At stake: America's core value of religious freedom
The head of a North Carolina seminary argues that a Supreme Court ruling in a case involving a Christian baker will determine if "weaponizing" the government against its own citizens is the direction the nation will pursue.
A high-profile case before the U.S. Supreme Court today – Masterpiece Cakeshop v. the Colorado Civil Rights Commission – is predicted to be a landmark case on the First Amendment rights of free speech and religious freedom. The Associated Press reports that Justice Anthony Kennedy, who is considered to be the "swing vote" in the ultimate ruling, voiced "competing concerns" during today's oral arguments.
In July 2012, a same-sex couple walked into Masterpiece Cakeshop in Lakewood, Colorado, and asked owner Jack Phillips for a custom wedding cake. Phillips had no problem serving Charlie Craig and David Mullins – in fact, he had done so several times before. But what the Christian baker politely refused to do was to use his artistry to support a same-sex "marriage" ceremony. Craig and Mullins sued Phillips under the state's anti-discrimination law.
Dr. Richard Land is the former head of the Southern Baptist Ethics & Religious Liberty Commission and now president of Southern Evangelical Seminary in North Carolina.
Land, Dr. Richard (SBC, ERLC)"[Jack Phillips] said he would bake them a cake," Land begins. "He just didn't feel that he could lend his expertise – his talent, which he believes comes from God – to celebrate that which he finds morally unconscionable."
Colorado found Philips guilty of discrimination, and the case finally was heard this morning in the highest court in the U.S. But according to Land, it's about so much more than cakes.
"It's about conscience and religious freedom," he explains. "It's about the most basic core values of the American experiment – the belief that we have freedom of conscience and freedom of faith."
The prosecution says the First Amendment doesn't apply because the anti-discrimination laws Phillips allegedly broke target conduct, not speech. Land says if the particulars were changed, many who are so certain Phillips is nothing more than a homophobic bigot might change their minds.
"It's no different than requiring a Muslim butcher to provide pork sausage to a customer, even though Muslims believe that pork is something they're not to touch," he suggests.
He says the religious freedom of all believers is at stake. "It's one thing to say that you're going to make same-sex marriage legal – [but] it's another thing to say that we're going to weaponize our own government against its own citizens and say We want to compel you to affirm it."
The Supreme Court's is expected to announce its decision in the case by late June.... https://www.onenewsnow.com/legal-courts/2017/12/05/at-stake-americas-core-value-of-religious-freedom This article/seed is being locked 🔒. Was Hoping for 1000 posts but the powers that be said something about technical matters regarding one this successful. Those wanting to continue on this topic may do do here. It’s the identical article reseeded per request... https://thenewstalkers.com/community/discussion/36896/at-stake-americas-core-value-of-religious-freedom#c636725
Article is LOCKED by author/seeder
Who is online
85 visitors
Is religious freedom just a 'code' to legitimize christian taliban?
It sure is.
Bullseye!
If one wants to make a profit through establishing a business that serves the public at large, then the business owner must abide by the contract set up with the locality this business would be located...a contract made through the acquisition of a business license. There are very specific rules one must agree to, like you cannot discriminate against potential customers, just because you don't like who they are, be they gay, black, Asian, Jewish, Muslim, female, etc. If they have the cash, and want to pay for a service your business renders, that's all you, as a business owner, should be interested in. Once the goods or services are paid for, that's when the business owner's personal feelings should have no bearing on whether or not to provide the paid-for service. Ultimately, he's in business to make a profit, and as long as the customer is willing to pay the price, their green is just like anyone else's green...it all spends the same!
In this case, the owner is worried about what God might think about his making a cake for a gay couple's wedding. You know, isn't it in the Bible somewhere that says "give to Caesar what is Caesar's, and give to God what is God's"? When in the secular business world, you follow the law of the land. I also believe it's in the Bible, that " And if thy right eye offend thee, pluck it out, and cast it from thee: for it is profitable for. thee that one of thy members should perish, and. not that thy whole body should be cast into hell." In other words, if it bothers you that much to do business with gay folks, GET OUT OF THE BAKERY BUSINESS!! This guy says it's a God-given talent he has for creating these cakes....well that's great! Do the cakes for free out of his house, then. No business license needed, so he can discriminate as much as he wants to.
The case will come down to whether the state can use it's power to compel anyone to write or draw or decorate anything they find contrary to their religious beliefs.
The shop sells baked goods to anyone who comes in the door. As it should. It doesn't do nor should it be forced to do decoration that is contrary to their belief. Nobody can legally force a person to say draw or write against their religious belief.
How can anyone have a religious objection to decorating a cake with a rainbow? The couple could have added their own cake topping
I don't see it either. I would have baked and decorated it and wished them well.
The legal issue is another matter. Can a person be forced by the power of the state to write, say or draw anything against their religious beliefs?
ps. Caught some nice ones the other day. Winter catch and release is fantastic.
