Announcement

Collapse

Civics 101 Guidelines

Want to argue about politics? Healthcare reform? Taxes? Governments? You've come to the right place!

Try to keep it civil though. The rules still apply here.
See more
See less

Fighting Back!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Fighting Back!

    It is good to see freedom loving people at least trying to fight back against the rise of totalitarianism.

    TROY, N.Y. – An Alliance Defending Freedom allied attorney filed a petition in New York state court Thursday that asks for review of a New York State Division of Human Rights decision against the owners of an upstate farm. The commission ruled that Cynthia and Robert Gifford were guilty of “sexual orientation discrimination” for declining to host a same-sex wedding ceremony on their property. As punishment, the commissioner fined them $10,000 plus $3,000 in damages and ordered the Giffords to implement staff re-education training classes that teach the state’s viewpoint on marriage.

    http://www.adfmedia.org/News/PRDetail/9332
    Re-education training classes? Really?
    Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

  • #2
    The government's basically telling the Giffords that the religious/personal beliefs of their customers are more important than their own religious beliefs. How long before the government starts punishing churches and their pastors for refusing to host or accommodate same sex pastors? Other countries already restrict freedom of speech much more tightly in regard to this topic, and I fear ours will do the same.

    We face a long, uphill battle.
    "If you believe, take the first step, it leads to Jesus Christ. If you don't believe, take the first step all the same, for you are bidden to take it. No one wants to know about your faith or unbelief, your orders are to perform the act of obedience on the spot. Then you will find yourself in the situation where faith becomes possible and where faith exists in the true sense of the word." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship

    Comment


    • #3
      Originally posted by myth View Post
      The government's basically telling the Giffords that the religious/personal beliefs of their customers are more important than their own religious beliefs. How long before the government starts punishing churches and their pastors for refusing to host or accommodate same sex pastors? Other countries already restrict freedom of speech much more tightly in regard to this topic, and I fear ours will do the same.

      We face a long, uphill battle.
      Well actually, the courts had ruled earlier that the Giffords' facility qualifies as a public accommodation, and since New York state law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, allowing straight marriages on the facility means they have to allow same-sex marriages as well. Your objection would be valid only if the Giffords' facility qualified as private. The issue was already discussed in a seer thread in late August, which I guess seer either forgot about or is pretending doesn't exist.
      Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

      I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by square_peg View Post
        Well actually, the courts had ruled earlier that the Giffords' facility qualifies as a public accommodation, and since New York state law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, allowing straight marriages on the facility means they have to allow same-sex marriages as well. Your objection would be valid only if the Giffords' facility qualified as private. The issue was already discussed in a seer thread in late August, which I guess seer either forgot about or is pretending doesn't exist.
        If, for example, the Giffords changed their charter to establish their business as a private accommodation requiring, for example, a "membership", you'd be totally OK with their "selectivity" as to what functions could take place on their property?
        Last edited by Cow Poke; 10-03-2014, 10:18 AM.
        "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by square_peg View Post
          Well actually, the courts had ruled earlier that the Giffords' facility qualifies as a public accommodation, and since New York state law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, allowing straight marriages on the facility means they have to allow same-sex marriages as well. Your objection would be valid only if the Giffords' facility qualified as private. The issue was already discussed in a seer thread in late August, which I guess seer either forgot about or is pretending doesn't exist.
          I understand the legal arguments involved. As you said, the issue has already been discussed at length on this forum (and I may have participated to a small degree, though I don't recall specifically). I have no desire to wade into those details again. I only wished to express my feelings on the issue, which remain unchanged.

          At the end of the day, I don't care about the legal arguments and petty details. My religion is important to me, and I will continue to regard as hostile any attempt to compel members of my faith to actively engage in activities which they believe they are inconsistent with God's law. The way I see it, the government has previously prohibited certain actions in the name of religious expression. Now, they're effectively mandating action which conflicts with the individuals' religious expression and I believe that's going too far. (No need to offer the semantic argument, i.e. "no, they're just prohibiting discrimination, which is just restriction of an activity". I understand it, but still disagree.)
          "If you believe, take the first step, it leads to Jesus Christ. If you don't believe, take the first step all the same, for you are bidden to take it. No one wants to know about your faith or unbelief, your orders are to perform the act of obedience on the spot. Then you will find yourself in the situation where faith becomes possible and where faith exists in the true sense of the word." - Dietrich Bonhoeffer, The Cost of Discipleship

