Gov't Forces Christians To Violate Faith

[Kondor3]

If religion has the rights that people are claiming it does, then any law against polygamy is unconstitutional.

Good luck peddling that one...

I'm not 'peddling' it. I'm pointing out that if you're entitled to discriminate if you claim it's a religious practice, then you're entitled to plural marriage if you claim that is a religous practice.

Oh, not to mention the fact that what a person considers his religion is HIS decision, his choice of beliefs,

so once you open the door to one set of laws being able to be ignored by using using your religion to trump them,

then you can pretty much concoct a religious basis for getting away with violating any law you choose.

You fail to take into account premeditated, joyously frank, open-air Institutional Hypocrisy in this narrow context... illogic and inconsistency can be easily papered-over.

 

[Seawytch]

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Jesus taught Christians to obey the law.

Not when laws start to violate our constitutional rights.
Even Jesus got angry at the laws.

Public Accommodation laws have been challenged and found Constitutional.

Public Accommodation laws...brought to you by the Federal Government since 1964...

42 U.S.C. §2000a (a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

That's FEDERAL law, ya'll. Why pick on local and states laws when you've got THAT on the books?

Done by a liberal court, which has now turned back to conservative.

So we've only had liberal courts since 1964?

 

[Kondor3]

Correct-A-Mundo... fun, isn't it?

 

[Silhouette]

As French clearly explains, “she was not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. She was making a decision not to help celebrate an action, a form of expression. She would no more celebrate a gay wedding than she would any form of immorality, gay or straight. To dispense with her argument, the court did what numerous progressive courts have done: It rewrote the law. It rejected what it called the ‘status/conduct’ distinction, and essentially interpreted the word ‘orientation’ to also mean ‘action.’”
It Is Absolutely Outrageous for the Government to Force Christians to Violate Their Faith

This will be overturned when it reaches the new SCOTUS.

 

[rightwinger]

The law was clear

The florist broke it

Which is why the law is soon to be changed.

Given the present state of affairs at both the Federal and State levels, perhaps it will even be re-visited within a Constitutional framework.

Doesn't appear so

It is a state law......Don't discriminate

 

[my2¢]

I don't see this one as any liberal/conservative issue. It seems to me the act of arranging flowers or decorating a cake is the same independent of the client's sexual preference. And if done professionally for monetary reward then it is certainly an act of trade, not one of partaking in a celebration.

 

[peach174]

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Jesus taught Christians to obey the law.

Not when laws start to violate our constitutional rights.
Even Jesus got angry at the laws.

Public Accommodation laws have been challenged and found Constitutional.

Public Accommodation laws...brought to you by the Federal Government since 1964...

42 U.S.C. §2000a (a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

That's FEDERAL law, ya'll. Why pick on local and states laws when you've got THAT on the books?

Done by a liberal court, which has now turned back to conservative.

So we've only had liberal courts since 1964?

We have always had liberals, but they weren't socialists like the ones who rose up in the 60's.
They are the off spring of their parents who supported communism in the 30's and 40's. Their off spring did not like communism, but totally embraced socialism. They thought that big government was the answer.

 

[12icer]

You mean to tell me the homos couldn't find a homo florist?

Sure they could, but the flowers were not the point, control, and harassment were the point. The idea is to force people of faith to accept, and be complicit in what they consider immoral conduct and therefore cause them to feel as unclean and vile as the scum who attack them. All of this shit will be coming to a head soon enough, may the best prepared group be victorious. The Christians have nothing to lose, as they see this as a short stopping point on a journey of eternity.

 

[danielpalos]

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Jesus taught Christians to obey the law.

Not when laws start to violate our constitutional rights.
Even Jesus got angry at the laws.

Public Accommodation laws have been challenged and found Constitutional.

Public Accommodation laws...brought to you by the Federal Government since 1964...

42 U.S.C. §2000a (a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

That's FEDERAL law, ya'll. Why pick on local and states laws when you've got THAT on the books?

the right wing loves being illegal to federal laws and blaming less fortunate illegals, for being illegal.

