Obama admin admits SSM is threat to religious liberty

[NYcarbineer]

The constitution applies to all people regardless of how small the number may be.

Laws protect all persons...there is no limit based on quantity.


Would you feel the same if someone wanted to stop blacks from marrying whites? It, too, is a small percentage. Should they enjoy protection from the law? If there is a difference...please explain your allowance of one group and your objection to the other.

Because race is not the same as sexual orientation, despite all your attempts and logical leaps to the contrary. And if a small amount of bakers want to not bake for gay weddings, the overall impact on other has to be taken into account, and considering there are plenty of other bakers who have no issue with this, State force is not mandated.

You are correct that race isn't the same as sexual orientation. It's also not the same as gender. It's also not the same as religion. It's also not the same as physical ability. It's also not the same as national/cultural origin.

And yet.......all that I mentioned get the SAME Civil Rights.

Some get civil rights, others get civil laws, and other evidently get to use government to beat up on people that don't agree with them.

Well then...explain the difference between "civil rights" and "civil laws".

Civil rights involve government interaction and are explicit in the constitution. Civil laws involve government and are not mentioned in the constitution. Neither allow you to force other private citizens to do something against their will just because your feeewwwiiinngs are hurt.

Private citizens who run businesses are forced by the Constitution to do business with other races whether they want to or not,

if they want to stay in business.

 

[candycorn]

The constitution applies to all people regardless of how small the number may be.

Laws protect all persons...there is no limit based on quantity.


Would you feel the same if someone wanted to stop blacks from marrying whites? It, too, is a small percentage. Should they enjoy protection from the law? If there is a difference...please explain your allowance of one group and your objection to the other.

Because race is not the same as sexual orientation, despite all your attempts and logical leaps to the contrary.

You brought up the quantity of marriages....did you not? That was your objection earlier. I brought up a similar number and now you're saying it's a different reason.

And if a small amount of bakers want to not bake for gay weddings, the overall impact on other has to be taken into account, and considering there are plenty of other bakers who have no issue with this, State force is not mandated.

I'll agree that there is not always a need to sue someone who does you wrong.

However, my question was that if you're in Key West, how does someone getting married in Jacksonville, have any effect on you? Mathematically there is a less than 1 thousandth of 1% chance you'll ever hear about it and in all mathematical probability something less than a millionth of 1% chance you'll be affected by it.

You said something to the effect that it will affect you if someone sues a baker and something about a boiling frog. I'm not sure about the frog part but the mathematics doesn't support your argument.

But since you've abandoned the mathematical argument with "race is not the same as sexual orientation", I have to ask why you're not bothered by race but are bothered by sexual orientation? A follow up is this; if you're bothered...isn't that your problem and not theirs?

By your logic how does Abortion being illegal in Alabama affect you if you live in New York?

If my company wants to move to Alabama and I am a female, it affects me. I lose my livelihood or my right to privacy.

And its not what bothers me, its that others are bothered by it, and there is no compelling state interest to force them to not be bothered by it.

"To force them not to be bothered"? Not sure that makes any sense whatsoever. But lets unpack that. What if they were to open a mosque in your neighborhood....or if homosexuals moved in next door.

Are you saying that the State has an interest in protecting you if you just do not like Muslims or homosexuals--or as in the way you put it...if you're bothered by them?

Your argument sort of reminds me of this video I saw on my facebook feed once:

What is the argument you progressives always use vis a vis the baker question? Oh yes, "You can always find another line of work"

Not sure what the "baker" question is. It does seem to me that if I chose not to bake a cake for someone, I wouldn't have to but once I open a store that bakes cakes, I'm indicating that I will.

The state doesn't have to protect "me" but it doesn't have the right to punish me either. You are no better than those Moral Majority cranks who tried to force their crap on others.

Again, how is it punishing you in Key West if someone is getting married in Jacksonville? By the same argument you made earlier nodding toward state's rights, why would you not be equally as punished if they got married in Savannah...90 miles away?

