Gay statists strike again...you will submit!!!!

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Clarification on post #835

The Court did not create a new right at all in this instance. It merely extended an existing civil right, as opposed to a civil liberty, by the way, on the basis of an alleged instance of unconstitutional discrimination. In effect, the Court has in the past created new rights, but it has never done so nor can it ever do so legitimately. When that happens, the learned and the faithful know it to be an instance of tyranny.

The Court has never and can never create a new right. All they can create is new protections.

For instance you have the right to life. However , obviously in certain instances the government can infringe on that right. What they can NEVER do is change the fact that you have a right to live.

Yep.

But it is important to explain the justification for taking a human life. Be that by the government or an individual.

All men are created equal before God. Therefore all human beings have the same rights; meaning that no one has a right which stands superior to anyone else. And EACH individual is responsible for sustaining their right, by not exercising that right to the detriment of the means of another to exercise their own rights.

Now the word 'sustaining' simply points to the fact that where on bears the responsibility to not exercise their rights to the detriment of another, THEY ESTABLISH THROUGH THAT BEHAVIOR THE RIGHT ITSELF...

If I claim the right to my life and I then set out to take the life of an innocent, on what basis does MY right to my life rest? is my life worth more before God, than the other person's life? Or you you prefer is my life worth more to me, than the other person's life is to them?

Through my action to take the life of another, I have conveyed that the other person HAD NO RIGHT TO THEIR LIFE! Thus, through my actions I have established that I have no right to my life; that I have through my own willful actions, forfeited my right... by again, having failed to recognize the right in others and to not exercise my right to the detriment of their means to do the same for themselves.

These are laws of nature and while we can debate them, and while we may 'feel' that such laws do not exist, there is no escaping the consequences of those laws. And while such consequences may likely not be immediate... they come and when they come, you dam' well feel it.

So when the government charges, tries, convicts and executes someone for capital murder, that is the basis on which the government is justified in doing so.

This is also why the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is dead wrong to demand that someone should accept their behavior or face civil penalties. Their right to be a twisted sexual deviant, does not trump my right to reject that behavior as unsound and as such, a direct threat to my means to live in a culture which recognizes and adheres to soundly reasoned, sustainable morality.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You've heard of
1. Hobby Lobby and

2. Legal precedent

Right?

1. HL? Yes it was a FEDERAL case.

2. Precedent? Sure, do you have a SCOTUS case that has invalidated State Public Accommodation laws not being a valid regulation of internal State commerce? As a mater of fact just last term the SCOTUS rejected an appeal of State Public Accommodation law in the case of Elane Photography after the law was upheld by the New Mexico Supreme Court.

So instead of trying to mix apples an oranges (by trying to insert the HL case which was a Federal case) how about showing some SCOTUS precedent where they have said State PA laws are unconstitutional.



>>>>

I'm saying that a good attorney and plaintiff could use the precedent to allow that other people who object to promoting homosexual lifestyles can opt out. But you already knew that.

What precedent? You haven't sited a precedent from a court with any type of jurisdictional precedent setting power (State Supreme Court, Circuit Court of Appeals, or SCOTUS) that says Public Accommodation laws are unconstitutional. Actually the exact opposite is true, the precedent is that PA laws are Constitutional.


I'll ask again, what cases are your referring to? Which court?


>>>>

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You've heard of
1. Hobby Lobby and

2. Legal precedent

Right?

1. HL? Yes it was a FEDERAL case.

2. Precedent? Sure, do you have a SCOTUS case that has invalidated State Public Accommodation laws not being a valid regulation of internal State commerce? As a mater of fact just last term the SCOTUS rejected an appeal of State Public Accommodation law in the case of Elane Photography after the law was upheld by the New Mexico Supreme Court.

So instead of trying to mix apples an oranges (by trying to insert the HL case which was a Federal case) how about showing some SCOTUS precedent where they have said State PA laws are unconstitutional.



>>>>

I'm saying that a good attorney and plaintiff could use the precedent to allow that other people who object to promoting homosexual lifestyles can opt out. But you already knew that.

What precedent? You haven't sited a precedent from a court with any type of jurisdictional precedent setting power (State Supreme Court, Circuit Court of Appeals, or SCOTUS) that says Public Accommodation laws are unconstitutional. Actually the exact opposite is true, the precedent is that PA laws are Constitutional.


I'll ask again, what cases are your referring to? Which court?


>>>>

Ahem, try THE Court , in 1875

The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow . Jim Crow Stories . Civil Rights Act of 1875 Overturned PBS

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

What civil right is that? Again, be specific.

