Should Churches be forced to accomodate for homosexual weddings?

[Syriusly]

I wonder what other laws Christians are supposed to be exempt from? I mean if they can claim a 'deeply held religious conviction'?

I mean the Bible is pretty clear that the penalty for adultery is death- does Beagle think that a Christian husband can kill his wife if she commit adultery- if that is his deeply held religious conviction?

 

[Skylar]

I wonder what other laws Christians are supposed to be exempt from? I mean if they can claim a 'deeply held religious conviction'?

I mean the Bible is pretty clear that the penalty for adultery is death- does Beagle think that a Christian husband can kill his wife if she commit adultery- if that is his deeply held religious conviction?

Apparently if he can't kill her....he abdicates his Christianity. And the 1st amendment is clearly more important that socially repugnant behavior......like adultery.

At least that's what I hear.

 

[beagle9]

Doesn't matter whether they did or not. They cannot promote a type of core value of a culture (marriage).

See I happen to think that these would be the core values- not something that Jesus never mentioned

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2. You shall not make idols.
3. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5. Honor your father and your mother.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet.

So if a Christian orders a cake from a Jewish baker- can the Jewish baker refuse to bake that cake for the Christian- just because he is a Christian- because that baker believes that the Christian has another god other than Ywh?

The Jews believe in Jesus also. There is more than just one name in the bible for God.

No....Jews do not 'believe in Jesus' other than to believe that there are men who have been named Jesus.

And it doesn't matter what you 'believe'- if a Jewish baker believes it would be offending his faith if he served a Christian- who would you support- the Christian or the Jew?

The Jew.

LOL....good so now you don't think that just Christians should be given special exemptions to ignore the law, but Jews too?

What about Muslims and Hindu's? Rastafarians? Atheists? Agnostics?

OK, so how about If a person has a faith in which they believe in, and someone comes into that persons life and/or business in which he or she runs, and then the person challenges the persons faith, morals, standards, common sense, business model, and/or business rules, and do it in a way that would be unacceptable as according to most peoples standards and common sense levels in our society, would they be wrong to refuse him or her and him or her be right in say a very unique situation that could come about in this way as is spoken ? This is why nothing is completely solid about the laws as they are written down by men in some cases, and the ebb and flow of life within the laws as they are administered by men should always be discretionary in the approach of each case that may be unique to a law or rule that may have been written down.

It is why we have courts to settle our differences in which a difference may have become unique in a situation in which the law maker didn't consider when making a law right ?

For example: If I were to go into a business run by a Jewish owner who was very strong in his faith, and I was to ask this owner to do something that would cause him to completely ignore his faith, conscience, morals, or standards in which he may have in life, and he were to refuse me, then of course I could probably figure out a way to make a huge issue for him out of it or I could just respect the man's faith and morals in which he has, and move on to somewhere else that may be able to fulfill the request in which I may have had.

 

[Skylar]

See I happen to think that these would be the core values- not something that Jesus never mentioned

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2. You shall not make idols.
3. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5. Honor your father and your mother.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet.

So if a Christian orders a cake from a Jewish baker- can the Jewish baker refuse to bake that cake for the Christian- just because he is a Christian- because that baker believes that the Christian has another god other than Ywh?

The Jews believe in Jesus also. There is more than just one name in the bible for God.

No....Jews do not 'believe in Jesus' other than to believe that there are men who have been named Jesus.

And it doesn't matter what you 'believe'- if a Jewish baker believes it would be offending his faith if he served a Christian- who would you support- the Christian or the Jew?

The Jew.

LOL....good so now you don't think that just Christians should be given special exemptions to ignore the law, but Jews too?

What about Muslims and Hindu's? Rastafarians? Atheists? Agnostics?

OK, so how about If a person has a faith in which they believe in, and someone comes into that persons life and/or business in which he or she runs, and then the person challenges the persons faith, morals, standards, common sense, business model, and/or business rules, and do it in a way that would be unacceptable as according to most peoples standards and common sense levels in our society, would they be wrong to refuse him or her and him or her be right in say a very unique situation that could come about in this way as is spoken ? This is why nothing is completely solid about the laws as they are written down by men in some cases, and the ebb and flow of life within the laws as they are administered by men should always be discretionary in the approach of each case that may be unique to a law or rule that may have been written down.

