Gay statists strike again...you will submit!!!!

[Seawytch]

And yet still, not one example of a Christian from that time actually doing what you say they did.

Provide a quote, not a third parties opinion of what southern preachers were preaching.

Here are two testimonies written at the time in support of slavery. You can't deny anymore after reading these.

A Brief Examination of Scripture Testimony on the Institution
of Slavery, in an Essay, First Published in the Religious Herald,
and Republished by Request: with Remarks on a Letter
of Elder Galusha, of New York, to Dr. R. Fuller, of South Carolina:

Nellie Norton: or, Southern Slavery and the Bible.
A Scriptural Refutation of the Principal Arguments upon which the Abolitionists Rely.
A Vindication of Southern Slavery from the Old and New Testaments:

 

[Seawytch]

So that absolves SeaWytch of the dishonest debate tactic?

I have no need to be absolved of anything. The facts are not as presented by Katz. In fact, she came to a conclusion that the articles she provided did not.

 

[Seawytch]

So what's the big deal here?

Most Christians were opposed to slavery in England and America. Christians led the charge against it. The Bible does not condone chattel slavery. Who cares what some thought? Biblical Christianity eventually won the day, and has since won the day against segregation as well. Victory. If you think for a moment that the pagan world would have ever abandoned slavery without the influence of Christianity. . . . The bottom line is this: chattel slavery is a pagan institution that no Christians should have ever gotten entangled with, and fortunately the majority of Christians throughout history understood that and beat it back down for good in the West. The rest of the world eventually followed the West's lead, by the way, as a result of the spread of Christianity via the "evil" of colonialism. The only place it's still practiced to any significant degree is in the Islamic world.

You leftists moan about colonialism. Ever consider the plus side of it?

The "big deal" is that the bible was used to justify slavery, segregation and anti miscegenation...just as it is being used to justify anti gay bigotry. They thought they were just as "right" as those who oppose gay and lesbian equality because the bible tells them to. Their "religious liberty" was not taken into consideration when Public Accommodation laws were passed or when bans on interracial marriage were struck down as unconstitutional.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

And yet still, not one example of a Christian from that time actually doing what you say they did.

Provide a quote, not a third parties opinion of what southern preachers were preaching.

Here are two testimonies written at the time in support of slavery. You can't deny anymore after reading these.

A Brief Examination of Scripture Testimony on the Institution
of Slavery, in an Essay, First Published in the Religious Herald,
and Republished by Request: with Remarks on a Letter
of Elder Galusha, of New York, to Dr. R. Fuller, of South Carolina:

Nellie Norton: or, Southern Slavery and the Bible.
A Scriptural Refutation of the Principal Arguments upon which the Abolitionists Rely.
A Vindication of Southern Slavery from the Old and New Testaments:

LOL you just sourced two FICTIONS books. LOL you may as well have cited Tom Sawyer.



My God

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

So what's the big deal here?

Most Christians were opposed to slavery in England and America. Christians led the charge against it. The Bible does not condone chattel slavery. Who cares what some thought? Biblical Christianity eventually won the day, and has since won the day against segregation as well. Victory. If you think for a moment that the pagan world would have ever abandoned slavery without the influence of Christianity. . . . The bottom line is this: chattel slavery is a pagan institution that no Christians should have ever gotten entangled with, and fortunately the majority of Christians throughout history understood that and beat it back down for good in the West. The rest of the world eventually followed the West's lead, by the way, as a result of the spread of Christianity via the "evil" of colonialism. The only place it's still practiced to any significant degree is in the Islamic world.

You leftists moan about colonialism. Ever consider the plus side of it?

The "big deal" is that the bible was used to justify slavery, segregation and anti miscegenation...just as it is being used to justify anti gay bigotry. They thought they were just as "right" as those who oppose gay and lesbian equality because the bible tells them to. Their "religious liberty" was not taken into consideration when Public Accommodation laws were passed or when bans on interracial marriage were struck down as unconstitutional.

Look, I don't agree with my colleagues on that score; that is to say, that there were no persons who used the Bible to defend these things. The argument that southern slave owners predicated their theory on the construct of husbandry strikes me as irrelevant to your fundamental observation. Africans, i.e., the offspring of Ham are in reality not subhuman. The very idea is repugnant. In reality that peculiar institution was chattel slavery. And they did use the Bible to justify their subjugation of their fellow human beings in violation of divine and natural law.

