Colorado Supreme Court Rules You Can't Cite Religion For Not Baking A Cake (Judaism, scripture)
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 one but you is talking about slavery being required. But the OT says not only that slavery is allowed, it says how slaves and servants are to be treated. The US law says slavery is not allowed. So the US law does not follow the laws of the OT.
Yes, YOU are talking about slavery being required when you say that not following laws that govern slavery means that the US is not following OT law. There is no requirement to follow a law if the conditions the law governs don't exist, so how is the US breaking that law? Put it another way: if there are no slaves to punish, how do we break the law against punishing them in a certain way?
Yes, YOU are talking about slavery being required when you say that not following laws that govern slavery means that the US is not following OT law. There is no requirement to follow a law if the conditions the law governs don't exist, so how is the US breaking that law? Put it another way: if there are no slaves to punish, how do we break the law against punishing them in a certain way?
Mud.
Yes, your response was mud. I am not talking about breaking the OT laws, I am talking about not following the OT laws.
but, can, should, they refuse to make a cake for a black supremacist group?
I mean "gay" yes, yo have to sell, I see that. but whats the line?
I think a fundamental problem is people don't understand that the 14th amendment was enacted to rectify the ills of slavery. It was never meant for all these other groups that now benefit from civil rights laws. Those amendments created after the Civil War was to rectify the injustice against black people. And honestly, I blame black people for not making that clear throughout history. But it's a bigger problem of people just not understanding how their government works. That's why the Supreme Court keeps punting these issues. They know the origins of the law, they know the cases that set the precedents and they don't want to set new ones that completely pervert the original intent of the law. But they play on the ignorance of Americans and make other groups feel included even though those laws were not enacted for their benefit. That's why the Supreme Court was right to frame this as a "religious freedom" issue. First, because it IS a religious freedom issue. And second, because religious freedom is CLEARLY guaranteed by the Constitution. LGBT rights are not.
That's why the Supreme Court was right to frame this as a "religious freedom" issue. First, because it IS a religious freedom issue. And second, because religious freedom is CLEARLY guaranteed by the Constitution. LGBT rights are not.
Yes, you are CLEARLY free to follow any religion you choose, or none at all. That is what freedom of religion means.
But you are CLEARLY not free to sacrifice anyone to the Aztec gods. And in the same way, you are NOT allowed to discriminate against anyone because of their or your religious beliefs. In that way, LGBT rights ARE guaranteed.
but, can, should, they refuse to make a cake for a black supremacist group?
I mean "gay" yes, yo have to sell, I see that. but whats the line?
Most people can understand the difference between discrimination based upon innate characteristics - sexual orientation, gender, race - and discrimination based upon ideology, because innate characteristics are beyond one's control* but ideology is not.
Other people just like to make arguments that implicitly liken being gay to being a 'black supremacist'** [or whatever pet boogeyman pushes the button of the particular person making such a specious assertion]. Because anyone who claims to be unable to comprehend that NO BLACKS ALLOWED is not analogous to declining to do business with a racial supremacist is either cognitively impaired or just pretending not to get it.
*Note that bigots fully understand this, which is why they expend so much energy falsely insisting that sexual orientation is not innate but a choice.
**Curious chose of boogeyman in light of the fact that white supremacy has been exponentially more of a scourge in American history than black supremacy, but not all that surprising given your unhinged obsession with all things liberal and the fact that most African-Americans ally themselves politically with the left. You probably couldn't help yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by treemoni
I think a fundamental problem is people don't understand that the 14th amendment was enacted to rectify the ills of slavery. It was never meant for all these other groups that now benefit from civil rights laws. Those amendments created after the Civil War was to rectify the injustice against black people. And honestly, I blame black people for not making that clear throughout history. But it's a bigger problem of people just not understanding how their government works. That's why the Supreme Court keeps punting these issues. They know the origins of the law, they know the cases that set the precedents and they don't want to set new ones that completely pervert the original intent of the law. But they play on the ignorance of Americans and make other groups feel included even though those laws were not enacted for their benefit. That's why the Supreme Court was right to frame this as a "religious freedom" issue. First, because it IS a religious freedom issue. And second, because religious freedom is CLEARLY guaranteed by the Constitution. LGBT rights are not.
Ah, original intenters!
The First Amendment wasn't intended to deal with the internet. Do you therefore agree that it does not apply to online speech? I doubt you do, which indicates that you either haven't thought through your excuse for opposing constitutional protections for gays, or you pick and choose when to apply your rules. By the way, the Fourteenth Amendment certainly wasn't originally intended to strike down laws prohibiting interracial marriage, and yet it is the law upon which Loving v. Virginia rests. Do you similarly oppose that ruling?
Please do not lump me in a group of people. I honestly don't care about the Constitution. As a black person, I have knowledge of many Supreme Court decisions involving African-Americans...specifically descendants of slaves, and it makes more sense now. The Supreme Court is the last stop in our judicial system, so it just makes logical sense for them to rule in ways that can be defended by the Constitution. There is no judge above them (unless you believe in God ), so they are not necessarily erring by not ruling in favor of LGBT groups, becsuse the only minorities that are clearly protected by Constitutional amendments are descendants of slaves. It makes sense if you take your personal feelings out of it and look at it from a historical and factual standpoint.
Is one allowed to discriminate against blacks who are not descendents of slaves? Any black whose family entered after the passing of the 14th ammendment is not protected?
I didn't say anything about discriminating against anyone...I'm telling you who those amendments were intended for. And in my opinion, no, blacks who came here voluntarily are not entitled to protections under those amendments because they came here voluntarily. The vast majority of them were from the elite classes of their society. But I am not going to turn this into a political debate. It's about religion. And in this case I think the Supreme Court made the right call.
Yes, your response was mud. I am not talking about breaking the OT laws, I am talking about not following the OT laws.
The only laws being broken are those of the US.
And your example was a poor one. If you want to talk about not following immoral laws you should talk about laws that actually enjoined immoral actions like stoning offenders. The law you cited was not immoral, only the institution it regulated was and without the institution the laws become moot.
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.
), so they are not necessarily erring by not ruling in favor of LGBT groups, becsuse the only minorities that are clearly protected by Constitutional amendments are descendants of slaves. It makes sense if you take your personal feelings out of it and look at it from a historical and factual standpoint.