Well, Keys, reread the first sentence of my post 831, and with careful analysis, the answer will be rendered to you.

The Supreme Court has held time, and time again that the states do not have the constitutional authority to deny same sex marriage contracts.That makes it a civil right.

There is simply no such thing as "Gay Marriage". Just as there is no such thing as Dog-Marriage or Horse Marriage. You can pretend otherwise and you can go rally up a popular majority which says otherwise, but in truth, marriage is the joining of one man and one woman in the same legal sense that is reflected when that one man and that one woman join physically, through coitus.

This is the law established by nature, which is the same authority that established the standard that is sexual normality, which provides that homosexuality deviates from that standard, thus is a deviant sexuality, a perversion of the behavior which nature provided to assure the viability of the species.

You people are screwing with things that you have no MEANS to understand, thus where your policy advocacies are adopted are absolutely certain to produce the chaos, calamity and catastrophe common to the aftermath realized from ALL leftist policy.

We, the Americans, have a responsibility to defend our right to NOT BE SUBJECT TO THE CATASTROPHIC EFFECTS BORN OF YOUR FOOLISHNESS.

As I've said many times, you're sowing the seeds of your own destruction. And anyone with the slightest familiarity with human history, will tell you the same thing. All you're doing is forcing the Western Culture to RE-LEARN the same thing that those before us learned, after THEY tolerated the mouthy minority who demanded that "SEX IS PLEASURABLE AND AN END TO ITSELF...".

Keep pushin'... just understand, once you cross that unknowable line. You will no longer have the choice to STFU and keep it to yourselves. As you will no longer be the aggressors.

And before ya wet your collective pant and claim that I'm threatening you, please understand, this is not a threat, as I have no idea what or where the line you'll cross is. I have no means to know and neither do you.
This is a warning, offered in the course of trying to keep the peace. The greatest danger to you people is the mouthy idiots who HAVE TO HAVE IT ALL. And they're ALL over there in YOUR camp. Get ahold of them or you people are SCREWED.

Don't believe ME... go find ANY example ANYWHERE throughout human history where homosexuality was accepted and show yourself where that culture is today. The land that the culture was living on... it's still there. Its likely that the towns are still there... maybe even some monuments telling posterity of what was... are still there. But those culture's that accepted it, are GONE! There's a reason for that... and that reason is the basis for the taboos that you have just recently removed.


See how that works?

That's quite the stretch to say that gay is the reason past cultures have failed. You can't possibly prove that.

As for marriage, it's a RELIGIOUS term, the government doesn't define baptism, why would you let them define marriage?

See the point. Why are you opting to give government MORE power? Let the gays have marriage.

I didn't say that the acceptance of sexual abnormality is 'the reason' that culture's failed. I said that when those cultures failed, that whatever rose from its ashes, did not bring with it, the acceptance of sexual abnormality.

And that they did not do so because the tolerance of such is recognized by the subsequent generations, as foolish... . For what are obvious reasons. Homosexuality is a harbinger of sorts. Think of it as a Canary in a mine shaft.

Most likely, it is a sign of pressures upon a population, wherein the lesser genes are being culled from the herd, being discouraged from procreating.

Not to say that it does not happen, but the incidents of such are found in the largest percentages, within population centers. Such is also where the greatest pressures are being felt to accept it.

The acceptance is BAD, because it is a sign that the signs which the harbinger is sending, are NOT being received. What happens in the mine when the Canary dies and the solution is to bring in more canaries?

In terms of the farcical pretense OKA: "Gay Marriage", I agree, there is no such thing. Whether I accept that there is that which cannot exist or not, does not change that, it does not exist.

If I believe to the core of my being that Dogs are Cats and everyone I know 'believes' the same thing, this does not change the biological characteristics of the canine to those of the feline and vice versa. All the exercise does is change the names by which we know such and all that serves is CONFUSION.

FTR: I am not giving or taking anything from anyone.

 

[WorldWatcher]

What civil right is that? Again, be specific.

Well, Keys, reread the first sentence of my post 831, and with careful analysis, the answer will be rendered to you.

The Supreme Court has held time, and time again that the states do not have the constitutional authority to deny same sex marriage contracts.That makes it a civil right.

The SCOTUS has made no such ruling. They have held time and time again that Civil Marriage can't be denied (Skinner, Loving, Zablocki, etc.) and is a fundamental right. However they have not address the States power to limit Civil Marriage based on gender designations to date.

That's what the current appeals from the 10th and 4th (and possibly additional cases from the 9th and 11th) Circuit Courts will address during the SCOTUS term starting in October.