But also, in reality, the Bible does not justify or condone chattel slavery. On the contrary, it condemns it. So your argument's transitional qualifier "just as right" is invalid.

Moving on. . . .

"[T]hose who oppose gay and lesbian equality [do so] because the bible tells them to."

This is false. While it is true that homosexuality is condemned by the God of the Bible, as the nature of homosexuality is in fact evil and, consequently, destructive and tyrannical, that is not the political objection to homosexual "marriage" as a governmentally regulated institution. And until you get that through you head, you will never understand the true nature of the objection.

So there's no point going from here until you're ready to concede the fallaciousness of this belief. It is pointless to keep bottoming your assertion on this premise over and over and over and over again when all the while false.

Let me know when you're ready to go deeper.

You do know that I opposed sodomy laws, right? That I campaigned with homosexuals to end them?

 

[Silhouette]

The Bible objects to sodomy and more particularly it's culture spreading because it destroys the construct. It firebombs the classroom by gender blending. We are born into specific genders to meet certain spiritual challenges. And each gender is a fire of a specific temperature in order to attain the perfect tempering of that spirit. You destroy the reality of "male" and "female" and make them all one temperature and the lessons are lost.

Surely you can see how The Big Kahuna would be pissed off about that?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Cute.

It's annoying when you strike your previous post above my response and then claim that I'm confusing the issues. No. You didn't expressly say that "Public Accommodation was a a right", and I never said that you did. You claimed that the homosexual's (undefined) rights, incoherently related to Pennsylvania Public Accommodation, are not universally upheld and insinuated that I oppose homosexual's rights being universally upheld, which is false.

No, actually I didn't. Are you having conversations in your head outside the the thread? I said PA laws protect Christians from discrimination. That's all I said.

Now, come on. I just got through telling you in another post that Public Accommodation based on religious affiliation can be problematical, as it, unlike sensibly defined protections based on the benign physiological traits of nature, is subject to abusive interpretations.

That doesn't change their existence, your saying they can be problematic. They still exist, "problematic" or not.

Nevertheless, my "child-like brain" is telling me a number things right now. But let's zero in on the fact that you just shifted from Pennsylvania Public Accommodation to federal Public Accommodation. See. That's the problem with striking your post above my response. You're confusing the issues.

Biblical Christians can and will continue to refuse the impositions of homofascism regardless of what any federal or state law asserts, and federal Public Accommodation does not protect religion as such, any more than public accommodation codes in any of the several states protect religion as such. They allegedly protect persons affiliated with religion, whatever that's supposed to mean in the real world.

Yes, I'm sure some churches will be among the last to accept gays and lesbians...you know, 'cause that's what Jesus would do. There are still churches that are not accepting of interracial relationships. They, as churches, are free to do that. Businesses are not.

What does it mean in the "real world" that Christians are protected by Public Accommodation laws? Surely you can figure that one out. It means that you can discriminate against me in Public Accommodation but I can't against you, that's what it means.

No. The fact of the matter is that homosexuals do have INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS that are recognized, though not exhaustively, in the Bill of Rights, just like everyone else, and even the redundantly repugnant aspects of federal Public Accommodation do in fact protect homosexuals, though, no doubt, that blows your mind.

Gee...everyone has rights in the Bill of Rights. Wow, stop the presses. No shit?
And? What does that have to do with the fact that ya'll didn't start whining about PA laws until some protected gays?

Finally, Public Accommodation based on sexual orientation is what "protects," in effect, religion as such, and that is an unambiguously outrageous assault on religious liberty. Oh, the irony.

People like theDoctorsIn, Clayton Jones and a few of the other leftists on this thread know why that's true too. They just will not speak its name, as it were, as to do so is to concede the fact of their depraved indifference to the INALIENABLE HUMAN RIGHTS of others.

Note: While it is my wont to call these people something else in this instance, as I still believe we should keep it real, I'll tone my rhetoric down a bit in deference to the general consensus. But make no mistake about it, there are posts on this thread written by leftists who are not merely confused. They know damn well they are lying.