It is why we have courts to settle our differences in which a difference may have become unique in a situation in which the law maker didn't consider when making a law right ?

For example: If I were to go into a business run by a Jewish owner who was very strong in his faith, and I was to ask this owner to do something that would cause him to completely ignore his faith, conscience, morals, or standards in which he may have in life, and he were to refuse me, then of course I could probably figure out a way to make a huge issue for him out of it or I could just respect the man's faith and morals in which he has, and move on to somewhere else that may be able to fulfill the request in which I may have had.

Can I call it, or can I call it. He won't touch Muslims or Sharia with a 10 foot pole.

Why? Because he doesn't want supremecy of religion over civil law. He was suprememcy of CHristianity over civil law. Thus, he won't extend his reasoning to sharia, insisting sharia should trump civil law. This is the naked hypocrisy of the religiously based 'sovereign citizen' argument.

 

[beagle9]

The Jews believe in Jesus also. There is more than just one name in the bible for God.

No....Jews do not 'believe in Jesus' other than to believe that there are men who have been named Jesus.

And it doesn't matter what you 'believe'- if a Jewish baker believes it would be offending his faith if he served a Christian- who would you support- the Christian or the Jew?

The Jew.

LOL....good so now you don't think that just Christians should be given special exemptions to ignore the law, but Jews too?

What about Muslims and Hindu's? Rastafarians? Atheists? Agnostics?

OK, so how about If a person has a faith in which they believe in, and someone comes into that persons life and/or business in which he or she runs, and then the person challenges the persons faith, morals, standards, common sense, business model, and/or business rules, and do it in a way that would be unacceptable as according to most peoples standards and common sense levels in our society, would they be wrong to refuse him or her and him or her be right in say a very unique situation that could come about in this way as is spoken ? This is why nothing is completely solid about the laws as they are written down by men in some cases, and the ebb and flow of life within the laws as they are administered by men should always be discretionary in the approach of each case that may be unique to a law or rule that may have been written down.

It is why we have courts to settle our differences in which a difference may have become unique in a situation in which the law maker didn't consider when making a law right ?

For example: If I were to go into a business run by a Jewish owner who was very strong in his faith, and I was to ask this owner to do something that would cause him to completely ignore his faith, conscience, morals, or standards in which he may have in life, and he were to refuse me, then of course I could probably figure out a way to make a huge issue for him out of it or I could just respect the man's faith and morals in which he has, and move on to somewhere else that may be able to fulfill the request in which I may have had.

Can I call it, or can I call it. He won't touch Muslims or Sharia with a 10 foot pole.

Why? Because he doesn't want supremecy of religion over civil law. He was suprememcy of CHristianity over civil law. Thus, he won't extend his reasoning to sharia, insisting sharia should trump civil law. This is the naked hypocrisy of the religiously based 'sovereign citizen' argument.

No. it's just that I'm not schooled on those religions in which you speak of, so how can I touch on them as you say ?

 

[Syriusly]

See I happen to think that these would be the core values- not something that Jesus never mentioned

1. You shall have no other gods before Me.
2. You shall not make idols.
3. You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain.
4. Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy.
5. Honor your father and your mother.
6. You shall not murder.
7. You shall not commit adultery.
8. You shall not steal.
9. You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.
10. You shall not covet.

So if a Christian orders a cake from a Jewish baker- can the Jewish baker refuse to bake that cake for the Christian- just because he is a Christian- because that baker believes that the Christian has another god other than Ywh?

The Jews believe in Jesus also. There is more than just one name in the bible for God.

No....Jews do not 'believe in Jesus' other than to believe that there are men who have been named Jesus.

And it doesn't matter what you 'believe'- if a Jewish baker believes it would be offending his faith if he served a Christian- who would you support- the Christian or the Jew?

The Jew.

LOL....good so now you don't think that just Christians should be given special exemptions to ignore the law, but Jews too?

What about Muslims and Hindu's? Rastafarians? Atheists? Agnostics?

