Republican wakes up!

Stelakh said:
Here are my issues with this interpretation:

First and foremost, a business is a legal entity that by its very nature cannot have faith or belief. It's founders and owners may, but the business itself simply cannot. As such, I find that a business should be exempted from laws that protect discrimination and bigotry. And if organizations are permitted to discriminate in direct contravention of the Constitution's guarantees of equality, then they should lose their tax-exempt status.

Beyond that, I would question whether or not anyone has "sincerely held beliefs" if they choose to discriminate. To use Christians as an example, Jesus and the New Testament are both very, very clear on the idea of discrimination and bigotry.

In Acts, Peter tells us that "God shows no partiality," and we are reminded of this Romans, too.

The Gospel of Matthew lobs the "Golden Rule" at us: "So whatever you wish that others would do to you, do also to them, for this is the Law and the Prophets."

In James, we are admonished to "show no partiality as you hold the faith in our Lord Jesus Christ, the Lord of glory..." because if you do, then, "...have you not then made distinctions among yourselves and become judges with evil thoughts?"

The New Testament is riddled with edicts and comments that we should not discriminate against anyone, and that we should treat others exactly in the way we wish to be treated ourselves, and that we should love one another. This is where the concept of "love the sinner, hate the sin" comes from (which is always said by people who are shouting hate-filled messages at people who they consider "sinners" - and they say it without any irony, which is in itself ironic).

So I would be forced to question just how strongly a Christian is in their faith if they're using that faith to justify discrimination when the book they draw their faith from expressly states that you should not discriminate.

If one is doing the exact opposite of what one is told to do by the documents upon which their faith is based, then they are clearly not very devout and the exemption based on those "sincerely-held religious beliefs" is invalidated.

Bill Maher (who is a complete schmuck, but I won't get started) actually made sense at one point on this very issue. When Christians discriminate in direct contravention of what Jesus taught, "It's like joining Greenpeace but hating whales."
Click to expand...

That's interesting lol.

The part where you quoted from Acts has to do with God not showing partiality. The parallel 'God is no respecter of persons' is found in other places in the Bible; in fact, many would argue it provided the basis for 'all men are created equal....' Which is an important principle included in the Declaration.

But Christians are forced to go along with the crowd at every point? Really?
 
Legion Troll said:
Really. As are Muslims, Mormons, and every other group of ignorant, bigoted people, Nurse. Lol.
Click to expand...

Oh, Enlightened One, at what point does freedom of religion come into play? You know, that little First Amendment thingy.

Or did you dispense with that in your infinite wisdom, lol.
 
Gaylord Focker said:
Oh, Enlightened One, at what point does freedom of religion come into play? You know, that little First Amendment thingy. Or did you dispense with that in your infinite wisdom, lol.
Click to expand...

Your religious beliefs don't trump (pun intended) the rights of others to equal treatment under the law, Nurse. Lol.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
That's interesting lol.

The part where you quoted from Acts has to do with God not showing partiality. The parallel 'God is no respecter of persons' is found in other places in the Bible; in fact, many would argue it provided the basis for 'all men are created equal....' Which is an important principle included in the Declaration.

But Christians are forced to go along with the crowd at every point? Really?
Click to expand...

It's important to remember the context, here, Omar. I responded to a Christian, and stated quite clearly that I was using Christians as an example in this instance.

If you want me to say it then fine, I'll say it: Bigotry is against the law. If you are a bigot and discriminate against certain groups of people, you're running contrary to the law. Regardless of your religion.

Happier?
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
Oh, Enlightened One, at what point does freedom of religion come into play? You know, that little First Amendment thingy.

Or did you dispense with that in your infinite wisdom, lol.
Click to expand...

You actually asked Troll, but this is a political debate forum, so I'll just throw my 2 cents worth in like anyone else would.

"Freedom of religion" means that you are free to practice your religion.

It does not give you the right to persecute and discriminate against others based on that religion - especially when that religion (as in the case of the Christian example) specifically states that you shouldn't discriminate.
 
Stelakh said:
You actually asked Troll, but this is a political debate forum, so I'll just throw my 2 cents worth in like anyone else would.

"Freedom of religion" means that you are free to practice your religion.

It does not give you the right to persecute and discriminate against others based on that religion - especially when that religion (as in the case of the Christian example) specifically states that you shouldn't discriminate.
Click to expand...

The Amendment restricts the government from preventing "The Free Exercise of Religion"?

How is denying services to gay people the exercise of any religion? If you can show me any religious tenant that requires denial of services to minorities I might agree with you, but its not a part of any religion I know of.
 
Stelakh said:
It's important to remember the context, here, Omar. I responded to a Christian, and stated quite clearly that I was using Christians as an example in this instance.

If you want me to say it then fine, I'll say it: Bigotry is against the law. If you are a bigot and discriminate against certain groups of people, you're running contrary to the law. Regardless of your religion.

Happier?
Click to expand...

Not really lol?

Aren't you assuming bigotry? Maybe the Christian bakers are following their religious conscience as opposed to bigotry. Maybe they would be more than happy to serve gays but they perceive that baking a gay wedding cake violates Christianity as they interpret it.
 
Jarod said:
The Amendment restricts the government from preventing "The Free Exercise of Religion"?

How is denying services to gay people the exercise of any religion? If you can show me any religious tenant that requires denial of services to minorities I might agree with you, but its not a part of any religion I know of.
Click to expand...

You might want to go back and read what I've said in this thread.
 
Darth Hussein Omar said:
Not really lol?

Aren't you assuming bigotry? Maybe the Christian bakers are following their religious conscience as opposed to bigotry. Maybe they would be more than happy to serve gays but they perceive that baking a gay wedding cake violates Christianity as they interpret it.
Click to expand...

Then that "religious conscience" is not Christianity, given Jesus' teachings and the comments throughout the New Testament regarding acting in a discriminatory manner.

Because how discrimination is handled by Jesus and the New Testament isn't a matter of interpretation. It's rather clearly spelled out multiple times.
 
Gaylord Focker said:
Not really lol? Aren't you assuming bigotry? Maybe the Christian bakers are following their religious conscience as opposed to bigotry. Maybe they would be more than happy to serve gays but they perceive that baking a gay wedding cake violates Christianity as they interpret it.
Click to expand...

You don't get to make up your own religion as you go along, Nurse. Lol.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
because you can love your neighbor without participating in activities which you deem to be contrary to God's teaching.......to show love to your neighbor you don't have to bake them a gay wedding cake......any more than to show love to an alcoholic you have to give them a fifth of vodka........
Click to expand...

How is baking a cake for a customer, in any stretch of the imagination, prohibiting you from "the free exercise of" Christianity?
 
Jarod said:
THIS, its real religions not whatever you make up and claim is your religion.
Click to expand...

I concur, Counselor.

The Court in Thomas v. Review Board again signaled that personal philosophical choice is not protected by the first amendment religion clauses. Chief Justice Burger stated that "beliefs rooted in religion are protected by the Free Exercise Clause, which, by its terms, gives special protection to the exercise of religion."

In discussing the petitioner's free exercise claim, the court stated: "A personal philosophical choice, rather than a religious choice, does not rise to the level of a first amendment claim."



https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/450/707
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top