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by square_peg View Post
            Well actually, the courts had ruled earlier that the Giffords' facility qualifies as a public accommodation, and since New York state law prohibits discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, allowing straight marriages on the facility means they have to allow same-sex marriages as well. Your objection would be valid only if the Giffords' facility qualified as private. The issue was already discussed in a seer thread in late August, which I guess seer either forgot about or is pretending doesn't exist.
            Yes, and that is why these anti-discrimination laws are deeply immoral and unconstitutional.
            Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by seer View Post
              Yes, and that is why these anti-discrimination laws are deeply immoral and unconstitutional.
              Like the "affirmative action" laws, they simply discriminate against somebody else.
              "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by myth View Post
                I understand the legal arguments involved. As you said, the issue has already been discussed at length on this forum (and I may have participated to a small degree, though I don't recall specifically). I have no desire to wade into those details again. I only wished to express my feelings on the issue, which remain unchanged.

                At the end of the day, I don't care about the legal arguments and petty details. My religion is important to me, and I will continue to regard as hostile any attempt to compel members of my faith to actively engage in activities which they believe they are inconsistent with God's law. The way I see it, the government has previously prohibited certain actions in the name of religious expression. Now, they're effectively mandating action which conflicts with the individuals' religious expression and I believe that's going too far. (No need to offer the semantic argument, i.e. "no, they're just prohibiting discrimination, which is just restriction of an activity". I understand it, but still disagree.)
                Yes, it is increasingly true that if you go into business in this country you forfeit your basic Constitutional rights. This is deeply un-american, and a relatively recent divergent from over 200 years of law.
                Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                  Like the "affirmative action" laws, they simply discriminate against somebody else.
                  Exactly - but those on the left refuse to see that plain fact.
                  Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by seer View Post
                    Exactly - but those on the left refuse to see that plain fact.
                    Because they discriminate against people they don't like, so it's OK.
                    "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Same liberal hypocrisy as being discussed in another thread.


                      Securely anchored to the Rock amid every storm of trial, testing or tribulation.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by Cow Poke View Post
                        If, for example, the Giffords changed their charter to establish their business as a private accommodation requiring, for example, a "membership", you'd be totally OK with their "selectivity" as to what functions could take place on their property?
                        Sure. They can do and allow whatever they want within the confines of private property. But if something qualifies as public, then it by rule has to be open to everyone without discrimination. That's not "reverse discrimination" at all.
                        Learn to do right; seek justice. Defend the oppressed. Take up the cause of the fatherless; plead the case of the widow.--Isaiah 1:17

                        I don't think that all forms o[f] slavery are inherently immoral.--seer

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by square_peg View Post
                          Sure. They can do and allow whatever they want within the confines of private property. But if something qualifies as public, then it by rule has to be open to everyone without discrimination. That's not "reverse discrimination" at all.
                          Ignoring the last of your comment for now, what would it take, in your view, to establish their business as "private"?
                          "Neighbor, how long has it been since you’ve had a big, thick, steaming bowl of Wolf Brand Chili?”

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            A lot of times, when I see stories like these, I think of the controversies over slavery, where the Bible was used to justify the practice. I always wonder if we infringed on the right to religious freedom then. Don't get me wrong. .. I believe the slavery was wrong. But I still wonder what we should do if we were to be consistent in our insistence on religious freedom? Apologize and recompense those who lost despite their right to believe it was Biblical?
                            Watch your links! http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/fa...corumetiquette

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by square_peg View Post
                              Sure. They can do and allow whatever they want within the confines of private property. But if something qualifies as public, then it by rule has to be open to everyone without discrimination. That's not "reverse discrimination" at all.
                              Of course it is discrimination, you are denying these people of faith the right to run their business according to their religious beliefs. Since when do you lose your Constitutional rights because you open a business? What Constitutional does principle does this follow?
                              Atheism is the cult of death, the death of hope. The universe is doomed, you are doomed, the only thing that remains is to await your execution...

                              https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jbnueb2OI4o&t=3s

                              Comment

                              Related Threads

                              Collapse

                              Topics Statistics Last Post
                              Started by rogue06, Yesterday, 09:13 AM
                              12 responses
                              96 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Started by CivilDiscourse, 11-29-2020, 09:32 AM
                              26 responses
                              175 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post Ronson
                              by Ronson
                               
                              Started by mossrose, 11-28-2020, 03:05 PM
                              26 responses
                              279 views
                              1 like
                              Last Post Juvenal
                              by Juvenal
                               
                              Started by CivilDiscourse, 11-28-2020, 01:53 PM
                              26 responses
                              136 views
                              0 likes
                              Last Post rogue06
                              by rogue06
                               
                              Started by Starlight, 11-27-2020, 11:51 PM
                              4 responses
                              45 views
                              2 likes
                              Last Post shunyadragon  
                              Working...
                              X