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.
Nothing but a non-sequitur and potential diversion?How would this not work for Persons of religion?Technically that wouldnt really work because even atheists have and exercise their religion, which [broadly] is their 'moral' compass.
Its impossible for any living man or woman not to have a moral compass of some sort. So religion applies to 'everyone' despite the flavor. It does not apply to artificial entities though I expect like everything else there is a gray area between.
In practice, one party would need to claim, infidel-ism, protestant-ism, or renegade-ism to their Religion and their Faith, for recourse to our secular and temporal and supreme, Ten Amendments.
well your presumption is that one of the essential elements to religion is to have a god, and granted that most often religion does include a God but every religion with or without a God always has a moral compass which combined with the associated will to action is core constituents of religion. I suppose if you could show that your 'isms' had no moral compass.
In practice, one party would need to claim, infidel-ism, protestant-ism, or renegade-ism to their Religion and their Faith, for recourse to our secular and temporal and supreme, Ten Amendments.
I do not mention the word god in that scenario.
no, you arent taking into account the scope of what the elements of a religion are. The only person who does not have a religion that I can think of is a dead or brain dead person since everyone has some kind of moral compass do they not? Hence the 1st amendment applies to everyone.
The gubmint has made vast religious determinations and call it secular only because they did not label or consider its origin. When one takes into account the origins of matters adjudicated most go back to religion of one sort or another.
dear; since our First Amendment applies, the public sector can only assert Jurisdiction if a Person of alleged Religion, is infidel, protestant, and renegade to It, and complains to the public sector; otherwise, it is a private problem among private Individuals of morals.
In practice, one party would need to claim, infidel-ism, protestant-ism, or renegade-ism to their Religion and their Faith, for recourse to our secular and temporal and supreme, Ten Amendments.Nothing but a non-sequitur and potential diversion?How would this not work for Persons of religion?
In practice, one party would need to claim, infidel-ism, protestant-ism, or renegade-ism to their Religion and their Faith, for recourse to our secular and temporal and supreme, Ten Amendments.
well your presumption is that one of the essential elements to religion is to have a god, and granted that most often religion does include a God but every religion with or without a God always has a moral compass which combined with the associated will to action is core constituents of religion. I suppose if you could show that your 'isms' had no moral compass.
In practice, one party would need to claim, infidel-ism, protestant-ism, or renegade-ism to their Religion and their Faith, for recourse to our secular and temporal and supreme, Ten Amendments.
I do not mention the word god in that scenario.
no, you arent taking into account the scope of what the elements of a religion are. The only person who does not have a religion that I can think of is a dead or brain dead person since everyone has some kind of moral compass do they not? Hence the 1st amendment applies to everyone.
The gubmint has made vast religious determinations and call it secular only because they did not label or consider its origin. When one takes into account the origins of matters adjudicated most go back to religion of one sort or another.
dear; since our First Amendment applies, the public sector can only assert Jurisdiction if a Person of alleged Religion, is infidel, protestant, and renegade to It, and complains to the public sector; otherwise, it is a private problem among private Individuals of morals.
and just what do you think the 1st applies to?
where did you come up with infidel, protestant, and renegade?
Do you have your own constitution somewhere or are you from another country because I never seen those rules before and I am talking about the US constitution.
In practice, one party would need to claim, infidel-ism, protestant-ism, or renegade-ism to their Religion and their Faith, for recourse to our secular and temporal and supreme, Ten Amendments.Nothing but a non-sequitur and potential diversion?well your presumption is that one of the essential elements to religion is to have a god, and granted that most often religion does include a God but every religion with or without a God always has a moral compass which combined with the associated will to action is core constituents of religion. I suppose if you could show that your 'isms' had no moral compass.
In practice, one party would need to claim, infidel-ism, protestant-ism, or renegade-ism to their Religion and their Faith, for recourse to our secular and temporal and supreme, Ten Amendments.
I do not mention the word god in that scenario.
no, you arent taking into account the scope of what the elements of a religion are. The only person who does not have a religion that I can think of is a dead or brain dead person since everyone has some kind of moral compass do they not? Hence the 1st amendment applies to everyone.
The gubmint has made vast religious determinations and call it secular only because they did not label or consider its origin. When one takes into account the origins of matters adjudicated most go back to religion of one sort or another.
dear; since our First Amendment applies, the public sector can only assert Jurisdiction if a Person of alleged Religion, is infidel, protestant, and renegade to It, and complains to the public sector; otherwise, it is a private problem among private Individuals of morals.
and just what do you think the 1st applies to?
where did you come up with infidel, protestant, and renegade?