Apparently that is not the case the baker is making in court. He refused to do any part of the job. Is this the case of the rainbow flag decoration being the only thing that was requested or was that in Oregon? Either way, this baker simply discriminated on the basis of sexual preference. BTW, not only is there nothing in the teachings of this alleged Jesus of Nazareth about homosexuality, pro or con, but there's definitely nothing that prohibits selling products to them so this religious basis for not doing what he's licensed to do is bogus.
As said many times already, that was not the case here. Someone can make an argument for not forcing anyone to do specific decorations. The issue here was simply refusing to make any cake for the gay couple as Phillips spent about 20 seconds, according to him, to inform the couple he doesn't make cakes for gays. No decoration specifics were even discussed.
I'm getting so many sides to this story. Didn't he have a ready to sell cake on his shelves?
Those were questions from the court.
If it were me I would have taken their money given them the cake and wished them well.
you capitalist!
You nailed it!
Yes, but they wanted a male to male specific kind of cake...heaven only knows if it was profane symbolism or not.
Sorry, they didn't tell the baker what they wanted since they were shut down 20 seconds into the conversation when bigot baker was told the cake was for them.
Two guys in tuxes holding hands on top of the cake. That's my guess anyway
Maybe Phillips supposed "art" he specialized in was making a penis cake next to a vagina cake so everyone knows it's for a straight couple and he just couldn't bring himself to make two penis cakes... /s
Why do you keep repeating that lie?
Yea right, There's more to the Bible than the New Testament. It doesn't matter if you believe or not this Baker has the Constitutional Right to believe it and live his life according to the rules of his Religion.
No one is preventing him from doing that, and he's perfectly free to be an ignorant and superstitious bigot. The state and the feds are merely regulating how his business interacts with the public.
How can you logically claim to be a Christian and ignore the teachings of Jesus, who you claim to be both your personal savior and the son of god incarnate?
What profane symbolism could it possibly be?
A Christian can't ignore the first 4/5 of the Bible either. As for my beliefs if I were a Baker I would have made their cake, in fact I would try to attract as much business as possible I'd want to be the King of Gay Wedding Cakes. I support Gay Rights and I'm happy about the advancements they've made, but this is going too far. It was unfair when Gays were denied their Constitutional Rights but that doesn't give them the right to infringe on other peoples rights. Christianity deems Homosexuality a Sin, Gays don't like that (I don't blame them), but it will never change (they're not going to rewrite the Bible) and since the Constitution protects Religious Freedom they have the right to believe what they want and live according to the rules of their faith and to not be forced to violate the tenents of their Religion. Your opinion on the veracity of their faith and whether baking a Wedding Cake for a Gay Wedding violates the tenents of that faith mean nothing because you don't believe in their Faith you think it's a bullshit so you are Bias and incapable of fair judgement.
What did Jesus ever say about gay people or gay marriage?
Demanding equal service is not infringing on his religious rights because bigotry in a public business is not a right that he or anyone else ever had. Can this baker claim that he has no ever eaten a cheeseburger or a pizza, slept in the same bedroom as his wife during her period, worn clothes of two different fibers, had a haircut, or not touched any pork products? If he is going to make a stand on Leviticus then he must be forced to also obey all of them all of the time.
His religious rights do not include denying service to LGBT when he operates a business that serves the public. If he wasn't a businessman then he would have as right not to interact with LGBT people but he voluntarily chose to open this business that serves the public so he cannot now say that his religious rights supersede both state and federal law when nobody forced him to apply for and accept that business license. If he cannot operate the business in accordance with all relevant state and federal law because of his conservative religious beliefs then he should close it or sell it.
Then you support cafeteria 'Christianity' because the rest of the Bible includes Galatians in which Paul refutes your posit.
If you hold to Old Testament and the law of Moses, you do NOT support what Paul wrote in Galatians. Pick one.
So do Christian bakers make wedding cakes for adulterers / divorcees entering their 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc. marriage?
It didn't get that far, a 20 second conversation and this bigot is whining his "religious freedom" and artistic expression is being infringed....he broke the law.
So the government can tell you what you must draw? The government can dictate the content of your artistic expression? The Jewish baker must make the cake in the shape of the swastika?
Where is your line? Mine is like this. The baker bakes a generic cake but can't be forced to write or decorate in ways that violate personal belief.
So the government can tell you what you must draw? The government can dictate the content of your artistic expression? The Jewish baker must make the cake in the shape of the swastika?
Where is your line? Mine is like this. The baker bakes a generic cake but can't be forced to write or decorate in ways that violate personal belief.
I'm gonna get hate mail, but I agree with you. Just bake the goddamned cake, and I'll decorate it with little devils and hearts.
Not from me you won't!
Bake a plain cake and get paid.
I doubt that bake shops run by Muslims would make this kind of specific cake either, but the liberals are cowardly to try that. Particularly in Dearborn, Michigan.