What are you babbling about?

Here's the deal....work on getting all Public Accommodation laws struck down. I'll support you 100%, but until then, I'll work to get gays added to them.

This is one confused mess after another.

The top of the post is the only thing that matters, really, as the rest of the madness flows from that fount.

You didn't define precisely what rights you were talking with regard to homosexuals. That's the whole point. See embolden text above. Note the parenthetical undefined. But you did link your query to PA Public Accommodation in an incoherent, albeit, inverse fashion with regard to both groups. Dude. You're not saying anything different than I. You're just imaging a difference.

Then you write this: "I said PA laws protect Christians from discrimination."

And that, confused one, is the essence of the debate. PA Public Accommodation DOES NOT protect Christians. It violates the hell out of them, as it allows homosexuals to trample all over them.

And why is that true? Because you will not allow for any exceptions regarding business transactions that would directly entangle Christians in your religious rituals. For crying out loud! That's all you need to do. Problem solved, as that would be as close to perfection as we could practically get. Public Accommodation isn't going anywhere. It's established case law in PA and at the federal level. Your suggestion that we abolish it rather than refine it is disingenuous bullshit! While that would be the perfect solution, it is not a politically attainable solution, once again, because you guys and nobody else but you guys oppose that, tooth and nail. Disingenuous bullshit piled atop disingenuous bullshit. You aren't fooling anybody.

We're not going to fight to abolish it. That's a no win. We're going shove it up your asses in civil disobedience as that is the only recourse that is left to us. Knock. Knock. Anybody home?

And you have been told over and over and over again why that is true. Only a sociopath or a retard would fail to
empathize with us or recognize the reality. Hence, your premise is false rendering the rest of your post moot, and you still refuse to acknowledge the truth.

Now read this link, as you guys don't believe or can't grasp what's coming; you're delusional: http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/liberal-quest-to-rehabilitate-christians-the-homofascist-rainbow-shirts-are-at-it-again/

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

The Bible objects to sodomy and more particularly it's culture spreading because it destroys the construct. It firebombs the classroom by gender blending. We are born into specific genders to meet certain spiritual challenges. And each gender is a fire of a specific temperature in order to attain the perfect tempering of that spirit. You destroy the reality of "male" and "female" and make them all one temperature and the lessons are lost.

Surely you can see how The Big Kahuna would be pissed off about that?

I follow you, truly, and agree. Of course the Bible does. Homosexuality is evil.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

So what's the big deal here?

Most Christians were opposed to slavery in England and America. Christians led the charge against it. The Bible does not condone chattel slavery. Who cares what some thought? Biblical Christianity eventually won the day, and has since won the day against segregation as well. Victory. If you think for a moment that the pagan world would have ever abandoned slavery without the influence of Christianity. . . . The bottom line is this: chattel slavery is a pagan institution that no Christians should have ever gotten entangled with, and fortunately the majority of Christians throughout history understood that and beat it back down for good in the West. The rest of the world eventually followed the West's lead, by the way, as a result of the spread of Christianity via the "evil" of colonialism. The only place it's still practiced to any significant degree is in the Islamic world.

You leftists moan about colonialism. Ever consider the plus side of it?

The "big deal" is that the bible was used to justify slavery, segregation and anti miscegenation...just as it is being used to justify anti gay bigotry. They thought they were just as "right" as those who oppose gay and lesbian equality because the bible tells them to. Their "religious liberty" was not taken into consideration when Public Accommodation laws were passed or when bans on interracial marriage were struck down as unconstitutional.

Look, I don't agree with my colleagues on that score; that is to say, that there were no persons who used the Bible to defend these things. The argument that southern slave owners predicated their theory on the construct of husbandry strikes me as irrelevant to your fundamental observation. Africans, i.e., the offspring of Ham are in reality not subhuman. The very idea is repugnant. In reality that peculiar institution was chattel slavery. And they did use the Bible to justify their subjugation of their fellow human beings in violation of divine and natural law.

But also, in reality, the Bible does not justify or condone chattel slavery. On the contrary, it condemns it. So your argument's transitional qualifier "just as right" is invalid.

Moving on. . . .

"[T]hose who oppose gay and lesbian equality [do so] because the bible tells them to."