OK, so how about If a person has a faith in which they believe in, and someone comes into that persons life and/or business in which he or she runs, and then the person challenges the persons faith, morals, standards, common sense, business model, and/or business rules, and do it in a way that would be unacceptable as according to most peoples standards and common sense levels in our society, would they be wrong to refuse him or her and him or her be right in say a very unique situation that could come about in this way as is spoken ? This is why nothing is completely solid about the laws as they are written down by men in some cases,.

But that is why laws are written to be 'completely solid'

Under your example- for instance you appear to be arguing that any person claiming 'faith-morals' standards-common sense- business model' could among other things:

• refuse to rent a room to a black man
• refuse to sell a car to a Jew
• refuse to sell a wedding cake to a Christian
• refuse to rent a facility for a wedding between a white woman and an Asian man

There is a reason why the law is very specific- and the law says a business owner cannot refuse service to someone because they are black- regardless of whether or not the business owner has deep personally held convictions that he should not do business with a black person.

He can't refuse to do business with a Jew- just because he believes that Jews killed Christ and he shouldn't have anything to do with Jews.

He can't refuse to sell a wedding cake to a Christian- just because i he has firmly held beliefs that Christians are immoral.

He can't refuse to rent a wedding hall out to a mixed race couple- just because if a mixed race wedding offends him

And in Colorado- he can't refuse to do business with a gay person because they are gay.

 

[beagle9]

I just love the way people here try to assign some sort of thinking to another without them saying it, and they do this even though the other doesn't give them some kind of indication or information in which they could then assign to them what is being assigned to them in this way... It's really amazing to watch and read the way these things like that do go here in that way. Wow!

 

[Syriusly]

I just love the way people here try to assign some sort of thinking to another without them saying it, and they do this even though the other doesn't give them some kind of indication or information in which they could then assign to them what is being assigned to them in this way... It's really amazing to watch and read the way these things like that do go here in that way. Wow!

Well since I can't get you to actually respond to any of my actual posts- but instead you post a wall of stream of thoughts- I am glad you are loving something.

 

[Skylar]

No....Jews do not 'believe in Jesus' other than to believe that there are men who have been named Jesus.

And it doesn't matter what you 'believe'- if a Jewish baker believes it would be offending his faith if he served a Christian- who would you support- the Christian or the Jew?

The Jew.

LOL....good so now you don't think that just Christians should be given special exemptions to ignore the law, but Jews too?

What about Muslims and Hindu's? Rastafarians? Atheists? Agnostics?

OK, so how about If a person has a faith in which they believe in, and someone comes into that persons life and/or business in which he or she runs, and then the person challenges the persons faith, morals, standards, common sense, business model, and/or business rules, and do it in a way that would be unacceptable as according to most peoples standards and common sense levels in our society, would they be wrong to refuse him or her and him or her be right in say a very unique situation that could come about in this way as is spoken ? This is why nothing is completely solid about the laws as they are written down by men in some cases, and the ebb and flow of life within the laws as they are administered by men should always be discretionary in the approach of each case that may be unique to a law or rule that may have been written down.

It is why we have courts to settle our differences in which a difference may have become unique in a situation in which the law maker didn't consider when making a law right ?

For example: If I were to go into a business run by a Jewish owner who was very strong in his faith, and I was to ask this owner to do something that would cause him to completely ignore his faith, conscience, morals, or standards in which he may have in life, and he were to refuse me, then of course I could probably figure out a way to make a huge issue for him out of it or I could just respect the man's faith and morals in which he has, and move on to somewhere else that may be able to fulfill the request in which I may have had.

Can I call it, or can I call it. He won't touch Muslims or Sharia with a 10 foot pole.

Why? Because he doesn't want supremecy of religion over civil law. He was suprememcy of CHristianity over civil law. Thus, he won't extend his reasoning to sharia, insisting sharia should trump civil law. This is the naked hypocrisy of the religiously based 'sovereign citizen' argument.

No. it's just that I'm not schooled on those religions in which you speak of, so how can I touch on them as you say ?

You wouldn't have to be 'schooled' in any other religion to believe in religious freedom, as you claim you do.

If Christianity trumps civil law, why wouldn't Sharia trump civil law? It uses the same basis as your arguments: religious beliefs. It uses the same protections as your arguments: the 1st amendment.

