Fighting Back!

[Country Sparrow]

I'd let them have their little "service" and accidentally turn the sprinkler system on which somehow had gotten filled with raspberry jam...

What a perfectly good waste of jam.
Besides, what would that accomplish except to demonstrate Christians feel the need to resort to vandalism in order to invoke and stand for God's values?

There has to be a legal way to fight immorality. This isn't like the race issue where at one time, whites only, designations were the signage of the times in America. Race is a protein, a skin color, a racial biological and genetic fact of a persons life.
Behaviors are a choice, a compulsion, and mental illnesses are treatable.

There has to be a legal way to fight forced abdication of the constitutional right to invoke religious rights in the face of those who invoke the right to be immoral and parade ab-nomality.

[Jedidiah]

There has to be a legal way to fight forced abdication of the constitutional right to invoke religious rights in the face of those who invoke the right to be immoral and parade ab-nomality.

Nice theory, but we live in a world (USA) where Christianity is not respected, and the laws do not protect it. The same goes for many conservative values.

[Country Sparrow]

To the contrary. The first amendment does protect it. And the law is not emotionally invested and is impartial. Finding the laws that are already extant is key.

Like for instance, U.S. District Judge Martin Feldman in Louisiana. Bible belt state, upheld that states gay marriage ban.
The legal remedy in that case to fight those that would rescind the ban was the SCOTUS decision that struck down parts of DOMA which recognized state legislators and voters had the right to define marriage.
In the case of Louisiana marriage was defined in their state constitution as between that of a man and woman. A ban on gay marriage was therefore constitutional by law.

That's how you fight. But the states have to have the courage. Meaning the Christians have to petition their legislators not to bow to the intolerant bullies in the LGBTQ community. And we have to vote come next election and get family values candidates not only on the ballots, but in office.

[Tassman]

I'd let them have their little "service" and accidentally turn the sprinkler system on which somehow had gotten filled with raspberry jam...

Oh you Evangelicals!!! If you can’t get your own way you ‘spit the dummy’.

[Tassman]

Tass, the KKK has the right to force someone who has owns "a Place of Public Accomdation" as defined by the ACT even if the people think it is wrong to enable the KKK In thier bigotry. if you refuse to admit this TAss then you are a hypocrit because by your criteria the KKK has the same rights the homosexual couple has to force people to enable their wrong doing. Thanks for showing your True Colors Tass I can now ignore you as being a bigoted hypocrit who beleives in discrimating agasint those you disagree with.

False equivalence fallacy!

The Civil Rights Act is concerned with access to full civil rights for all segments of the population in places designated by law as Public Accommodation. What some people may consider “wrongdoing” is not the issue. By contrast, the KKK is best known for the explicit, violent denial of civil rights to Jews, blacks and others. In short, the opposite to full civil rights for all as intended by the The Civil Rights Act.

Yep. If you've read George Owell's dystopian novel, 1984, it's like unto the Thought Police. And in this particular case, The Ministry of Truth.

Re-education training classes. Think, Gender Sensitivity Training classes. All designed to teach that holding to religious values is not only wrong but can cost a person their business.

Stop demanding special treatment just because you’re a Christian. Whilst you may have particular views about what constitutes morality others disagree with you. And in a secular democracy like the USA, they're just as entitled to their views as you are.

Under the First Amendment you have the right to believe in whatever religion you want. But you are NOT entitled under the Civil Rights Act to discriminate against segments of the population just because, in your opinion, their behaviour immoral.

[Tassman]

The law of the land (the constitution) protects religion. It does not protect you from being discriminated against by private citizens.

The "law of the land", under the First Amendment means freedom to hold an opinion or belief. But while the freedom to believe is absolute, the freedom to act on that belief is not necessarily absolute. According to the Civil Rights Act the "law of the land" does indeed protect all citizens in designated places of “Public Accommodation" from discrimination.

Any "law" that overrides the former for the latter is unconstitutional and the equivalent of being run by an atheist theocracy, which, incidentally, is what "secular democracy" actually is.