The baker had NO clue what they wanted on the cake since he shut them down 20 seconds into the conversation when they told him the cake was for them. So where is this supposed artistic expression coming into play when nothing of that nature was discussed.
Oh....I would. I would request a rainbow cake with a big ol' cross on it
You know this how?
does the Jewish baker make cakes in the shape of a swastika and offer that as part of his/her services to the public so the public can purchase them ?
does this baker involved in the court case make wedding cakes and offer that as part of his/her services to the public so the public can purchase them ?
Google is your best friend.
From the article:
"The couple arrived with Craig’s mother and a book of ideas, but Phillips cut short the meeting as soon as he learned the cake was to celebrate the couple’s marriage.
Phillips recalled: “Our conversation was just about 20 seconds long. ‘Sorry guys, I don’t make cakes for same-sex weddings .’ ” (bolding, italics, underlining mine)
Craig recalled: “We were so stunned he would say something like that it actually took a little time to sink in. My mom is kind of a religious person, too, and she said, ‘This doesn’t make sense to me.’ ”
Cause the baker has publically stated that that is exactly what he did
A lot can be said in 20 seconds.
The court will decide in a very narrow ruling whichever way it goes. I have a feeling both sides will be disappointed.
How long were they in the shop? How long were they looking in the book? Why did the couple travel so far to get a cake? Were they there to create a court case? Can the court be used as a club to beat someone into defying their religious belief?
Lots of questions that won't really matter in the ruling. The court will decide whether public accommodation trumps free speech and religious liberty. I have a feeling free speech will win out.
does the Jewish baker make cakes in the shape of a swastika and offer that as part of his/her services to the public so the public can purchase them ?
He bakes cakes. Can the government force him to do the swastika cake?
does this baker involved in the court case make wedding cakes and offer that as part of his/her services to the public so the public can purchase them ?
He makes wedding cakes. Can he be forced to decorate the cake in art or language that violates his right to free speech?
Can the government force a person to violate their religious beliefs?
See the baker's own words, and the couple brought their own books and ideas. He broke the law.
does the Jewish baker make cakes in the shape of a swastika and offer that as part of his/her services to the public so the public can purchase them ? (if you state "no" then that would answer your follow-up question, same applies if you answer "yes")
they didn't even get to the point of discussing decorations for the cake (see above comments, its been posted repeatedly), the baker just refused to make the basic wedding cake.
please explain to everyone the religious belief that involves not baking cakes, thanks
anything else ?
So they can compel him to write or draw whatever they want? If he won't decorate the cake the way they want the government can force him to do so?
A person who believes the Bible's sanctions against homosexuality would feel it was against his faith to make a wedding cake for a same sex wedding no matter the decorations on it.
The beliefs of the baker are his and not subject to your beliefs or mine.
Can the government force you to endorse something you believe violates your religious beliefs?
No court would force a Jewish baker to make or decorate a cake with a swastika. Christians should be treated the same way.
and your point is ? this baker is not prevented from feeling this way, even to this day, and was never prevented from feeling this way. So far you are making a great argument against the baker
absolutely, and since that this the case - we are not subjected to his beliefs since he is not subjected to yours or mine, right ?
who's endorsing anything ? if you wish to go with that argument then you should also argue the fashion designers who made the tuxedos and dresses are "endorsing" every wedding those clothes are used in, the landscaping company that worked on the outside area for an outdoor wedding ceremony would be "endorsing" that wedding ceremony, the car manufacturer who built the cars used by the couple getting married (and wedding party, guests etc) would be "endorsing" the wedding ceremony -- correct ? how far do you want to go with this ? how many companies/people do you want engaged couples to contact while making their wedding plans ?
no court would force a Jewish baker to make or decorate a cake with a swastika because the Jewish baker doesn't offer those types of cakes to ANYONE to begin with, whereas this baker offers wedding cakes to EVERYONE as apart of his products he sells/makes to the public. Figure out the difference yet ?
Lol not by me, but I like to engage in small talk before asking for something like two guys getting it on doggie style on a wedding cake.
A RWNJ made a hoax video about that. Bummer for all RWNJs that the hoax was exposed......the only Muslim-owned bakeries which denied him service were the ones which didn't even make or sell wedding cakes.
The Jewish baker bakes cakes. He can't be forced to make something offensive to his religion. The Christian baker bakes cakes. He can't be forced to make something he finds offensive to his religion.
It's not about what shape of cake the bakers bake but the meaning of the cake in relation to their beliefs.
Endorsing in this context is making a cake for an event the baker finds contrary to his religious beliefs. If the baker feels helping celebrate the same sex wedding with an expression of his talents is being a part of what the Bible has condemned, then to the baker it would be endorsing same sex marriage.
1 Thessalonians 5:22King James Version (KJV)
22 Abstain from all appearance of evil.
The baker would be violating scripture by using his skills to help celebrate the same sex marriage.
Can the government force a person to participate in something that conflicts with their religious beliefs?
That will be up to the court to decide. From the questions asked in arguments I would say the baker will win on first amendment grounds.
