Perform Same-Sex Marriage Or Go To Jail !!!!!!

[Spartacus]

The first amendment doesn't say that it only protects churches. In fact, it only protects citizens.

Not to mention, a church is not a business or a building. It is a group of people. I don't know of anything that requires you to "register as a church" in order to be a church or get constitutional protection.

Where do you see "citizens" in the 1st amendment?

[Sparko]

Where do you see "citizens" in the 1st amendment?

derp.

Well let's start out with the introduction: We the People of the United States.

That would be the citizens.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Now a business can't exercise religion, but a person can.

It also says that the government can not make a law respecting an establishment of religion, meaning it can't make a requirement to "register to be a church" or of saying a church can't also be a business. And it can't force someone to give up their religious beliefs or go against them even if they work for some business (like the ministers would be working for the chapel).

[Cow Poke]

That is all I am asking of you. It seemed like you explicitly agreed with seer that our liberal posters are hypocrites and totalitarian, but maybe you did not mean to actually agree with this.

Not only did I not MEAN to agree with that, I didn't agree with it.

Yes? No? Maybe you were thinking of someone else? Further, it seemed like you then explicitly said that these posters don't want "equality", but rather revenge and control.

Actually, no --- I did not say "these posters" at that point. What I sad EXACTLY was....

And I repeat... they don't want "equality", they want revenge and control.

What I had said in another thread (don't remember which one, and have said numerous times - hence "I repeat") is that they -- in this case the liberal activists -- don't want "equality", they want revenge and control.

But, again, maybe that is not what you meant to say. Maybe you were thinking of someone else at that point also?

It would have been SO much easier if you had just asked, "who's 'they'"?

[Spartacus]

derp.

Well let's start out with the introduction: We the People of the United States.

That would be the citizens.

Are there people who are not citizens?

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

Free exercise is a collective right as much as an individual right. It does little good to say you can be a practicing Methodist if you like, but there can be no Methodist churches or assemblies. After all, each individual can practice the religion in the privacy of their own home: why do they need to gather to practice their religion?

Now a business can't exercise religion, but a person can.

So you're against the Hobby Lobby ruling, then, in which the Supreme Court said that closely held businesses can exercise a religious conscience?

It also says that the government can not make a law respecting an establishment of religion, meaning it can't make a requirement to "register to be a church" or of saying a church can't also be a business. And it can't force someone to give up their religious beliefs or go against them even if they work for some business (like the ministers would be working for the chapel).

That's not what the establishment clause means, at least not in its original context

It's fun to

[Cow Poke]

That's not what the establishment clause means, at least not in its original context

Then read the NEXT phrase -- the prohibition phrase.

[Juvenal]

I'm a little disappointed you would go there.

Ironically enough, it wasn't robrecht, but seer who went there, so I assume you're actually disappointed with him.

[Spartacus]

Then read the NEXT phrase -- the prohibition phrase.

You mean the free exercise clause? That's a bit more ambiguous. It's not clear, for example, whether the Founders thought that the Quakers' free exercise meant they could be exempt from the draft.

The Establishment clause was intended to prevent Congress from interfering with the existing church establishments in the states. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. That is, Congress does not have the power to make any laws on state-established religions.

[Cow Poke]

You mean the free exercise clause?

If I had meant that, I would have said that. I said "the prohibition clause".... "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

The Establishment clause was intended to prevent Congress from interfering with the existing church establishments in the states. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion. That is, Congress does not have the power to make any laws on state-established religions.

OR to prohibit the free exercise thereof, collegeboy.

[Spartacus]

If I had meant that, I would have said that. I said "the prohibition clause".... "or prohibiting the free exercise thereof"

So I guess you don't want a free gym membership, then?

What you call the prohibition clause is generally referred to as the free exercise clause in constitutional jurisprudence. If you don't believe me, ask Google

[robrecht]

Not only did I not MEAN to agree with that, I didn't agree with it.

Actually, no --- I did not say "these posters" at that point. What I sad EXACTLY was....

What I had said in another thread (don't remember which one, and have said numerous times - hence "I repeat") is that they -- in this case the liberal activists -- don't want "equality", they want revenge and control.

It would have been SO much easier if you had just asked, "who's 'they'"?

Sorry, but when I initially asked the question, I thought you were referring to the posts of seer that you were quoting here. I did not realize you were referring to other threads. Subsequently, I did try to give you the benefit of the doubt and raised the possibility that maybe you were thinking of someone else. At any rate, I am very happy that we have clarified your comments. Thank you!

[Cow Poke]

So I guess you don't want a free gym membership, then?

Already have one!

What you call the prohibition clause is generally referred to as the free exercise clause in constitutional jurisprudence.

And that's why there's so much confusion over what the first amendment actually says... the first part deals with "establishing", and the next part deals with "prohibiting". It's what CONGRESS can and cannot do.

[Cow Poke]

In FACT, it would be a WHOLE LOT BETTER if the First Amendment stopped right after the first five words!

[Cow Poke]

Sorry, but when I initially asked the question, I thought you were referring to the posts of seer that you were quoting here. I did not realize you were referring to other threads. Subsequently, I did try to give you the benefit of the doubt and raised the possibility that maybe you were thinking of someone else. At any rate, I am very happy that we have clarified your comments. Thank you!

I'll try to be more clear in the future -- my bad.

[rogue06]

In FACT, it would be a WHOLE LOT BETTER if the First Amendment stopped right after the first five words!

Well bless your anarchist heart. Who woulda ever thunk it.

[robrecht]

I'll try to be more clear in the future -- my bad.

And I'll try to give my fellow (ornery) Southern Baptist the benefit of even greater doubt! From this day forward, I will do my best to presume that, of course, you would not be agreeing with seer!