Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Where_r_my_Keys]

HELL NO!

Here's why: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ..."

 

[dblack]

The act of thinking for one's self is inherently discriminatory

And yet when thinking transforms into doing....not all acts are equally protected by our constitution. Religious liberties are thoroughly protected. And they are inherently discriminatory

As long as those acts of doing don't harm others, yes, they are.

 

[Skylar]

Indeed. But this calls out the very real conflict between equal rights and public accommodations laws.

Free practice of religion is exempt. Eliminating your 'real conflict'.

 

[Skylar]

[uqote]
As long as those acts of doing don't harm others, yes, they are.

[/quote]

Depends on how you define harm. Rights are typically balanced against other rights. If you're going to overcome the right to free expression of religion, you're going to need prevent an equally powerful violation of rights.

And there is no equal harm. If a given minister refuses to marry a gay couple, their right to marry isn't significantly impacted. As they can get married in thousands of other places. If a minister is forced to perform a religious ceremony against his will, that's an egregious violation of his right to free religious practice.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

The act of thinking for one's self is inherently discriminatory

And yet when thinking transforms into doing....not all acts are equally protected by our constitution. Religious liberties are thoroughly protected. And they are inherently discriminatory

As long as those acts of doing don't harm others, yes, they are.

Normalizing abnormality, is fraudulent government policy which harms everyone in the culture.

 

[dblack]

There's a very real conflict going on in our country between equal protection and corporatism. We are rapidly turning away from government tasked with protecting the civil liberties of everyone, equally, to one that grants privileges to special interest groups. And it all started with the misguided application of the first amendment. Which was, itself, based on a misguided understanding of the Bill of Rights in the first place.

 

[Skylar]

Normalizing abnormality, is fraudulent government policy which harms everyone in the culture.

Why?

 

[dblack]

As long as those acts of doing don't harm others, yes, they are.

Depends on how you define harm.

It certainly does. And the idea that refusing to bake someone a cake is harming them is utterly ridiculous.

 

[Skylar]

And it all started with the misguided application of the first amendment. Which was, itself, based on a misguided understanding of the Bill of Rights in the first place.

Can you elaborate on the misguided application of the 1st amendment and Bill of Rights. Then explain what possible relevance this has to gay marriage?

 

[Skylar]

It certainly does. And the idea that refusing to bake someone a cake is harming them is utterly ridiculous.

Baking isn't a constitutionally protected right.

 

[dblack]

Normalizing abnormality, is fraudulent government policy which harms everyone in the culture.

Why?

Because the purpose of government is to protect our freedom, not force conformity.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Normalizing abnormality, is fraudulent government policy which harms everyone in the culture.

Why?

Because it is DECEIT... fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the ignorant.

Where OFFICIAL FEDERAL POLICY is based upon ONE DECEIT, that act guides others to rationalize that THE DECEIT THAT SERVES THEIR SUBJECTIVE NEED IS JUST AS WORTHY.

Sexual abnormality is a function of psychosis... psychosis induces poor judgment, poor judgment induces chaos, calamity and catastrophe, which harms EVERYONE IN THE CULTURE.

Anything gettin' through?

 

[Skylar]

Because the purpose of government is to protect our freedom, not force conformity.

How is protecting rights of the individual 'forcing conformity'?

 

[dblack]

It certainly does. And the idea that refusing to bake someone a cake is harming them is utterly ridiculous.

Baking isn't a constitutionally protected right.

As I said earlier, it most certainly is. The Bill of Rights wasn't meant to strip us of all rights not listed. That was the point of the Ninth Amendment.

 

[Skylar]

Because it is DECEIT... fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the ignorant.

How is protecting the rights of individuals 'deceit, fraudulently advanced as a means to influence the ignorant'?

Where OFFICIAL FEDERAL POLICY is based upon ONE DECEIT, that act guides others to rationalize that THE DECEIT THAT SERVES THEIR SUBJECTIVE NEED IS JUST AS WORTHY.

Can you get specific on what 'deceit' you're talking about?

Sexual abnormality is a function of psychosis... psychosis induces poor judgment, poor judgment induces chaos, calamity and catastrophe, which harms EVERYONE IN THE CULTURE.

Says who?

Anything gettin' through?

I totally get that you have an opinion. And you really like to type in caps. I'm still working on what relevance either has with gay marriage or the free practice of religion.

 

[Skylar]

As I said earlier, it most certainly is. The Bill of Rights wasn't meant to strip us of all rights not listed. That was the point of the Ninth Amendment.

You may be confusing the wording of the 9th amendment with the 10th. The 10th says that any power not ceded to the Feds is retained by the States. The 9th amendment merely says that there are reserve rights. It doesn't say what they are, or indicate that anything not specifically forbidden by the constitution is a reserve right.

So baking is a constitutional right....according to who?

 

[dblack]

Because the purpose of government is to protect our freedom, not force conformity.

How is protecting rights of the individual 'forcing conformity'?

It's not. Targeting unpopular opinions for modification is. No one's rights are being violated by someone refusing to serve them.

And that's really the crux of this, so let's get into it. Do you REALLY think someone has a "right" to demand that someone else serves them against their will?? You don't see how deeply invasive that is? I really can't get past the basic insanity of that point of view.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

It certainly does. And the idea that refusing to bake someone a cake is harming them is utterly ridiculous.

Baking isn't a constitutionally protected right.

Baking is the product of one's labor... forcing one to bake represents servitude. Forcing one into servitude, where the action fall against the principles by which they live, is slavery.

While being forced into slavery ALWAYS sucks... it never sucks more than where such serves the most feckless fools ever to walk the earth, OKA: the socialist cult. And with that said, this nonsense will end, one way or another... and if you take a minute to look through American History, you'll find that we, The Americans, while we are inclined to suffer long trains of abuse, there is a limit and where that limit has been struck, those who've set such trains upon us, have NEVER come out ahead.

Better to enjoy the warm cloister of the closet, than to lose the choice. Don't you think?

 

[Skylar]

Baking is the product of one's labor... forcing one to bake represents servitude. Forcing one into servitude, where the action fall against the principles by which they live, is slavery.

The act being required is to treat all customers the same, regardless of their gender, ethnicity, religion or sexual orientation. If she doesn't want to do business, she can bake under whatever pretext she prefers. But when she does so as a business, she's under the local government's authority to regulate.

While being forced into slavery ALWAYS sucks... it never sucks more than where such serves the most feckless fools ever to walk the earth, OKA: the socialist cult.

So.....its about 'socialists'? Your rant may be getting a little unfocused. Its certainly getting a little hard to follow.

Better to enjoy the warm cloister of the closet, than to lose the choice. Don't you think?

Depends on what you're referring to. What 'closet' are you making reference to? And to hide what?

Oh, and what was that 'deceit' you were talking about earlier. It seemed pretty central to your previous claims.

 

[dblack]

As I said earlier, it most certainly is. The Bill of Rights wasn't meant to strip us of all rights not listed. That was the point of the Ninth Amendment.

You may be confusing the wording of the 9th amendment with the 10th. The 10th says that any power not ceded to the Feds is retained by the States. The 9th amendment merely says that there are reserve rights. It doesn't say what they are, or indicate that anything not specifically forbidden by the constitution is a reserve right.

So baking is a constitutional right....according to who?

Again, according to the Ninth Amendment. The whole point of the Ninth was to address the concerns of those who worried that listing specific protections of some rights would lead to the misguided assumption that those were the only rights government should protect. Just as you're doing.