Foreplay?
Actually that's what happened in a related case where an anti-gay bigot went to a baker in Colorado and asked for a cake with an anti-gay message on it, and the baker refused but offered to bake a cake and provide the customer the tools to write his own message. The bigot filed a complaint and the civil rights commission ruled against him since businesses are free to decline generally offensive messages.
the Jewish baker doesn't offer Swastika shaped cakes to anyone. The Christian baker offers wedding cakes to everyone. Did you figure out the difference yet ?
what is the primary purpose or meaning of food ? (this was answered by one of the SCOTUS justices if you don't know)
that's an odd statement considering i've always heard its "liberals" who make decisions based upon feelings while "conservatives" make decisions based upon logic - you seem to be stating the opposite.
what is the person "participating" in ? is this person one of the people getting married ? this baker is participating in the same sex wedding as much as the jewelry designer who designed the wedding rings, as much as the fashion designer who designed the dresses/tuxedos, as much as the architect who designed the building the ceremony is held inside of. Correct ? or do you think a jewelry designer who designs jewelry for marriage ceremonies or the fashion designer who designs wedding dresses and tuxedos doesn't matter ?
it will be up to the court to decide and it'll be quite interesting - you should read the transcripts so far, i don't think it'll be in the baker's favor due to the can of worms it'll open up. Think ahead - Christianity isn't the only religion in this country nor is it that religion limited to just bakeries.
why do the religious feel the need to have special rights/privileges to be exempt from our secular laws while claiming its only the LGBT community that is supposedly wanting special rights/privileges ? i don't see any same sex owned bakeries asking for an exemption to secular laws to not serve religious individuals, do you ?
the Jewish baker doesn't offer Swastika shaped cakes to anyone. The Christian baker offers wedding cakes to everyone. Did you figure out the difference yet ?
I see you haven't figured out that it isn't the shape of the cake but the message being demanded of the baker. The imposition on the bakers as they do what they find wrong and in many ways a threat to their emotional well being.
This will be decided on speech grounds.
That's exactly what has happened in this case.
No it's not since no cake design was ever discussed.
Poor babies. They sound exactly like the racists who said the same thing about mixed-race marriage. No surprise that those bigots belonged to the same nutty Southern Baptist cult as this baker.
I wonder though whether the bigoted baker also inquires as to the marital history and intimate practices of opposite-sex couples? Does he deny wedding cakes to previously divorced persons, people who do it with the lights on, or to people who aren't members of his bigoted cult?
Strange too that the dumb bigot thinks that a secular legal contract like marriage is "an abomination" to his sky fairy, given that his cult's book of spells doesn't mention marriage licenses or same-sex marriage at all. However his buddy Jesus does say that he's supposed to follow secular authority.
No one forced the baker to sell wedding cakes or to sell them to the general public. He always has the option of running it as a private club and call it "Hate Cakes for Bigots", and deny membership to the kinds of people he hates - Jews, Catholics, gays, Muslims, blacks, women, etc.
.
Good luck with that. You might want to read Newman v Piggie Park to learn why his fellow Southern Baptist lost a very similar case which made the same free exercise and free expression claims.
If they are paying for the cake, then yes you do have to follow their wishes, if the business is open to the public. How can it possibly be the bakers artistic expression when the customer designs the cake? Being able to mix icing and use a piping bag doesn't make anyone an artist, despite your opinions.
The couple aren't giving him $500 to decorate it how he see fit according to his vision. Instead he is following their design and they have the right not to pay him if he deviates from their chosen decoration.
How does writing on a cake with icing violate your religious beliefs? How strong are your religious beliefs if icing a cake violates/weakens them?
Does baking a wedding cake for a divorced, philandering or interfaith couple also violate them or is this violation reserved only for LGBT couples?
The Bible tells believers to "flee all appearance of evil". That means to not be involved in activity the Bible condemns.
If the baker agreed to bake a cake then there would be a contract and the baker would be obligated to fulfill the contract. There was no contract and no cake.
still no answer?
You are moving the goalposts. Don't be intellectually dishonest by trying to ignore what you previously said. He doesn't have the right to say no to a customer because if his religious beliefs when he operates a business that is open to and serves the general public. Our religious views are not absolute because if they were then they would trample on the rights of others. If other people had the same absolute religious rights then then would trample yours. That situation isn't possible in a very interconnected society that is created by the US Constitution.
His religious views have not been infringed upon because he still has the same right to believe in god and to worship as he chooses. He never had the right to discriminate in a public businesses because of his religious views. The SCOTUS said this in Katzenburg. The Owner of a Birmingham Alabama BBQ joint claimed that he didn't have to serve black people equally because of his religious beliefs. The SCOTUS said yes he did with an unanimous decision.