This is false. While it is true that homosexuality is condemned by the God of the Bible, as the nature of homosexuality is in fact evil and, consequently, destructive and tyrannical, that is not the political objection to homosexual "marriage" as a governmentally regulated institution. And until you get that through you head, you will never understand the true nature of the objection.

So there's no point going from here until you're ready to concede the fallaciousness of this belief. It is pointless to keep bottoming your assertion on this premise over and over and over and over again when all the while false.

Let me know when you're ready to go deeper.

You do know that I opposed sodomy laws, right? That I campaigned with homosexuals to end them?

A careful reading of what I have written will reveal that I have never said that people of that era used the Bible to defend slavery. I merely asked the lesbian twins for proof. They responded with two works of fiction LOL

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Can we go back a bit, did someone actually post on here that the COTUS gives both implicit and implied rights to the federal government?

That is so incorrect that it is FRIGHTENING that someone actually believes it.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

I understand the point you're making, but I disagree with the implication on which your premise rests.

Powers... are not the same as 'things one can do'. The Constitution gives the power to make law to the Legislature. Which must be signed and executed by the President.

The risk the framers took, was that the Legislature and the President would be elected by a virtuous people.

The US Citizenry is no longer virtuous and the people they are electing are not virtuous, thus they ARE stepping beyond the specific lines drawn by the Constitution. But this is the result of the legislature passing ITS authority off to bureaucrats and not aggressively defending its power, by sustaining its responsibility to its just powers to make law, as determined by the people who elected them.

Within this issue, you're correct, the Congress does NOT have the authority to transfer its powers to other bodies of the US Government. Where you're NOT correct, is in the assumption that the congress does not hae the power to preserve the rights of US Citizens... .

I think you misunderstood. I'm in agreement that Congress is transferring its powers to third parties , but I have not said that Congress has the power to preserve the rights of citizens. I don't know where that cam from.

What I have said is that if a power is not SPECIFICALLY delegated to the federal government (any branch) in the COTUS then the default is that they do not have that power. This is obviously true as everytime they make a power grab unless SCOTUS can somehow stretch the COTUS almost beyond recognition to make it fit, they don't have that power.

Take something like the civil rights Act, as an example. Now states I believe are free to outlaw discrimination, but it's a plain fact that Congress is NOT given the power to regulate such things. Where does it say that Congress has the power to pass a law that some little mom and pop shop in podunk, MS can't refuse to marry gays?

Now , ultimately is it that big of a deal if Congress passes that particular law? No of course not, no one is going to hell for taking pictures of a gay wedding. We both know that. But that is irrelevant, it is the principle of law. Not holding Congress to the COTUS is exactly how we have gotten where we are now.

Or if you'd rather talk about the President, that's fine to, Obama is taking powers left and right, because we've let him, as we let the guy before him, etc etc. And it all started with something that everyone looked around and said "yeah well you know, they really don't have the authority to do that, but is it REALLY that big a deal?"

So what's the big deal here?

Most Christians were opposed to slavery in England and America. Christians led the charge against it. The Bible does not condone chattel slavery. Who cares what some thought? Biblical Christianity eventually won the day, and has since won the day against segregation as well. Victory. If you think for a moment that the pagan world would have ever abandoned slavery without the influence of Christianity. . . . The bottom line is this: chattel slavery is a pagan institution that no Christians should have ever gotten entangled with, and fortunately the majority of Christians throughout history understood that and beat it back down for good in the West. The rest of the world eventually followed the West's lead, by the way, as a result of the spread of Christianity via the "evil" of colonialism. The only place it's still practiced to any significant degree is in the Islamic world.

You leftists moan about colonialism. Ever consider the plus side of it?

The "big deal" is that the bible was used to justify slavery, segregation and anti miscegenation...just as it is being used to justify anti gay bigotry. They thought they were just as "right" as those who oppose gay and lesbian equality because the bible tells them to. Their "religious liberty" was not taken into consideration when Public Accommodation laws were passed or when bans on interracial marriage were struck down as unconstitutional.