Well SCOTUS, the body entrusted with protecting and interpreting the Constitution, disagrees with you judging by its rulings.

BTW: "atheist theocracy” is a contradiction in terms, i.e. an oxymoron. A "Secular Democracy" is government by the people for the common good based on the rule of law without religious interference. Whereas a Theocracy is the reverse, namely a government under religious authority according to God's (alleged) laws.

[Bill the Cat]

Oh you Evangelicals!!! If you can’t get your own way you ‘spit the dummy’.

There are times when examples must be made of bullies like these homosexuals in this latest story. Even Jesus made examples of stupid bullying morons.

[Country Sparrow]

Stop demanding special treatment just because you’re a Christian.

To the contrary. Those who are demanding special treatment would be those who are now called "purple penguins" in my tax payer funded public school in Nebraska. Those who demand special rights are those who sex the same sex and then sue because I'm not entitled to my religious freedom when I say my private property, that I insure remains mine because I pay the state government tax to keep it, isn't allowed to be kept private when sodomites demand the right to enter and be married there. Special rights demand the right to parade perversion on floats down my public streets, where children are present, as they mock sex acts, kiss openly, wear obscene attire, and forewarn everyone with the stomach to watch what is proudly pursuing an agenda to put that in our face whether we like it or not.
And we're suppose to accept it because morality and decency are no longer a matter of civility.

Whilst you may have particular views about what constitutes morality others disagree with you. And in a secular democracy like the USA, they're just as entitled to their views as you are.

What revokes your proclamation here and turns it into a hypocritical screed is when you argue that I'm entitled to my views, while you argue my views are afforded special treatment as a Christian and that is something that needs to be hushed and overcome.

Under the First Amendment you have the right to believe in whatever religion you want. But you are NOT entitled under the Civil Rights Act to discriminate against segments of the population just because, in your opinion, their behaviour immoral.

I don't discriminate against segments of the population. I voice my opinion about homosexuals and transsexuals demanding the right to violate my civil rights when I voice my opinion about their behaviors and lifestyles. And then attempt to tell me that I have no right to that opinion unless I lose my job, lose my business, because they demand the right to trespass their behavior and lifestyle upon my person because I am in business.
Homosexuals aren't equal to straights. Transsexuals aren't equal to unisexuals. They're people, yes. But they're not equal to straights or uni's. Anymore than pedophiles, or ephebophiles are equal to heterosexuals.

I don't have to abdicate my freedoms just so someone who I find offensive can be free of my opinion. But advocates for the ab-normal community expect to enforce via bullying and intolerance, the special rights they expect to achieve through those methods in order to try. Good luck with that.

[myth]

The law of the land is the ultimate authority in a secular democracy like the USA. Unless you are arguing for a theocracy you have no choice other than submit to the rule of law. Furthermore, we've all seen - and see today - the dire consequences of theocracies in history.

“Freedom of religion means freedom to hold an opinion or belief, but not to take action in violation of social duties or subversive to good order," Chief Justice Waite wrote in Reynolds v. United States (1878). The U.S. Court found that while laws cannot interfere with religious belief and opinions, laws can be made to regulate some religious practices, e.g., human sacrifices, and the Hindu practice of suttee. The Court stated that to rule otherwise, "would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and in effect permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government would exist only in name under such circumstances.”

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_A...se_of_religion

Note the bolded.

While you might be accepting of the dominance of religious belief if it was Christian, what about if it was not your particular brand of Christianity? Or was Muslim? Or Hindu? You may well be glad of the dominance of secular law in such circumstances to protect your rights as a citizen.



Given that their personal religious beliefs appear to conflict with the law of the land, this is correct.

I’ve tried to be very clear about my beliefs here, but you still don’t seem to understand. I’m not asking you to agree with me, but I am hoping you’ll come to understand my viewpoint better.

So I’ll back up and punt, here. I support our secular government (in general) because it does afford me a certain degree of religious freedom. Why? Because I believe God is the ultimate authority on good or evil, right or wrong. As long as this government doesn’t stray too far from my understanding of God’s law, then I’ll continue to support it.

