Gov't Forces Christians To Violate Faith

[NYcarbineer]

The Court that ruled against polygamy made the following case and I think it applies to this issue in general:

The Court investigated the history of religious freedom in the United States and quoted a letter from Thomas Jefferson in which he wrote that there was a distinction between religious belief and action that flowed from religious belief.

The former "lies solely between man and his God," therefore "the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions."

The court considered that if polygamy was allowed, someone might eventually argue that human sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion, and "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."

The Court believed the First Amendment forbade Congress from legislating against opinion, but allowed it to legislate against action.

Reynolds v. United States - Wikipedia

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The more you see something shocking, the less shocking it appears, and the more something outrageous happens, the less outrageous it seems to be. That is how a culture becomes desensitized, and that is how the abnormal becomes normalized. But when it comes to the government’s attack on our religious freedoms, it is our sacred duty to remain shocked and outraged. Such things cannot continue to happen in America if we are to be the land of the free and the home of the brave.

According to the Washington Supreme Court, when Christian florist Barronelle Stutzman declined to do the floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding, she violated the state's anti-discrimination laws, since she allegedly discriminated based on her customer’s sexual orientation by refusing to participate in his wedding ceremony.

Attorney David French is correct in emphasizing how this ruling should affect us (he penned these words shortly after the verdict was announced): “If you care about the Bill of Rights, the rights of conscience, or even the English language, there’s a chance that this morning you felt a disturbance in the Force — as if the Founders cried out in rage and were suddenly silenced.”

As French clearly explains, “she was not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. She was making a decision not to help celebrate an action, a form of expression. She would no more celebrate a gay wedding than she would any form of immorality, gay or straight. To dispense with her argument, the court did what numerous progressive courts have done: It rewrote the law. It rejected what it called the ‘status/conduct’ distinction, and essentially interpreted the word ‘orientation’ to also mean ‘action.’”
It Is Absolutely Outrageous for the Government to Force Christians to Violate Their Faith

so does she refuse to sell flowers to adulterers who are buying them for a mistress?

She never refused to sell flowers to this gay couple and had sold them flowers for years. She did not want to use her talent for an event she found reprehensible and did not wish to attend the event to arrange the displays.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The Court that ruled against polygamy made the following case and I think it applies to this issue in general:

The Court investigated the history of religious freedom in the United States and quoted a letter from Thomas Jefferson in which he wrote that there was a distinction between religious belief and action that flowed from religious belief.

The former "lies solely between man and his God," therefore "the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions."

The court considered that if polygamy was allowed, someone might eventually argue that human sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion, and "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."

The Court believed the First Amendment forbade Congress from legislating against opinion, but allowed it to legislate against action.

Reynolds v. United States - Wikipedia

Using this as an example is wrong. We are not talking about an action that can be prohibited as in human sacrifice. In this instance it is non action. The courts are compelling a person to commit an act that they would otherwise not commit.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

The court considered that if polygamy was allowed, someone might eventually argue that human sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion, and "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."

What if the court then instead considers this:

"The court considered that if same sex marriage was allowed, someone might eventually argue that human sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion, and "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."

 

[EvilCat Breath]

The Santeria have already argued and won the right to sacrifice animals as part of their religious rituals. It's amazing that no liberal has joined ritual sacrifice and the right to abortion.

The government is commanding that people act when they would refrain from acting. A less kindly person would perform the service in a punishing way.

 

[danielpalos]

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Jesus taught Christians to obey the law.

Not when laws start to violate our constitutional rights.
Even Jesus got angry at the laws.

Public Accommodation laws have been challenged and found Constitutional.

Public Accommodation laws...brought to you by the Federal Government since 1964...

42 U.S.C. §2000a (a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

That's FEDERAL law, ya'll. Why pick on local and states laws when you've got THAT on the books?

Done by a liberal court, which has now turned back to conservative.

So we've only had liberal courts since 1964?

We have always had liberals, but they weren't socialists like the ones who rose up in the 60's.
They are the off spring of their parents who supported communism in the 30's and 40's. Their off spring did not like communism, but totally embraced socialism. They thought that big government was the answer.

like wars on crime, drugs, poverty, and terror?

 

[danielpalos]

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Jesus taught Christians to obey the law.

Not when laws start to violate our constitutional rights.
Even Jesus got angry at the laws.

Public Accommodation laws have been challenged and found Constitutional.

Public Accommodation laws...brought to you by the Federal Government since 1964...

42 U.S.C. §2000a (a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

That's FEDERAL law, ya'll. Why pick on local and states laws when you've got THAT on the books?

the right wing loves being illegal to federal laws and blaming less fortunate illegals, for being illegal.

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and G_d what is G_d's. As one who has had his family victimized by "Illegal Mexicans" here in the USA by violating America's laws I do not take it as lightly as so many others. When your children have suffered physical injury it becomes more than a philosophical argument there are thousands of families who have suffered loss like the Kate Steinle family. What about them?

do you believe in equality? 10USC311 is also, federal law; how many gun related crimes are there, for comparison and contrast?