Do you have your own constitution somewhere or are you from another country because I never seen those rules before and I am talking about the US constitution.
yes everyone here fully totally and complately 100% understands that past present and future DP, now would you let us in on what your point is.Not at all. There is Religion and our secular and supreme laws of the land.
Dear, don't you recognize a true dichotomy when you see one.yes everyone here fully totally and complately 100% understands that past present and future DP, now would you let us in on what your point is.Not at all. There is Religion and our secular and supreme laws of the land.
Yes the first amendment bars Religion from the jurisdiction of the both the franchise government and their courts yet the supreme court and judiciary continue to stomp peoples rights without constitutional authorization to do so.
The US court system was created to handle contract obligations of and under the constitution not above and outside the constitution, the franchise agreement, wherein these boundaries are expressly defined.
The first amendment expressly forbids 'BOTH' the establishment of religion, [with or without title] or the infringing upon the right of one to 'exercize' their religion.
These rights that the people have expressly reserved prior to any agreement to be governed stand above the codified administrative law not under.
The United States commercial franchise courts have no jurisdiction to judge what is or is not religious, only the contract for which they have been authorized.
The government has failed to create a system that ensures these express rights are protected therefore are in breach of contract.
Not only is the government negligent in its duty to 'protect' the reserved rights of people, severaly and individually, it has defined and designed itself such that the rights of the people are being abolished slice by slice in favor of the new religion, theirs.
First the court would claim that people have to give up their religion to work for the government.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-473.ZS.html
Nothing in the constitution 'authorizes' this, and to claim it does is constructive fraud.
Now the courts claim people do not have the right to exercise THEIR personal religion despite its 'reservation' as the supreme law, and the courts demand people must submit to not only legislated statutes they did not vote for but worse bureaucratic unelected administrative law which in most cases violates 'due process' and moves straight to fining, penalizing people, and destroying their lives in support of the new government secular designed religion.
Case in point people who in defense of THEIR religion to prevent themselves from becoming an 'ACCESSORY TO THE COMMISSION OF SIN' in the course of exercising THEIR religious rights run head to head with the United States Commercial Bible, codified.
Christian bakers fined $135,000 for refusing to make wedding cake for lesbians.
The owners of a mom and pop bakery have just learned there is a significant price to pay for following their religious beliefs.
Aaron and Melissa Klein, the owners of Sweet Cakes By Melissa, have been ordered to pay $135,000 in damages to a lesbian couple after they refused to bake them a wedding cake in 2013.
he Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industry (BOLI) awarded $60,000 to Laurel Bowman-Cryer and $75,000 in damages to Rachel Bowman-Cryer for “emotional suffering.”
“This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage,” the final order read. “It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.”
BUT the case IS about religion, the cake bakers right to protect and exercise THEIR religion outside the ever growing encroachment of the administrative US bible, not only has the government hijacked the peoples right to support themselves as they see fit by licensing and other extortion it now demands people to give up THEIR religion to support themselves and feed their children.
The bureaucracy and courts Stomped upon the Bakers EXPRESS RIGHT to exercise their religion while deciding in favor of the gays right to exercise their religion and all under a commercial venue.
Now the davis case rather than respecting her religion by providing necessary procedural accommodations they threw her in jail for her refusal to forced by government to commit the religious CRIME of: ACCESSORY TO THE COMMISSION OF A SIN in violation of the laws of HER religion.
The above proves that the US Judiciary continues to operate outside the 'express authorization' set forth in the constitution, religion being the no go zone, by continually making religious determinations, rather than recusing themselves, and not surprisingly in every case the decisions always fall on the side of commerce, where where they do have jurisdiction, meantime forcing citizens to relinquish their EXPRESS RESERVED right to exercise their religion if they desire to live in the US.
Now I am sure there are plenty of people who will come forward to defend the status quo, please do so with citations that demonstrate a clear constitutional authorization of the courts to enter the religious realm without the use of constructive fraud. :smoking:
Disclaimer I dont give squat who or what wants to marry who or what, this is about law.
Apparently posting this in the polical beliefs section didnt have anyone who knew enough about law to comment, so lets try it again here.