 

[martybegan]

As usual, running to 5 of 9 un-elected lawyers. For all your purported love of democracy you sure do run to the one branch of our government that resembles oligarchy a lot.

Where would you go to ensure the 2nd amendment is adhered to?

Not a court in the State of NY, that's for sure. And again, the 2nd is explicit to arms, find me the word marriage or abortion, or even people in corporations lose their rights to free speech in the constitution and then you may have a point.

That's not an answer to the question.

Where would you go to ensure the 2nd amendment is adhered to?

It is, you just don't like the answer. Your attempted "gotcha" is a failure.

No, I asked you where you'd go, and you wouldn't answer. You wouldn't answer because you know you would go to the Supreme Court,

and you've already delegitimized the Supreme Court in this thread as unelected oligarchical lawyers.

The 2nd Amendment depends on the Supreme Court, and you can't admit it.

it shouldn't have to depend on the supreme court, because lawmakers should realize they can't violate the constitution. The SC is the top court in the land, but the problem is it is imbalanced currently vis a vis the other branches.

 

[martybegan]

Because race is not the same as sexual orientation, despite all your attempts and logical leaps to the contrary. And if a small amount of bakers want to not bake for gay weddings, the overall impact on other has to be taken into account, and considering there are plenty of other bakers who have no issue with this, State force is not mandated.

You are correct that race isn't the same as sexual orientation. It's also not the same as gender. It's also not the same as religion. It's also not the same as physical ability. It's also not the same as national/cultural origin.

And yet.......all that I mentioned get the SAME Civil Rights.

Some get civil rights, others get civil laws, and other evidently get to use government to beat up on people that don't agree with them.

Well then...explain the difference between "civil rights" and "civil laws".

Civil rights involve government interaction and are explicit in the constitution. Civil laws involve government and are not mentioned in the constitution. Neither allow you to force other private citizens to do something against their will just because your feeewwwiiinngs are hurt.

Private citizens who run businesses are forced by the Constitution to do business with other races whether they want to or not,

if they want to stay in business.

No, they are not. They are forced by laws that ignore the right to association and religous freedom.

 

[martybegan]

Because race is not the same as sexual orientation, despite all your attempts and logical leaps to the contrary.

You brought up the quantity of marriages....did you not? That was your objection earlier. I brought up a similar number and now you're saying it's a different reason.

And if a small amount of bakers want to not bake for gay weddings, the overall impact on other has to be taken into account, and considering there are plenty of other bakers who have no issue with this, State force is not mandated.

I'll agree that there is not always a need to sue someone who does you wrong.

However, my question was that if you're in Key West, how does someone getting married in Jacksonville, have any effect on you? Mathematically there is a less than 1 thousandth of 1% chance you'll ever hear about it and in all mathematical probability something less than a millionth of 1% chance you'll be affected by it.

You said something to the effect that it will affect you if someone sues a baker and something about a boiling frog. I'm not sure about the frog part but the mathematics doesn't support your argument.

But since you've abandoned the mathematical argument with "race is not the same as sexual orientation", I have to ask why you're not bothered by race but are bothered by sexual orientation? A follow up is this; if you're bothered...isn't that your problem and not theirs?

By your logic how does Abortion being illegal in Alabama affect you if you live in New York?

If my company wants to move to Alabama and I am a female, it affects me. I lose my livelihood or my right to privacy.

And its not what bothers me, its that others are bothered by it, and there is no compelling state interest to force them to not be bothered by it.

"To force them not to be bothered"? Not sure that makes any sense whatsoever. But lets unpack that. What if they were to open a mosque in your neighborhood....or if homosexuals moved in next door.

Are you saying that the State has an interest in protecting you if you just do not like Muslims or homosexuals--or as in the way you put it...if you're bothered by them?

Your argument sort of reminds me of this video I saw on my facebook feed once:

What is the argument you progressives always use vis a vis the baker question? Oh yes, "You can always find another line of work"

Not sure what the "baker" question is. It does seem to me that if I chose not to bake a cake for someone, I wouldn't have to but once I open a store that bakes cakes, I'm indicating that I will.

