The More We Evolve, the Less We Need God

[seer]

Don't you know that Tassman knows more about the USA than anyone living here? Just like Starlight. They are the only real experts on American government and politics.

I think they have America envy, their own countries are just so boring...

[Tassman]

But the the Fourteenth Amendment does NOT apply to private business. Period...

However, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 DOES apply to Public Accommodations...i.e. private businesses.

[seer]

However, the Civil Rights Act of 1964 DOES apply to Public Accommodations...i.e. private businesses.

I never said it didn't! Sheesh!!!!!

[Tassman]

I never said it didn't! Sheesh!!!!!

...then all you need do is obey the Law of the Land.

[seer]

...then all you need do is obey the Law of the Land.

Or try and change the laws of the land that one doesn't like. Or have them deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

[Tassman]

Or try and change the laws of the land that one doesn't like. Or have them deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court.

Well this is why you Evangelicals put that immoral buffoon into power, wasn't it...to get your own way. But why do you object to the protection of ALL all citizens in their civil and legal rights...even the citizens you don't like?

[seer]

Well this is why you Evangelicals put that immoral buffoon into power, wasn't it...to get your own way. But why do you object to the protection of ALL all citizens in their civil and legal rights...even the citizens you don't like?

All I know is that that buffoon has packed the lower federal courts with constitutional judges, and we will soon have another originalist on the Supreme court. And yes, I do believe in protections - like a baker not being forced to violate his religious beliefs.

[Tassman]

All I know is that that buffoon has packed the lower federal courts with constitutional judges, and we will soon have another originalist on the Supreme court. And yes, I do believe in protections -

Tainted judges from a tainted president.

Was it worth selling your soul to get what you want from an immoral buffoon? As a consequence you Evangelicals have lost whatever moral high ground you may once have had. Trump morality = Evangelical morality.

like a baker not being forced to violate his religious beliefs.

You mean "like a baker being allowed to disregard the civil rights of those he doesn't like". Gotcha.

[seer]

Tainted judges from a tainted president.

Tainted how? That they follow the Constitution.

Was it worth selling your soul to get what you want from an immoral buffoon? As a consequence you Evangelicals have lost whatever moral high ground you may once have had. Trump morality = Evangelical morality.

Are you kidding? And I wouldn't have sold my soul voting for baby killing Clinton?

You mean "like a baker being allowed to disregard the civil rights of those he doesn't like". Gotcha.

Again, there is NO constitutional right not to be discriminated against by a private individual or business, there is a constitutional right to the free exercise of religion.

[Tassman]

Tainted how?

They have been appointed by a tainted president who may well be charged as a felon and traitor.

That they follow the Constitution.

The Supreme Court followed the Constitution when it legalised gay marriage and established abortion laws in Roe v Wade

Are you kidding? And I wouldn't have sold my soul voting for baby killing Clinton?

Killing babies is illegal. What you really mean is that women be denied freedom of choice regarding abortion, because you Evangelicals came to the conclusion 45 years ago that it was a bad thing to do.

Again, there is NO constitutional right not to be discriminated against by a private individual or business,

there is a constitutional right to the free exercise of religion.

Nobody is being denied the right to exercise the freedom of religion.

[seer]

They have been appointed by a tainted president who may well be charged as a felon and traitor.

What does that have to do with the judges qualifications?

The Supreme Court followed the Constitution when it legalised gay marriage and established abortion laws in Roe v Wade

You may have an argument with gay marriage, not with abortion.

Killing babies is illegal. What you really mean is that women be denied freedom of choice regarding abortion, because you Evangelicals came to the conclusion 45 years ago that it was a bad thing to do.

Killing unborn babies is still a moral evil. And BTW many early church fathers were against abortion, so it is not a recent thing at all.

http://www.priestsforlife.org/magist...ertullian.html

http://www.orthodoxytoday.org/articl...chAbortion.php

Right, I don't think a man should be forced by law to violate his religious convictions. Which is a constitutional right, unlike the non-existent right not to be discriminated against.

Nobody is being denied the right to exercise the freedom of religion.

That is a falsehood, and you know it.

[Sparko]

All I know is that that buffoon has packed the lower federal courts with constitutional judges, and we will soon have another originalist on the Supreme court. And yes, I do believe in protections - like a baker not being forced to violate his religious beliefs.

And my bank account and retirement account has increased dramatically over the last two years. - my retirement account is up over 30%!!!

[seer]

And my bank account and retirement account has increased dramatically over the last two years. - my retirement account is up over 30%!!!

Of course that is what the libs are afraid of. Prosperity...

[Tassman]

What does that have to do with the judges qualifications?

You may have an argument with gay marriage, not with abortion.

Both!

Killing unborn babies is still a moral evil. And BTW many early church fathers were against abortion, so it is not a recent thing at all.

As far as you Evangelicals are concerned abortion has only been a issue for the past 47 years. All this manufactured hysteria about "murdering innocent babies" is a recent phenomenon.

Right, I don't think a man should be forced by law to violate his religious convictions. Which is a constitutional right, unlike the non-existent right not to be discriminated against.

No one is being forced by law to violate their religious convictions. The homophobic baker is entitled to proclaim his religion-based dislike of gays through a variety of venues. He can take out ads in the paper or on TV. What he cannot do in Law is discriminate against potential customers on personal grounds.

That is a falsehood, and you know it.

[seer]

Both!

There is no constitution right for abortion, it was made up out of whole cloth. If you think otherwise show how the amendments the court referenced have even the slightest relationship to abortion.

As far as you Evangelicals are concerned abortion has only been a issue for the past 47 years. All this manufactured hysteria about "murdering innocent babies" is a recent phenomenon.

I just showed that opposition to abortion has a long history in Christian thinking. So you were wrong. But I don't need that to know that killing unborn human beings is immoral.

No one is being forced by law to violate their religious convictions. The homophobic baker is entitled to proclaim his religion-based dislike of gays through a variety of venues. He can take out ads in the paper or on TV. What he cannot do in Law is discriminate against potential customers on personal grounds.

Nonsense, he was forced by law to violate his conscious, his deeply held religious belief.. That is a violation of the FREE EXERCISE of religion clause. And no congressional LAW trumps Constitutional rights.