San Francisco wants your son's penis

[manifold]

The effect of this bill is to prevent the free exercise of religion, thus forbidden by the First Amendment of the Constitution.

Nonsense.

You can't sacrifice chickens, no matter how religious it might be to you. Your argument fails first blush. You're usually better than that... I think.

Why cant I sacrifice chickens? Please cite which federal law forbids sacrificing chickens.
While there are religious practices that are clearly banned (e.g. human sacrifice) that does not negate the effect of the 1A. There are no unrestricted rights. But there are rights. And SanFran's assault on my son's penis violates those rights.

OK fine, it's clearly an assault on a long recognized right. I don't intend to suggest otherwise. But if one is to reconsider whether it ought to be recognized, an argument can be made that the rights of a non-consenting infant trump the religous freedom of the parents. To be clear, I wholeheartedly disagree with that position, but it's not fatally illogical or unreasonable either.

 

[The Rabbi]

Nonsense.

You can't sacrifice chickens, no matter how religious it might be to you. Your argument fails first blush. You're usually better than that... I think.

Why cant I sacrifice chickens? Please cite which federal law forbids sacrificing chickens.
While there are religious practices that are clearly banned (e.g. human sacrifice) that does not negate the effect of the 1A. There are no unrestricted rights. But there are rights. And SanFran's assault on my son's penis violates those rights.

OK fine, it's clearly an assault on a long recognized right. I don't intend to suggest otherwise. But if one is to reconsider whether it ought to be recognized, an argument can be made that the rights of a non-consenting infant trump the religous freedom of the parents. To be clear, I wholeheartedly disagree with that position, but it's not fatally illogical or unreasonable either.

Infants have no rights. That is what makes it fatally illogical and unreasonable.

 

[High_Gravity]

San Francisco just wants penis, thats all.

 

[konradv]

Why cant I sacrifice chickens? Please cite which federal law forbids sacrificing chickens.
While there are religious practices that are clearly banned (e.g. human sacrifice) that does not negate the effect of the 1A. There are no unrestricted rights. But there are rights. And SanFran's assault on my son's penis violates those rights.

OK fine, it's clearly an assault on a long recognized right. I don't intend to suggest otherwise. But if one is to reconsider whether it ought to be recognized, an argument can be made that the rights of a non-consenting infant trump the religous freedom of the parents. To be clear, I wholeheartedly disagree with that position, but it's not fatally illogical or unreasonable either.

Infants have no rights. That is what makes it fatally illogical and unreasonable.

But apparently frozen embryos do!!!

 

[manifold]

Why cant I sacrifice chickens? Please cite which federal law forbids sacrificing chickens.
While there are religious practices that are clearly banned (e.g. human sacrifice) that does not negate the effect of the 1A. There are no unrestricted rights. But there are rights. And SanFran's assault on my son's penis violates those rights.

OK fine, it's clearly an assault on a long recognized right. I don't intend to suggest otherwise. But if one is to reconsider whether it ought to be recognized, an argument can be made that the rights of a non-consenting infant trump the religous freedom of the parents. To be clear, I wholeheartedly disagree with that position, but it's not fatally illogical or unreasonable either.

Infants have no rights. That is what makes it fatally illogical and unreasonable.

that's why you can kill'm and cook'm up if you want too.

 

[The Rabbi]

OK fine, it's clearly an assault on a long recognized right. I don't intend to suggest otherwise. But if one is to reconsider whether it ought to be recognized, an argument can be made that the rights of a non-consenting infant trump the religous freedom of the parents. To be clear, I wholeheartedly disagree with that position, but it's not fatally illogical or unreasonable either.

Infants have no rights. That is what makes it fatally illogical and unreasonable.

that's why you can kill'm and cook'm up if you want too.

I was waiting for the most ignorant comment imaginable and you didnt disappoint.

Just because something has no rights doesn't mean it can be treated any way someone wants. Bear baiting and cock fighting are illegal too. But no one wants to maintain bears have rights.

 

[manifold]

Just because something has no rights doesn't mean it can be treated any way someone wants.

And which side of the ban are you on again?

Because it's certainly not clear based on this statement.

 

[The Rabbi]

Just because something has no rights doesn't mean it can be treated any way someone wants.

And which side of the ban are you on again?

Because it's certainly not clear based on this statement.

You really need to quit while you're behind.
I am on the side of the US constitution, First Amendment which declares Congress shall make no law abridging the exercise of religion. The parents certainly have 1A rights, which are being infringed by this law.

 

[manifold]

Just because something has no rights doesn't mean it can be treated any way someone wants.

And which side of the ban are you on again?

Because it's certainly not clear based on this statement.

You really need to quit while you're behind.
I am on the side of the US constitution, First Amendment which declares Congress shall make no law abridging the exercise of religion. The parents certainly have 1A rights, which are being infringed by this law.

I know.

And this doesn't conflict with anything I've posted.

But whatcha gonna do?

 

[The Rabbi]

Give me your avatar's phone number and we'll call a truce.

 

[eflatminor]

Here's the irony: It's the Lefties that complain most about the need for a complete and utter separation of church and state yet in their most Lefty of cities, it's perfectly acceptable for government to outlaw an ancient religious practice. So, government meddling in religion is bad...unless you say so? Irony so thick you can eat it with a spoon!

I don't agree with the ban, but your reasoning is beyond stupid. No offense.

This ban is about the merits and morality of a medical procedure performed on non-consenting infants, without consideration for the purviews of religion. That, by definition and spirit, reflects a complete separation of church and state.

I would agree with you but you're wrong. By your "logic", SF could also outlaw kids going to certain churches that the Lefties there don't like. After all, if SF thinks certain religions are immoral and the kids are being forced to go there, they could outlaw that without violating a separation of church and state. Wow. That's some logic you have going there!