Baking a cake is not endorsing anything, so stop making this emotional connection. The gay couple are not asking for his approval of their nuptials, nor it is wanted. A cake is not religious icon, nor it there any requirement to have a religious person bless it as part of a wedding. He is trying to bring his religious beliefs into a capitalist situation where they are unnecessary because of his religious bigotry. He hates gay people and is grasping at straws as a way to legally refuse to serve them in an equal manner to his other customers.
Jesus wasn't a bigot. Jesus told his followers to do unto others as they would have them do unto them. If you wouldn't do it to Jesus then don't do it to someone else.
Oh, they hate it when the Jesus card is played.
That's an interesting admonition. It doesn't say "don't be" evil but just don't appear to be. That explains why so many bible-thumpers commit evil while desperately trying not to "appear" to be. In their heads they've probably convinced themselves they're doing exactly what the bible tells them to do.
Is that why you play it so many times?
A cake is a cake is a cake. If he doesn't want to bake it, he doesn't want to bake it.
It is not as if there were not many other bakers in town who would have.
Some people just can't live their lives without drama.
I wonder what makes you think an idle speculation like that counts for anything. I can tell you this liberal's view about that: any bakery, no matter who runs it, should get the same treatment as the ones in CO and OR for violating anti-discrimination laws.
You mean like bake a wedding cake for a mixed-race couple or a Muslim couple?
It must be a shock to the dumb bigot that the people he hates are willing to pay for services which he offers to the general public. If he's not willing to comply with our secular laws then he's free to run the business in the same way that whites-only country clubs are run.
Or he can stop selling wedding cakes entirely but he'll also have to stop selling cupcakes since he also refused to sell those to a same-sex couple.
I know, right? Why can't those negros just find a different lunch counter? We don't serve their kind here.
Ok.
Or at least have the decency to post a sign stating that as a traditional Southern Baptist you won't serve Jews, Catholics, Muslims, Atheists, Negros, mixed-race couples or gays.
The bigoted baker should also post a sign stating that before filling ant orders for donuts or cupcakes, all customers will be required to fill out a form listing their "sins" to insure compliance with his Southern Baptist superstitions.
Doesn't your bible-babble condemn divorce? Many blue states including Colorado protect marital status so this baker isn't allowed to deny service because a person is divorced, despite the fact that his cult's book of spells condemns the divorced.
It looks like the dumb bigot only has a few options to stay on the good side of his sky fairy......he can get out of the baked goods business, he can move to a red state, or he can run his business in the same way that whites-only and men-only country clubs are run.
Has this baker also previously baked wedding caked for couples who were divorced. had sex outside of marriage, interfaith, who were not Christians or who had children outside of wedlock? Why didn't he object to those cakes instead of just making his bigoted stand on cakes for LGBT couples.
He previous stated that he sold pastry/baked good to LGBT customers so isn't that also evil according to Leviticus, if that is where you get your beliefs?
Racists said the same thing when they refused to serve blacks in the south, before the 1964 Civil Rights Act stopped their racist nonsense. He can't do that when he voluntarily chose to operate a business of public accommodation. He must serve all customers equally.
Let's assume he did refuse such people - he would not have had the full weight of the government on him! In other words there may be conflicting rights here but gay rights are supreme.
That's a completely false statement which reveals that you don't understand the issue at all.
Marital status is protected in Colorado in the exact same way as the other protected classes. Those classes include Race, Color, Disability, Sex, Sexual Orientation (including transgender status), National Origin/Ancestry, Creed, Marital Status and Retaliation.
The bigoted baker would have violated the law in the exact same way if he had denied service because a person had been divorced. His cult's religious prohibition against divorce is irrelevant to our secular public accommodations law. He could make the exact same 1st Amendment claims to SCOTUS and he'd lose in the exact same way.
Sooooo....why haven't we seen any such cases?
nope, that's already been figured out, i can see that you haven't figured out that one baker offers wedding cakes to everyone and has that as apart of his services he gives to the public while the other baker doesn't offer swastika cakes to anyone and doesn't have that as apart of his services he gives to the public. that should be your starting part, instead you are being emotional about this entire thing instead of logical - we get it.
as for the "message" - you should really read the transcripts so far, they covered "message". How many weddings do you go to and see the wedding cake and think to yourself - "that is a beautiful work of art, a masterpiece ! i'm so glad they invited that baker to participate in their wedding, its a wonderful message !" ?? does that happen often to you ?
is the "message" a reflection on the couple who chose the cake and design or is the "message" a reflection of the baker ?
i suggest you read the transcripts so far from the justices - they have covered this too because there are many areas (rural, military bases etc) where its not the case that there are many other bakers in town who would have. so now you want to place undue hardship upon others just because someone has fragile, sensitive religious beliefs ?
Maybe because most businesses follow the law because they don't want to be fined or lose their business license? But the fact that marital status is protected means that at one time there was discrimination on that basis. That's true of all the classes which state and federal law protect.
Baking the cake is only 1/2 of the job. Be a professional and do all of the job. Another bakery is not going to let you bring a cake that someone else baked for them to decorate.
