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.
No, they do not. Show me where SCOTUS struck down the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
Sherbert v. Verner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia They never did, they simply ruled in which instances that the government might burden those rights. Your adherence to originalism is cute, but not relevant in the modern age. The fact that one cannot use religious beliefs to discriminate should have told you that one.
But if you can't find one thats gay owned, I seriously doubt that you couldn't easily find any number of pizzeria's that would be happy to provide a gay wedding with as many pizzas as you'd care to order.
I think it's wonderful that somewhere in the vast, cavernous server racks of Google there's now an indelible data point linking you with an inquiry for "Big Gay Pizza Parlor". What will the good parishioners think when news of this gets out? Discriminatory retribution? Good luck pal, you're now marked for life...
If you can't recognize that the landscape has changed in the twenty two years since that law was passed than you should not be in politics. So no, it was not hard to have seen that the reaction was not going to be positive.I don't have an issue with them getting money either. As far as I am concerned one should not be punished for an opinion.
That's a good point. Today Drudge headline is "MUSLIMS TO OUTNUMBER CHRISTIANS 'IN 50 YEARS". Yeah, like so what, too bad for Christians. But then the question, 'Who's party is going to win Congress when Christians are out voted?' Observation... not Hillary
Un-hunh. Then, when Muslim leaning agnostics are running Congress what is a gay liberal going to do about Sharia? And with that Muslim majority applying the rules, the argument about 'unconstitutional' is going to float about as well as a day old turd in the DC swamp.
So I'll ask, where do you want that landscape twenty two years from today?
That's a good point. Today Drudge headline is "MUSLIMS TO OUTNUMBER CHRISTIANS 'IN 50 YEARS". Yeah, like so what, too bad for Christians. But then the question, 'Who's party is going to win Congress when Christians are out voted?' Observation... not Hillary
Un-hunh. Then, when Muslim leaning agnostics are running Congress what is a gay liberal going to do about Sharia? And with that Muslim majority applying the rules, the argument about 'unconstitutional' is going to float about as well as a day old turd in the DC swamp.
So I'll ask, where do you want that landscape twenty two years from today?
The same as you have today, just with more multi cultural people is all. I seriously doubt the parties will be much different, beyond the lost influence of the religious it the Republican party.
Sherbert v. Verner - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia They never did, they simply ruled in which instances that the government might burden those rights. Your adherence to originalism is cute, but not relevant in the modern age. The fact that one cannot use religious beliefs to discriminate should have told you that one.
No, they do not. Show me where SCOTUS struck down the First Amendment:
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances."
"The right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes) ... The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities ... To make an individual's obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious beliefs, permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, "to become a law unto himself," contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense ... Any society adopting such a system would be courting anarchy."
- Justice Antonin Scalia (speaking for the Supreme Court)
edit: from the same opinion:
"Laws are made for the government of actions, and while they cannot interfere with mere religious belief and opinions, they may with practices. . . . Can a man excuse his practices to the contrary because of his religious belief? To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself."
That's a good point. Today Drudge headline is "MUSLIMS TO OUTNUMBER CHRISTIANS 'IN 50 YEARS". Yeah, like so what, too bad for Christians. But then the question, 'Who's party is going to win Congress when Christians are out voted?'
"MUSLIMS TO OUTNUMBER CHRISTIANS 'IN 50 YEARS"
That is worldwide - not in the US.
"The right of free exercise does not relieve an individual of the obligation to comply with a valid and neutral law of general applicability on the ground that the law proscribes (or prescribes) conduct that his religion prescribes (or proscribes) ... The mere possession of religious convictions which contradict the relevant concerns of a political society does not relieve the citizen from the discharge of political responsibilities ... To make an individual's obligation to obey such a law contingent upon the law's coincidence with his religious beliefs, permitting him, by virtue of his beliefs, "to become a law unto himself," contradicts both constitutional tradition and common sense ... Any society adopting such a system would be courting anarchy."
- Justice Antonin Scalia (speaking for the Supreme Court)
Forcing someone to violate their religion is not a neutral law.
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.
.