>>>>

 

[WorldWatcher]

You've heard of
1. Hobby Lobby and

2. Legal precedent

Right?

1. HL? Yes it was a FEDERAL case.

2. Precedent? Sure, do you have a SCOTUS case that has invalidated State Public Accommodation laws not being a valid regulation of internal State commerce? As a mater of fact just last term the SCOTUS rejected an appeal of State Public Accommodation law in the case of Elane Photography after the law was upheld by the New Mexico Supreme Court.

So instead of trying to mix apples an oranges (by trying to insert the HL case which was a Federal case) how about showing some SCOTUS precedent where they have said State PA laws are unconstitutional.



>>>>

I'm saying that a good attorney and plaintiff could use the precedent to allow that other people who object to promoting homosexual lifestyles can opt out. But you already knew that.

What precedent? You haven't sited a precedent from a court with any type of jurisdictional precedent setting power (State Supreme Court, Circuit Court of Appeals, or SCOTUS) that says Public Accommodation laws are unconstitutional. Actually the exact opposite is true, the precedent is that PA laws are Constitutional.


I'll ask again, what cases are your referring to? Which court?


>>>>

Ahem, try THE Court , in 1875

The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow . Jim Crow Stories . Civil Rights Act of 1875 Overturned PBS

Jim Crow laws were not Public Accommodation laws that required businesses to provide non-discriminatory commerce. Jim Crow laws REQUIRED discriminatory treatment.


Just the opposite.


>>>>

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Care to offer some proof that Christians used the Bible to justify slavery?

Defenders of slavery noted that in the Bible, Abraham had slaves. They point to the Ten Commandments, noting that "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, ... nor his manservant, nor his maidservant." In the New Testament, Paul returned a runaway slave, Philemon, to his master, and, although slavery was widespread throughout the Roman world, Jesus never spoke out against it.
​

The Southern Argument for Slavery

Bible passages used to justify slavery:

Psalm 123:2 (New International Version (NIV)): As the eyes of slaves look to the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maid look to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the LORD our God, till he shows us his mercy.

Ephesians 6:4-6: Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord. Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.

Ephesians 6:5:Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

Ephesians 6:9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

Colossians 3:22:Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.

Colossians 4:1:Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.

Titus 2:9 Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,

1 Peter 2:18:Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.​

You can't rewrite history because it's inconvenient. Christians were on both sides of the slavery and anti miscegenation issue and the bible was used to justify the pro slavery and pro segregation argument.

While is it true that Christians were on both sides of the issue of slavery in America, and many Southern slave owners used scripture to defend it; it is also true that Christians led the Charge in England and in America against slavery when relatively few others of other ideological persuasions cared, initially.

Also, the reason for this, in spite of what you might assume about the biblical pronouncements touching on chattel slavery, Judeo-Christianity does not condone it.

To understand why that's true, one would have to have a significantly more comprehensive background in biblical theology than I suspect you have. No slight intended. Just saying.

Bodecea has still not offered one bit of evidence that shows someone from that era using the Bible to justify slavery

Didn't say she did, but she is right, nonetheless. Did she exaggerate the claim above this post or something? I didn't look for another post by her on that score, so I don't know about that.

The fact of the matter is that there were comparatively few Christians who did during that era, though the atheist's wont is to exaggerate. In others words, I know of lots of Christians who utterly rejected the argument that the Bible supported chattel slavery and rightly so during that era. Not so much on the other side, not even close.

But perhaps the most famous and influential "biblical support" for it is Noah's Curse, penned by Palmer, a Presbyterian.

Confederate President Davis used the Bible to defend it. I know that Furman, a Baptist, used it. But that's just it. While there were others, that's all I can't think of.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You've heard of
1. Hobby Lobby and

2. Legal precedent

Right?

1. HL? Yes it was a FEDERAL case.

2. Precedent? Sure, do you have a SCOTUS case that has invalidated State Public Accommodation laws not being a valid regulation of internal State commerce? As a mater of fact just last term the SCOTUS rejected an appeal of State Public Accommodation law in the case of Elane Photography after the law was upheld by the New Mexico Supreme Court.

So instead of trying to mix apples an oranges (by trying to insert the HL case which was a Federal case) how about showing some SCOTUS precedent where they have said State PA laws are unconstitutional.



>>>>

I'm saying that a good attorney and plaintiff could use the precedent to allow that other people who object to promoting homosexual lifestyles can opt out. But you already knew that.