Yes the first amendment bars Religion from the jurisdiction of the both the franchise government and their courts yet the supreme court and judiciary continue to stomp peoples rights without constitutional authorization to do so.
The US court system was created to handle contract obligations of and under the constitution not above and outside the constitution, the franchise agreement, wherein these boundaries are expressly defined.
The first amendment expressly forbids 'BOTH' the establishment of religion, [with or without title] or the infringing upon the right of one to 'exercize' their religion.
These rights that the people have expressly reserved prior to any agreement to be governed stand above the codified administrative law not under.
The United States commercial franchise courts have no jurisdiction to judge what is or is not religious, only the contract for which they have been authorized.
The government has failed to create a system that ensures these express rights are protected therefore are in breach of contract.
Not only is the government negligent in its duty to 'protect' the reserved rights of people, severaly and individually, it has defined and designed itself such that the rights of the people are being abolished slice by slice in favor of the new religion, theirs.
First the court would claim that people have to give up their religion to work for the government.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-473.ZS.html
Nothing in the constitution 'authorizes' this, and to claim it does is constructive fraud.
Now the courts claim people do not have the right to exercise THEIR personal religion despite its 'reservation' as the supreme law, and the courts demand people must submit to not only legislated statutes they did not vote for but worse bureaucratic unelected administrative law which in most cases violates 'due process' and moves straight to fining, penalizing people, and destroying their lives in support of the new government secular designed religion.
Case in point people who in defense of THEIR religion to prevent themselves from becoming an 'ACCESSORY TO THE COMMISSION OF SIN' in the course of exercising THEIR religious rights run head to head with the United States Commercial Bible, codified.
Christian bakers fined $135,000 for refusing to make wedding cake for lesbians.
The owners of a mom and pop bakery have just learned there is a significant price to pay for following their religious beliefs.
Aaron and Melissa Klein, the owners of Sweet Cakes By Melissa, have been ordered to pay $135,000 in damages to a lesbian couple after they refused to bake them a wedding cake in 2013.
he Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industry (BOLI) awarded $60,000 to Laurel Bowman-Cryer and $75,000 in damages to Rachel Bowman-Cryer for “emotional suffering.”
“This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage,” the final order read. “It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.”
BUT the case IS about religion, the cake bakers right to protect and exercise THEIR religion outside the ever growing encroachment of the administrative US bible, not only has the government hijacked the peoples right to support themselves as they see fit by licensing and other extortion it now demands people to give up THEIR religion to support themselves and feed their children.
The bureaucracy and courts Stomped upon the Bakers EXPRESS RIGHT to exercise their religion while deciding in favor of the gays right to exercise their religion and all under a commercial venue.
Now the davis case rather than respecting her religion by providing necessary procedural accommodations they threw her in jail for her refusal to forced by government to commit the religious CRIME of: ACCESSORY TO THE COMMISSION OF A SIN in violation of the laws of HER religion.
The above proves that the US Judiciary continues to operate outside the 'express authorization' set forth in the constitution, religion being the no go zone, by continually making religious determinations, rather than recusing themselves, and not surprisingly in every case the decisions always fall on the side of commerce, where where they do have jurisdiction, meantime forcing citizens to relinquish their EXPRESS RESERVED right to exercise their religion if they desire to live in the US.
Now I am sure there are plenty of people who will come forward to defend the status quo, please do so with citations that demonstrate a clear constitutional authorization of the courts to enter the religious realm without the use of constructive fraud. :smoking:
Disclaimer I dont give squat who or what wants to marry who or what, this is about law.
Apparently posting this in the polical beliefs section didnt have anyone who knew enough about law to comment, so lets try it again here.
So if I wanna practise Judaism as detailed in Torah and execute Christians on site for breaking the Sabbath restrictions or whatever else, that should be permitted according to you?
Unrestricted exercise of religion is something only ignorant stupid people would ever want.
Dear, don't you recognize a true dichotomy when you see one.
You just may need read it over agian until it makes sense, grasshopper. Or, do you prefer to just be blissful in your advocacies.
yes I clearly had an argument you were not competent enough to understand moving on
In the US, it would have to be restricted to Persons of that same religion or with Persons who agree to limit jurisdiction to Religion.Yes the first amendment bars Religion from the jurisdiction of the both the franchise government and their courts yet the supreme court and judiciary continue to stomp peoples rights without constitutional authorization to do so.