I would adamantly oppose the establishment of other religions because, quite frankly, I believe that I am ‘right’ about God and the nature of the universe. I know that sounds arrogant, but the issue is more complicated than that. When I was in India almost two years ago, an acquaintance began mocking Christian missionaries – they said it was offensive to tell someone else they were wrong (about the big issues like religion). They implied that it was much more wise to assume that everyone was equally right.

I struggled not to laugh. You see, this person believed in subjective truth (though they did not wish to admit it). For them, the facts of the universe change depending on who you are. They think that, somehow, people with contradicting beliefs can ALL be correct. And they found it positively offensive (archaic, even) that someone could think otherwise.

I believe that truth is objective, however. There are multiple possibilities, but only one is true. Southern Baptists may be closest to the truth. So might Roman Catholics, Buddhists, Hindus, or Jains. Maybe I know nothing about logic, science, or religion and all beliefs systems are correct because we are all living a miniature virtual realities. I guess it’s possible, but it is only one of many possibilities.

In recognition of these possibilities, I don’t think we should force these people to abandon their religions, even when I happen to disagree with them. (This is part of my reasoning behind supporting a ‘secular’ government). I acknowledge that I may be wrong. I hope I’m not, and I believe that I’m not, but it is a possibility.

I’m actually a big supporter of our government, but I will not hesitant to call foul when it takes a giant misstep. And, God forbid, if they want to roll in with shoddy ideology and ‘force’ me to commit sin and disobey the Creator of the universe, then things are going to get messy.

That’s twice now you’ve told me what I can and can’t do with regard to the authority of the government. Stop trying to pigeon-hole me into narrow choices. You should realize that there is a line that the government cannot cross. After the government crosses that line, people become willing to fight for their rights. It’s happened all throughout history and continues to happen now. The government can only ‘make’ me do something when I submit to its authority.

I know that you believe the government is the ultimate authority, but I completely disagree. The government’s authority is high, but it cannot exceed God’ own authority.

[Darth Executor]

The "law of the land", under the First Amendment means freedom to hold an opinion or belief. But while the freedom to believe is absolute, the freedom to act on that belief is not necessarily absolute.

You are correct. It may be subservient to other parts of the constitution. The CRA otoh is not a part of the constitution and thus subservient to it. You cannot override a constitutional amendment with legislation.

Well SCOTUS, the body entrusted with protecting and interpreting the Constitution, disagrees with you judging by its rulings.

What if SCOTUS decided it's ok for the government to round up and exterminate atheists?

[Tassman]

To the contrary. Those who are demanding special treatment would be those who are now called "purple penguins" in my tax payer funded public school in Nebraska. Those who demand special rights are those who sex the same sex and then sue because I'm not entitled to my religious freedom when I say my private property, that I insure remains mine because I pay the state government tax to keep it, isn't allowed to be kept private when sodomites demand the right to enter and be married there. Special rights demand the right to parade perversion on floats down my public streets, where children are present, as they mock sex acts, kiss openly, wear obscene attire, and forewarn everyone with the stomach to watch what is proudly pursuing an agenda to put that in our face whether we like it or not.

To claim that your personal moral values override the views of people with different moral values IS to demand “special treatment”. Very many people, including many Christians, think that your moral values are wrong. BTW: Your hate e.g. “perversion”, “sodomites” “obscene attire” etc, is palpable.

And we're suppose to accept it because morality and decency are no longer a matter of civility.

By which you mean YOUR notion of “morality and decency”. I think the real indecency is categorizing some segments of the population as second-class citizens and denying them their full civil rights merely on the basis of your personal beliefs.

What revokes your proclamation here and turns it into a hypocritical screed is when you argue that I'm entitled to my views, while you argue my views are afforded special treatment as a Christian and that is something that needs to be hushed and overcome.