What precedent? You haven't sited a precedent from a court with any type of jurisdictional precedent setting power (State Supreme Court, Circuit Court of Appeals, or SCOTUS) that says Public Accommodation laws are unconstitutional. Actually the exact opposite is true, the precedent is that PA laws are Constitutional.


I'll ask again, what cases are your referring to? Which court?


>>>>

Ahem, try THE Court , in 1875

The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow . Jim Crow Stories . Civil Rights Act of 1875 Overturned PBS

Jim Crow laws were not Public Accommodation laws that required businesses to provide non-discriminatory commerce. Jim Crow laws REQUIRED discriminatory treatment.


Just the opposite.


>>>>

You obviously didn't read the link.

In 1883, The United States Supreme Court ruled that the Civil Rights act of 1875, forbidding discrimination in hotels, trains, and other public spaces, was unconstitutional and not authorized by the 13th or 14th Amendments of the Constitution.

By the way, I put the wrong date, it was 1883, not 1875. But anyway the SCOTUS CERTAINLY ruled that forbidding discrimination in public spaces was unconstitutional.

 

[WorldWatcher]

You've heard of
1. Hobby Lobby and

2. Legal precedent

Right?

1. HL? Yes it was a FEDERAL case.

2. Precedent? Sure, do you have a SCOTUS case that has invalidated State Public Accommodation laws not being a valid regulation of internal State commerce? As a mater of fact just last term the SCOTUS rejected an appeal of State Public Accommodation law in the case of Elane Photography after the law was upheld by the New Mexico Supreme Court.

So instead of trying to mix apples an oranges (by trying to insert the HL case which was a Federal case) how about showing some SCOTUS precedent where they have said State PA laws are unconstitutional.



>>>>

I'm saying that a good attorney and plaintiff could use the precedent to allow that other people who object to promoting homosexual lifestyles can opt out. But you already knew that.

What precedent? You haven't sited a precedent from a court with any type of jurisdictional precedent setting power (State Supreme Court, Circuit Court of Appeals, or SCOTUS) that says Public Accommodation laws are unconstitutional. Actually the exact opposite is true, the precedent is that PA laws are Constitutional.


I'll ask again, what cases are your referring to? Which court?


>>>>

Ahem, try THE Court , in 1875

The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow . Jim Crow Stories . Civil Rights Act of 1875 Overturned PBS

Jim Crow laws were not Public Accommodation laws that required businesses to provide non-discriminatory commerce. Jim Crow laws REQUIRED discriminatory treatment.


Just the opposite.


>>>>

You obviously didn't read the link.

In 1883, The United States Supreme Court ruled that the Civil Rights act of 1875, forbidding discrimination in hotels, trains, and other public spaces, was unconstitutional and not authorized by the 13th or 14th Amendments of the Constitution.

By the way, I put the wrong date, it was 1883, not 1875. But anyway the SCOTUS CERTAINLY ruled that forbidding discrimination in public spaces was unconstitutional.

Your right, I didn't read the link per say.

I thought you were trying to supply a link that supported SIL's "precedence" claim.

My apologies.

I'm not aware of a precedent where the SCOTUS has struck down a Public Accommodation laws which requires non-discriminatory business practices as unconstitutional. The SCOTUS struck down Jim Crow laws for the opposite reason, because States required businesses to operate with a discriminatory model.


>>>>

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

You've heard of
1. Hobby Lobby and

2. Legal precedent

Right?

1. HL? Yes it was a FEDERAL case.

2. Precedent? Sure, do you have a SCOTUS case that has invalidated State Public Accommodation laws not being a valid regulation of internal State commerce? As a mater of fact just last term the SCOTUS rejected an appeal of State Public Accommodation law in the case of Elane Photography after the law was upheld by the New Mexico Supreme Court.

So instead of trying to mix apples an oranges (by trying to insert the HL case which was a Federal case) how about showing some SCOTUS precedent where they have said State PA laws are unconstitutional.



>>>>

I'm saying that a good attorney and plaintiff could use the precedent to allow that other people who object to promoting homosexual lifestyles can opt out. But you already knew that.

What precedent? You haven't sited a precedent from a court with any type of jurisdictional precedent setting power (State Supreme Court, Circuit Court of Appeals, or SCOTUS) that says Public Accommodation laws are unconstitutional. Actually the exact opposite is true, the precedent is that PA laws are Constitutional.


I'll ask again, what cases are your referring to? Which court?


>>>>

Ahem, try THE Court , in 1875

The Rise and Fall of Jim Crow . Jim Crow Stories . Civil Rights Act of 1875 Overturned PBS

Jim Crow laws were not Public Accommodation laws that required businesses to provide non-discriminatory commerce. Jim Crow laws REQUIRED discriminatory treatment.