Why then wouldn't the latter work just as well as the former?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

The Jew.

LOL....good so now you don't think that just Christians should be given special exemptions to ignore the law, but Jews too?

What about Muslims and Hindu's? Rastafarians? Atheists? Agnostics?

OK, so how about If a person has a faith in which they believe in, and someone comes into that persons life and/or business in which he or she runs, and then the person challenges the persons faith, morals, standards, common sense, business model, and/or business rules, and do it in a way that would be unacceptable as according to most peoples standards and common sense levels in our society, would they be wrong to refuse him or her and him or her be right in say a very unique situation that could come about in this way as is spoken ? This is why nothing is completely solid about the laws as they are written down by men in some cases, and the ebb and flow of life within the laws as they are administered by men should always be discretionary in the approach of each case that may be unique to a law or rule that may have been written down.

It is why we have courts to settle our differences in which a difference may have become unique in a situation in which the law maker didn't consider when making a law right ?

For example: If I were to go into a business run by a Jewish owner who was very strong in his faith, and I was to ask this owner to do something that would cause him to completely ignore his faith, conscience, morals, or standards in which he may have in life, and he were to refuse me, then of course I could probably figure out a way to make a huge issue for him out of it or I could just respect the man's faith and morals in which he has, and move on to somewhere else that may be able to fulfill the request in which I may have had.

Can I call it, or can I call it. He won't touch Muslims or Sharia with a 10 foot pole.

Why? Because he doesn't want supremecy of religion over civil law. He was suprememcy of CHristianity over civil law. Thus, he won't extend his reasoning to sharia, insisting sharia should trump civil law. This is the naked hypocrisy of the religiously based 'sovereign citizen' argument.

No. it's just that I'm not schooled on those religions in which you speak of, so how can I touch on them as you say ?

You wouldn't have to be 'schooled' in any other religion to believe in religious freedom, as you claim you do.

If Christianity trumps civil law, why wouldn't Sharia trump civil law? It uses the same basis as your arguments: religious beliefs. It uses the same protections as your arguments: the 1st amendment.

Why then wouldn't the latter work just as well as the former?

Who said Christianity trumps civil law? Are you lying again?

 

[Syriusly]

LOL....good so now you don't think that just Christians should be given special exemptions to ignore the law, but Jews too?

What about Muslims and Hindu's? Rastafarians? Atheists? Agnostics?

OK, so how about If a person has a faith in which they believe in, and someone comes into that persons life and/or business in which he or she runs, and then the person challenges the persons faith, morals, standards, common sense, business model, and/or business rules, and do it in a way that would be unacceptable as according to most peoples standards and common sense levels in our society, would they be wrong to refuse him or her and him or her be right in say a very unique situation that could come about in this way as is spoken ? This is why nothing is completely solid about the laws as they are written down by men in some cases, and the ebb and flow of life within the laws as they are administered by men should always be discretionary in the approach of each case that may be unique to a law or rule that may have been written down.

It is why we have courts to settle our differences in which a difference may have become unique in a situation in which the law maker didn't consider when making a law right ?

For example: If I were to go into a business run by a Jewish owner who was very strong in his faith, and I was to ask this owner to do something that would cause him to completely ignore his faith, conscience, morals, or standards in which he may have in life, and he were to refuse me, then of course I could probably figure out a way to make a huge issue for him out of it or I could just respect the man's faith and morals in which he has, and move on to somewhere else that may be able to fulfill the request in which I may have had.

Can I call it, or can I call it. He won't touch Muslims or Sharia with a 10 foot pole.

Why? Because he doesn't want supremecy of religion over civil law. He was suprememcy of CHristianity over civil law. Thus, he won't extend his reasoning to sharia, insisting sharia should trump civil law. This is the naked hypocrisy of the religiously based 'sovereign citizen' argument.

No. it's just that I'm not schooled on those religions in which you speak of, so how can I touch on them as you say ?

You wouldn't have to be 'schooled' in any other religion to believe in religious freedom, as you claim you do.

