Finally! Supreme Court rules in favor of First Amendment rights for Christians etc.

[dblack]

How did you get that out of what I said ?

These things just spin in his head and he types them. I doubt he even read your post.

 

[BS Filter]

How did you get that out of what I said ?

You said the Constitution isn't a protection against state laws.

 

[HikerGuy83]

No, a doctor's oath does not prevent that at all. The Hippocratic oath is more for a physician to do no harm. Not who they should or should not treat.

The oath states they will not cause harm or hurt......figure it out.

 

[BS Filter]

These things just spin in his head and he types them. I doubt he even read your post.

Smart people often confuse stupid people. You're often confused.

 

[HikerGuy83]

You said the Constitution isn't a protection against state laws.

It isn't.

What that means is that states (per the 10th) could go into areas where the constitution is silent. The assumption being that the federal government would not go there.

However, when the fed does go and the SCOTUS lets them stay....the supremacy clause applies.

From what I recall 44 states have some form of the 2nd amentment in their constitutions. Why would they need that if the feds were protecting them ?

In corporation changed all of that when it comes to the bill of rights. I don't agree with it, but it the way things are.

 

[BS Filter]

It isn't.

What that means is that states (per the 10th) could go into areas where the constitution is silent. The assumption being that the federal government would not go there.

However, when the fed does go and the SCOTUS lets them stay....the supremacy clause applies.

From what I recall 44 states have some form of the 2nd amentment in their constitutions. Why would they need that if the feds were protecting them ?

In corporation changed all of that when it comes to the bill of rights. I don't agree with it, but it the way things are.

Okay, now I see what you're saying.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Smart people often confuse stupid people. You're often confused.

No. He's a libertarian as near as I can tell.

You might just get a little perspective....I think you'll find you agree on a great deal.

 

[Magnus]

I wouldn't say it's not a problem. It sucks, and any decent community would respond to it with censure. But we can't solve this kind of thing through government. The state isn't there to tell us how to think, or how to be decent people.

I wouldn't know.

Censured? LOL But at least you admit that it would be a problem. That is better than the other right-wing so-called religious nuts on this site.

 

[BS Filter]

No. He's a libertarian as near as I can tell.

You might just get a little perspective....I think you'll find you agree on a great deal.

Just teasing.

 

[Foxfyre]

Of course they're targeted, but you can't get a leftist to admit it. It's not about rights. It's about submission.

Yep. But then intellectual honesty isn't the strong suit of the vast majority of leftists. If it was they wouldn't be leftist.

 

[Magnus]

The oath states they will not cause harm or hurt......figure it out.

Cause harm/hurt as in not giving them bad medicine or treatment. Not about who should or should not be treated.

Prove me wrong. Go.

 

[HikerGuy83]

Cause harm/hurt as in not giving them bad medicine or treatment. Not about who should or should not be treated.

Prove me wrong. Go.

He needs stitches and you don't provide them and he bleeds into a more serious condition.

You have good samaritan laws that push it even further.

Done.

 

[dblack]

Censured? LOL But at least you admit that it would be a problem. That is better than the other right-wing so-called religious nuts on this site.

Absolutely it's a problem. I just think the current legislative approach to dealing with it is worse than the problem. It takes away fundamental human agency and fuels overbearing government.

 

[Foxfyre]

I know what the law says but my question is more of, where would this end? Can a Christian establishment deny services to a Jew? How about a surgeon who finds out the patient he is going to operate upon, is gay? Is it ok for the surgeon to lay down his scalpel and leave the operating room and to hell with the patient?

All of these provide services. Why would it be limited to bakers and website designers?

A Christian should be able to deny providing products or services that say or imply that Jesus was not the Messiah as the Orthodox Jews believe. Can the baker refuse to sell a Jewish person a muffin he has in his display case just because that Jewish person is a Jew? Of course not.