Just the opposite.


>>>>

You obviously didn't read the link.

In 1883, The United States Supreme Court ruled that the Civil Rights act of 1875, forbidding discrimination in hotels, trains, and other public spaces, was unconstitutional and not authorized by the 13th or 14th Amendments of the Constitution.

By the way, I put the wrong date, it was 1883, not 1875. But anyway the SCOTUS CERTAINLY ruled that forbidding discrimination in public spaces was unconstitutional.

Your right, I didn't read the link per say.

I thought you were trying to supply a link that supported SIL's "precedence" claim.

My apologies.

I'm not aware of a precedent where the SCOTUS has struck down a Public Accommodation laws which requires non-discriminatory business practices as unconstitutional. The SCOTUS struck down Jim Crow laws for the opposite reason, because States required businesses to operate with a discriminatory model.


>>>>

Well, now you are aware, in 1883 SCOTUS ruled that laws prohibiting bars, train stations, etc etc from discriminating were unconstitutional.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Care to offer some proof that Christians used the Bible to justify slavery?

Defenders of slavery noted that in the Bible, Abraham had slaves. They point to the Ten Commandments, noting that "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, ... nor his manservant, nor his maidservant." In the New Testament, Paul returned a runaway slave, Philemon, to his master, and, although slavery was widespread throughout the Roman world, Jesus never spoke out against it.
​

The Southern Argument for Slavery

Bible passages used to justify slavery:

Psalm 123:2 (New International Version (NIV)): As the eyes of slaves look to the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maid look to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the LORD our God, till he shows us his mercy.

Ephesians 6:4-6: Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord. Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.

Ephesians 6:5:Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

Ephesians 6:9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

Colossians 3:22:Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.

Colossians 4:1:Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.

Titus 2:9 Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,

1 Peter 2:18:Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.​

You can't rewrite history because it's inconvenient. Christians were on both sides of the slavery and anti miscegenation issue and the bible was used to justify the pro slavery and pro segregation argument.

While is it true that Christians were on both sides of the issue of slavery in America, and many Southern slave owners used scripture to defend it; it is also true that Christians led the Charge in England and in America against slavery when relatively few others of other ideological persuasions cared, initially.

Also, the reason for this, in spite of what you might assume about the biblical pronouncements touching on chattel slavery, Judeo-Christianity does not condone it.

To understand why that's true, one would have to have a significantly more comprehensive background in biblical theology than I suspect you have. No slight intended. Just saying.

Bodecea has still not offered one bit of evidence that shows someone from that era using the Bible to justify slavery

Didn't say she did, but she is right, nonetheless. Did she exaggerate the claim above this post or something? I didn't look for another post by her on that score, so I don't know about that.

The fact of the matter is that there were comparatively few Christians who did during that era, though the atheist's wont is to exaggerate. In others words, I know of lots of Christians who utterly rejected the argument that the Bible supported chattel slavery and rightly so during that era. Not so much on the other side, not even close.

But perhaps the most famous and influential "biblical support" for it is Noah's Curse, penned by Palmer, a Presbyterian.

Confederate President Davis used the Bible to defend it. I know that Furman, a Baptist, used it. But that's just it. While there were others, that's all I can't think of.

Again, the arguments all summed around the premise of husbandry over the lower species... they were not claiming that Christian principle provided for the forced labor of other human beings.

 

[WorldWatcher]

Well, now you are aware, in 1883 SCOTUS ruled that laws prohibiting bars, train stations, etc etc from discriminating were unconstitutional.

I was aware of it before. The question addressed to SIL was about the SCOTUS striking down Public Accommodation laws which inhibit discrimination. Had nothing to do with Jim Crow laws that required discrimination.

Interesting tid-bit true, not relevant to what I was talking about though.


>>>>

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

What civil right is that? Again, be specific.

Well, Keys, reread the first sentence of my post 831, and with careful analysis, the answer will be rendered to you.

The Supreme Court has held time, and time again that the states do not have the constitutional authority to deny same sex marriage contracts.That makes it a civil right.

The SCOTUS has made no such ruling. They have held time and time again that Civil Marriage can't be denied (Skinner, Loving, Zablocki, etc.) and is a fundamental right. However they have not address the States power to limit Civil Marriage based on gender designations to date.

That's what the current appeals from the 10th and 4th (and possibly additional cases from the 9th and 11th) Circuit Courts will address during the SCOTUS term starting in October.


>>>>

Thank you for that clarification, Watcher. It's important.