If Christianity trumps civil law, why wouldn't Sharia trump civil law? It uses the same basis as your arguments: religious beliefs. It uses the same protections as your arguments: the 1st amendment.

Why then wouldn't the latter work just as well as the former?

Who said Christianity trumps civil law? Are you lying again?

Are you?

 

[beagle9]

The Jew.

LOL....good so now you don't think that just Christians should be given special exemptions to ignore the law, but Jews too?

What about Muslims and Hindu's? Rastafarians? Atheists? Agnostics?

OK, so how about If a person has a faith in which they believe in, and someone comes into that persons life and/or business in which he or she runs, and then the person challenges the persons faith, morals, standards, common sense, business model, and/or business rules, and do it in a way that would be unacceptable as according to most peoples standards and common sense levels in our society, would they be wrong to refuse him or her and him or her be right in say a very unique situation that could come about in this way as is spoken ? This is why nothing is completely solid about the laws as they are written down by men in some cases, and the ebb and flow of life within the laws as they are administered by men should always be discretionary in the approach of each case that may be unique to a law or rule that may have been written down.

It is why we have courts to settle our differences in which a difference may have become unique in a situation in which the law maker didn't consider when making a law right ?

For example: If I were to go into a business run by a Jewish owner who was very strong in his faith, and I was to ask this owner to do something that would cause him to completely ignore his faith, conscience, morals, or standards in which he may have in life, and he were to refuse me, then of course I could probably figure out a way to make a huge issue for him out of it or I could just respect the man's faith and morals in which he has, and move on to somewhere else that may be able to fulfill the request in which I may have had.

Can I call it, or can I call it. He won't touch Muslims or Sharia with a 10 foot pole.

Why? Because he doesn't want supremecy of religion over civil law. He was suprememcy of CHristianity over civil law. Thus, he won't extend his reasoning to sharia, insisting sharia should trump civil law. This is the naked hypocrisy of the religiously based 'sovereign citizen' argument.

No. it's just that I'm not schooled on those religions in which you speak of, so how can I touch on them as you say ?

You wouldn't have to be 'schooled' in any other religion to believe in religious freedom, as you claim you do.

If Christianity trumps civil law, why wouldn't Sharia trump civil law? It uses the same basis as your arguments: religious beliefs. It uses the same protections as your arguments: the 1st amendment.

Why then wouldn't the latter work just as well as the former?

Not real sure about sharia laws or that religion, but is there some reason you don't approve of that religion or it's laws if they are peaceful and excepted by it's believers ?

 

[beagle9]

LOL....good so now you don't think that just Christians should be given special exemptions to ignore the law, but Jews too?

What about Muslims and Hindu's? Rastafarians? Atheists? Agnostics?

OK, so how about If a person has a faith in which they believe in, and someone comes into that persons life and/or business in which he or she runs, and then the person challenges the persons faith, morals, standards, common sense, business model, and/or business rules, and do it in a way that would be unacceptable as according to most peoples standards and common sense levels in our society, would they be wrong to refuse him or her and him or her be right in say a very unique situation that could come about in this way as is spoken ? This is why nothing is completely solid about the laws as they are written down by men in some cases, and the ebb and flow of life within the laws as they are administered by men should always be discretionary in the approach of each case that may be unique to a law or rule that may have been written down.

It is why we have courts to settle our differences in which a difference may have become unique in a situation in which the law maker didn't consider when making a law right ?

For example: If I were to go into a business run by a Jewish owner who was very strong in his faith, and I was to ask this owner to do something that would cause him to completely ignore his faith, conscience, morals, or standards in which he may have in life, and he were to refuse me, then of course I could probably figure out a way to make a huge issue for him out of it or I could just respect the man's faith and morals in which he has, and move on to somewhere else that may be able to fulfill the request in which I may have had.

Can I call it, or can I call it. He won't touch Muslims or Sharia with a 10 foot pole.

Why? Because he doesn't want supremecy of religion over civil law. He was suprememcy of CHristianity over civil law. Thus, he won't extend his reasoning to sharia, insisting sharia should trump civil law. This is the naked hypocrisy of the religiously based 'sovereign citizen' argument.

No. it's just that I'm not schooled on those religions in which you speak of, so how can I touch on them as you say ?