I don't discriminate against segments of the population. I voice my opinion about homosexuals and transsexuals demanding the right to violate my civil rights when I voice my opinion about their behaviors and lifestyles. And then attempt to tell me that I have no right to that opinion unless I lose my job, lose my business, because they demand the right to trespass their behavior and lifestyle upon my person because I am in business.
Homosexuals aren't equal to straights. Transsexuals aren't equal to unisexuals. They're people, yes. But they're not equal to straights or uni's. Anymore than pedophiles, or ephebophiles are equal to heterosexuals.

I don't have to abdicate my freedoms just so someone who I find offensive can be free of my opinion. But advocates for the ab-normal community expect to enforce via bullying and intolerance, the special rights they expect to achieve through those methods in order to try. Good luck with that.

Again, you are entitled to your opinion, hate-based though it may be, but you are not entitled to discriminate or deny customer service under the Civil Rights Act to any citizens on the basis of colour, gender or sexual orientation. You demand your freedoms but you are not entitled to them at the expense of another’s rights.

[Tassman]

I’ve tried to be very clear about my beliefs here, but you still don’t seem to understand. I’m not asking you to agree with me, but I am hoping you’ll come to understand my viewpoint better.

So I’ll back up and punt, here. I support our secular government (in general) because it does afford me a certain degree of religious freedom. Why? Because I believe God is the ultimate authority on good or evil, right or wrong. As long as this government doesn’t stray too far from my understanding of God’s law, then I’ll continue to support it.

Well, if you disobey the government because of your “understanding of God’s Law” then you must be prepared to face the consequences. Furthermore, there are many who have a different “understanding of God’s Law” - and many who don’t believe in a God at all. So you must justify why YOUR particular “understanding” be given preferential treatment over everybody else's beliefs – especially in a secular democracy like the USA?

I would adamantly oppose the establishment of other religions because, quite frankly, I believe that I am ‘right’ about God and the nature of the universe. I know that sounds arrogant, but the issue is more complicated than that. When I was in India almost two years ago, an acquaintance began mocking Christian missionaries – they said it was offensive to tell someone else they were wrong (about the big issues like religion). They implied that it was much more wise to assume that everyone was equally right.

I struggled not to laugh. You see, this person believed in subjective truth (though they did not wish to admit it). For them, the facts of the universe change depending on who you are. They think that, somehow, people with contradicting beliefs can ALL be correct. And they found it positively offensive (archaic, even) that someone could think otherwise.

I believe that truth is objective, however. There are multiple possibilities, but only one is true. Southern Baptists may be closest to the truth. So might Roman Catholics, Buddhists, Hindus, or Jains. Maybe I know nothing about logic, science, or religion and all beliefs systems are correct because we are all living a miniature virtual realities. I guess it’s possible, but it is only one of many possibilities.

You are entitled to your view. Just as I'm equally entitled to think that you are wrong.

As for Christian missionaries attempting to introduce an alien religion into a foreign country, I know from experience as a resident in Bangkok that most Thais find Christianity utterly incomprehensible – my Buddhist wife thinks it’s silly and unbelievable. Despite 150 years of active missionary work in Thailand, Christianity has made very little headway and 95% of the population remains solidly Buddhist - a more tolerant world-view in my opinion than judgemental Christianity.

In recognition of these possibilities, I don’t think we should force these people to abandon their religions, even when I happen to disagree with them. (This is part of my reasoning behind supporting a ‘secular’ government). I acknowledge that I may be wrong. I hope I’m not, and I believe that I’m not, but it is a possibility.

I’m actually a big supporter of our government, but I will not hesitant to call foul when it takes a giant misstep. And, God forbid, if they want to roll in with shoddy ideology and ‘force’ me to commit sin and disobey the Creator of the universe, then things are going to get messy.

That’s twice now you’ve told me what I can and can’t do with regard to the authority of the government. Stop trying to pigeon-hole me into narrow choices. You should realize that there is a line that the government cannot cross. After the government crosses that line, people become willing to fight for their rights. It’s happened all throughout history and continues to happen now. The government can only ‘make’ me do something when I submit to its authority.

