Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Don't know what to tell ya...Just, proper, and Constitutional measures such as state and local public accommodations laws whose intent is regulatory do not 'violate' citizens' religious liberty. See Employment Division v. Smith (1990), City of Boerne v. Flores (1997).TEMPLARKORMAC SAID:
“...there are Christians being forced to act against their conscience here in America...”
This is a lie and wrong, and fails as a false comparison fallacy.
It's utter demagoguery to compare what is happening to Christians in the Middle East and Africa to just, proper, and Constitutional public accommodations laws in the United States that in no way 'force' Christians to “to act against their conscience.”
This is the sort of ignorance of the Constitution, propensity to lie, and contempt for the truth common to most conservative Christians.
Christians in the United States need to end this 'victimhood' nonsense, as their religious liberty is in no way being 'violated' or 'threatened.'
Says C_Clayton_Jones
* who doesn't consider a 7,000 fine by govt to be a violation or threat:
Willock filed a complaint against Elane with the New MexicoHuman Rights Commission, citing a state law that does not allow discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The commission ruled Elane’s decision illegal, and imposed a fine of $7,000 to cover legal fees.
New Mexico Court Christian Photographer Cannot Refuse Gay-Marriage Ceremony - Breitbart
* and who doesn't consider being forced to pay added tax penalties
as a "loss of liberty and freedom whether or WHEN to buy insurance that fits someone's needs"
(as well as a loss of choice to pay for health care through EQUALLY VALID OPTIONS
such public charities, veteran programs or medical education
but restricting citizens to "choices" approved by federal officials as exemptions.)
C_Clayton_Jones if that photographer who lost that appeal
didn't lose any rights by being forced to pay the $7,000 fine, would you pay it?
Since it doesn't make that much difference, then why not you offer to pay it if it is so insignificant?
Would you agree to pay a 7,000 fine if you were sued for not
photographing or servicing something that was so far outside your beliefs you had to refuse it?
And just because you don't have the same beliefs, doesn't mean it doesn't matter.
I don't share the belief in not eating pork, but I will still respect a Muslim's right not to have pork forced on them. Why don't you hold the same consideration for a Christian who doesn't believe in homosexuality as a Muslim who doesn't believe in eating pork, or a Vegan who doesn't believe in patronizing meat or fur industries?
“[The Free Exercise] Clause does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a law that incidentally forbids (or requires) the performance of an act that his religious belief requires (or forbids) if the law is not specifically directed to religious practice and is otherwise constitutional as applied to those who engage in the specified act for nonreligious reasons.”
Employment Division v. Smith LII Legal Information Institute
Yes, C_Clayton_Jones if people agree to how this is applied and interpreted, and if you are being fair;
But if you look at ACA mandates for example, it is directly violating people's inherent beliefs that federal govt does not have that authority to force people to buy insurance as the only choice of health care.
So you are still being selective in enforcement, ie politically discriminating by creed.
You have made yourself and the SC justices the equivalent of GOD to decide what is someone's
inherent belief or not. And with Constitutionalism which is a political religion, based on the belief in limited govt,
it goes DIRECTLY against the exercise and belief in DUE PROCESS to deny law abiding citizens of liberty.
So YES that is AGAINST fundamental Constitutional beliefs.
And so is forcing or fining a business because the owners do not believe in homosexuality'
similar to Vegans or Buddhists not believing in eating meat, or Muslims not believing in
consuming pork or in desecrating the image of Mohammad.
Just because YOU don't agree with someone's beliefs and YOU don't see them as inherent,
doesn't mean they aren't. The courts can be wrong, just as the property laws that kept slaves
treated as less than human. And this wrong resulted in the govt owing more restitution than it could pay.
Abusing the govt to discriminate on the basis of creed is "just as wrongful" --
whether YOUR beliefs are about orientation and the OTHER beliefs are about Christianity
and not doing business with certain people that are spiritually in conflict.
both beliefs should be treated and protected equally by law.
there is NOTHING FORCING such gay couples to HAVE TO GO TO THOSE BUSINESSES with conflicting beliefs. If you are saying there is nothing compulsory, then treat both sides equally and respect equal free choice.
This is really sick if people with different beliefs are treated as "less than equal citizens" as gay and transgender.
I see no compelling reason why both beliefs aren't treated equally as free choice, and not coercing either one!
Saddam was a stabilizing force in Iraq, and a contained force in the Middle East.
I believe your first question is better directed towards my claim that he was a "contained force" in the Middle East. For starters, Saddam was essentially given the go-ahead to invade Kuwait by the Americans. Perhaps not by anybody with the authority to do so in the first place, but it's easy to see why he thought he could do it. Furthermore, Kuwait is a minor player, which doesn't make invading them just or good or what have you, but it is what it is. Saddam was contained by Iran, and Iran was contained by Saddam. Taking out Saddam allowed Iranian influence to spread, and created tribal warfare and genocide within Iraq and a force of militants coming together with the goal of overthrowing the U.S. puppet government in Iraq and spreading into neighboring Syria. Which I believe answers your second question about how Saddam was stabilizing within Iraq.Saddam was a stabilizing force in Iraq, and a contained force in the Middle East.