The US court system was created to handle contract obligations of and under the constitution not above and outside the constitution, the franchise agreement, wherein these boundaries are expressly defined.
The first amendment expressly forbids 'BOTH' the establishment of religion, [with or without title] or the infringing upon the right of one to 'exercize' their religion.
These rights that the people have expressly reserved prior to any agreement to be governed stand above the codified administrative law not under.
The United States commercial franchise courts have no jurisdiction to judge what is or is not religious, only the contract for which they have been authorized.
The government has failed to create a system that ensures these express rights are protected therefore are in breach of contract.
Not only is the government negligent in its duty to 'protect' the reserved rights of people, severaly and individually, it has defined and designed itself such that the rights of the people are being abolished slice by slice in favor of the new religion, theirs.
First the court would claim that people have to give up their religion to work for the government.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-473.ZS.html
Nothing in the constitution 'authorizes' this, and to claim it does is constructive fraud.
Now the courts claim people do not have the right to exercise THEIR personal religion despite its 'reservation' as the supreme law, and the courts demand people must submit to not only legislated statutes they did not vote for but worse bureaucratic unelected administrative law which in most cases violates 'due process' and moves straight to fining, penalizing people, and destroying their lives in support of the new government secular designed religion.
Case in point people who in defense of THEIR religion to prevent themselves from becoming an 'ACCESSORY TO THE COMMISSION OF SIN' in the course of exercising THEIR religious rights run head to head with the United States Commercial Bible, codified.
Christian bakers fined $135,000 for refusing to make wedding cake for lesbians.
The owners of a mom and pop bakery have just learned there is a significant price to pay for following their religious beliefs.
Aaron and Melissa Klein, the owners of Sweet Cakes By Melissa, have been ordered to pay $135,000 in damages to a lesbian couple after they refused to bake them a wedding cake in 2013.
he Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industry (BOLI) awarded $60,000 to Laurel Bowman-Cryer and $75,000 in damages to Rachel Bowman-Cryer for “emotional suffering.”
“This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage,” the final order read. “It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.”
BUT the case IS about religion, the cake bakers right to protect and exercise THEIR religion outside the ever growing encroachment of the administrative US bible, not only has the government hijacked the peoples right to support themselves as they see fit by licensing and other extortion it now demands people to give up THEIR religion to support themselves and feed their children.
The bureaucracy and courts Stomped upon the Bakers EXPRESS RIGHT to exercise their religion while deciding in favor of the gays right to exercise their religion and all under a commercial venue.
Now the davis case rather than respecting her religion by providing necessary procedural accommodations they threw her in jail for her refusal to forced by government to commit the religious CRIME of: ACCESSORY TO THE COMMISSION OF A SIN in violation of the laws of HER religion.
The above proves that the US Judiciary continues to operate outside the 'express authorization' set forth in the constitution, religion being the no go zone, by continually making religious determinations, rather than recusing themselves, and not surprisingly in every case the decisions always fall on the side of commerce, where where they do have jurisdiction, meantime forcing citizens to relinquish their EXPRESS RESERVED right to exercise their religion if they desire to live in the US.
Now I am sure there are plenty of people who will come forward to defend the status quo, please do so with citations that demonstrate a clear constitutional authorization of the courts to enter the religious realm without the use of constructive fraud. :smoking:
Disclaimer I dont give squat who or what wants to marry who or what, this is about law.
Apparently posting this in the polical beliefs section didnt have anyone who knew enough about law to comment, so lets try it again here.
So if I wanna practise Judaism as detailed in Torah and execute Christians on site for breaking the Sabbath restrictions or whatever else, that should be permitted according to you?
Unrestricted exercise of religion is something only ignorant stupid people would ever want.
In the US, it would have to be restricted to Persons of that same religion or with Persons who agree to limit jurisdiction to Religion.Yes the first amendment bars Religion from the jurisdiction of the both the franchise government and their courts yet the supreme court and judiciary continue to stomp peoples rights without constitutional authorization to do so.
The US court system was created to handle contract obligations of and under the constitution not above and outside the constitution, the franchise agreement, wherein these boundaries are expressly defined.
The first amendment expressly forbids 'BOTH' the establishment of religion, [with or without title] or the infringing upon the right of one to 'exercize' their religion.
These rights that the people have expressly reserved prior to any agreement to be governed stand above the codified administrative law not under.
The United States commercial franchise courts have no jurisdiction to judge what is or is not religious, only the contract for which they have been authorized.
