.
Human sacrifice was never practiced with the intent of dealing with harmful defects it was done to appease fake gods
The people practicing such sacrifice had no clue what genetics even means you dumbass.
Once again defining a specific religious act as illegal does not define others as legal.
Human sacrifice was never practiced with the intent of dealing with harmful defects it was done to appease fake gods
The people practicing such sacrifice had no clue what genetics even means you dumbass.
Once again defining a specific religious act as illegal does not define others as legal.
No they did not moron.Wrong.
Aztecs and Incas started human sacrifice due to the alarming increase in birth defects, as their society grew in size.
Everyone knows genetics due to the experiences of farmers cross breeding hybrids.
How do you think the Mesoamericans engineered corn from simple weeds?
The only one who ever got this obvious science wrong, was Lysenko.
No they are notIf one religious practice can be made illegal, then all are subject to legal review.
Wrong every lawyer and legislator agrees with me
Ther is no law or regulation anywhere in this nation requiring religion to be mainstream or traditional or to have a group.
I may make up any religion I wish and it is legally protefed you ignorant dishonest clown
No they may not.{...
The federal government may limit religious freedom if it is absolutely necessary to promote justice and protect the common good. In order to do this, the government must prove that it has a “compelling interest” and that its methods are narrowly tailored. This test limits government’s ability to restrict religious freedom beyond what is necessary to protect people, and prevents harm to others under the cover of religion. For example, freedom of religion doesn’t protect a man from punishment if he abuses his family, even if he claims his religious beliefs made him do it.
...}
Ah ha ha, you idiots fall for the CNN click bait, dontcha?Colorado web designer told Supreme Court a man sought her services for his same-sex wedding. He says he didn’t – and he’s straight
The Colorado web designer who wanted to refuse LGBTQ customers and just won her case at the Supreme Court had claimed in court filings that a man inquired about her services for his same-sex wedding.
But the man says he never reached out to Lorie Smith, the web designer who argued at the Supreme Court that she shouldn’t be forced to create same-sex wedding websites because of her religious objections. In fact, the man says he’s straight and married to a woman.
The man was identified as “Stewart” in court filings and as someone who requested graphic designs for invitations and other materials for a same-sex wedding with his fiancé, Mike. CNN contacted Stewart through information in court filings. He asked for his last name, which is not in the filing, not to be used.
In an interview with CNN Friday, Stewart said that he “did not submit a request” to the company, 303 Creative, and is a “happily married man to a woman of 15 years.”
“I don’t know Mike,” Stewart said. “I’ve never asked anybody to design a website for me, so it’s all very strange. I certainly didn’t contact her, and whatever the information in that request is, is fake.”
Stewart, who previously worked for CNN, said that he is a web designer himself, and that “it would make zero sense to hire a web designer when I can do that for myself.”
Stewart said he was unaware of his information being a part of the court record until he was contacted by media outlet The New Republic on Wednesday.
Wrong.Wrong.
If you give the government or anyone, the power to deny personal sexual preferences, then you have also given the government the power to mandate sexual activities.
Correct.
NONE of the protesters were arrested.
WTF?
The president was the "Author"?
Of classified material?
So...............
H.Res.503 - Impeaching Joseph R. Biden, Jr., President of ...
View attachment 800463
Congress.gov
https://www.congress.gov › house-resolution › text
Jun 22, 2023 — Text for H.Res.503 - 118th Congress (2023-2024): Impeaching Joseph R. Biden, Jr., President of the United States, for high crimes and ...
Well THAT must be illegal too.
No they are not
Try conducting a legal review of praying and see what happens
Wrong.
Not the government idiot.
A free populace has always had the freedom to sell to whoever they please.
It's government intervention that has suppressed those freedoms.