You wouldn't have to be 'schooled' in any other religion to believe in religious freedom, as you claim you do.

If Christianity trumps civil law, why wouldn't Sharia trump civil law? It uses the same basis as your arguments: religious beliefs. It uses the same protections as your arguments: the 1st amendment.

Why then wouldn't the latter work just as well as the former?

Who said Christianity trumps civil law? Are you lying again?

He's trying to suggest that I am claiming that, but I am not. I'm just saying that every case may have different merits and outcomes sometimes. He wants the law to be rigid, but no one wants that ever.

 

[Skylar]

LOL....good so now you don't think that just Christians should be given special exemptions to ignore the law, but Jews too?

What about Muslims and Hindu's? Rastafarians? Atheists? Agnostics?

OK, so how about If a person has a faith in which they believe in, and someone comes into that persons life and/or business in which he or she runs, and then the person challenges the persons faith, morals, standards, common sense, business model, and/or business rules, and do it in a way that would be unacceptable as according to most peoples standards and common sense levels in our society, would they be wrong to refuse him or her and him or her be right in say a very unique situation that could come about in this way as is spoken ? This is why nothing is completely solid about the laws as they are written down by men in some cases, and the ebb and flow of life within the laws as they are administered by men should always be discretionary in the approach of each case that may be unique to a law or rule that may have been written down.

It is why we have courts to settle our differences in which a difference may have become unique in a situation in which the law maker didn't consider when making a law right ?

For example: If I were to go into a business run by a Jewish owner who was very strong in his faith, and I was to ask this owner to do something that would cause him to completely ignore his faith, conscience, morals, or standards in which he may have in life, and he were to refuse me, then of course I could probably figure out a way to make a huge issue for him out of it or I could just respect the man's faith and morals in which he has, and move on to somewhere else that may be able to fulfill the request in which I may have had.

Can I call it, or can I call it. He won't touch Muslims or Sharia with a 10 foot pole.

Why? Because he doesn't want supremecy of religion over civil law. He was suprememcy of CHristianity over civil law. Thus, he won't extend his reasoning to sharia, insisting sharia should trump civil law. This is the naked hypocrisy of the religiously based 'sovereign citizen' argument.

No. it's just that I'm not schooled on those religions in which you speak of, so how can I touch on them as you say ?

You wouldn't have to be 'schooled' in any other religion to believe in religious freedom, as you claim you do.

If Christianity trumps civil law, why wouldn't Sharia trump civil law? It uses the same basis as your arguments: religious beliefs. It uses the same protections as your arguments: the 1st amendment.

Why then wouldn't the latter work just as well as the former?

Not real sure about sharia laws or that religion, but is there some reason you don't approve of that religion or it's laws if they are peaceful and excepted by it's believers ?

If religious conviction is your standard for trumping a civil law, would it matter?

 

[saintmichaeldefendthem]

OK, so how about If a person has a faith in which they believe in, and someone comes into that persons life and/or business in which he or she runs, and then the person challenges the persons faith, morals, standards, common sense, business model, and/or business rules, and do it in a way that would be unacceptable as according to most peoples standards and common sense levels in our society, would they be wrong to refuse him or her and him or her be right in say a very unique situation that could come about in this way as is spoken ? This is why nothing is completely solid about the laws as they are written down by men in some cases, and the ebb and flow of life within the laws as they are administered by men should always be discretionary in the approach of each case that may be unique to a law or rule that may have been written down.

It is why we have courts to settle our differences in which a difference may have become unique in a situation in which the law maker didn't consider when making a law right ?

For example: If I were to go into a business run by a Jewish owner who was very strong in his faith, and I was to ask this owner to do something that would cause him to completely ignore his faith, conscience, morals, or standards in which he may have in life, and he were to refuse me, then of course I could probably figure out a way to make a huge issue for him out of it or I could just respect the man's faith and morals in which he has, and move on to somewhere else that may be able to fulfill the request in which I may have had.

Can I call it, or can I call it. He won't touch Muslims or Sharia with a 10 foot pole.