The state doesn't have to protect "me" but it doesn't have the right to punish me either. You are no better than those Moral Majority cranks who tried to force their crap on others.

Again, how is it punishing you in Key West if someone is getting married in Jacksonville? By the same argument you made earlier nodding toward state's rights, why would you not be equally as punished if they got married in Savannah...90 miles away?

Again, how is Alabama restricting abortion affecting you in NY?

 

[candycorn]

You brought up the quantity of marriages....did you not? That was your objection earlier. I brought up a similar number and now you're saying it's a different reason.

I'll agree that there is not always a need to sue someone who does you wrong.

However, my question was that if you're in Key West, how does someone getting married in Jacksonville, have any effect on you? Mathematically there is a less than 1 thousandth of 1% chance you'll ever hear about it and in all mathematical probability something less than a millionth of 1% chance you'll be affected by it.

You said something to the effect that it will affect you if someone sues a baker and something about a boiling frog. I'm not sure about the frog part but the mathematics doesn't support your argument.

But since you've abandoned the mathematical argument with "race is not the same as sexual orientation", I have to ask why you're not bothered by race but are bothered by sexual orientation? A follow up is this; if you're bothered...isn't that your problem and not theirs?

By your logic how does Abortion being illegal in Alabama affect you if you live in New York?

If my company wants to move to Alabama and I am a female, it affects me. I lose my livelihood or my right to privacy.

And its not what bothers me, its that others are bothered by it, and there is no compelling state interest to force them to not be bothered by it.

"To force them not to be bothered"? Not sure that makes any sense whatsoever. But lets unpack that. What if they were to open a mosque in your neighborhood....or if homosexuals moved in next door.

Are you saying that the State has an interest in protecting you if you just do not like Muslims or homosexuals--or as in the way you put it...if you're bothered by them?

Your argument sort of reminds me of this video I saw on my facebook feed once:

What is the argument you progressives always use vis a vis the baker question? Oh yes, "You can always find another line of work"

Not sure what the "baker" question is. It does seem to me that if I chose not to bake a cake for someone, I wouldn't have to but once I open a store that bakes cakes, I'm indicating that I will.

The state doesn't have to protect "me" but it doesn't have the right to punish me either. You are no better than those Moral Majority cranks who tried to force their crap on others.

Again, how is it punishing you in Key West if someone is getting married in Jacksonville? By the same argument you made earlier nodding toward state's rights, why would you not be equally as punished if they got married in Savannah...90 miles away?

Again, how is Alabama restricting abortion affecting you in NY?

I told you. If my company moves to Alabma and it doesn't recognize my right to privacy, that injures my right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness because I would have to decide between my livelyhood and my right to privacy.

Since gay couples are not interacting with you in any way, shape or form, you cannot claim any such injury.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Where would you go to ensure the 2nd amendment is adhered to?

Not a court in the State of NY, that's for sure. And again, the 2nd is explicit to arms, find me the word marriage or abortion, or even people in corporations lose their rights to free speech in the constitution and then you may have a point.

That's not an answer to the question.

Where would you go to ensure the 2nd amendment is adhered to?

It is, you just don't like the answer. Your attempted "gotcha" is a failure.

No, I asked you where you'd go, and you wouldn't answer. You wouldn't answer because you know you would go to the Supreme Court,

and you've already delegitimized the Supreme Court in this thread as unelected oligarchical lawyers.

The 2nd Amendment depends on the Supreme Court, and you can't admit it.

it shouldn't have to depend on the supreme court, because lawmakers should realize they can't violate the constitution. The SC is the top court in the land, but the problem is it is imbalanced currently vis a vis the other branches.

Well you shouldn't have to lock the vault at the bank because people should realize its bad to steal.

Now that you've conceded that the Supreme Court has a legitimate constitutional necessary function,

what else can I educate you on?

 

[martybegan]

By your logic how does Abortion being illegal in Alabama affect you if you live in New York?

If my company wants to move to Alabama and I am a female, it affects me. I lose my livelihood or my right to privacy.

