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.
YOU stated:
Human sacrifice is a-ok as long as you claim "religious belief"...
I'm starting the church of anything goes. No law can be used against me since whatever I choose is now my "religious belief".
Logic would indicate that you equate Human sacrifice with flower arranging.
I am just seeking your confirmation that you believe human sacrifice is the same as flower arranging.
If you are merely making an absurdly ridiculous argument to "prove" something, then you have no actual argument or question. You are incapable of making a valid argument, so you have to reach for a ridiculous example and then argue that it is equivalent to the facts in this case.
So, do you equate human sacrifice to flower arranging, or are you incapable of a valid argument on this issue?
If you are claiming that "religious belief" should trump law then that would go for all religious beliefs.
I am not the one claiming that religious belief should trump the laws. You are.
I am the one claiming that religious belief should not give anyone the right to circumvent any law.
If you are claiming that "religious belief" should trump law then that would go for all religious beliefs.
I am not the one claiming that religious belief should trump the laws. You are.
I am the one claiming that religious belief should not give anyone the right to circumvent any law.
I have never claimed that religious belief should trump law. My argument is that the 1st Amendment protects the free exercise of religion and is superior to laws that infringe that right.
I don't have to prove an equivalence fallacy that you have created because you can't support any valid argument against my statements.
You are more than welcome to claim that religious belief should not give anyone the right to circumvent any law. That has never been the argument in this case. I have never stated that thesis as a basis of my arguments in support of the florist in this case.
If you are claiming that "religious belief" should trump law then that would go for all religious beliefs.
I am not the one claiming that religious belief should trump the laws. You are.
I am the one claiming that religious belief should not give anyone the right to circumvent any law.
Oh, allow me. I will be happy to assert that, without question.
And the issue is, do gay rights trump religious rights. Maybe others didn't notice that subtlety, but I did.
That...is...the....agenda. Forget we just want to love who we love, because the agenda has always been to establish special protections. And laws.
We have religious freedom in this country, and it won't be given up. Even though Obama's EEOC chairman Chai Feldblum said that, when there's a conflict between religious rights and gay rights, gays win.
I have never claimed that religious belief should trump law. My argument is that the 1st Amendment protects the free exercise of religion and is superior to laws that infringe that right.
I don't have to prove an equivalence fallacy that you have created because you can't support any valid argument against my statements.
You are more than welcome to claim that religious belief should not give anyone the right to circumvent any law. That has never been the argument in this case. I have never stated that thesis as a basis of my arguments in support of the florist in this case.
And some believe that they should be able to marry children according to their religious beliefs. They do not get to skirt the age of consent laws.
YOU just claimed that "the 1st Amendment protects the free exercise of religion and is superior to laws that infringe that right"
Then in the next paragraph said this "You are more than welcome to claim that religious belief should not give anyone the right to circumvent any law. That has never been the argument in this case"
So if a person has a religious belief.
Is that belief superior to the law that would prohibit that action per the 1st amendment?
OR
Is everyone bound by the same laws regardless of religious belief?
IT's pretty simple. either religious belief trumps generally applicable law or it doesn't. Pick one.
Oh, allow me. I will be happy to assert that, without question.
And the issue is, do gay rights trump religious rights. Maybe others didn't notice that subtlety, but I did.
That...is...the....agenda. Forget we just want to love who we love, because the agenda has always been to establish special protections. And laws.
We have religious freedom in this country, and it won't be given up. Even though Obama's EEOC chairman Chai Feldblum said that, when there's a conflict between religious rights and gay rights, gays win.
No this is about business owners breaking the laws of the state they crying when they get busted for it.
I can't claim Jesus made me do it to get around the law. Why should anyone else be allowed to?
And some believe that they should be able to marry children according to their religious beliefs. They do not get to skirt the age of consent laws.
YOU just claimed that "the 1st Amendment protects the free exercise of religion and is superior to laws that infringe that right"
Then in the next paragraph said this "You are more than welcome to claim that religious belief should not give anyone the right to circumvent any law. That has never been the argument in this case"
So if a person has a religious belief.
Is that belief superior to the law that would prohibit that action per the 1st amendment?
OR
Is everyone bound by the same laws regardless of religious belief?
IT's pretty simple. either religious belief trumps generally applicable law or it doesn't. Pick one.
And once again you equate underage marriage to flower arranging. You really can't argue the facts can you. You HAVE to bring in issues of equivalence to argue your position. You cannot reasonably argue that the Christian business owner is protected by the 1st Amendment to decline to provide services for a celebration of homosexuality because it conflicts with her adherence to God's laws on homosexuality.
You HAVE to equate this to human sacrifice and marrying off 8 year olds. You really don't see how absurd you appear?
And once again you equate underage marriage to flower arranging. You really can't argue the facts can you. You HAVE to bring in issues of equivalence to argue your position. You cannot reasonably argue that the Christian business owner is protected by the 1st Amendment to decline to provide services for a celebration of homosexuality because it conflicts with her adherence to God's laws on homosexuality.
You HAVE to equate this to human sacrifice and marrying off 8 year olds. You really don't see how absurd you appear?
No I am equating religious belief with religious belief.
Why should one get to get around the law, and not the other?
If the first amendment allows people with religious beliefs to break the law, then why not every religious belief? Why only the ones you personally agree with?
The first amendment does not specify one religion to get special protections over all others.
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.
Maybe others didn't notice that subtlety, but I did. 
, because the agenda has always been to establish special protections. And laws.