Treating other people in an unequal manner is offensive to Jesus.
Divorce is offensive to your god but this bigot never had a problem baking those wedding cakes.
Where do you get this nonsense that gay people have more rights than others races, religions, colors or sexes? Do gay people oppress you on a daily basis?
absolutely incorrect - he is a public business and sells wedding cakes as apart of his services to the public. Read that again - public.
walk through this logically - take your emotions out of this. Does offer Halloween cakes as apart of his services to the public ? No. Does he offer Halloween cakes to some people and not others based upon his customer's traits ? No.
Now, does he offer Wedding cakes as apart of his services to the public ? Yes. Does he offer Wedding cakes to some people and not others based upon his customer traits ? Yes. That is discrimination, plain and simple. If you own a public business - you serve... ready ? the public.
invalid and illogical comparison since nude magazines and cigarettes aren't a secular legal contract like marriage. Please try again with a valid comparison. Cakes are also open to all age groups - a 7 year old can go into a bakery and order a cake.
sorry, same thing doesn't apply. The cake itself isn't for the secular legal contract of Marriage - it has no bearing on its legality nor is it required for anyone to have a wedding cake in order to enter into the secular legal contract of Marriage. Anyone can have a party, name it a "wedding reception" and have a cake there, and its perfectly legal in every state.
according to the secular business realm - he's conducting a business transaction, period. the wedding cakes have no bearing on the legality of the secular legal contract of Marriage nor is one required for anyone to enter into the secular legal contract of Marriage. A person can get legally married and never have a wedding cake, similarly a person can have a party and deem it as a "wedding reception" without ever getting married and have a wedding cake there if they choose. They are two separate things, i'm surprised you didn't know this already.
they will decide based upon more than that, read the transcripts so far.
how far do you want to take this ? do you think religious beliefs should supersede our secular laws ? should anyone be able to refuse any services (not just baking cakes, i mean any services) to anyone else based upon "religious beliefs" ?
Yes, but their mission wouldn't be accomplished. Sue the baker!
Sure, just do a Rodchester and, say, "Yessa, Mr. Bennie, no problem I'll jes go an', get ma cake some tother place."
perhaps the baker should have been an adult and simply decorated the cake as per his job for his public business that he voluntarily opened. why are you coddling the baker and condoning him not doing his job that he agreed to do when he opened his public business ?
could you tell everyone what kind of design that is ? i've been to numerous weddings, same sex weddings and opposite sex weddings, and i'm not sure what a "cake designed to promote" a same sex wedding looks like so i'm sure you could accurately describe it in detail, right ?
Mr. Phillips admits it was only a "few seconds" worth of a conversation so, pretty much, "Hi, we'd like a wedding cake." then Phillips says, "Oh, I don't make cakes for Gays."
It doesn't matter, they spoke with Mr. Phillips for only a few seconds, according to Mr. Phillips.
Again, it doesn't matter, Mr. Phillips says he refused service to them within a few seconds of talking to them.
As has been stated before, many times, the mother of one of the men had heard good things about the bakery and, advised them to go there and, the one with the mother there had lived in Colorado, his mother lived in Colorado and, they were visiting her.
No, they were there to celebrate their marriage and, they wanted a wedding cake.
The court is there to make sure people, all people no matter their religious affiliation obey the law. You don't like it, move to a country that doesn't have freedom of religion, some place like Syria.
So, every cake has a cross on it? How vulgar.
I am going nowhere. You can
>--.---.-
Writing, drawing or decorating have shit-all to do with this case. Quit trying to dirty the argument up with falsehoods like that.
How can icing or filling or piping flowers or ribbons on a cake be contrary to a belief?
Masterpiece has 24 pre-designed wedding cakes on their website and only 3 have initials on them. A couple more have drawn swirls and flowers.
So according to YOU, Phillips should have been able to sell them at least 18 of his pre-designed wedding cakes with no problem. According to his attorney, once his 'expression' is fulfilled, he's all good with selling to gay people.
Oh and BTFW, the state stated that their law would NOT require Phillips to WRITE anything that was against his religion.
What can he possibly be forced to write on a wedding cake that is so offensive to him to give him religious cooties? I have asked this question many times and yet not of the people who support him can give me an answer what that offensive decoration might be. Would he deny to bake a cake for a gay person? If the cake isn't decorated as the customer wishes then the job is only half finished.
I don't know, I've been married three times and, I don't know of any writing on the cake, I know there were some flowers on it and, sparkles but, maybe I'm missing something, what do you think? Here are some wedding cakes,
Which one of those cakes is a gay wedding cake and what profane symbolism makes it gay? Does the HRC regulate and certify what can be a fabulous gay wedding cake so LGBT couples can't act like heterosexuals with merely normal gaudy cakes instead of outlandish and profane cakes that horrify 1/3 of their Fox News loving guests?
This question has been asked multiple times in this tread and yet none of those conservatives who support Phillips will any these simple questions.
