Originally posted by Doug Shaver
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
The More We Evolve, the Less We Need God
Collapse
X
-
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
-
Originally posted by Doug ShaverSo 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?
Originally posted by seer View PostFirst, find out which one really has a Constitutional right.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostThen why the 'special pleading' for religion? There's no established religion in the US.
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?
Making a cake is not a good enough reason to deny someone their constitutional right. There is no constitutional right to have a wedding cake made by a Christian.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Doug Shaver View PostThat rephrases my question. It doesn't answer my question.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
-
Originally posted by seer View PostThen I don't know what you are asking, you need to give me a specific example.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Doug Shaver View PostSmith wants to do something of which Jones disapproves on religious grounds. The Supreme court has previously ruled that Smith has a constitutional right to do this thing. Smith asks Jones to provide some assistance and offers to pay him for it. Jones normally provides this assistance to anybody who will pay his asking price. Jones refuses the assistance to Smith because of his religious convictions. Smith accuses Jones of violating his constitutional right. Jones denies that he is violating any of Smith's constitutional rights. Who should decide which of them is correct?Last edited by seer; 09-05-2018, 01:55 PM.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
-
Originally posted by seer View PostJones has a Constitutional right to the free exercise of religion. Now you have to show me exactly which Constitutional privilege Smith is asserting. Or, I could put it this way. Smith wants to publish a girly magazine (Constitutionally protected right), Jones is a well know photographer and Smith wants to hire him to take nude pictures. But Jones does not want to traffic in porn because of his religious beliefs. At this point Smith has no Constitutional right to press Jones into service, no matter how much money he offers.
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostJones has a Constitutional right to the free exercise of religion. Now you have to show me exactly which Constitutional privilege Smith is asserting.
I'm not claiming that the court is infallible or that we should treat it as if it were. We citizens can disagree with the court, and we can do so without being disloyal to our nation. Such a disagreement would be a kind of grievance, and the First Amendment unambiguously give us the right to petition for redress of grievances. The court has changed its mind before, and it will almost surely change its mind again, when a sufficient number of citizens exert the kind of political pressure necessary to make that happen. But until that happens, as far as the law is concerned, the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means.
Originally posted by seer View PostOr, I could put it this way. Smith wants to publish a girly magazine (Constitutionally protected right), Jones is a well know photographer and Smith wants to hire him to take nude pictures. But Jones does not want to traffic in porn because of his religious beliefs. At this point Smith has no Constitutional right to press Jones into service, no matter how much money he offers.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Doug Shaver View PostMy hypothetical stipulated that the Supreme Court had answered the question about Smith's constitutional right. In our system of government, the Supreme Court has the last word, does it not?
I'm not claiming that the court is infallible or that we should treat it as if it were. We citizens can disagree with the court, and we can do so without being disloyal to our nation. Such a disagreement would be a kind of grievance, and the First Amendment unambiguously give us the right to petition for redress of grievances. The court has changed its mind before, and it will almost surely change its mind again, when a sufficient number of citizens exert the kind of political pressure necessary to make that happen. But until that happens, as far as the law is concerned, the Constitution means whatever the Supreme Court says it means.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
-
Originally posted by seer View PostWhat are you saying? That the Court gave Smith the Constitutional right to force me to work for him?
Originally posted by seer View Postthe Constitution means what the Constitution says.
Originally posted by seer View PostWhat if the Court said you actually did not have right of petition? Would that be Constitutionally correct?
Originally posted by seer View PostAnd if you lost the right of petition where would you go then? Revolution?
Comment
-
Originally posted by seer View PostI 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.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Tassman View PostYou are ignoring the existence of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlaws discrimination based on race, colour, religion, sex, or national origin in Public Accommodations.
The baker's free exercise of religion is not infringed by baking a cake.
See above re the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
I'm always still in trouble again
"You're by far the worst poster on TWeb" and "TWeb's biggest liar" --starlight (the guy who says Stalin was a right-winger)
"Overall I would rate the withdrawal from Afghanistan as by far the best thing Biden's done" --Starlight
"Of course, human life begins at fertilization that’s not the argument." --Tassman
Comment
-
Originally posted by Doug Shaver View PostMy hypothetical did not stipulate the court's endorsement of any form of involuntary servitude.
Like the Bible means what it says?
If the court said that, I would disagree with the court.
I've gotten too conservative in my old age to join a revolution, but the Declaration of Independence does address that issue, and I don't disagree with what it says.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 whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
443 responses
1,995 views
0 likes
|
Last Post Today, 04:55 AM | ||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 02-04-2024, 05:06 AM
|
254 responses
1,228 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 05-22-2024, 12:21 PM | ||
Started by whag, 01-18-2024, 01:35 PM
|
49 responses
372 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
05-15-2024, 02:53 PM
|
Comment