Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation have nothing to do with the First Amendment, religious liberty, or free association.
Public accommodations laws are perfectly necessary, proper, and Constitutional pursuant to Commerce Clause jurisprudence (Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (1964)).
The problem with your argument arises in the recognition by the government that sexual orientation cannot be discriminated against. The problem, if we REALLY want to cut to the chase is Civil Rights legislation. Legislation which, since its first inception in 1866 has incrementally grown larger to cover more groups and topics.That's it. The rest really doesn't matter. I want perfect freedom of association: religion is not the issue. Nobody has to be all religious about it and carry on about pork in the Bible. If you think men marrying men is nasty and weird, you should not have to do business with them.
But men marrying (or sleeping with) men is just another behavioral practice adhered to like dogma. So properly, from a legal standpoint and purely secular argument, this is one faith attempting to use its fundamentally opposed dogma to force another faith to defy its opposed dogma. And, in this country, one faith may not make another convert by force.
The people who have taken over the Democratic party are not liberal at this point. Leftist authoritarianism shares some issues with traditional liberalism, but it is absolutely not the same. "Do your own thing" and "Live and let live" have been replaced by "do it our way or we'll find a way to punish you". "I may not agree with what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it" has been replaced by "say it our way or we'll find a way to punish you".I will condense this down into one sentence. You, Mr. Christian, no longer have freedom of association.
And it's largely their own fault; they act like passive children in the face of this nasty onslaught from the deviants, baby killers, and assorted psychos that now make up the base of the Democratic Party. I guess they don't mind the march to extermination and Maoist style pogroms.
And, to be clear, I don't see any major distinctions between these left wing cultists and their fellow travellers on the far right, either; they agree on a lot more than they disagree on, despite the rhetorical methods and language used.
The one thing I have noticed on the left over the last 40 rears is that is no longer do your own thing, but do what we tell you. The libertarian infused liberalism has been replaced by lock step authoritarianism. Also, the degree of mindless adherence to dogma has come to the point it rivals the most fierce bible thumps on the right.
Blame the Frankfurt School...they are their children.I will condense this down into one sentence. You, Mr. Christian, no longer have freedom of association.
And it's largely their own fault; they act like passive children in the face of this nasty onslaught from the deviants, baby killers, and assorted psychos that now make up the base of the Democratic Party. I guess they don't mind the march to extermination and Maoist style pogroms.
And, to be clear, I don't see any major distinctions between these left wing cultists and their fellow travellers on the far right, either; they agree on a lot more than they disagree on, despite the rhetorical methods and language used.
The one thing I have noticed on the left over the last 40 rears is that it is no longer do your own thing, but do what we tell you. The libertarian infused liberalism has been replaced by lock step authoritarianism. Also, the degree of mindless adherence to dogma has come to the point it rivals the most fierce bible thumpers on the right.
The people who have taken over the Democratic party are not liberal at this point. Leftist authoritarianism shares some issues with traditional liberalism, but it is absolutely not the same. "Do your own thing" and "Live and let live" have been replaced by "do it our way or we'll find a way to punish you". That is not liberal. Not even close. It's a perversion of liberalism, at best.
.
Public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation have nothing to do with the First Amendment, religious liberty, or free association.So far we have several legal issues going on with the cult of LGBT vs Christianity. We've heard many arguments pro and con. Here are just a few:
Local Pennsylvania bridal shop harassed and threatened by LGBT activist after turning away same sex
Sex Change: Physically Impossible, Psychosocially Unhelpful, and Philosophically Misguided
Oregon Bakers: You get to pay 135,000 for being radical religious morons, Judge so orders!
And currently in the courts as we speak is a case where two lesbians are trying to force Catholic charities to disgorge orphans in their charge into a contractually forced fatherless home for life:
Dumont v Lyons 2017 : Will Fathers (or Mothers) Be Judicially-Legislated Into Irrelevance?
And I believe photographers, caterers and so forth are similarly being forced to their knees in faith.
