Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Refuse to bake it, except government has prohibited the free exercise of religion.
Funny that isn't it?
That is exactly my point. What I don;t understand is why they would force this issue to begin with. If I'm gay and someone doesn't want to bake me cake because of that I want to know so I can take my money elsewhere. This just sweeps it under the rug, the views of that person are unlikely to change. It's utter stupidity as far as I'm concerned.
Conservatives claim they love the Constitution and specifically the Second Amendment. Yet, they try to chip away at the First Amendment every chance they get, which is the exact thing they criticize the Left for doing to the Second Amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
What is so difficult about this for conservatives to understand? This means that whatever your religious beliefs are, they cannot be enforced by law. They try to sidestep it by saying that the founding fathers only meant protection of Christian denominations and not all religion, or that they would have worded it differently if they could have looked down the tunnel of time to see are religiously pluralistic society today. If your only basis for a policy is "because the Bible says so", that doesn't cut it according to the Constitution.
How is that different from what they accuse liberals of doing with the Second Amendment? People on the left tend to argue that the founders couldn't have imagined the type of weapons available today and therefore some weapons shouldn't be covered under the Second Amendment. Believe it or not, I actually agree with conservatives on the Second Amendment. The Constitution says what it says and if we want to change it, we need to amend it instead of re-interpreting it. However, I apply that same standard to the First Amendment. I shouldn't be required by law to abide by the rules of a deity I don't believe in. I want my kids, if I ever have them, to learn science in science class and not magic. Every person has the right to live out their faith or lack of, but their right stops when it infringes on the rights of others to do the same thing. Why doesn't the right understand this?
Freedom of Speech has responsibility and it does not mean to assault people of destroy property. Liberals have a very funny ideal of this. They think anyone who has a different opinion deserves to be assaulted and their home burned down.
Second amend stands and as long as you are responsible not a problem. It liberals who endorse right to criminals.
Liberals just do not get the premise of the Constitution . They think it is a living document that changes with the times. Never was to be intended to do that!
how about 'thou shalt not kill (aka, murder)' - should we not enforce that one since there's a religious basis behind it?
Funny how people on the religious right always throw this out there.
Murder is taking another human being's life and is considered evil across religious and cultural lines.
I don't understand how the religious right comes to the conclusion that laws marginalizing people for who they love or preventing people from smoking a joint or sanctioning Christianity in public schools are equivalent to laws against murder and rape...actual crimes that hurt people.
Conservatives claim they love the Constitution and specifically the Second Amendment. Yet, they try to chip away at the First Amendment every chance they get, which is the exact thing they criticize the Left for doing to the Second Amendment.
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;"
What is so difficult about this for conservatives to understand? This means that whatever your religious beliefs are, they cannot be enforced by law. They try to sidestep it by saying that the founding fathers only meant protection of Christian denominations and not all religion, or that they would have worded it differently if they could have looked down the tunnel of time to see are religiously pluralistic society today. If your only basis for a policy is "because the Bible says so", that doesn't cut it according to the Constitution.
How is that different from what they accuse liberals of doing with the Second Amendment? People on the left tend to argue that the founders couldn't have imagined the type of weapons available today and therefore some weapons shouldn't be covered under the Second Amendment. Believe it or not, I actually agree with conservatives on the Second Amendment. The Constitution says what it says and if we want to change it, we need to amend it instead of re-interpreting it. However, I apply that same standard to the First Amendment. I shouldn't be required by law to abide by the rules of a deity I don't believe in. I want my kids, if I ever have them, to learn science in science class and not magic. Every person has the right to live out their faith or lack of, but their right stops when it infringes on the rights of others to do the same thing. Why doesn't the right understand this?
Which conservative gives you the idea that we don't read them the same?
Which weapon, except for nukes and missiles, didn't exist during the time of the revolution?
If the founders couldn't imagine the technology advancement in weaponry, why could they imagine anything related to the media like TV, movies, and the Internet?
That is exactly my point. What I don;t understand is why they would force this issue to begin with. If I'm gay and someone doesn't want to bake me cake because of that I want to know so I can take my money elsewhere. This just sweeps it under the rug, the views of that person are unlikely to change. It's utter stupidity as far as I'm concerned.
You're grossly over simplifying this issue. Obviously the line has to be drawn somewhere or business owners could deny anyone for anything that "offends them." I.e. race, gender.
What you should be taking about is the difference between providing a generic product to the public versus being forced to do something "expressive" that is against your beliefs.
which religious beliefs are they trying to enforce by law?
Thanks for asking!
Quote:
Originally Posted by bawac34618
Here are just a few areas.
-LGBT rights
-abortion
-creationism in science classes
-environmentalism/climate change denial
-marijuana prohibition
-religious monuments on public property
That is just scratching the surface. In red-state America, many times politicians sound like pastors more than public officials. They run on their qualifications of being strong, born-again Christians who will do whatever they can to oppose the gay agenda, oppose secularism in schools, and keep marijuana illegal, and they coast into office.
You'll have to be more specific. What on LGBT rights is religion limiting? Abortion has to do with protecting the lives, and you could say that murder itself comes from religion and that we should be allowed to murder at will just whoever we felt like it, "Thou shall not kill." Science? They have no proof despite what they say. They should leave creationism out of the classroom. I have no idea what you are talking about with the environment, that again has no real proof either way. Marijuana? I see no religious issue there either. Religious monuments on public property if they have historical significance should be left alone.
So, you basically blame everything on religion. Yeah, this doesn't make sense at all.
You can try to wipe the slate clean of religion, but it will always be around.
Which conservative gives you the idea that we don't read them the same?
Which weapon, except for nukes and missiles, didn't exist during the time of the revolution?
If the founders couldn't imagine the technology advancement in weaponry, why could they imagine anything related to the media like TV, movies, and the Internet?
As far as the guns go I would suggest if law enforcement can justify it so could the citizen.
That is exactly my point. What I don;t understand is why they would force this issue to begin with. If I'm gay and someone doesn't want to bake me cake because of that I want to know so I can take my money elsewhere. This just sweeps it under the rug, the views of that person are unlikely to change. It's utter stupidity as far as I'm concerned.
How many businesses have actually turned down a gay couple and for those who have, how many have actually been sued for it? This entire "controversy" was manufactured by Fox News, just like the "War on Christmas". The religious right lost the gay marriage debate. Opposition to anything LGBT is a hugely successful platform for Republicans running for office and they needed something to keep the anti-LGBT rhetoric going. Right to discriminate bills and transgender bathroom bills are what they decided to go with. Both are "solutions" to solve something that was never a problem to begin with.
You're grossly over simplifying this issue. Obviously the line has to be drawn somewhere or business owners could deny anyone for anything that "offends them." I.e. race, gender.
Sounds like a plan to me, why sweep it under the rug. Let the bigots, racists and other undesirable people expose themselves for who they are.
There is a local convenience store I used to go to that put up a sign that said "No Guns". They have no legal recourse if I walked in there with a gun other than to ask me to leave but I'm more than happy to abide by their wishes. I would encourage any store that doesn't want my business to put up such a sign. If they wanted to put up sign that says "No white heterosexual pistol packing men allowed".... please do.
The LGBT community may think they have won some giant victory but the only thing they have managed to do is hide the problem.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
