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.
right, so the law was worded in a way which protects certain people's exercise of religion -- the right to discriminate. The law just decided that only certain members of the religion have that protection.
No, the law just decided that certain organizations would not have to officiate at such a union. A very restricted exception.
Bottom line: Contrary to some opinions, God's laws do NOT apply to secular society only to religious activities. Government officials deal with secular society. Businesses providing goods and services to the secular community are constrained by secular laws, NOT God's laws, period.
I'm actually curious if the original baker in question, if asked to make a cake for a civil union party (thus denying the event the title of "wedding" because that would trigger, in a religious person's eyes, this notion of religious sanction), would be ok doing it because he isn't being asked to take a stand on something remotely religious. Just wondering.
No, the law just decided that certain organizations would not have to officiate at such a union. A very restricted exception.
A) Not organizations, people. I am not affiliated with any organization. If I am asked to officiate and I say no, it is because of my belief, not because I belong to a group. No group wants me
B) restricted, maybe. But an exception because of religion. Just an example of how the current laws are bent to allow for free practice.
No I asked you if you wete the type, it was a question not an accusation. And spitting upon someone is a physical assult. Death threats are usually people being angry or bigotted. Other than being anti vaccine and a playmate centerfold I know nothing about Jenny.
But you keep pushing guilt by association, now with Dick Gottfried whoever he is.
it's called fighting fire with fire, if I am guilty because of guilt by association, you are also.
Quote:
So nothing in the ten commaments refers to not giving false testimony?
I never gave false testimony,
Quote:
And that you have done on multiple times. A lie is a lie regardless if the liar is religious or not. The lesbians did not sue the Oregon baker, their law suit was not the reason for his big fine
They reported him to the government, that is suing as far declaring it evil, that is even worse if they weren't after money, but just to be pure evil.
Quote:
you have no evidence that LBGT people back the Westboro Baptists
I said it was conjecture, but many people when looking at the signs agree it is likely
Quote:
nor that the same people who backed LBGT rights years ago are the ones against your pathetic dress code signs.
1. I said that they took out a paragraph solely regarding lgb. I never said it was the same people
2. that said, the NYC human rights is the same group that pushes LGBT in NYC.
I'm actually curious if the original baker in question, if asked to make a cake for a civil union party (thus denying the event the title of "wedding" because that would trigger, in a religious person's eyes, this notion of religious sanction), would be ok doing it because he isn't being asked to take a stand on something remotely religious. Just wondering.
Who knows? It would depend upon whether the couple got what they wanted. (assuming that it wasn't a deliberate ploy to force a test case, as has been suggested) and whether they wanted to make an issue of it and whether (as in the Kim Davis case- which was the original topic) a compromise was offered and accepted.
We can speculate about it but in the end the Courts decide, and even that can be challenged.
It may be convenient on the face of it to just have Pronouncements by a Divine Authority, but i much prefer social evolution through morality, rubber- stamped by the law - courts.
Who knows? It would depend upon whether the couple got what they wanted. (assuming that it wasn't a deliberate ploy to force a test case, as has been suggested) and whether they wanted to make an issue of it and whether (as in the Kim Davis case- which was the original topic) a compromise was offered and accepted.
We can speculate about it but in the end the Courts decide, and even that can be challenged.
It may be convenient on the face of it to just have Pronouncements by a Divine Authority, but i much prefer social evolution through morality, rubber- stamped by the law - courts.
Understood. I guess I'm just cynical because of two things you wrote -- first that law can change and second that you prefer something rubber stamped by the courts. Religion (whether you happen to believe it or not) gives the believer the sense that nothing is rubber stamped by a changeable and human authority.
I mean, sure, it still is, but we don't have to FEEL that way.
right, so the law was worded in a way which protects certain people's exercise of religion -- the right to discriminate. The law just decided that only certain members of the religion have that protection.
This is clouded thinking. It is only certain religious roles (NOT members) that have protection. It s the religious nature of the roles that invoke the protection, just as it is the secular nature of the roles that invoke sanction by secular law.
If that happens it will be if the religious (Christian) Right wins, with all their fundamentalist bigotry and Bible- based intolerance. It won't come from the secularists (us) who want rights for everyone - stopping only where they infringe the rights of other (and the law decides where those end, not you). If only you knew it you are opposing the people who are as concerned with your right to live in your own way as much as others are allowed to live in theirs. Instead, because you hate seeing your 'Right' to impose your rules on everyone else being abrogated, you don't see that we are actually fighting for your rights, too.
I'm not worried from "religious (Christian) Right", I'm worried from secularists. Secularists murdered more Jews in history than Christianity. I've read stormfront, and THIS FORUM scares me more. The law is a sliding scale, they are already trying (as in regulations to be voted on Tuesday) to put into Yeshivas LGBT positive curriculum in NYC. Even the Christian Church didn't go into the Jewish curriculum like the lgbt secularists. I know actually what they are trying to do, I've seen it before, there is a reason a lot of stupid Jews joined the Communists, they bought that same propaganda. The NY State Legislature voted this past year that Yeshivas are required to accept boys who think their girls into boys schools. What happens when we say no. In the UK they are doing the same thing to yeshivas, thank god the Muslims are fighting back. One of the most influential rabbis in england said Jews might have to leave the country. I have further seen in NJ that the secularists passed an assisted suicide law, that has so little safe guards, that medical insurance companies can act as witnesses that everything is legitimate. After seeing their actions I'm 100% that most secularists would murder people without any compulsions.
your Christian understanding of Judaism is not true.
They way you present Judaism doesn't commend your version of it any more than if it was correct. At the most it removes even you weak excuse that your views were instilled by a harshly legalistic religion. If that is 'Not True', then i don't know what your excuse could be.
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.