The government has failed to create a system that ensures these express rights are protected therefore are in breach of contract.
Not only is the government negligent in its duty to 'protect' the reserved rights of people, severaly and individually, it has defined and designed itself such that the rights of the people are being abolished slice by slice in favor of the new religion, theirs.
First the court would claim that people have to give up their religion to work for the government.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-473.ZS.html
Nothing in the constitution 'authorizes' this, and to claim it does is constructive fraud.
Now the courts claim people do not have the right to exercise THEIR personal religion despite its 'reservation' as the supreme law, and the courts demand people must submit to not only legislated statutes they did not vote for but worse bureaucratic unelected administrative law which in most cases violates 'due process' and moves straight to fining, penalizing people, and destroying their lives in support of the new government secular designed religion.
Case in point people who in defense of THEIR religion to prevent themselves from becoming an 'ACCESSORY TO THE COMMISSION OF SIN' in the course of exercising THEIR religious rights run head to head with the United States Commercial Bible, codified.
Christian bakers fined $135,000 for refusing to make wedding cake for lesbians.
The owners of a mom and pop bakery have just learned there is a significant price to pay for following their religious beliefs.
Aaron and Melissa Klein, the owners of Sweet Cakes By Melissa, have been ordered to pay $135,000 in damages to a lesbian couple after they refused to bake them a wedding cake in 2013.
he Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industry (BOLI) awarded $60,000 to Laurel Bowman-Cryer and $75,000 in damages to Rachel Bowman-Cryer for “emotional suffering.”
“This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage,” the final order read. “It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.”
BUT the case IS about religion, the cake bakers right to protect and exercise THEIR religion outside the ever growing encroachment of the administrative US bible, not only has the government hijacked the peoples right to support themselves as they see fit by licensing and other extortion it now demands people to give up THEIR religion to support themselves and feed their children.
The bureaucracy and courts Stomped upon the Bakers EXPRESS RIGHT to exercise their religion while deciding in favor of the gays right to exercise their religion and all under a commercial venue.
Now the davis case rather than respecting her religion by providing necessary procedural accommodations they threw her in jail for her refusal to forced by government to commit the religious CRIME of: ACCESSORY TO THE COMMISSION OF A SIN in violation of the laws of HER religion.
The above proves that the US Judiciary continues to operate outside the 'express authorization' set forth in the constitution, religion being the no go zone, by continually making religious determinations, rather than recusing themselves, and not surprisingly in every case the decisions always fall on the side of commerce, where where they do have jurisdiction, meantime forcing citizens to relinquish their EXPRESS RESERVED right to exercise their religion if they desire to live in the US.
Now I am sure there are plenty of people who will come forward to defend the status quo, please do so with citations that demonstrate a clear constitutional authorization of the courts to enter the religious realm without the use of constructive fraud. :smoking:
Disclaimer I dont give squat who or what wants to marry who or what, this is about law.
Apparently posting this in the polical beliefs section didnt have anyone who knew enough about law to comment, so lets try it again here.
So if I wanna practise Judaism as detailed in Torah and execute Christians on site for breaking the Sabbath restrictions or whatever else, that should be permitted according to you?
Unrestricted exercise of religion is something only ignorant stupid people would ever want.
Thus, Christians could be "fed to the lions" to prove their Faith before stoning homosexuals.
yet, your lack of a clue and a Cause is consistent; and, they didn't have our First Amendment.In the US, it would have to be restricted to Persons of that same religion or with Persons who agree to limit jurisdiction to Religion.Yes the first amendment bars Religion from the jurisdiction of the both the franchise government and their courts yet the supreme court and judiciary continue to stomp peoples rights without constitutional authorization to do so.
The US court system was created to handle contract obligations of and under the constitution not above and outside the constitution, the franchise agreement, wherein these boundaries are expressly defined.
The first amendment expressly forbids 'BOTH' the establishment of religion, [with or without title] or the infringing upon the right of one to 'exercize' their religion.
These rights that the people have expressly reserved prior to any agreement to be governed stand above the codified administrative law not under.
The United States commercial franchise courts have no jurisdiction to judge what is or is not religious, only the contract for which they have been authorized.
The government has failed to create a system that ensures these express rights are protected therefore are in breach of contract.
Not only is the government negligent in its duty to 'protect' the reserved rights of people, severaly and individually, it has defined and designed itself such that the rights of the people are being abolished slice by slice in favor of the new religion, theirs.