And its not what bothers me, its that others are bothered by it, and there is no compelling state interest to force them to not be bothered by it.

"To force them not to be bothered"? Not sure that makes any sense whatsoever. But lets unpack that. What if they were to open a mosque in your neighborhood....or if homosexuals moved in next door.

Are you saying that the State has an interest in protecting you if you just do not like Muslims or homosexuals--or as in the way you put it...if you're bothered by them?

Your argument sort of reminds me of this video I saw on my facebook feed once:

What is the argument you progressives always use vis a vis the baker question? Oh yes, "You can always find another line of work"

Not sure what the "baker" question is. It does seem to me that if I chose not to bake a cake for someone, I wouldn't have to but once I open a store that bakes cakes, I'm indicating that I will.

The state doesn't have to protect "me" but it doesn't have the right to punish me either. You are no better than those Moral Majority cranks who tried to force their crap on others.

Again, how is it punishing you in Key West if someone is getting married in Jacksonville? By the same argument you made earlier nodding toward state's rights, why would you not be equally as punished if they got married in Savannah...90 miles away?

Again, how is Alabama restricting abortion affecting you in NY?

I told you. If my company moves to Alabma and it doesn't recognize my right to privacy, that injures my right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness because I would have to decide between my livelyhood and my right to privacy.

Since gay couples are not interacting with you in any way, shape or form, you cannot claim any such injury.

And again, its the same choice you are giving the baker who doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding, either accept and comply, or go out of business.

 

[martybegan]

Not a court in the State of NY, that's for sure. And again, the 2nd is explicit to arms, find me the word marriage or abortion, or even people in corporations lose their rights to free speech in the constitution and then you may have a point.

That's not an answer to the question.

Where would you go to ensure the 2nd amendment is adhered to?

It is, you just don't like the answer. Your attempted "gotcha" is a failure.

No, I asked you where you'd go, and you wouldn't answer. You wouldn't answer because you know you would go to the Supreme Court,

and you've already delegitimized the Supreme Court in this thread as unelected oligarchical lawyers.

The 2nd Amendment depends on the Supreme Court, and you can't admit it.

it shouldn't have to depend on the supreme court, because lawmakers should realize they can't violate the constitution. The SC is the top court in the land, but the problem is it is imbalanced currently vis a vis the other branches.

Well you shouldn't have to lock the vault at the bank because people should realize its bad to steal.

Now that you've conceded that the Supreme Court has a legitimate constitutional necessary function,

what else can I educate you on?

Where have I ever said the SC has not legitimate constitutional function? I have stated it is currently overstepping its original constitutional intent.

Don't put words in my mouth you miserable hack.

 

[candycorn]

If my company wants to move to Alabama and I am a female, it affects me. I lose my livelihood or my right to privacy.

"To force them not to be bothered"? Not sure that makes any sense whatsoever. But lets unpack that. What if they were to open a mosque in your neighborhood....or if homosexuals moved in next door.

Are you saying that the State has an interest in protecting you if you just do not like Muslims or homosexuals--or as in the way you put it...if you're bothered by them?

Your argument sort of reminds me of this video I saw on my facebook feed once:

What is the argument you progressives always use vis a vis the baker question? Oh yes, "You can always find another line of work"

Not sure what the "baker" question is. It does seem to me that if I chose not to bake a cake for someone, I wouldn't have to but once I open a store that bakes cakes, I'm indicating that I will.

The state doesn't have to protect "me" but it doesn't have the right to punish me either. You are no better than those Moral Majority cranks who tried to force their crap on others.

Again, how is it punishing you in Key West if someone is getting married in Jacksonville? By the same argument you made earlier nodding toward state's rights, why would you not be equally as punished if they got married in Savannah...90 miles away?

Again, how is Alabama restricting abortion affecting you in NY?

I told you. If my company moves to Alabma and it doesn't recognize my right to privacy, that injures my right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness because I would have to decide between my livelyhood and my right to privacy.

Since gay couples are not interacting with you in any way, shape or form, you cannot claim any such injury.

