The More We Evolve, the Less We Need God

[seer]

That is stupid Tass, there is no limit to the free exercise of religion except where it impinges on other constitutional rights.

[Tassman]

That is stupid Tass, there is no limit to the free exercise of religion except where it impinges on other constitutional rights.

Freedom of religion is restricted to the extent that the expression of your religious beliefs infringes the basic human civil rights of another person.

[Doug Shaver]

That tells me where you draw it, not how.

What do you want to know, what do you mean by how?

On what basis do you decide where to draw the line?

Our general legal code I would assume.

The code tells us where lawmakers have drawn the line up to the present day. It does not, so far as I am aware, inform us as to their reasons for drawing the line there and not somewhere else.

[seer]

On what basis do you decide where to draw the line?


The code tells us where lawmakers have drawn the line up to the present day. It does not, so far as I am aware, inform us as to their reasons for drawing the line there and not somewhere else.

Well I would think that if my exercising constitutional right deprived you of your constitutional right of life or property then that would be the line. Why isn't that good enough?

[seer]

Freedom of religion is restricted to the extent that the expression of your religious beliefs infringes the basic human civil rights of another person.

Where does the Constitution say I can't discriminate? Oh wait, it doesn't.

[Tassman]

Where does the Constitution say I can't discriminate?

And around and around we go...

Because of the demonstrable inequality in the USA the civil rights movement arose in the mid-1950s and as a consequence, Congress asserted its authority to legislate under several different parts of the United States Constitution to enact the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This Act outlaws discrimination based on race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin.

Oh wait, it doesn't.

So you want to return to the pre-Rosa Parks era, but why do you want to discriminate against your fellow citizens? Is this fair to you?

[seer]

Because of the demonstrable inequality in the USA the civil rights movement arose in the mid-1950s and as a consequence, Congress asserted its authority to legislate under several different parts of the United States Constitution to enact the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This Act outlaws discrimination based on race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin.

Again what is actually in the Constitution ONLY applies to governments, not to individuals or private businesses.

So you want to return to the pre-Rosa Parks era, but why do you want to discriminate against your fellow citizens? Is this fair to you?

But you would force a Christian baker to serve a homosexual wedding in violation of his religious beliefs and conscience. Again, the free exercise of religion is a Constitutional right, there is no Constitutional right not to be discriminated against. In other world you would sacrifice a Constitutional right for something that is not a Constitutional right. Which is par for the course with you biased atheists. And that is not fair in my mind.

[Doug Shaver]

Why isn't that good enough?

You still haven't answered my question, but maybe now I can take a guess. Your basis for deciding where to draw the line is the avoidance of infringements by one person on another person's constitutionally protected rights. Am I understanding you correctly?

[seer]

You still haven't answered my question, but maybe now I can take a guess. Your basis for deciding where to draw the line is the avoidance of infringements by one person on another person's constitutionally protected rights. Am I understanding you correctly?

Yes...

[Sparko]

Freedom of religion is restricted to the extent that the expression of your religious beliefs infringes the basic human civil rights of another person.

Where does it say that in the constitution?

[Sparko]

And around and around we go...

Because of the demonstrable inequality in the USA the civil rights movement arose in the mid-1950s and as a consequence, Congress asserted its authority to legislate under several different parts of the United States Constitution to enact the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This Act outlaws discrimination based on race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin.



So you want to return to the pre-Rosa Parks era, but why do you want to discriminate against your fellow citizens? Is this fair to you?

The constitution trumps any US Law. It even trumps the supreme court. And it trumps congress.



It even says so right in the first amendment!

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof;

[Tassman]

Again what is actually in the Constitution ONLY applies to governments, not to individuals or private businesses.

Congress asserted its authority to legislate under several different parts of the Constitution to enact the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This was to ensure equal civil rights under the law for all citizens, which is the obvious intent of The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and circumvented the civil rights abuses of the Jim Crow era among other abuses.

But you would force a Christian baker to serve a homosexual wedding in violation of his religious beliefs and conscience.

If an Evangelical baker believes that he cannot in good conscience serve homosexuals who wish to marry according to law, he should not be operating a business which is open to the general public.

Again, the free exercise of religion is a Constitutional right, there is no Constitutional right not to be discriminated against. In other world you would sacrifice a Constitutional right for something that is not a Constitutional right. Which is par for the course with you biased atheists. And that is not fair in my mind.

[Tassman]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion,

Then why the 'special pleading' for religion? There's no established religion in the US.

or prohibiting the free exercise thereof

No-ones' "free exercise of religion" is being prohibited, merely discrimination against others based upon an individual's religious beliefs. Or does religion = discrimination to you?

[seer]

Congress asserted its authority to legislate under several different parts of the Constitution to enact the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This was to ensure equal civil rights under the law for all citizens, which is the obvious intent of The Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment, and circumvented the civil rights abuses of the Jim Crow era among other abuses.

I have no problem with the Fourteenth Amendment as it was applied to governments, as it was written. It does not apply to private business. And again there is NO constitutional right not to be discriminated against by a private individual or business. Even the Commerce clause does not cover everyone.

If an Evangelical baker believes that he cannot in good conscience serve homosexuals who wish to marry according to law, he should not be operating a business which is open to the general public.

Who says he should not be operating a business? Who says he can not operate that business according to his Constitutionally protected right of the free exercise of religion?


Of course it is carte blanche unless you physically harm someone or their property. You would override a clearly defined Constitutional right for a right or ideal that is found nowhere in the Constitution.

[Doug Shaver]

Your basis for deciding where to draw the line is the avoidance of infringements by one person on another person's constitutionally protected rights. Am I understanding you correctly?

Yes...

Good. I see no problem with that.

So then, when one citizen says to another, "You are infringing on my constitutionally protected rights" and the other says, "No, I am not," who do you think ought to resolve that dispute?