 

[Silhouette]

Well, now you are aware, in 1883 SCOTUS ruled that laws prohibiting bars, train stations, etc etc from discriminating were unconstitutional.

I was aware of it before. The question addressed to SIL was about the SCOTUS striking down Public Accommodation laws which inhibit discrimination. Had nothing to do with Jim Crow laws that required discrimination.

Interesting tid-bit true, not relevant to what I was talking about though.


>>>>

Jim Crow was about race though and not behavior...

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Clarification on post #835

The Court did not create a new right at all in this instance. It merely extended an existing civil right, as opposed to a civil liberty, by the way, on the basis of an alleged instance of unconstitutional discrimination. In effect, the Court has in the past created new rights, but it has never done so nor can it ever do so legitimately. When that happens, the learned and the faithful know it to be an instance of tyranny.

The Court has never and can never create a new right. All they can create is new protections.

For instance you have the right to life. However , obviously in certain instances the government can infringe on that right. What they can NEVER do is change the fact that you have a right to live.

Yep.

But it is important to explain the justification for taking a human life. Be that by the government or an individual.

All men are created equal before God. Therefore all human beings have the same rights; meaning that no one has a right which stands superior to anyone else. And EACH individual is responsible for sustaining their right, by not exercising that right to the detriment of the means of another to exercise their own rights.

Now the word 'sustaining' simply points to the fact that where on bears the responsibility to not exercise their rights to the detriment of another, THEY ESTABLISH THROUGH THAT BEHAVIOR THE RIGHT ITSELF...

If I claim the right to my life and I then set out to take the life of an innocent, on what basis does MY right to my life rest? is my life worth more before God, than the other person's life? Or you you prefer is my life worth more to me, than the other person's life is to them?

Through my action to take the life of another, I have conveyed that the other person HAD NO RIGHT TO THEIR LIFE! Thus, through my actions I have established that I have no right to my life; that I have through my own willful actions, forfeited my right... by again, having failed to recognize the right in others and to not exercise my right to the detriment of their means to do the same for themselves.

These are laws of nature and while we can debate them, and while we may 'feel' that such laws do not exist, there is no escaping the consequences of those laws. And while such consequences may likely not be immediate... they come and when they come, you dam' well feel it.

So when the government charges, tries, convicts and executes someone for capital murder, that is the basis on which the government is justified in doing so.

This is also why the Advocacy to Normalize Sexual Abnormality is dead wrong to demand that someone should accept their behavior or face civil penalties. Their right to be a twisted sexual deviant, does not trump my right to reject that behavior as unsound and as such, a direct threat to my means to live in a culture which recognizes and adheres to soundly reasoned, sustainable morality.

Yep. There's much reading in the historical and philosophical development of natural law here.

I'm going to repost my refutation of the "living Constitution" under this as your exegesis drives the point home. In an earlier post I asked STTAB what the tangible boundary of the limits of federal power ultimately is relative to the enumerated powers and "the implied powers of contingency." The fact of the matter: it's natural law, formally adjudicated, or it should be, via the Bill of Rights, the constitutional link. And of course it was just so for more than a hundred years. Then Progressivism came along, and you know the rest. Not only is that the point at which the understanding of this began to be flushed out of the American consciousness, but that's also the point at which the distinction between the classical liberalism of this nation's founding, i.e., liberalism proper, and the Hegelian liberalism of popular political culture was confounded. That's why I don't call post-modern "liberals" . . . uh . . . liberals. I call 'em leftists. I'm the liberal proper, though, of course, the terms of popular political culture in post-modern America denoting that are conservative or libertarian.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Translation:

"I don't care what the COTUS actually says when it suits me to ignore it"

the federal government expressly is NOT supposed to have implied powers under the COTUS. I mean my God man the document contains those exact words.

Translation:

“I don't care what Constitutional case law actually says when it suits me to ignore it.”

The Constitution in fact affords Congress powers both expressed and implied, as the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law.

“But that's not in the Constitution” is a failed and ignorant 'argument,' where there's no validity to Constitutional literalism – the Constitution is the culmination of centuries of Anglo-Americans judicial tradition dating back to the Magna Carta and the Assizes of Henry II. The doctrine of judicial review and the interpretive authority of the courts was well-established in Colonial America during the century before the advent of the Foundation Era, where Americans fully expected the Federal courts and Supreme Court to review state laws and acts of Congress and invalidate those repugnant to the Constitution, as in fact the courts are authorized to do by Articles III and VI; efforts by those hostile to Constitutional case law because that jurisprudence conflicts with their political dogma are devoid of merit and completely unsupported by the facts and history of the Constitution and Anglo-American judicial practice.