First the court would claim that people have to give up their religion to work for the government.
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/04-473.ZS.html
Nothing in the constitution 'authorizes' this, and to claim it does is constructive fraud.
Now the courts claim people do not have the right to exercise THEIR personal religion despite its 'reservation' as the supreme law, and the courts demand people must submit to not only legislated statutes they did not vote for but worse bureaucratic unelected administrative law which in most cases violates 'due process' and moves straight to fining, penalizing people, and destroying their lives in support of the new government secular designed religion.
Case in point people who in defense of THEIR religion to prevent themselves from becoming an 'ACCESSORY TO THE COMMISSION OF SIN' in the course of exercising THEIR religious rights run head to head with the United States Commercial Bible, codified.
Christian bakers fined $135,000 for refusing to make wedding cake for lesbians.
The owners of a mom and pop bakery have just learned there is a significant price to pay for following their religious beliefs.
Aaron and Melissa Klein, the owners of Sweet Cakes By Melissa, have been ordered to pay $135,000 in damages to a lesbian couple after they refused to bake them a wedding cake in 2013.
he Oregon Bureau of Labor and Industry (BOLI) awarded $60,000 to Laurel Bowman-Cryer and $75,000 in damages to Rachel Bowman-Cryer for “emotional suffering.”
“This case is not about a wedding cake or a marriage,” the final order read. “It is about a business’s refusal to serve someone because of their sexual orientation. Under Oregon law, that is illegal.”
BUT the case IS about religion, the cake bakers right to protect and exercise THEIR religion outside the ever growing encroachment of the administrative US bible, not only has the government hijacked the peoples right to support themselves as they see fit by licensing and other extortion it now demands people to give up THEIR religion to support themselves and feed their children.
The bureaucracy and courts Stomped upon the Bakers EXPRESS RIGHT to exercise their religion while deciding in favor of the gays right to exercise their religion and all under a commercial venue.
Now the davis case rather than respecting her religion by providing necessary procedural accommodations they threw her in jail for her refusal to forced by government to commit the religious CRIME of: ACCESSORY TO THE COMMISSION OF A SIN in violation of the laws of HER religion.
The above proves that the US Judiciary continues to operate outside the 'express authorization' set forth in the constitution, religion being the no go zone, by continually making religious determinations, rather than recusing themselves, and not surprisingly in every case the decisions always fall on the side of commerce, where where they do have jurisdiction, meantime forcing citizens to relinquish their EXPRESS RESERVED right to exercise their religion if they desire to live in the US.
Now I am sure there are plenty of people who will come forward to defend the status quo, please do so with citations that demonstrate a clear constitutional authorization of the courts to enter the religious realm without the use of constructive fraud. :smoking:
Disclaimer I dont give squat who or what wants to marry who or what, this is about law.
Apparently posting this in the polical beliefs section didnt have anyone who knew enough about law to comment, so lets try it again here.
So if I wanna practise Judaism as detailed in Torah and execute Christians on site for breaking the Sabbath restrictions or whatever else, that should be permitted according to you?
Unrestricted exercise of religion is something only ignorant stupid people would ever want.
Thus, Christians could be "fed to the lions" to prove their Faith before stoning homosexuals.
thats pretty fucked up since the romans didnt have the same religion as the christains. your posts are a mass of contradiction.
Please give an example of the goverment practicing its non Christian religion on you. That means the government imposing a different religion than Christianity on you against your will.
Jobs change all the time. Government jobs have to follow the law. Kim sought a government job and ran for that office. Do you think district court judges can ignore laws and penalties enacted after their elections?
When a job description changes and the employee is notified, if the employee shows up for even 1 day after the change, the employee is considered to have accepted the new terms. That is employment law.
Gay is not a religion. The government may have an agenda, but it does not have a religion and cannot have a religion.
Please go back and answer whether you are OK with the DMV, inspector, fireman scenarios. They have been posted at least twice. You should be careful giving government agents this power. The US can be majority non Christian in your lifetime (if you're around my age or younger) and you would be subject to their religion. Will you just quietly accept that or will you change your position to one where the government cannot endorse (or enforce) religion?
a commercial public accommodation is NOT a public trust and has nothing to do with a public trustI agree to disagree. An office of public trust for accommodating the public in goods and service is no different from a commercial public accommodation.