BS. How does launching an invasion into Kuwait qualify Saddam as a "stabilizing force?" How does committing mass genocide qualify Saddam as a stabilizing force?
Except that your post displayed a complete lack of understanding of what I'm saying about property rights. So no, it wasn't your point at all.
Ted's belief is that Christians are subhumans, and he refuses to serve them. Should the law stop him from hanging a sign in his window that says "No Christians allowed?"Except that your post displayed a complete lack of understanding of what I'm saying about property rights. So no, it wasn't your point at all.
I know exactly what you meant. The law should have no bearing on how someone runs their business.
I disagree.
So long as said law doesn't make them go against their beliefs in running their business, I see no issue.
Should the law stop him from hanging a sign in his window that says "No Christians allowed?"
Such is the nature of the cafeteria Christian, and proof that Christian opposition to accommodating gay patrons has nothing to do with Christian doctrine and dogma and everything to do with an unwarranted hatred of gay patrons.It's probable that the bakeries, photographers, etc... who are so upset with gays and lesbians sold their services to persons who have done drugs, committed various traffic offenses, likely jaywalked, used the Lord's name in vain, performed adultery, violated any number of commandments about bearing false witness or lusting after the neighbor's wife/husband.
Guess what, their world didn't come to an end....
Somehow if you sell a cake to two women who are kissing one another it will? That is you argument?
Perhaps you can draw a line somewhere in the sane world. The "christian" argument that they are being persecuted is pure, unadultrated, bull shit.
There are Christians being slaughtered for their faith in the Middle East and Africa, there are Christians being forced to act against their conscience here in America, forced into obscurity because their views don't meld with that of society's. The mob will always have its way.
Where do we draw the line? When do we defend the right for someone to be Christian without being bullied or killed? Where in this giant religious freedom debate do we draw the line between tolerance and intolerance?
To me, this debate in America is purely one sided. Gay progressive liberals accuse Christians of being intolerant, they demand tolerance while being intolerant to the religious convictions of others, well, except for Muslims that is. Why should one demand equality for his own only to use it to instill inequality? Christians have no distinct leaders to stand up for the faith against the opposition, simply because the opposition is too great.
In the Middle East, when do we come to the aid of innocent Christians being killed for their faith? When do we draw the line in the sand and say "this far, no further?" Here, the biggest Christian nation in the world under the watch of a liberal president will not rise to defend those of the Christian belief. In the world, Christians also have no true leaders who will stand up to the forces which oppress them elsewhere in the world.
So, where do we draw the line?
Maybe Christians...
Maybe Christians, blah, blah, blah.., maybe if you qweers and pussy boys would stop shoving your dicks in our face all the time demanding special rights, we could get along just fine, if you kept your perversion private and to yourself no one would know what you are, but NO! you had to tell the world you are a qweer, then claim discrimination, if there was any it was because long held beliefs that qweers were unholy.
why do muslimes kill qweers ?
Yes, I see all of it as the exact same thing. It is a tragedy that the three Abrahamic faiths lend themselves so well to hatred when the haters need a moral justification.Apart from this being a repeat thread by our friend TK.....the best thing about it is the way that a real libertarian is giving TK.....a cafeteria libertarian.....a drubbing. Thanks, KK.
TK......as has been explained to you in the dozen or so identical threads that you have started........being intolerant of one's intolerance is not the same thing as being intolerant of one's sexual orientation.
TK......though you lied when you said you just thought of it.....your repeated contention that liberals excuse Muslim bigotry of homosexuals while objecting to Christian bigotry.......is bullshit.
There are Christians being slaughtered for their faith in the Middle East and Africa, there are Christians being forced to act against their conscience here in America, forced into obscurity because their views don't meld with that of society's. The mob will always have its way.
Where do we draw the line? When do we defend the right for someone to be Christian without being bullied or killed? Where in this giant religious freedom debate do we draw the line between tolerance and intolerance?
To me, this debate in America is purely one sided. Gay progressive liberals accuse Christians of being intolerant, they demand tolerance while being intolerant to the religious convictions of others, well, except for Muslims that is. Why should one demand equality for his own only to use it to instill inequality? Christians have no distinct leaders to stand up for the faith against the opposition, simply because the opposition is too great.
In the Middle East, when do we come to the aid of innocent Christians being killed for their faith? When do we draw the line in the sand and say "this far, no further?" Here, the biggest Christian nation in the world under the watch of a liberal president will not rise to defend those of the Christian belief. In the world, Christians also have no true leaders who will stand up to the forces which oppress them elsewhere in the world.
So, where do we draw the line?
No, there really isn't, and who gets to make that call? There are plenty of people on this board alone who believe that your so-called religious objections are really just a cover for your attitudinal beliefs against gay people. Should they get to make the determination between the two, because I think you'll lose that battle. Better to take a principled stand for absolute property rights for everyone than to make up arbitrary nonsense.Should the law stop him from hanging a sign in his window that says "No Christians allowed?"
Are you serious with this? This is an attitude. Unless otherwise stated, there is a difference between an attitudinal belief and a religious belief.
