Announcement

Collapse

Judaism Guidelines

Theists only.

Shalom!


This forum is a debate area to discuss issues pertaining to the world religion of Judaism in general and also its relationship to Christianity. This forum is generally for theists only. Non-theists (eg, atheistic Jews) may not post here without first obtaining permission from the moderator of this forum. Granting of such permission is subject to Moderator discretion - and may be revoked if the Moderator feels that the poster is not keeping with the spirit of the World Religions Department.

Non-theists are welcome to discuss and debate issues in the Apologetics 301 forum without such restrictions.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

Kosher Kill Challenged

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Sparko View Post
    Why do you think so? You seem perfectly willing to place "public commerce" over the 1st Amendment. What makes you think it will stop with wedding cakes?
    The courts have already placed "public commerce" over first amendment objections, Sparko. See Employment Division v. Smith. Religious objections do not entitle you to refuse to comply to generally applicable laws.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by Outis View Post
      The courts have already placed "public commerce" over first amendment objections, Sparko. See Employment Division v. Smith. Religious objections do not entitle you to refuse to comply to generally applicable laws.

      wow. and you don't think it will get to the point that churches will be required to perform SS marriages or be sued?

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Sparko View Post
        wow. and you don't think it will get to the point that churches will be required to perform SS marriages or be sued?
        No, because churches are not, and have never been, considered part of "commerce" that can be regulated by Congress.

        Will there be lawsuits? Possibly. What will the outcome be? If the plaintiffs are lucky, all they will get is to pay the expenses of the defendants. If they're unlucky, they may get slapped with punative damages as well.

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by Outis View Post
          No, because churches are not, and have never been, considered part of "commerce" that can be regulated by Congress.

          Will there be lawsuits? Possibly. What will the outcome be? If the plaintiffs are lucky, all they will get is to pay the expenses of the defendants. If they're unlucky, they may get slapped with punative damages as well.
          And SS marriage has never been legal marriage before, and never before has a business been forced to participate in selling goods or services to those who insist that SS marriage is some special class above the first amendment. If congress is already making laws that trump the first amendment then they are already breaking the constitution. Why should they stop at wedding cakes?

          Your argument doesn't hold any water at all.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Sparko View Post
            Why do you think so? You seem perfectly willing to place "public commerce" over the 1st Amendment. What makes you think it will stop with wedding cakes?
            Since I have no expertise in this area, I am not that sure. Just a lay person's opinion.
            βλέπομεν γὰρ ἄρτι δι᾿ ἐσόπτρου ἐν αἰνίγματι, τότε δὲ πρόσωπον πρὸς πρόσωπον
            ἄρτι γινώσκω ἐκ μέρους, τότε δὲ ἐπιγνώσομαι καθὼς καὶ ἐπεγνώσθην.

            אָכֵ֕ן אַתָּ֖ה אֵ֣ל מִסְתַּתֵּ֑ר אֱלֹהֵ֥י יִשְׂרָאֵ֖ל מוֹשִֽׁיעַ׃

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Sparko View Post
              And SS marriage has never been legal marriage before, and never before has a business been forced to participate in selling goods or services to those who insist that SS marriage is some special class above the first amendment.
              But businesses HAVE been forced to serve minorities, Sparko. Both by law (Civil Rights acts) and by courts (Katzenbach v. McClung and Heart of Atlanta Motel v. United States), people who are involved in commerce can be forced to comply with laws regulating commerce, regardless of which fundamental right they choose to invoke.

              That is what these cases will be decided upon in the courts.

              If congress is already making laws that trump the first amendment then they are already breaking the constitution.
              First and foremost, the laws you are complaining about are not federal laws: they are state laws. New Mexico and Oregon have cited a compelling interest in preventing discrimination based on several categories that have been historically used, including race, religion, gender, national origin, disability, sexual orientation and gender identification. It's the same kind of anti-discrimination laws that all states have, save that the last two categories have been included.

              These laws do not "trump" the Constitution, Sparko--any more than the Civil Rights Act of 1964 "trumped" the Constitution.

              Unfortunately, perhaps, for you, the Courts don't play favorites. Unless there is a rational government interest in forbidding same-sex marriages, the courts will overturn state laws forbidding them (whether explicitly or implicitly by defining marriage as "one man and one woman"). But what you're arguing about is far above the rational review stage.

              Why should they stop at wedding cakes?
              They won't. They'll include employment, public accommodation, commerce, and equal protection under the law. Just like they did for other minority groups in 1964 and 1968.

              They won't include churches. They won't include private clubs. Those are already exempted.

              Your argument doesn't hold any water at all.
              The problem is not that my argument doesn't hold water, Sparko. The problem is that you are not arguing based on the law: you are arguing based solely on an incorrect assertion of your "rights." You have the right to govern your church as you and the rest of the congregation decide. You do NOT have the right to impose your religious doctrine upon secular law. And in areas where Congress has the power to regulate, including commerce, you do not have the right to discriminate: your private religious beliefs do not exempt you from laws with general applicability.

              And that is how the courts will decide.

              Comment

              widgetinstance 221 (Related Threads) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
              Working...
              X