 

[BlindBoo]

Sure they could, but the flowers were not the point, control, and harassment were the point. The idea is to force people of faith to accept, and be complicit in what they consider immoral conduct and therefore cause them to feel as unclean and vile as the scum who attack them.

I believe you are correct. It is immoral to deny accommodations available to the public to people just because they are gay. People who want to control and harass gays by denying them these things are vile scum. A religion based on love shouldn't encourage that type of behavior. Why are they forcing you to do that?

 

[Deleted member 61768]

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's. Jesus taught Christians to obey the law.

Not when laws start to violate our constitutional rights.
Even Jesus got angry at the laws.

Public Accommodation laws have been challenged and found Constitutional.

Public Accommodation laws...brought to you by the Federal Government since 1964...

42 U.S.C. §2000a (a)All persons shall be entitled to the full and equal enjoyment of the goods, services, facilities, privileges, advantages, and accommodations of any place of public accommodation, as defined in this section, without discrimination on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin.

That's FEDERAL law, ya'll. Why pick on local and states laws when you've got THAT on the books?

the right wing loves being illegal to federal laws and blaming less fortunate illegals, for being illegal.

Render unto Caesar what is Caesar's and G_d what is G_d's. As one who has had his family victimized by "Illegal Mexicans" here in the USA by violating America's laws I do not take it as lightly as so many others. When your children have suffered physical injury it becomes more than a philosophical argument there are thousands of families who have suffered loss like the Kate Steinle family. What about them?

 

[pwjohn]

The more you see something shocking, the less shocking it appears, and the more something outrageous happens, the less outrageous it seems to be. That is how a culture becomes desensitized, and that is how the abnormal becomes normalized. But when it comes to the government’s attack on our religious freedoms, it is our sacred duty to remain shocked and outraged. Such things cannot continue to happen in America if we are to be the land of the free and the home of the brave.

According to the Washington Supreme Court, when Christian florist Barronelle Stutzman declined to do the floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding, she violated the state's anti-discrimination laws, since she allegedly discriminated based on her customer’s sexual orientation by refusing to participate in his wedding ceremony.

Attorney David French is correct in emphasizing how this ruling should affect us (he penned these words shortly after the verdict was announced): “If you care about the Bill of Rights, the rights of conscience, or even the English language, there’s a chance that this morning you felt a disturbance in the Force — as if the Founders cried out in rage and were suddenly silenced.”

As French clearly explains, “she was not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. She was making a decision not to help celebrate an action, a form of expression. She would no more celebrate a gay wedding than she would any form of immorality, gay or straight. To dispense with her argument, the court did what numerous progressive courts have done: It rewrote the law. It rejected what it called the ‘status/conduct’ distinction, and essentially interpreted the word ‘orientation’ to also mean ‘action.’”
It Is Absolutely Outrageous for the Government to Force Christians to Violate Their Faith

You know what, you're just plucking one tiny little pixel out of the big picture and raging about it. So next time why don't you throw in some honesty along with that one pixel of yours so we can see how we arrived at this point. You know, that cause & effect thing. Maybe then we can better debate the/ your issue.

 

[Deleted member 61768]

Sure they could, but the flowers were not the point, control, and harassment were the point. The idea is to force people of faith to accept, and be complicit in what they consider immoral conduct and therefore cause them to feel as unclean and vile as the scum who attack them.

I believe you are correct. It is immoral to deny accommodations available to the public to people just because they are gay. People who want to control and harass gays by denying them these things are vile scum. A religion based on love shouldn't encourage that type of behavior. Why are they forcing you to do that?

Your belief has no more validity than those who belief that as the Bible says that homosexuality is Sin. You are free to act until it directly impacts another however another's belief that homosexuality is Sin is not harassment. You can love the person and still hate the Sin. Perhaps people should take the time to learn the difference. All, Sin, each and every one of us no Sin can enter G_d's presence. Anyone who looks down their nose at another's Sin is a hypocrite; I know how bad a sinner I have been and I know I look down on no one. However I know no one can enter into G_d's presence with sin in their lives. Their is no forgiveness of Sin without the shedding of Blood and I know my Sins are forgiven me as there has been a Blood Sacrifice made for my Sins which are many and black. Anyone can turn from their Sins, seek G_d, and seek Forgiveness. G_d says seek Me and you shall find Me. I am just speaking from personal experience. You are free to follow your own path.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If religion has the rights that people are claiming it does, then any law against polygamy is unconstitutional.