 

[danielpalos]

The whole deal just sounds petty to me.

are there no true Persons of Faith, involved?

 

[danielpalos]

The Court that ruled against polygamy made the following case and I think it applies to this issue in general:

The Court investigated the history of religious freedom in the United States and quoted a letter from Thomas Jefferson in which he wrote that there was a distinction between religious belief and action that flowed from religious belief.

The former "lies solely between man and his God," therefore "the legislative powers of the government reach actions only, and not opinions."

The court considered that if polygamy was allowed, someone might eventually argue that human sacrifice was a necessary part of their religion, and "to permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."

The Court believed the First Amendment forbade Congress from legislating against opinion, but allowed it to legislate against action.

Reynolds v. United States - Wikipedia

natural rights, get conveniently, "thrown out the window"?

 

[danielpalos]

The Santeria have already argued and won the right to sacrifice animals as part of their religious rituals. It's amazing that no liberal has joined ritual sacrifice and the right to abortion.

The government is commanding that people act when they would refrain from acting. A less kindly person would perform the service in a punishing way.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. Why does the right wing have a problem with it?

 

[whitehall]

The first Amendment right of freedom of religion was established long before the supreme court decided that sodomites have rights too. You could say that the homosexual couple intentionally targeted a Christian and as such violated her 1st Amendment rights.

 

[danielpalos]

The first Amendment right of freedom of religion was established long before the supreme court decided that sodomites have rights too. You could say that the homosexual couple intentionally targeted a Christian and as such violated her 1st Amendment rights.

no we can't.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Is Trump a Christian? Anyone?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Should the owner of a convenience store be able to fire a Muslim if that Muslim refuses to sell alcohol,

for religious reasons?

 

[peach174]

Should the owner of a convenience store be able to fire a Muslim if that Muslim refuses to sell alcohol,

for religious reasons?

Why would anyone hire someone who would not want to sell liquor in the first place if your business sells it?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Should the owner of a convenience store be able to fire a Muslim if that Muslim refuses to sell alcohol,

for religious reasons?

Why would anyone hire someone who would not want to sell liquor in the first place if your business sells it?

They should be forced to hire him because to not hire him is religious discrimination.

 

[EvilCat Breath]

Should the owner of a convenience store be able to fire a Muslim if that Muslim refuses to sell alcohol,

for religious reasons?

Not close enough. Should a convenience store be compelled, by law, to sell alcohol in violation of their religious belief.

Baronelle Stutzman doesn't want to go to a same sex wedding. She is being compelled to act when she would rather do nothing.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Is Trump a Christian? Anyone?

Not one of you has an opinion on whether or not Trump is a Christian?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Should the owner of a convenience store be able to fire a Muslim if that Muslim refuses to sell alcohol,

for religious reasons?

Not close enough. Should a convenience store be compelled, by law, to sell alcohol in violation of their religious belief.

Baronelle Stutzman doesn't want to go to a same sex wedding. She is being compelled to act when she would rather do nothing.

Then she needs to get out of that business since she can't comply with the laws governing that business.

 

[Clementine]

The more you see something shocking, the less shocking it appears, and the more something outrageous happens, the less outrageous it seems to be. That is how a culture becomes desensitized, and that is how the abnormal becomes normalized. But when it comes to the government’s attack on our religious freedoms, it is our sacred duty to remain shocked and outraged. Such things cannot continue to happen in America if we are to be the land of the free and the home of the brave.

According to the Washington Supreme Court, when Christian florist Barronelle Stutzman declined to do the floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding, she violated the state's anti-discrimination laws, since she allegedly discriminated based on her customer’s sexual orientation by refusing to participate in his wedding ceremony.

Attorney David French is correct in emphasizing how this ruling should affect us (he penned these words shortly after the verdict was announced): “If you care about the Bill of Rights, the rights of conscience, or even the English language, there’s a chance that this morning you felt a disturbance in the Force — as if the Founders cried out in rage and were suddenly silenced.”

As French clearly explains, “she was not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. She was making a decision not to help celebrate an action, a form of expression. She would no more celebrate a gay wedding than she would any form of immorality, gay or straight. To dispense with her argument, the court did what numerous progressive courts have done: It rewrote the law. It rejected what it called the ‘status/conduct’ distinction, and essentially interpreted the word ‘orientation’ to also mean ‘action.’”
It Is Absolutely Outrageous for the Government to Force Christians to Violate Their Faith

Pure, unadulterated nonsense.

When entertainers refused to play at Trump's inauguration and the left threatened those who did, were you outraged?

When designers announced they would refuse service to the Trump women because of their creed, did you find it fair?

Why is it that the left believes they can refuse service to people based on creed but no one else can refuse based on their own beliefs?

The law is specific to certain protections . Politics is not one of them .

Political beliefs are creed, nimrod.