Look, I don't agree with my colleagues on that score; that is to say, that there were no persons who used the Bible to defend these things. The argument that southern slave owners predicated their theory on the construct of husbandry strikes me as irrelevant to your fundamental observation. Africans, i.e., the offspring of Ham are in reality not subhuman. The very idea is repugnant. In reality that peculiar institution was chattel slavery. And they did use the Bible to justify their subjugation of their fellow human beings in violation of divine and natural law.

But also, in reality, the Bible does not justify or condone chattel slavery. On the contrary, it condemns it. So your argument's transitional qualifier "just as right" is invalid.

Moving on. . . .

"[T]hose who oppose gay and lesbian equality [do so] because the bible tells them to."

This is false. While it is true that homosexuality is condemned by the God of the Bible, as the nature of homosexuality is in fact evil and, consequently, destructive and tyrannical, that is not the political objection to homosexual "marriage" as a governmentally regulated institution. And until you get that through you head, you will never understand the true nature of the objection.

So there's no point going from here until you're ready to concede the fallaciousness of this belief. It is pointless to keep bottoming your assertion on this premise over and over and over and over again when all the while false.

Let me know when you're ready to go deeper.

You do know that I opposed sodomy laws, right? That I campaigned with homosexuals to end them?

A careful reading of what I have written will reveal that I have never said that people of that era used the Bible to defend slavery. I merely asked the lesbian twins for proof. They responded with two works of fiction LOL

No problem. I know that. I followed your line of posts and laughed along with you as it just went on and on with no response. What happened, apparently, is that she imagined she had provided what you asked for in that post which merely listed scriptures that had allegedly been used for that purpose. Only problem? There was no historical figure with that scripture coming out of his mouth along with any formal justification in his own words to go with it. Ghost writer.

I was alluding to the poster who interjected the construct of estate husbandry and another who agreed. Wasn't you, of course.

BTW, I wanted to pick up on a line of posts between you and Keys that got dropped regarding this:

Now , ultimately is it that big of a deal if Congress passes that particular law? No of course not, no one is going to hell for taking pictures of a gay wedding. We both know that. But that is irrelevant, it is the principle of law. Not holding Congress to the COTUS is exactly how we have gotten where we are now.

He never answered you. Don't take offense, but you do realize that Keys and I are Lockeans, i.e., students of the Republic's foundational Anglo-American traditional of natural law? To say that the individual's worldview, regardless of what anybody else thinks about it or, for that matter, what Congress "thinks" about it, is paramount to understanding the proper limits of power of legitimate government. To a Lockean what you seem to be suggesting is startling. No big deal? Actually, it's huge and key to understanding why Public Accommodation for sexual orientation is an intolerable imposition, a devastating blow to First Amendment liberties. Trust me when I tell this, he would not agree with your "We both know that." No way in hell.

But I wanted to explore this with you to get a hold on where your going with this and what it all means. It's interesting.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

SmarterThanTheAverageBear said: ↑
They should ALL be done away with. NO ONE should be able to force a private person or company (that includes corporations) to do business with them.

Nonsense.

This is naive, ignorant, and reactionary.

Why?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

No, the point is that there are intolerant Christians who do not get a pass because of the tolerant ones.

But you have no problem smearing the tolerant Christians because of the intolerant ones.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Can we go back a bit, did someone actually post on here that the COTUS gives both implicit and implied rights to the federal government?

That is so incorrect that it is FRIGHTENING that someone actually believes it.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people

I understand the point you're making, but I disagree with the implication on which your premise rests.

Powers... are not the same as 'things one can do'. The Constitution gives the power to make law to the Legislature. Which must be signed and executed by the President.

The risk the framers took, was that the Legislature and the President would be elected by a virtuous people.

The US Citizenry is no longer virtuous and the people they are electing are not virtuous, thus they ARE stepping beyond the specific lines drawn by the Constitution. But this is the result of the legislature passing ITS authority off to bureaucrats and not aggressively defending its power, by sustaining its responsibility to its just powers to make law, as determined by the people who elected them.

Within this issue, you're correct, the Congress does NOT have the authority to transfer its powers to other bodies of the US Government. Where you're NOT correct, is in the assumption that the congress does not hae the power to preserve the rights of US Citizens... .

I think you misunderstood. I'm in agreement that Congress is transferring its powers to third parties , but I have not said that Congress has the power to preserve the rights of citizens. I don't know where that cam from.