The SCOTUS ruling in no way allows discrimination against anybody for who and what they are. It just protects people from having to provide products or participate in events or propaganda/advertising/whatever with which they disagree and/or have ethical problems with. So yes, the doctor will of course take out the gay person's bad appendix or treat him for AIDS or monkey pox or whatever. But he can decline giving a lecture on the medical benefits of homosexuality at the local gay bar.

 

[Magnus]

He needs stitches and you don't provide them and he bleeds into a more serious condition.

You have good samaritan laws that push it even further.

Done.

So you couldn't prove me wrong? Got it. Not to worry. Never thought you could so you didn't disappoint.

 

[Foxfyre]

I thought this was about forcing someone to create speech they did not agree with.

It is a very limited case.

That is exactly what this is about. The baker sells whatever he has for sale or takes an order for whatever he normally sells--the web designer accepts a job for something he normally does--regardless of who is buying or doing the ordering.

But neither is required to provide a product that affirms or says or implies something that is offensive, immoral, unjust, wrong, sinful to them whether its a black person, gay person or member of the KKK.

In the infamous case of the baker who lost an earlier case, he had sold baked goods to a gay couple for months or years. It was only when he refused to participate in their gay wedding he was accused of illegally discriminating against gays which is absolutely absurd. The recent SCOTUS ruling would almost certainly have applied to him and given him protection too.

 

[Magnus]

A Christian should be able to deny providing products or services that say or imply that Jesus was not the Messiah as the Orthodox Jews believe. Can the baker refuse to sell a Jewish person a muffin he has in his display case just because that Jewish person is a Jew? Of course not.

The SCOTUS ruling in no way allows discrimination against anybody for who and what they are. It just protects people from having to provide products or participate in events or propaganda/advertising/whatever with which they disagree and/or have ethical problems with. So yes, the doctor will of course take out the gay person's bad appendix or treat him for AIDS or monkey pox or whatever. But he can decline giving a lecture on the medical benefits of homosexuality at the local gay bar.

You keep harping on the same theme. My point again is - why should a surgeon refuse treatment for a child whose parents are gay?

If there is no law, then they are allowed to discriminate. Simple.

You and the others can prevaricate as much as you want. The question still stands.

It also tells me that the so-called Christan compassion is just a lot of bull. It only applies when it is people you accept. Anyone else can take a hike.

 

[HikerGuy83]

That is exactly what this is about. The baker sells whatever he has for sale or takes an order for whatever he normally sells--the web designer accepts a job for something he normally does--regardless of who is buying or doing the ordering.

But neither is required to provide a product that affirms or says or implies something that is offensive, immoral, unjust, wrong, sinful to them whether its a black person, gay person or member of the KKK.

In Gorsuch's closing comments....I got the feeling he was saying....

"Really ? We gotta deal with this stupidity. This is America....be Americans and figure it out."

I'm not real keen on the whole case, but I like that religious freedom finally caught a break. Even if it is a weak one.

 

[dblack]

In Gorsuch's closing comments....I got the feeling he was saying....

"Really ? We gotta deal with this stupidity. This is America....be Americans and figure it out."

I'm not real keen on the whole case, but I like that religious freedom finally caught a break. Even if it is a weak one.

I read most of the decision. They were squarely focused on the "compelled speech" aspect. Freedom of Religion wasn't the issue (at least in the eyes of the Court).

 

[Foxfyre]

You keep harping on the same theme. My point again is - why should a surgeon refuse treatment for a child whose parents are gay?

If there is no law, then they are allowed to discriminate. Simple.

You and the others can prevaricate as much as you want. The question still stands.

It also tells me that the so-called Christan compassion is just a lot of bull. It only applies when it is people you accept. Anyone else can take a hike.

Maybe if I type slowly you'll get it. The surgeon should not refuse medical treatment for a child whose parents are gay. He should not refuse treatment for the gay parents themselves. I know of absolutely no doctor anywhere who would refuse normal medical treatment for a gay person. And I know a lot of medical people.

The doctor can and should be able to refuse those gay people who want him to give a lecture saying something he doesn't agree with. He should be able to refuse to do transgender surgery if he opposes that.

I don't know why you can't see the distinction here.