Exactly, unless the Gay couple asked for a rainbow on the cake but, isn't that a sign of a promise from their god that he won't destroy the earth? So, it can't be that.
Can a Tool Maker be forced to produce tools specifically designed for Abortions ? How about Tools specifically designed to perform Female Circumcision ? Can a Machinist that makes machine parts be forced to produce parts for Nuclear Weapons. The Left is always calling for Boycotts of Companies that do business in certain Countries or that produce products or parts for products that the Left are against but according to their rules these Companies can't refuse a request to produce a product based on personal belief so it's not their fault.
You obviously don't understand how public accommodation laws work. Why don't you study up on that before you make additional uninformed comments which confuse the products offered with the customers who were denied service?
Toolmakers and Machinists often make tools and parts to order just like many Manufacturers produce products and parts to order. "to order" means the customer tells them what they want and either provides plans or has them design it for them, the Toolmaker, Machinist, or Manufacturer then produces the Tool. Part, or Product to the Customers spec (just like a Baker takes special orders for Wedding Cakes). If the Tools, Parts, Products, or Wedding Cakes were sitting on a shelf ready for sale there could be no objection the customer would just grab what he/she wanted and check out and nobody but the customer would know what they intended to use it for.
That's all VERY fascinating but completely irrelevant and meaningless as far as discriminating against a customer because you make a religious judgment against them which is just a baby step away from claiming the right not to sell something to a Jew. Or is that the idea?
Actually not, if you believe something is wrong you shouldn't be forced to enable it. If you believe homosexuality is a sin and that doing anything that condones that sin is a sin then you shouldn't be forced to do it. I'm all for Gay Rights till they try to infringe on someone else's Constitutional Rights. Why do you think that a Gay Couples Right to have a Wedding Cake from this Baker is more important than a Christians Right to adhere to tenents of his Religion. the Gay Couple can go down the street and get a cake somewhere else with minimal inconvenience but the Christian only has one Soul, he only has two choices "to sin or not to sin" and only he has the right to choose.
It's about what the customer demands you do. Does the vendor have to provide a product that violates his religious beliefs? Isn't the right of the baker to be free from having his religious beliefs trampled as valid as the gay couple's right to not be discriminated against?
How about some tolerance for both views? Leave the baker to his chosen heterosexual market and the gay couple invest in a wedding service company that specializes in same sex weddings. Both make money and avoid the messy conflict.
It means that generally applicable laws do indeed trump claims of free exercise and free expression. Otherwise Trump would still be refusing to rent to black folks, and black folks would still need the Green Book to travel safely in the confederate states.
And note that this issue was really decided long ago, at least as far back as 1878 in Reynolds v US: "To permit this would be to make the professed doctrines of religious belief superior to the law of the land, and, in effect, to permit every citizen to become a law unto himself. Government could exist only in name under such circumstances."
Sorry, but if the dumb bigot wants to sell goods or services to the general public then he must comply with all local, state and federal non-discrimination laws.
However he still has the option of running his business as a private club and only selling to members. That's how the racist country club which Rush Limbaugh attends does it.
.
That's exactly what racist Southern Baptists said to black folks......"Go find a different lunch counter to sit at. We don't serve your kind here."
Ummmm....the baker makes custom wedding cakes so the customer wasn't asking for anything which the baker didn't normally provide as a service. The only thing which "violated the bigot's beliefs" was the relative gender of the customers and their sexual orientation, and both traits are protected classes.
.
The dumb bigot must be an unusually fragile snowflake, and his faith must be quite hollow indeed. But to answer your question, no. The dumb bigot is free to hold racist or homophobic superstitions, but he cannot use those as an excuse to violate the law.
.
There's an existing mechanism to do that.....the dumb bigot can run his business as a private members-only club and deny membership to anyone his nutty cult teaches him to hate. Easy peasy, just like the whites-only country club which Lush Dimbulb attends.
The best part about that is no ethical person will ever darken the threshold of his bakery again.
Yes it does when your business is open to the public. You must serve all people equally.
I worked in a tool and die shop as an intern in college and we made parts for anyone who walked in the door with the money to pay for it. You need to stop making your customers ideas personal and instead do a good job and focus on the bottom line and your professional ability.
Everything was custom made so there was nothing on any shelf. My daughter did the same thing for the first 2 years out of college because there wasn't much else and she wanted experience.
does a vendor have to provide a service that violates his first amendment rights?
Noooo, it trumps bigots from discriminating on the basis of sex, including sexual identity, which is not a "right" in the public marketplace.
Where exactly is it in the Bible that says making a cake for a gay couple is a "sin"?
Religious freedom ends where civil rights begin. You cannot use religion to trample someone else's rights, period.
I dunno......does the dumb bigot have to serve black folks even if he's a traditionally white supremacist Southern Baptist?
An incorporated business is not a person and as such has no religious rights. He voluntarily chose to open a public accommodation bakery so he cannot now object to the rules that are part of the business license that he applied for and signed. I can go into a Christian book store with an atheist T-shirt on and they could not legally refuse to sell me anything for any reason.