What I have said is that if a power is not SPECIFICALLY delegated to the federal government (any branch) in the COTUS then the default is that they do not have that power. This is obviously true as everytime they make a power grab unless SCOTUS can somehow stretch the COTUS almost beyond recognition to make it fit, they don't have that power.

Take something like the civil rights Act, as an example. Now states I believe are free to outlaw discrimination, but it's a plain fact that Congress is NOT given the power to regulate such things. Where does it say that Congress has the power to pass a law that some little mom and pop shop in podunk, MS can't refuse to marry gays?

Now , ultimately is it that big of a deal if Congress passes that particular law? No of course not, no one is going to hell for taking pictures of a gay wedding. We both know that. But that is irrelevant, it is the principle of law. Not holding Congress to the COTUS is exactly how we have gotten where we are now.

Or if you'd rather talk about the President, that's fine to, Obama is taking powers left and right, because we've let him, as we let the guy before him, etc etc. And it all started with something that everyone looked around and said "yeah well you know, they really don't have the authority to do that, but is it REALLY that big a deal?"

So what's the big deal here?

Most Christians were opposed to slavery in England and America. Christians led the charge against it. The Bible does not condone chattel slavery. Who cares what some thought? Biblical Christianity eventually won the day, and has since won the day against segregation as well. Victory. If you think for a moment that the pagan world would have ever abandoned slavery without the influence of Christianity. . . . The bottom line is this: chattel slavery is a pagan institution that no Christians should have ever gotten entangled with, and fortunately the majority of Christians throughout history understood that and beat it back down for good in the West. The rest of the world eventually followed the West's lead, by the way, as a result of the spread of Christianity via the "evil" of colonialism. The only place it's still practiced to any significant degree is in the Islamic world.

You leftists moan about colonialism. Ever consider the plus side of it?

The "big deal" is that the bible was used to justify slavery, segregation and anti miscegenation...just as it is being used to justify anti gay bigotry. They thought they were just as "right" as those who oppose gay and lesbian equality because the bible tells them to. Their "religious liberty" was not taken into consideration when Public Accommodation laws were passed or when bans on interracial marriage were struck down as unconstitutional.

Look, I don't agree with my colleagues on that score; that is to say, that there were no persons who used the Bible to defend these things. The argument that southern slave owners predicated their theory on the construct of husbandry strikes me as irrelevant to your fundamental observation. Africans, i.e., the offspring of Ham are in reality not subhuman. The very idea is repugnant. In reality that peculiar institution was chattel slavery. And they did use the Bible to justify their subjugation of their fellow human beings in violation of divine and natural law.

But also, in reality, the Bible does not justify or condone chattel slavery. On the contrary, it condemns it. So your argument's transitional qualifier "just as right" is invalid.

Moving on. . . .

"[T]hose who oppose gay and lesbian equality [do so] because the bible tells them to."

This is false. While it is true that homosexuality is condemned by the God of the Bible, as the nature of homosexuality is in fact evil and, consequently, destructive and tyrannical, that is not the political objection to homosexual "marriage" as a governmentally regulated institution. And until you get that through you head, you will never understand the true nature of the objection.

So there's no point going from here until you're ready to concede the fallaciousness of this belief. It is pointless to keep bottoming your assertion on this premise over and over and over and over again when all the while false.

Let me know when you're ready to go deeper.

You do know that I opposed sodomy laws, right? That I campaigned with homosexuals to end them?

A careful reading of what I have written will reveal that I have never said that people of that era used the Bible to defend slavery. I merely asked the lesbian twins for proof. They responded with two works of fiction LOL

No problem. I know that. I followed your line of posts and laughed along with you as it just went on and on with no response. What happened, apparently, is that she imagined she had provided what you asked for in that post which merely listed scriptures that had allegedly been used for that purpose. Only problem? There was no historical figure with that scripture coming out of his mouth along with any formal justification in his own words to go with it. Ghost writer.

I was alluding to the poster who interjected the construct of estate husbandry and another who agreed. Wasn't you, of course.

BTW, I wanted to pick up on a line of posts between you and Keys that got dropped regarding this:

Now , ultimately is it that big of a deal if Congress passes that particular law? No of course not, no one is going to hell for taking pictures of a gay wedding. We both know that. But that is irrelevant, it is the principle of law. Not holding Congress to the COTUS is exactly how we have gotten where we are now.