And again, its the same choice you are giving the baker who doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding, either accept and comply, or go out of business.

How is it the same choice?

I work for a company that is based in NY (for example) and they decide to move to AL where, in your scenario, the courts do not recognize a woman's right to privacy. I don't have a vote in that matter; I either accept the limitations on my liberty or quit. Obviously, I wouldn't have any standing to sue the company since I do not own the company.

If I worked for a bakery that made the move, I would fall under your comparison.
but I wouldn't have any right to sue them to stop the move.


But the bakery is in town X and a couple comes in and wants them to bake a cake. The baker refuses...

In no way is it the same argument. Please explain how it is. I guess you're trying to equate that my losing my right to privacy is analogous to the baker's right to make a religious objection or a values argument or something. Is that the case? Again, what if the baker just chose not to serve blacks or protestants or jews or people with red hair. Wouldn't that be the same thing?

 

[martybegan]

What is the argument you progressives always use vis a vis the baker question? Oh yes, "You can always find another line of work"

Not sure what the "baker" question is. It does seem to me that if I chose not to bake a cake for someone, I wouldn't have to but once I open a store that bakes cakes, I'm indicating that I will.

The state doesn't have to protect "me" but it doesn't have the right to punish me either. You are no better than those Moral Majority cranks who tried to force their crap on others.

Again, how is it punishing you in Key West if someone is getting married in Jacksonville? By the same argument you made earlier nodding toward state's rights, why would you not be equally as punished if they got married in Savannah...90 miles away?

Again, how is Alabama restricting abortion affecting you in NY?

I told you. If my company moves to Alabma and it doesn't recognize my right to privacy, that injures my right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness because I would have to decide between my livelyhood and my right to privacy.

Since gay couples are not interacting with you in any way, shape or form, you cannot claim any such injury.

And again, its the same choice you are giving the baker who doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding, either accept and comply, or go out of business.

How is it the same choice?

I work for a company that is based in NY (for example) and they decide to move to AL where, in your scenario, the courts do not recognize a woman's right to privacy. I don't have a vote in that matter; I either accept the limitations on my liberty or quit. Obviously, I wouldn't have any standing to sue the company since I do not own the company.

If I worked for a bakery that made the move, I would fall under your comparison.
but I wouldn't have any right to sue them to stop the move.


But the bakery is in town X and a couple comes in and wants them to bake a cake. The baker refuses...

In no way is it the same argument. Please explain how it is. I guess you're trying to equate that my losing my right to privacy is analogous to the baker's right to make a religious objection or a values argument or something. Is that the case? Again, what if the baker just chose not to serve blacks or protestants or jews or people with red hair. Wouldn't that be the same thing?

Why not just choose not to move to Alabama?

 

[candycorn]

Not sure what the "baker" question is. It does seem to me that if I chose not to bake a cake for someone, I wouldn't have to but once I open a store that bakes cakes, I'm indicating that I will.

Again, how is it punishing you in Key West if someone is getting married in Jacksonville? By the same argument you made earlier nodding toward state's rights, why would you not be equally as punished if they got married in Savannah...90 miles away?

Again, how is Alabama restricting abortion affecting you in NY?

I told you. If my company moves to Alabma and it doesn't recognize my right to privacy, that injures my right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness because I would have to decide between my livelyhood and my right to privacy.

Since gay couples are not interacting with you in any way, shape or form, you cannot claim any such injury.

And again, its the same choice you are giving the baker who doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding, either accept and comply, or go out of business.

How is it the same choice?

I work for a company that is based in NY (for example) and they decide to move to AL where, in your scenario, the courts do not recognize a woman's right to privacy. I don't have a vote in that matter; I either accept the limitations on my liberty or quit. Obviously, I wouldn't have any standing to sue the company since I do not own the company.

If I worked for a bakery that made the move, I would fall under your comparison.
but I wouldn't have any right to sue them to stop the move.


But the bakery is in town X and a couple comes in and wants them to bake a cake. The baker refuses...