So I offer the following to those who think that religious objection is "silly", "unfounded", "unconstitutional", "wrong", "bigoted", "illegal" and so forth. Inspired from the Pennsylvania thread linked above. The 1st Amendment is very important in regards to free will. And America is all about free will; and perhaps why it is said to be the most important to God.
(This conversation is between me, an agnostic/pragmatic Christian-type moderate/conservative and an atheist, I would assume, moderate/conservative)
Real change is accomplished by raising awareness, educating and informing.
As an atheist, I'm not offended by a Christian's opinion of me or my way of life because I am secure in who I am. I know that their moral judgments don't come from knowledge but rather come from pat doctrine told to them by someone else. So when discussing the issue with a Christian I inform by pointing out the inconsistencies of their beliefs.
Well I'm sort of a pragmatist Christian. I'll point out the CONSISTENCY of their beliefs when taken into a larger context that may be a Plan larger than the average person (nearly all of us, hence the need for guidance by a faith) can wrap their head around.
Let's take the mandates about homosexuality in the New Testament. We'll leave the old Jewish Laws out of it. In their day and age, they were also a sort of pragmatic scheme for dealing with a more brutal society back then. The scheme fits the day and age.
One example of pragmatism in Old, outdated Jewish law, but that was totally called for in the day and time: the prohibition of pork especially and Kosher law about foods. Look at all the foods and you'll see why. Pork carried many diseases and cooking fires weren't always stoked with enough fuel to cook it properly. Eating it caused illness and death. So ignorance abounded back then, as did a lack of enough cooking fuels, so the Order was "Pork is evil, avoid it". And that just to keep the denizens from killing themselves. Also I think shellfish are forbidden. Same thing, only refrigeration was the problem. The time it took the donkeys to haul the shellfish to market, sitting in the sun, hauling it home, finally cooking it (if there was enough fuel) and you're going to get sick as a dog if you eat it. Etc. etc. Times have changed in diet and so we see these things as "silly" to prohibit.
The New Testament says that you love the sinner, not the sin. With regards to homosexuality, a Christian must not aide or abet the spread of homosexuality "as normal or condoned" within a society. To do so is a mortal sin, unforgivable, earning the Christian eternal damnation in the Pit of Fire. What was done to Sodom was given as an example of God's displeasure with such an enabling. So says Jude 1. For further expounding, read Romans 1 as well, midway to the end of the passage.
The pragmatic reason is in the lesson of Sodom. God's larger plan involves a test. And that test involves a human matrix that is complex, with various concrete roles in any given culture at any given time. The role of male is always dominant more or less. Travel to any enlightened country and you will see this even in very subtle forms. The role of female, less so, different. These are just examples of "different roles" mind you. The gamut is nearly endless if you think about 7 billion people. This is why I have a problem with evangelists trying to convert other societies. There's a passage in the Bible somewhere I remember about leaving other cultures alone unless they really get totally whacked out.
Enter: afterlife. Anyway, the Christian Bible does speak about an afterlife. However I think the Hindus nailed what that afterlife actually is. All that being said, it's important that people don't understand all this, that they have faith instead. Otherwise the potent lessons are diluted. Don't worry, there's nearly no chance at all that anyone would believe all this. lol.
So back to Sodom's matrix. Homosexuality was allowed such a free reign there for so long that it became as a virtue. Blending genders is synonymous with homosexual behavior. That's because the role of male and female is still always sought in the relationship, but they aren't actually there. So we have man-women or women-men becoming the norm. The roles are watered down and the lessons diluted.
Let's say a guy was a total asshole to women in his last life. Used, abused, raped, murdered etc. In his next life, after a deep cleansing in the fires of agony and torture, he might opt for a role as a woman, to further cleanse himself, or ordered to do that (I'm not entirely sure how God's roster works). If women's roles are flexible enough for him just to choose another woman to lie with, escaping any danger whatsoever of learning his lessons, his lessons will never be learned. I think you see where I'm going with this.