The emboldened parts of your post are the red-headed step children of the ill-conceived construct of the "living Constitution," which is, ultimately, in spite of your claims here and elsewhere to the contrary, the stuff of mobocracy or judicial oligarchy. That is to say, not the rule of law, but the rule of man.

Baseline:

And right you would be . . . sort of. But in addition to the enumerated powers of the three branches of government, what other powers are specifically given to the USG? Answer: The powers of the general welfare clause and the necessary and proper clause. Only the federal government can attend to unforeseeable contingencies impacting the entire nation that if left unattended could have catastrophic effects on the security and the liberty of the people. And we have had such contingencies arise. That's the purpose of the implied powers, and in theory they may not contradict the spirit of either the rest of the Constitution proper or the Bill of Rights, and they are subject to judicial review. --M.D. Rawlings

Indeed, STTAB fails to appreciate the fact that the implied powers are specifically granted to Congress in the Constitution, but then you go on to say something very curious: "[W]here there is no validity of Constitutional literalism"?!

Are the implied powers specifically granted in the Constitution or not? Recall what you wrote and rightly so: "The Constitution in fact affords Congress powers both expressed and implied."

The answer is: they are!

So constitutional literalism does not stall out at any time . . . ever.

They are implied in the sense that they are of a distinctly different nature than the emphatically enumerated powers, as they pertain to reality's unforeseeable contingencies. They're specifically granted in the general welfare clause and the necessary and proper clause.

Now while you're apparently aware of the fact that their reality was underscored by Hamilton and the Court in the "National Bank Case," it does not follow that "the Constitution exists solely in the context of its case law."
The problem with that relativistic rendering of constitutional law is that it would invariably lead to the destruction of the constitutional limits of legitimate governmental power, as it divorces the Constitution from the universal and absolute imperatives of natural law and the law of nature's God! Further, it defies logic and the realities of human nature, i.e., the natural inclinations of self-interest and -preservation, which are in turn limited by the concerns of the life, the liberty and the property of others.

Hence, STTAB is perfectly correct to insist that he not give a damn what the Court says should it say something that is contrary to the imperatives of the peoples' inalienable rights.
Check?

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Well, now you are aware, in 1883 SCOTUS ruled that laws prohibiting bars, train stations, etc etc from discriminating were unconstitutional.

I was aware of it before. The question addressed to SIL was about the SCOTUS striking down Public Accommodation laws which inhibit discrimination. Had nothing to do with Jim Crow laws that required discrimination.

Interesting tid-bit true, not relevant to what I was talking about though.


>>>>

What? It is 100% relevant. In 1835 the Court ruled that the government could NOT prohibit private businesses from discriminating. Go re read the link

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Care to offer some proof that Christians used the Bible to justify slavery?

Defenders of slavery noted that in the Bible, Abraham had slaves. They point to the Ten Commandments, noting that "Thou shalt not covet thy neighbor's house, ... nor his manservant, nor his maidservant." In the New Testament, Paul returned a runaway slave, Philemon, to his master, and, although slavery was widespread throughout the Roman world, Jesus never spoke out against it.
​

The Southern Argument for Slavery

Bible passages used to justify slavery:

Psalm 123:2 (New International Version (NIV)): As the eyes of slaves look to the hand of their master, as the eyes of a maid look to the hand of her mistress, so our eyes look to the LORD our God, till he shows us his mercy.

Ephesians 6:4-6: Fathers, do not exasperate your children; instead, bring them up in the training and instruction of the Lord. Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Obey them not only to win their favor when their eye is on you, but like slaves of Christ, doing the will of God from your heart.

Ephesians 6:5:Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ.

Ephesians 6:9 And masters, treat your slaves in the same way. Do not threaten them, since you know that he who is both their Master and yours is in heaven, and there is no favoritism with him.

Colossians 3:22:Slaves, obey your earthly masters in everything; and do it, not only when their eye is on you and to win their favor, but with sincerity of heart and reverence for the Lord.

Colossians 4:1:Masters, provide your slaves with what is right and fair, because you know that you also have a Master in heaven.

Titus 2:9 Teach slaves to be subject to their masters in everything, to try to please them, not to talk back to them,

1 Peter 2:18:Slaves, submit yourselves to your masters with all respect, not only to those who are good and considerate, but also to those who are harsh.​

You can't rewrite history because it's inconvenient. Christians were on both sides of the slavery and anti miscegenation issue and the bible was used to justify the pro slavery and pro segregation argument.