In no way is it the same argument. Please explain how it is. I guess you're trying to equate that my losing my right to privacy is analogous to the baker's right to make a religious objection or a values argument or something. Is that the case? Again, what if the baker just chose not to serve blacks or protestants or jews or people with red hair. Wouldn't that be the same thing?

Why not just choose not to move to Alabama?

Why not just choose to close up shop if you don't want to make cakes?

 

[martybegan]

Again, how is Alabama restricting abortion affecting you in NY?

I told you. If my company moves to Alabma and it doesn't recognize my right to privacy, that injures my right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness because I would have to decide between my livelyhood and my right to privacy.

Since gay couples are not interacting with you in any way, shape or form, you cannot claim any such injury.

And again, its the same choice you are giving the baker who doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding, either accept and comply, or go out of business.

How is it the same choice?

I work for a company that is based in NY (for example) and they decide to move to AL where, in your scenario, the courts do not recognize a woman's right to privacy. I don't have a vote in that matter; I either accept the limitations on my liberty or quit. Obviously, I wouldn't have any standing to sue the company since I do not own the company.

If I worked for a bakery that made the move, I would fall under your comparison.
but I wouldn't have any right to sue them to stop the move.


But the bakery is in town X and a couple comes in and wants them to bake a cake. The baker refuses...

In no way is it the same argument. Please explain how it is. I guess you're trying to equate that my losing my right to privacy is analogous to the baker's right to make a religious objection or a values argument or something. Is that the case? Again, what if the baker just chose not to serve blacks or protestants or jews or people with red hair. Wouldn't that be the same thing?

Why not just choose not to move to Alabama?

Why not just choose to close up shop if you don't want to make cakes?

You finally see it, even if you don't.

 

[candycorn]

I told you. If my company moves to Alabma and it doesn't recognize my right to privacy, that injures my right to Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness because I would have to decide between my livelyhood and my right to privacy.

Since gay couples are not interacting with you in any way, shape or form, you cannot claim any such injury.

And again, its the same choice you are giving the baker who doesn't want to bake a cake for a gay wedding, either accept and comply, or go out of business.

How is it the same choice?

I work for a company that is based in NY (for example) and they decide to move to AL where, in your scenario, the courts do not recognize a woman's right to privacy. I don't have a vote in that matter; I either accept the limitations on my liberty or quit. Obviously, I wouldn't have any standing to sue the company since I do not own the company.

If I worked for a bakery that made the move, I would fall under your comparison.
but I wouldn't have any right to sue them to stop the move.


But the bakery is in town X and a couple comes in and wants them to bake a cake. The baker refuses...

In no way is it the same argument. Please explain how it is. I guess you're trying to equate that my losing my right to privacy is analogous to the baker's right to make a religious objection or a values argument or something. Is that the case? Again, what if the baker just chose not to serve blacks or protestants or jews or people with red hair. Wouldn't that be the same thing?

Why not just choose not to move to Alabama?

Why not just choose to close up shop if you don't want to make cakes?

You finally see it, even if you don't.

Well, that makes as much sense as anything else you've posted.

I simply temporarily employed your strategy of answering every question with another question. When you've lost the argument (i.e. you can't tell us why it's different to discriminate against blacks but it's okay to discriminate against gays), it's what you do.

You don't move to Alabama if it means giving up your civil rights and you shouldn't have to make such a choice. That is the answer (I gave it 3 times already). No injury is suffered by your baking a cake for someone who is gay. When you call a 1-800 number to inquire about flight reservations or argue about a bill, you may be dealing with a gay person. No injury is suffered. You may have shook the hands of a gay man today at a meeting. Again, no injury is suffered.

The equation you're trying to apply simply doesn't work. Deep down, you know this which is why you employ the loser strategy of answering questions with questions.

When gays and those (like me) who are sympathetic to their plight celebrate the upcoming SCOUS decision affirming gay marriage, it's particularly satisfying because of discussions like the one we just had.

You know, it's okay to admit you lost the argument and you have no leg to stand on. Its' the internet and nobody knows you here.

Have a nice day.

 

[The Rabbi]

Well at least they admit it. But people paying attention already knew this.