So instead of the Bible's wisdom being some flowery esoteric pile of nonsense, as many atheists consider it, it actually is a very pragmatic guide, that receives occasional updates to keep with the times, when a new Oracle or prophet or "Messiah" comes along. But some things are timeless, and this is why the warnings against homosexuality were plucked from the Old Testament and kept anew. Homosexuality in particular threatens the matrix quite a bit. And if the matrix is upset, the lessons are not learned. And if the lessons aren't learned, there is no reason for our existence.
So, God destroyed Sodom because in that matrix, no child would ever grow up to know that homosexuality was a direct threat to that matrix. And, if they emigrated and started touting their values in other societies, those matrices would be threatened as well. So, God blasted the crap out of Sodom and called the one dude forward, flawed as he himself was, to be saved. And that was because Lot was the only one in town who resisted the advances of homosexual males trying to beat his door down to rape the male visitors Lot had inside with him. Lot literally stood between them and the "distant matrixes" to keep the mental illness from taking root and walking out of that place to another site to begin to grow.
It's pragmatic when you back up and look at it. The lessons of the Bible are allegorical, pragmatic and part of a hidden plan to advance souls. The faithful need not fully understand this. And hence the reason for faith. It's important to understand this at your core, then forget it and rely on faith. Because a person's faith too is also an important test. Faith needs to come from the core of the soul, not intellectual reasoning.
I'm very reticent to say this here or anywhere because saying it exposes something that ought to remain hidden. However the danger of many people reading it is minimal. Even less when you consider fewer will buy it as so. It's a thing that has to be intuited through personal experience, trial and prayer. But those who have been through the ringer, all pretty much arrive at a rough approximation of the foregoing. The majority of people who read this will say "what a load of bullshit!" And to them I say, thank you. That too is part of the Plan.
Public accommodations laws are perfectly necessary, proper, and Constitutional pursuant to Commerce Clause jurisprudence (Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (1964)).
The thread premise is yet another rightwing lie, yet another example of rightwing bigotry and hate, and yet another example of conservative demagoguery.
Wrong.I will condense this down into one sentence. You, Mr. Christian, no longer have freedom of association.
That's it. The rest really doesn't matter. I want perfect freedom of association: religion is not the issue. Nobody has to be all religious about it and carry on about pork in the Bible. If you think men marrying men is nasty and weird, you should not have to do business with them.
After all, all these coffee shops are now banning policemen and rightwingers who come in to sit down and have coffee ---- and Dick's and Walmart's are forbidding young men to buy guns and ammo at their stores, though it's perfectly legal at 18.
These leftists all get to exclude whomever they want, so why can't people on the other side? I want the same right they have.
http://www.ncsl.org/research/civil-and-criminal-justice/state-public-accommodation-laws.aspxWrong.I will condense this down into one sentence. You, Mr. Christian, no longer have freedom of association.
That's it. The rest really doesn't matter. I want perfect freedom of association: religion is not the issue. Nobody has to be all religious about it and carry on about pork in the Bible. If you think men marrying men is nasty and weird, you should not have to do business with them.
After all, all these coffee shops are now banning policemen and rightwingers who come in to sit down and have coffee ---- and Dick's and Walmart's are forbidding young men to buy guns and ammo at their stores, though it's perfectly legal at 18.
These leftists all get to exclude whomever they want, so why can't people on the other side? I want the same right they have.
Public accommodations laws have nothing to do with ‘the left.’
States and local jurisdictions enact public accommodations laws to ensure the stability of local markets, independent of partisan politics.
Free association protected by the First Amendment is a different matter altogether.
Private organizations that are not businesses open to the general public are at liberty to exclude from their organizations whomever they wish with impunity (BSA v. Dale (2000)).
Requiring businesses open to the general public in jurisdictions with public accommodations laws containing provisions for sexual orientation to serve gay patrons is both warranted and Constitutional, the religious liberty of the business owners is not being ‘violated’ (Employment Division v. Smith (1990)).
Business owners are at liberty to exclude from their property those not protected by public accommodations laws; in Michigan, for example, the public accommodations laws have no provision for sexual orientation, consequently business owners may indeed refuse to serve gay patrons – it depends on how public accommodations laws are composed.
This is yet another example of conservative ignorance, or dishonesty – either way it’s an attempt to confuse and conflate different Constitutional legal principles one having nothing to do with the other.