While is it true that Christians were on both sides of the issue of slavery in America, and many Southern slave owners used scripture to defend it; it is also true that Christians led the Charge in England and in America against slavery when relatively few others of other ideological persuasions cared, initially.

Also, the reason for this, in spite of what you might assume about the biblical pronouncements touching on chattel slavery, Judeo-Christianity does not condone it.

To understand why that's true, one would have to have a significantly more comprehensive background in biblical theology than I suspect you have. No slight intended. Just saying.

Bodecea has still not offered one bit of evidence that shows someone from that era using the Bible to justify slavery

Didn't say she did, but she is right, nonetheless. Did she exaggerate the claim above this post or something? I didn't look for another post by her on that score, so I don't know about that.

The fact of the matter is that there were comparatively few Christians who did during that era, though the atheist's wont is to exaggerate. In others words, I know of lots of Christians who utterly rejected the argument that the Bible supported chattel slavery and rightly so during that era. Not so much on the other side, not even close.

But perhaps the most famous and influential "biblical support" for it is Noah's Curse, penned by Palmer, a Presbyterian.

Confederate President Davis used the Bible to defend it. I know that Furman, a Baptist, used it. But that's just it. While there were others, that's all I can't think of.

Again, the arguments all summed around the premise of husbandry over the lower species... they were not claiming that Christian principle provided for the forced labor of other human beings.

Yes. I’ve never read it, but that’s my understanding in the case in Noah's Curse anyway. In any event, hostile atheists, which is to say, theological know-nothings, routinely fail to understand that the Hebraic servitude of the Old Testament was not anything like the chattel slavery of paganism, and certainly the slavery of the New Testament era was not Christian slavery, but pagan slavery, and all the writers of the New Testament were ever talking about is how an enslaved convert should comport himself. This was not an apology for slavery. First Century Christians were simply in no position to oppose it. And in any event, the mission to spread the Gospel was paramount if anything were to ever change in that regard..

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well, now you are aware, in 1883 SCOTUS ruled that laws prohibiting bars, train stations, etc etc from discriminating were unconstitutional.

I was aware of it before. The question addressed to SIL was about the SCOTUS striking down Public Accommodation laws which inhibit discrimination. Had nothing to do with Jim Crow laws that required discrimination.

Interesting tid-bit true, not relevant to what I was talking about though.


>>>>

Jim Crow was about race though and not behavior...

Incorrect.


Race is not the sole criterion used to determine whether a given class of persons is entitled to Constitutional protections:


Lawrence v. Texas held that the freedom of adults to engage in consensual sexual acts is a right protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision invalidated similar laws throughout the United States that criminalized private homosexual activity between consenting adults.




Constitutional Law Privacy Rights and Personal Autonomy Justia


Consequently the Constitution does indeed protect 'behaviors' with regard to expressions of individual liberty, prohibiting the state from discriminating against gay Americans by denying them their equal protection rights and access to marriage law.

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Well, now you are aware, in 1883 SCOTUS ruled that laws prohibiting bars, train stations, etc etc from discriminating were unconstitutional.

I was aware of it before. The question addressed to SIL was about the SCOTUS striking down Public Accommodation laws which inhibit discrimination. Had nothing to do with Jim Crow laws that required discrimination.

Interesting tid-bit true, not relevant to what I was talking about though.


>>>>

Jim Crow was about race though and not behavior...

Incorrect.


Race is not the sole criterion used to determine whether a given class of persons is entitled to Constitutional protections:


Lawrence v. Texas held that the freedom of adults to engage in consensual sexual acts is a right protected by substantive due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. This decision invalidated similar laws throughout the United States that criminalized private homosexual activity between consenting adults.




Constitutional Law Privacy Rights and Personal Autonomy Justia


Consequently the Constitution does indeed protect 'behaviors' with regard to expressions of individual liberty, prohibiting the state from discriminating against gay Americans by denying them their equal protection rights and access to marriage law.

Uh . . . you're blurring a line here. The essence of that decision went to "consensual sexual acts" among adults, not to homosexuality as such. You do realize that the old sodomy laws pertained universally regardless of sexual orientation. Jones, don't forget, I'm on this thread, and we both know due to my background in immigration and nationality law I know a thing or two about how to read case law. Also, I fought alongside homosexual to end sodomy laws, because, of course, they were leveled against them in practice for the most part.

He is correct and you wrong. This case had nothing to do with granting constitutional protections for any discrete class of persons.

Hence, the issue of same-sex marriage is a whole other kettle of fish.

Check?