‘It’s going to be an issue’: Obama admin admits to Supreme Court that gay ‘marriage’ threatens religious liberty

April 29, 2015 (AlbertMohler.com) -- “It is … it is going to be an issue.” With those words, spoken yesterday before the Supreme Court of the Unites States, the Solicitor General of the United States announced that religious liberty is directly threatened by the legalization of same-sex marriage. Donald Verrili, representing the Obama Administration as the nation’s highest court considered again the issue of same-sex marriage, was responding to a question from Justice Samuel Alito. His answer confirms with candor the threat we have long seen coming.

It s going to be an issue Obama admin admits to Supreme Court that gay marriage threatens religious liberty Opinion LifeSite

Civil law already forbids exercising many religious tenets and commandments. Hasn't kept anyone from being those religions though.

Can't sell daughters into slavery as the Bible permits.
Can't execute rebellious children either, also permitted by the Bible.

People clammoring for religious liberty don't know what the fuck their own religions permit.

Is there anyone in the world who sells his daughter in pursuit of the Biblical commandment?
Is there anyone who executes his rebellious child in pursuit of that? You understand that actually no one was ever executed under that law, right?

Ask the Mormons what happened to their religious practice of polygamy when it went up against the Constitution.

Why should I ask them that? And the courts are probably going to allow them to do it again anyway. What's yer point, dum-dum?

 

[The Irish Ram]

This isn't about religious doctrine. This is about forcing penalties on religious doctrine and the religious. It is the opposite if freedom.

No one is forcing you not to grovel to your man god on two sticks

You clownsies think you have the right to force me to go against my beliefs for the simple reason that my beliefs differ from yours.
You continue to grovel to Obama, and I'll continue to follow God. As Americans, we both have that right. Stop treading on mine.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Well at least they admit it. But people paying attention already knew this.

‘It’s going to be an issue’: Obama admin admits to Supreme Court that gay ‘marriage’ threatens religious liberty

April 29, 2015 (AlbertMohler.com) -- “It is … it is going to be an issue.” With those words, spoken yesterday before the Supreme Court of the Unites States, the Solicitor General of the United States announced that religious liberty is directly threatened by the legalization of same-sex marriage. Donald Verrili, representing the Obama Administration as the nation’s highest court considered again the issue of same-sex marriage, was responding to a question from Justice Samuel Alito. His answer confirms with candor the threat we have long seen coming.

It s going to be an issue Obama admin admits to Supreme Court that gay marriage threatens religious liberty Opinion LifeSite

Civil law already forbids exercising many religious tenets and commandments. Hasn't kept anyone from being those religions though.

Can't sell daughters into slavery as the Bible permits.
Can't execute rebellious children either, also permitted by the Bible.

People clammoring for religious liberty don't know what the fuck their own religions permit.

Is there anyone in the world who sells his daughter in pursuit of the Biblical commandment?
Is there anyone who executes his rebellious child in pursuit of that? You understand that actually no one was ever executed under that law, right?

Ask the Mormons what happened to their religious practice of polygamy when it went up against the Constitution.

Why should I ask them that? And the courts are probably going to allow them to do it again anyway. What's yer point, dum-dum?

Because based on your reasoning, such as it is, polygamy should be legal as a 1st amendment religious right,

just as you would have refusing to do business with gays, if the claim was on religious grounds.

 

[The Rabbi]

Well at least they admit it. But people paying attention already knew this.

‘It’s going to be an issue’: Obama admin admits to Supreme Court that gay ‘marriage’ threatens religious liberty

April 29, 2015 (AlbertMohler.com) -- “It is … it is going to be an issue.” With those words, spoken yesterday before the Supreme Court of the Unites States, the Solicitor General of the United States announced that religious liberty is directly threatened by the legalization of same-sex marriage. Donald Verrili, representing the Obama Administration as the nation’s highest court considered again the issue of same-sex marriage, was responding to a question from Justice Samuel Alito. His answer confirms with candor the threat we have long seen coming.