Why? Because he doesn't want supremecy of religion over civil law. He was suprememcy of CHristianity over civil law. Thus, he won't extend his reasoning to sharia, insisting sharia should trump civil law. This is the naked hypocrisy of the religiously based 'sovereign citizen' argument.

No. it's just that I'm not schooled on those religions in which you speak of, so how can I touch on them as you say ?

You wouldn't have to be 'schooled' in any other religion to believe in religious freedom, as you claim you do.

If Christianity trumps civil law, why wouldn't Sharia trump civil law? It uses the same basis as your arguments: religious beliefs. It uses the same protections as your arguments: the 1st amendment.

Why then wouldn't the latter work just as well as the former?

Not real sure about sharia laws or that religion, but is there some reason you don't approve of that religion or it's laws if they are peaceful and excepted by it's believers ?

If religious conviction is your standard for trumping a civil law, would it matter?

You're lying.

 

[beagle9]

OK, so how about If a person has a faith in which they believe in, and someone comes into that persons life and/or business in which he or she runs, and then the person challenges the persons faith, morals, standards, common sense, business model, and/or business rules, and do it in a way that would be unacceptable as according to most peoples standards and common sense levels in our society, would they be wrong to refuse him or her and him or her be right in say a very unique situation that could come about in this way as is spoken ? This is why nothing is completely solid about the laws as they are written down by men in some cases, and the ebb and flow of life within the laws as they are administered by men should always be discretionary in the approach of each case that may be unique to a law or rule that may have been written down.

It is why we have courts to settle our differences in which a difference may have become unique in a situation in which the law maker didn't consider when making a law right ?

For example: If I were to go into a business run by a Jewish owner who was very strong in his faith, and I was to ask this owner to do something that would cause him to completely ignore his faith, conscience, morals, or standards in which he may have in life, and he were to refuse me, then of course I could probably figure out a way to make a huge issue for him out of it or I could just respect the man's faith and morals in which he has, and move on to somewhere else that may be able to fulfill the request in which I may have had.

Can I call it, or can I call it. He won't touch Muslims or Sharia with a 10 foot pole.

Why? Because he doesn't want supremecy of religion over civil law. He was suprememcy of CHristianity over civil law. Thus, he won't extend his reasoning to sharia, insisting sharia should trump civil law. This is the naked hypocrisy of the religiously based 'sovereign citizen' argument.

No. it's just that I'm not schooled on those religions in which you speak of, so how can I touch on them as you say ?

You wouldn't have to be 'schooled' in any other religion to believe in religious freedom, as you claim you do.

If Christianity trumps civil law, why wouldn't Sharia trump civil law? It uses the same basis as your arguments: religious beliefs. It uses the same protections as your arguments: the 1st amendment.

Why then wouldn't the latter work just as well as the former?

Not real sure about sharia laws or that religion, but is there some reason you don't approve of that religion or it's laws if they are peaceful and excepted by it's believers ?

If religious conviction is your standard for trumping a civil law, would it matter?

Does it matter to you if Christians have religious freedom, and the ability to practice said religion in peace? Does your thinking trump the constitution of this united states ?

 

[Silhouette]

If religious conviction is your standard for trumping a civil law, would it matter?

I got to thinking about this point. If the LGBT lifestylists and others force the states to perform their "marriages" against the will of the states' interest in incentivizing the best formative environment for kids (mother and father), then pretty much yeah, LGBT would be declared the new federal religion that everyone had to follow. Because a lifestyle isn't a race or a gender, it's a lifestyle, behaviors. This would be a precedent setting case indeed if the US Supreme Court decided that transient lifestyles control local laws and the 1st Amendment right to exercise of religion..

 

[beagle9]

If religious conviction is your standard for trumping a civil law, would it matter?

I got to thinking about this point. If the LGBT lifestylists and others force the states to perform their "marriages" against the will of the states' interest in incentivizing the best formative environment for kids (mother and father), then pretty much yeah, LGBT would be declared the new federal religion that everyone had to follow. Because a lifestyle isn't a race or a gender, it's a lifestyle, behaviors. This would be a precedent setting case indeed if the US Supreme Court decided that transient lifestyles control local laws and the 1st Amendment right to exercise of religion..