He never answered you. Don't take offense, but you do realize that Keys and I are Lockeans, i.e., students of the Republic's foundational Anglo-American traditional of natural law? To say that the individual's worldview, regardless of what anybody else thinks about it or, for that matter, what Congress "thinks" about it, is paramount to understanding the proper limits of power of legitimate government. To a Lockean what you seem to be suggesting is startling. No big deal? Actually, it's huge and key to understanding why Public Accommodation for sexual orientation is an intolerable imposition, a devastating blow to First Amendment liberties. Trust me when I tell this, he would not agree with your "We both know that." No way in hell.

But I wanted to explore this with you to get a hold on where your going with this and what it all means. It's interesting.

Oh I think we actually agree on that point. I meant it was no big deal in the sense that no one is actually harmed by having to serve gays, but it IS a big deal in the sense that the federal government has overstepped when they pass such laws.

Hope that clears it up.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

Hey SeaWytch. If I offered the opinion that a whale could swallow a person and cited Pinocchio as my evidence would you accept such?

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

>


You guys understand that this is not a Federal issue as to whether the Federal government can regulate commerce within a state...


........................ This is an application of State law regulating commerce within the State?


.........................................Right?



>>>>

Yeah. And by the way, you're also right about the fact that, especially under what I have come to affectionately call the World Watcher Solution, the historically religious distinction between the terms marriage and civil union is, for all practical purposes, irrelevant.

But what's happening here is that we are trying to hammer out, or at least I am, the basis by which we may know what does or does not constitute the legitimately defensible governmental concerns regarding the current reality of Public Accommodation.

Currently there are vast differences between Civil Unions and Civil Marriages.

1. There is no federal recognition of any Civil Union as being establishing a spousal relationship between unrelated individuals.

2. Some states provide Civil Unions with all the same state rights, responsibilities, and benefits of Civil Marriage. Some don't, in those states Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships provide only a subset of rights, responsibilities, and benefits under the law. Some states ban Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships entirely.

3. Civil Marriage is recognized across state lines, Civil Unions/Domestic Partnerships are not.


Those are few off the top of my head.

>>>>

Well, your light years ahead of me on this stuff. But I'm learning. I've read your posts with great interest. I know what the various categories are by definition, of course, but I have nothing like your scholarly knowledge on this aspect of the debate. My knowledge goes to the theoretical foundation of things, onto the sociopolitical realities of existence and human nature, onto general policy. Seriously, Dude, are you part Encyclopedia?

Amazing.

The question I wanted to ask you: in those states where only a subset of rights, etc. are provided for CU/DP, is there a general consensus of what is included among the various states that have them?

Also, would you help me to better understand the difference between what the Court established about same-sex marriage recently and the nature of the cases currently pending.

I'm not sure what to ask, so whatever you think is the best, I’m at your feet. In other words, it’s cool to have someone you can ask questions interactively.
.
If you have some time. . . .

 

[M.D. Rawlings]

Hey SeaWytch. If I offered the opinion that a whale could swallow a person and cited Pinocchio as my evidence would you accept such?

Might depend on what his nose is doing.

 

[g5000]

There are rednecks in the Deep South today who are more than happy to inform you of the bible verses which justified slavery.

 

[martybegan]

There are rednecks in the Deep South today who are more than happy to inform you of the bible verses which justified slavery.

and they would be wrong. No where in the bible is enslaving a whole race ever justified as OK. Again, there are plenty of direct and explicit references to homosexual activity being unacceptable.

 

[SmarterThanTheAverageBear]

There are rednecks in the Deep South today who are more than happy to inform you of the bible verses which justified slavery.

Never mind, for the moment,that that you offered no proof of that. What would that have to do with colonial era Americans?

 

[g5000]

There are rednecks in the Deep South today who are more than happy to inform you of the bible verses which justified slavery.

and they would be wrong. No where in the bible is enslaving a whole race ever justified as OK. Again, there are plenty of direct and explicit references to homosexual activity being unacceptable.

There are also references to masturbation being unacceptable. And there is a verse that says you will be judged as you judge!