Good luck peddling that one...

I'm not 'peddling' it. I'm pointing out that if you're entitled to discriminate if you claim it's a religious practice, then you're entitled to plural marriage if you claim that is a religous practice.

Oh, not to mention the fact that what a person considers his religion is HIS decision, his choice of beliefs,

so once you open the door to one set of laws being able to be ignored by using using your religion to trump them,

then you can pretty much concoct a religious basis for getting away with violating any law you choose.

You fail to take into account premeditated, joyously frank, open-air Institutional Hypocrisy in this narrow context... illogic and inconsistency can be easily papered-over.

I'm taking into account that the court's rulings have been that your religion does not have to be one of the 'official' religions out there.

 

[BlindBoo]

You are free to act until it directly impacts another however another's belief that homosexuality is Sin is not harassment.

Which is why these PA laws are crucial in stopping the public harassment of people who do not believe that homosexuality is a sin. They should not be denied service from businesses open to the public. Leave it up to God to deal with them as She feels fit when that time comes.

 

[sartre play]

The whole deal just sounds petty to me.

 

[rightwinger]

Every American is entitled to their religious views

Every business isn't

 

[Skull Pilot]

The more you see something shocking, the less shocking it appears, and the more something outrageous happens, the less outrageous it seems to be. That is how a culture becomes desensitized, and that is how the abnormal becomes normalized. But when it comes to the government’s attack on our religious freedoms, it is our sacred duty to remain shocked and outraged. Such things cannot continue to happen in America if we are to be the land of the free and the home of the brave.

According to the Washington Supreme Court, when Christian florist Barronelle Stutzman declined to do the floral arrangements for a same-sex wedding, she violated the state's anti-discrimination laws, since she allegedly discriminated based on her customer’s sexual orientation by refusing to participate in his wedding ceremony.

Attorney David French is correct in emphasizing how this ruling should affect us (he penned these words shortly after the verdict was announced): “If you care about the Bill of Rights, the rights of conscience, or even the English language, there’s a chance that this morning you felt a disturbance in the Force — as if the Founders cried out in rage and were suddenly silenced.”

As French clearly explains, “she was not discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. She was making a decision not to help celebrate an action, a form of expression. She would no more celebrate a gay wedding than she would any form of immorality, gay or straight. To dispense with her argument, the court did what numerous progressive courts have done: It rewrote the law. It rejected what it called the ‘status/conduct’ distinction, and essentially interpreted the word ‘orientation’ to also mean ‘action.’”
It Is Absolutely Outrageous for the Government to Force Christians to Violate Their Faith

so does she refuse to sell flowers to adulterers who are buying them for a mistress?

 

[Kondor3]

If religion has the rights that people are claiming it does, then any law against polygamy is unconstitutional.

Good luck peddling that one...

I'm not 'peddling' it. I'm pointing out that if you're entitled to discriminate if you claim it's a religious practice, then you're entitled to plural marriage if you claim that is a religous practice.

Oh, not to mention the fact that what a person considers his religion is HIS decision, his choice of beliefs,

so once you open the door to one set of laws being able to be ignored by using using your religion to trump them,

then you can pretty much concoct a religious basis for getting away with violating any law you choose.

You fail to take into account premeditated, joyously frank, open-air Institutional Hypocrisy in this narrow context... illogic and inconsistency can be easily papered-over.

I'm taking into account that the court's rulings have been that your religion does not have to be one of the 'official' religions out there.

Oh, granted... nolo contendre... it's just that such obstructive "inconveniences" can be surmounted, given a particular mix of political power.

 

[Kondor3]

Every American I see entitled to their religious views

Every business isn't

It seems likely that we will soon be seeing an attempt to effect such changes in a business context; well, with regard to one Favorite Son religion, anyway.