Perhaps the outline below will help those on the ignorant right understand the differences between and among the right to free association and freedom of religion, and public accommodations laws as regulatory policy.
Public Accommodations Laws: government regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause; they violate neither religious liberty nor private property rights.
Freedom of Association: First, Fourteenth Amendments; prohibits government from compelling private organizations not open to the general public as a business to accept unwanted individuals as members. Private organizations may deny membership for any reason, including race, religion, sexual orientation, and political beliefs.
Freedom of Religion: First Amendment; prohibits government from enacting punitive measures against citizens because of their religious beliefs, or because they are free from religion altogether.
The Supreme Court has held that religious beliefs, doctrine, and dogma are not Constitutional grounds to ignore or violate just, proper, and Constitutional laws – such as public accommodations laws:
“We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.”
Employment Division v. Smith
Oh, pish.I miss stoning people to death even with my sins...
More on the way, guaranteed.Public accommodations laws with provisions for sexual orientation have nothing to do with the First Amendment, religious liberty, or free association.
Public accommodations laws are perfectly necessary, proper, and Constitutional pursuant to Commerce Clause jurisprudence (Heart of Atlanta Motel, Inc. v. United States (1964)).
No, these laws are gross oppression and abnegation of the right of association. And new: I remember when businesses could choose whom they did or didn't want to service. That was a lot better. Free.
We are now forced to service dreadful people we would never have anything to do with if we could avoid it. This is plainly gross oppression.
You failed to notice 1. that the OP draws from the New Testament and 2. that in the NT, Jesus is reported to say "he who is without sin, cast the first stone."I miss stoning people to death even with my sins...
You failed to notice 1. that the OP draws from the New Testament and 2. that in the NT, Jesus is reported to say "he who is without sin, cast the first stone."I miss stoning people to death even with my sins...
Nice try though!
With regards to homosexuality, a Christian must not aide or abet the spread of homosexuality "as normal or condoned" within a society. To do so is a mortal sin, unforgivable, earning the Christian eternal damnation in the Pit of Fire. What was done to Sodom was given as an example of God's displeasure with such an enabling. So says Jude 1. For further expounding, read Romans 1 as well, midway to the end of the passage.
You failed to notice 1. that the OP draws from the New Testament and 2. that in the NT, Jesus is reported to say "he who is without sin, cast the first stone."I miss stoning people to death even with my sins...
Nice try though!
Perhaps the outline below will help those on the ignorant right understand the differences between and among the right to free association and freedom of religion, and public accommodations laws as regulatory policy.
Public Accommodations Laws: government regulatory policy authorized by the Commerce Clause; they violate neither religious liberty nor private property rights.
Freedom of Association: First, Fourteenth Amendments; prohibits government from compelling private organizations not open to the general public as a business to accept unwanted individuals as members. Private organizations may deny membership for any reason, including race, religion, sexual orientation, and political beliefs.
Freedom of Religion: First Amendment; prohibits government from enacting punitive measures against citizens because of their religious beliefs, or because they are free from religion altogether.
The Supreme Court has held that religious beliefs, doctrine, and dogma are not Constitutional grounds to ignore or violate just, proper, and Constitutional laws – such as public accommodations laws:
“We have never held that an individual's religious beliefs excuse him from compliance with an otherwise valid law prohibiting conduct that the State is free to regulate. On the contrary, the record of more than a century of our free exercise jurisprudence contradicts that proposition.”
Employment Division v. Smith
The people who have taken over the Democratic party are not liberal at this point. Leftist authoritarianism shares some issues with traditional liberalism, but it is absolutely not the same. "Do your own thing" and "Live and let live" have been replaced by "do it our way or we'll find a way to punish you". That is not liberal. Not even close. It's a perversion of liberalism, at best.
.
Well said. They are totalitarian now.
I have a relative who is a leftist doctor. She thinks all doctors should ask patients whether they have guns in the house.
Well...........to what purpose? To report them to the police, like STASI? To have them arrested? It's a fundamentally totalitarian idea.
