Another Bigoted Liberal Law Illegally Discriminating Against Only One Religion

Arminius said:
Correctly identifying hypocrisy is "losing your cool." Um, okay. Meaningless posturing. Develop a counterpoint or don't speak. That is how adult conversations work.
Click to expand...

You have gone ape shit here.

I was just pointing that out.

That is a part of how "adult conversations work" also.

If you cannot see it...okay.
 
Guille said:
They're not trying to participate in our society, they're trying to have it both ways by opening their doors to the public in order to increase their potential profit instead of cultivating a smaller private clientele while at the same time desiring to push their private religious views on people in the public domain who have nothing to do with their religion.


Are you arguing that because someone gets away with something in your opinion that two wrongs make a right?


No one is being forced to participate in their lifestyle, they were asked to print some invitations which is what that business does. It's been awhile since I've read the Bible but I do seem to recall something in there about render unto Caesar that which is his and that wasn't just talking about paying your taxes. I don't recall anything about not dealing with gays but perhaps you can refresh my memory on that issue?
Click to expand...

And since this is about CHRISTIANS...perhaps Arminius could provide us with even one word that Jesus said to condemn homosexuality. (Be careful here, Arminius, be very careful!)
 
Guille said:
If you don't want to deal with the public then don't open your doors to the public. Not being allowed to force your religious views on others in the public domain is not an infringement of free exercise of religion.
Click to expand...

Not doing something is the exact opposite of forcing something on to someone. Forcing someone to create artwork which goes against their religious beliefs, is most certainly an infringement of religious liberty. Can you show me where the Constitution says you relinquish your religious liberty when you open your doors to the public? Of course you can't, because it does not.
 
Last edited:
Frank Apisa said:
And since this is about CHRISTIANS...perhaps Arminius could provide us with even one word that Jesus said to condemn homosexuality. (Be careful here, Arminius, be very careful!)
Click to expand...

Matthew 19:5-6
5 and said, ‘Therefore a man shall leave his father and his mother and hold fast to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh’? 6 So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man separate.”

Jesus spoke in the positive. Perhaps you can show me where His teachings positively condoned homosexuality/homosexual marriage in the two verses. He's quite clear that marriage is between a man and a woman not two men or two women.
 
Arminius said:
Christians are yet again being persecuted by bigoted, Constitution-trampling liberal hypocrites, as the article shows. That's how you know the rejection occurred.
Click to expand...

How have you been persecuted for your faith?

Its WND.. and they are long time "Christian swindlers".
 
CFM said:
At the same time this is happening, the left is whining about how a raghead bitch elected to the House should be able to exercise her religious freedom and wear her Muslim uniform.
Click to expand...

You want to control how women dress?????????????
 
kudzu said:
You want to control how women dress?????????????
Click to expand...

Apparently you want to control what two people agree to do in a private contract.

I want consistency. It's clear you want ragheads to have freedom you're willing to deny to Christians.
 
countryboy said:
Not doing something is the exact opposite of forcing something on to someone. Forcing someone to create artwork which goes against their religious beliefs, is most certainly an infringement of religious liberty. Can you show me where the Constitution says you relinquish your religious liberty when you open your doors to the public? Of course you can, because it does not.
Click to expand...

And that's the crux of the issue. What is religious liberty? No one is telling those two women they can't be Christians. No one is stopping them from going to church or holding the beliefs they hold. They're not being forced to condone a life style they disagree with. They were asked to print some invitations...correction, the business was asked to print some invitations and the business is not a religious entity, it is a public entity. The Constitution doesn't say a whole lot about religious freedom, on purpose, but we do have a body of law dealing with what you can and cannot do when dealing with the public.
 
Guille said:
And that's the crux of the issue. What is religious liberty? No one is telling those two women they can't be Christians. No one is stopping them from going to church or holding the beliefs they hold. They're not being forced to condone a life style they disagree with. They were asked to print some invitations...correction, the business was asked to print some invitations and the business is not a religious entity, it is a public entity. The Constitution doesn't say a whole lot about religious freedom, on purpose, but we do have a body of law dealing with what you can and cannot do when dealing with the public.
Click to expand...

Last time I looked, the Constitution is supreme to legislative law.
 
CFM said:
Apparently you want to control what two people agree to do in a private contract.

I want consistency. It's clear you want ragheads to have freedom you're willing to deny to Christians.
Click to expand...

You want to tell Christian women how they may dress?

Are you open to the public for business or a private club?
 
kudzu said:
You want to tell Christian women how they may dress?

Are you open to the public for business or a private club?
Click to expand...

You want to tell a private business who they should serve?

Face it, cunt, you want the fucking raghead bitch to be able to exercise her religious freedom but deny it to a business. Hypocritical of you but no one is surprised.
 
CFM said:
Last time I looked, rights within the Constitution override legislative law. Are you claiming legislative law overrides the 1st amendment?
Click to expand...

Not at all. What I'm saying is a duly passed law is Constitutional so it can't interfere with the First Amendment, until a court rules otherwise.
 
Guille said:
Not at all. What I'm saying is a duly passed law is Constitutional so it can't interfere with the First Amendment, until a court rules otherwise.
Click to expand...

If you believe a business should be forced to serve someone that goes against the religious beliefs it holds, you do.
 
CFM said:
You want to tell a private business who they should serve?

Face it, cunt, you want the fucking raghead bitch to be able to exercise her religious freedom but deny it to a business. Hypocritical of you but no one is surprised.
Click to expand...

Well, we have been all thru that when Woolworth didn't want to serve Blacks at the lunch counter. Either a business is open to the public, or it isn't.

Do you want to make laws for women's dress code? Say.. make it against the law to be modest?
 
Guille said:
And that's the crux of the issue. What is religious liberty? No one is telling those two women they can't be Christians. No one is stopping them from going to church or holding the beliefs they hold. They're not being forced to condone a life style they disagree with. They were asked to print some invitations...correction, the business was asked to print some invitations and the business is not a religious entity, it is a public entity. The Constitution doesn't say a whole lot about religious freedom, on purpose, but we do have a body of law dealing with what you can and cannot do when dealing with the public.
Click to expand...

Nonsense, they're being forced under threat of imprisonment and financial hardship to go against the tenets of their religious beliefs. In what Bizarro world is that not an infringement of their religious liberty? Don't be ridiculous.

Furthermore, you oversimplify the situation by stating they were being asked to print some invitations. That is wholly inaccurate, these are artisans who are being forced to create artwork which violates the tenets of their religion. But frankly that is somewhat of a moot point. We either are afforded religious liberty, or we are not.
 
kudzu said:
Well, we have been all thru that when Woolworth didn't want to serve Blacks at the lunch counter. Either a business is open to the public, or it isn't.

Do you want to make laws for women's dress code? Say.. make it against the law to be modest?
Click to expand...

Either someone has the right to exercise their religion or they don't.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top