I know that you believe the government is the ultimate authority, but I completely disagree. The government’s authority is high, but it cannot exceed God’ own authority.

No. YOU should realise that there is a line which YOU cannot cross crossed without consequences, namely the law of the land. No one is above the law no matter what religious ideology one adheres to.

As for people “fighting for their rights” this is precisely what those demanding equality are doing and what the likes of you are attempting to resist in the name of your religious beliefs. Women’s rights were resisted for the same reason and so were equal rights for blacks - often with scriptural justification to support the prejudice against such reform. And now we're seeing the same thing happening with the demand of equal rights for homosexuals. But, as with women and blacks, there is every indication that they too will get justice.

[Tassman]

You are correct. It may be subservient to other parts of the constitution. The CRA otoh is not a part of the constitution and thus subservient to it. You cannot override a constitutional amendment with legislation.

Legislation, like the Civil Rights Act, made in the spirit of the Constitution and interpreted as such by SCOTUS, the guardian of the Constitution, can be reasonably accepted as Constitutional – whether one approves of the rulings or not.

What if SCOTUS decided it's ok for the government to round up and exterminate atheists?

Do you really think the Constitution can be interpreted in this way? Not really! The Constitution equally protects ‘freedom from religion’ as it does ‘freedom of religion’.

There are times when examples must be made of bullies like these homosexuals in this latest story. Even Jesus made examples of stupid bullying morons.

The question is who are the bullies - those demanding equal civil rights as citizens or those attempting to prevent them obtaining their rights? I think the latter are the bullies.

[Country Sparrow]

To claim that your personal moral values override the views of people with different moral values IS to demand “special treatment”. Very many people, including many Christians, think that your moral values are wrong. BTW: Your hate e.g. “perversion”, “sodomites” “obscene attire” etc, is palpable.

I don't hate anyone. Homosexual sex is by definition a perversion of natural law. Obscene attire is absolutely in evidence for anyone that wishes to conduct a search for the getup some people choose to don when parading in gay pride parades. Sodomite, is from the Latin and pertains to the actor in the commission of sodomy.

Furthermore, I don't claim my moral values override people with different moral values. Morality, while not universal, is a platform from which ethicality and principles derive in order to make for the semblance of a righteous society.
This is why those morally opposed to pedophiles write laws that prosecute pedophilia so as to make that perverse trespass upon innocent children illegal and prosecutable by law. And thereby insure children are safe in that society where those laws are present.
This is why a moral society opposed to forcible sex draft laws that prosecute rape. Because rape is immoral, perverse, and violent. And while no lawmaker can draft a bill and pass legislation that guarantees common sense, morality, or decency in a society, they can draft bills that become laws that prosecute those who act unlawfully in that society and those laws can prosecute for non-compliance to the consensus that defines morality, common sense, and decency.

By which you mean YOUR notion of “morality and decency”. I think the real indecency is categorizing some segments of the population as second-class citizens and denying them their full civil rights merely on the basis of your personal beliefs.

This isn't a nation of one. My notion is one of many. Unlike what you apparently advocate, a civil society does not turn on permitting anyone to do anything they wish and relegating those who are morally opposed to the status of second class citizen.

If you want a carnal hedonistic society in which to parade indecency, move to a country where that exists. It does not exist in America, it never has. And the movement that hopes to eradicate the present state of a moral platform in law and order so that it shall, while determined, shall be met with determined opposition. Though that agenda and it's proponents may be bolstered now by the advances it has achieved thus far, it shall be repelled in the long run.

Again, you are entitled to your opinion, hate-based though it may be,

Perhaps you should police your bigotry before attempting to argue your hate has special rights. We're done here.

[Bill the Cat]

The question is who are the bullies - those demanding equal civil rights as citizens or those attempting to prevent them obtaining their rights?

Those demanding forced servitude of those who do not agree with their perversion are the bullies.

I think the latter are the bullies.

And I think the former are. Please tell me how declining to serve someone is bullying while demanding service from someone unwilling isn't...