So your basically saying that transient lifestyles would then trump local laws (i.e. Federal Judges over ruling the states as it were), and therefore cancelling out the1st Amendment right to have without interference from government the freedom in the exorcize of one's religion within the nation and within the states as it were ? People were allowed to exorcize their freedom of their religion for ever it seems, but now that all these things have come up, such a thing is now under assault anymore. Look at how many cases have come up in the past 30 to 35 years now.

 

[Silhouette]

So your basically saying that transient lifestyles would then trump local laws (i.e. Federal Judges over ruling the states as it were), and therefore cancelling out the1st Amendment right to have without interference from government the freedom in the exorcize of one's religion within the nation and within the states as it were ? People were allowed to exorcize their freedom of their religion for ever it seems, but now that all these things have come up, such a thing is now under assault anymore. Look at how many cases have come up in the past 30 to 35 years now.

Well, what I'm saying is that it won't happen. And if it does happen, pack your bags to move to Russia or maybe North Korea where there would be more freedom at that point.

BTW, it's "exercise". But yeah, maybe we need an exorcism right about now...lol. Not judging. I'm a terrible speller myself. I'm thinking of having a spellcheck microchip installed in my brain.

 

[Syriusly]

OK, so how about If a person has a faith in which they believe in, and someone comes into that persons life and/or business in which he or she runs, and then the person challenges the persons faith, morals, standards, common sense, business model, and/or business rules, and do it in a way that would be unacceptable as according to most peoples standards and common sense levels in our society, would they be wrong to refuse him or her and him or her be right in say a very unique situation that could come about in this way as is spoken ? This is why nothing is completely solid about the laws as they are written down by men in some cases, and the ebb and flow of life within the laws as they are administered by men should always be discretionary in the approach of each case that may be unique to a law or rule that may have been written down.

It is why we have courts to settle our differences in which a difference may have become unique in a situation in which the law maker didn't consider when making a law right ?

For example: If I were to go into a business run by a Jewish owner who was very strong in his faith, and I was to ask this owner to do something that would cause him to completely ignore his faith, conscience, morals, or standards in which he may have in life, and he were to refuse me, then of course I could probably figure out a way to make a huge issue for him out of it or I could just respect the man's faith and morals in which he has, and move on to somewhere else that may be able to fulfill the request in which I may have had.

Can I call it, or can I call it. He won't touch Muslims or Sharia with a 10 foot pole.

Why? Because he doesn't want supremecy of religion over civil law. He was suprememcy of CHristianity over civil law. Thus, he won't extend his reasoning to sharia, insisting sharia should trump civil law. This is the naked hypocrisy of the religiously based 'sovereign citizen' argument.

No. it's just that I'm not schooled on those religions in which you speak of, so how can I touch on them as you say ?

You wouldn't have to be 'schooled' in any other religion to believe in religious freedom, as you claim you do.

If Christianity trumps civil law, why wouldn't Sharia trump civil law? It uses the same basis as your arguments: religious beliefs. It uses the same protections as your arguments: the 1st amendment.

Why then wouldn't the latter work just as well as the former?

Who said Christianity trumps civil law? Are you lying again?

He's trying to suggest that I am claiming that, but I am not. I'm just saying that every case may have different merits and outcomes sometimes. He wants the law to be rigid, but no one wants that ever.

But that is why laws are written to be 'completely solid'

Under your example- for instance you appear to be arguing that any person claiming 'faith-morals' standards-common sense- business model' could among other things:

• refuse to rent a room to a black man
• refuse to sell a car to a Jew
• refuse to sell a wedding cake to a Christian
• refuse to rent a facility for a wedding between a white woman and an Asian man

There is a reason why the law is very specific- and the law says a business owner cannot refuse service to someone because they are black- regardless of whether or not the business owner has deep personally held convictions that he should not do business with a black person.

He can't refuse to do business with a Jew- just because he believes that Jews killed Christ and he shouldn't have anything to do with Jews.

He can't refuse to sell a wedding cake to a Christian- just because i he has firmly held beliefs that Christians are immoral.

He can't refuse to rent a wedding hall out to a mixed race couple- just because if a mixed race wedding offends him

And in Colorado- he can't refuse to do business with a gay person because they are gay.