It s going to be an issue Obama admin admits to Supreme Court that gay marriage threatens religious liberty Opinion LifeSite

Civil law already forbids exercising many religious tenets and commandments. Hasn't kept anyone from being those religions though.

Can't sell daughters into slavery as the Bible permits.
Can't execute rebellious children either, also permitted by the Bible.

People clammoring for religious liberty don't know what the fuck their own religions permit.

Is there anyone in the world who sells his daughter in pursuit of the Biblical commandment?
Is there anyone who executes his rebellious child in pursuit of that? You understand that actually no one was ever executed under that law, right?

Ask the Mormons what happened to their religious practice of polygamy when it went up against the Constitution.

Why should I ask them that? And the courts are probably going to allow them to do it again anyway. What's yer point, dum-dum?

Because based on your reasoning, such as it is, polygamy should be legal as a 1st amendment religious right,

just as you would have refusing to do business with gays, if the claim was on religious grounds.

And probably will be again.
No right is absolute. The question is what is the state's interest in compelling religious institutions to violate their conscience?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Civil law already forbids exercising many religious tenets and commandments. Hasn't kept anyone from being those religions though.

Can't sell daughters into slavery as the Bible permits.
Can't execute rebellious children either, also permitted by the Bible.

People clammoring for religious liberty don't know what the fuck their own religions permit.

Is there anyone in the world who sells his daughter in pursuit of the Biblical commandment?
Is there anyone who executes his rebellious child in pursuit of that? You understand that actually no one was ever executed under that law, right?

Ask the Mormons what happened to their religious practice of polygamy when it went up against the Constitution.

Why should I ask them that? And the courts are probably going to allow them to do it again anyway. What's yer point, dum-dum?

Because based on your reasoning, such as it is, polygamy should be legal as a 1st amendment religious right,

just as you would have refusing to do business with gays, if the claim was on religious grounds.

And probably will be again.
No right is absolute. The question is what is the state's interest in compelling religious institutions to violate their conscience?

The state's interest is important because religious beliefs can be any beliefs. The Aztecs sacrificed humans as a religious belief. The Catholics executed heretics. The Muslims executed apostates. The Mormons practiced polygamy. One can go on and on.

Religion is not bound by the principles of democracy, or civil rights, or human rights, anything else that an American might consider an integral part of our social structure as it is represented by the form of government we have chosen.

You either decide to contain religious freedom within the principles of our system of governance, as represented by the Constitution,

or you can abandon the Constitution. And yes, there may be a conflict between the general idea that the Constitution protects religious freedom and the Constitution's general protection of other rights, when the latter and the former are at odds,

but at some point, you have to pick a side.

 

[The Rabbi]

Is there anyone in the world who sells his daughter in pursuit of the Biblical commandment?
Is there anyone who executes his rebellious child in pursuit of that? You understand that actually no one was ever executed under that law, right?

Ask the Mormons what happened to their religious practice of polygamy when it went up against the Constitution.

Why should I ask them that? And the courts are probably going to allow them to do it again anyway. What's yer point, dum-dum?

Because based on your reasoning, such as it is, polygamy should be legal as a 1st amendment religious right,

just as you would have refusing to do business with gays, if the claim was on religious grounds.

And probably will be again.
No right is absolute. The question is what is the state's interest in compelling religious institutions to violate their conscience?

The state's interest is important because religious beliefs can be any beliefs. The Aztecs sacrificed humans as a religious belief. The Catholics executed heretics. The Muslims executed apostates. The Mormons practiced polygamy. One can go on and on.

Religion is not bound by the principles of democracy, or civil rights, or human rights, anything else that an American might consider an integral part of our social structure as it is represented by the form of government we have chosen.

You either decide to contain religious freedom within the principles of our system of governance, as represented by the Constitution,

or you can abandon the Constitution. And yes, there may be a conflict between the general idea that the Constitution protects religious freedom and the Constitution's general protection of other rights, when the latter and the former are at odds,

but at some point, you have to pick a side.

Was that supposed to be some kind of answer, or just a steaming pile of bullshit?