What about the government?
How much do you want a bet this goes down as a win for the baker via "non-neutrality"?
that seems to be the ultimate goal of the conservative religious - a country where religious beliefs supersede secular law. they don't seem to realize there are many religions in this country and many others with religious beliefs that might conflict with their own, its a giant can of worms they want to open.
This claim isn't even wrong because your statement is incoherent. How is it logically possible to have a ruling of non-neutrality?
When you opened a public business it does. Nobody forced you to open that business, so you accept those rules as part of the business license. That business is seperate from your rights as a private citizen because of the incorporation.
Did you not graduate high school? How do you not know this?
If you are such a gentle snowflake that you take your customers ideas/opinions personally instead of being an adult, then maybe you shouldn't be in business for yourself. Get a job as a handyman or a landscaper at your church so you don't have to deal with anyone who doesn't believe exactly as you do. Those of us who work in private business understand that the customers is right, money talks and you need a steady stream of income to keep the lights on and your bills paid.
This bigot should have baked the damn gay wedding cake (whatever that possibly is), went to church after he finished the job and donated the profit from the job to his church if his religious beliefs are so important to him.
No. But I don't think a cake violates anybody's religious beliefs.
If having his beliefs is the biggest thing he's worried about then he should close his shop. He's dealing with the public. Did he stupid enough think that he wouldn't have to do business with gays?
Just when I think I've seen the most absurd pretext or analogy for this bakery thing, some rightwinger comes out with and even more grotesquely ridiculous one. It's almost like they want the ridicule. It's masochistic.
Do they do this because of their ignorance of the law or possibly because the verbal abuse feeds their persecution complex?
The bigoted baker already has two simple remedies.....he can move his business to a red state since none of them have adequate public accommodations laws, or he can run his business as a private members-only club like the whites-only country club which Lush Dimbulb attends.
Simply put there is no reason for the court to grant him any further accommodation.
*Freedom to discriminate
That's the actual meaning behind this pearl clutching. Freedom, as used by conservatives, has usually meant some sort of oppression.
Bingo.
BULLSEYE!!! We have a winnah!!!!!
Freedom as defined by conservatives is usually the freedom from being prohibited by the state from trampling on the equal rights of others. Conservatives do not see themselves as an equal in a very interconnected society. The very basic concept of working and playing well with others is an anathema to them, despite the teachings of Jesus who they claim to follow.
This needs to be more widely taught and understood.
BULL....When liberals create special classes it feels like oppression. We can thank the Clinton campaign and the Obama administration for spending all that time on telling people what bathrooms were to be used. It woke a sleeping giant!
What special classes did liberals create that you are left out of? How exactly are you being oppressed?
Trans people have been using the bathroom of their gender identity for many decades without a problem, until conservatives needed somebody new to hate. Obama and sHillary didn't tell anyone anything. You just learned that trans' people were using the bathroom and now your outraged of what has always happened without incident.
This dipshit is trying to use his religion to discriminate. He's a fraud, plain and simple. What simpleton does this? Oh, wait....
All this arguing over gay wedding cakes, hell, I never even knew that cakes HAD a sexual orientation. What if the baker agrees to make the cake, but Michelle and Marcus get a chance to turn the cake straight before the wedding?
But they can be made gay:
Ok, but these cakes are CREATED gay, they can't be turned gay by their environment. Being gay is an innate part of what these cakes are.
Good point.
But I suppose people will never stop arguing whether cakes' being gay is a something that they have no choice over-- they are just created gay. Or if, in fact, the gay cakes have actually consciously chosen to be gay!
Speaking of religion jokes-- here are some really funny ones. (Actually some of the best ones were posted by Spikegary in comments):
Atheist Jokes
Any cake that thinks it's a choice, must be a bisexual cake.
If the baker prays hard enough he can turn a gay cake straight. Or vice-versa.
By the way did you know that cupcakes can be gay too? I wasn't aware of that until I read the transcript of the SCOTUS oral arguments:
If baking a wedding cake for a gay wedding means you that you support gay marriage, voting for a pedophile means that you support pedophilia.
Only if the Gun Purchaser tells the Seller......They are going to murder someone with the gun.
When does being religious give one the right to judge others and to decide not to serve them or treat them with respect? This isn’t Christianity, this is out and out discrimination – this is hatred under the guise of religion.
It will be interesting to see how the Supreme Court will rule. If they rule against the gay couple, could anyone, anywhere, refuse services of any kind based on personal religious belief? IMO, the right to discriminate could run rampant, depending on the ruling that is made.
Yes, since they short-circuited the democratic process with their original ruling on same sex marriage. This time the Court may pull back a bit with the realization of how much damage activist decisions have done to the moral foundations of American society.
How did they do that exactly? All they did was strike down bans on SSM, as is their prerogative. Equal rights is not put to popular vote.
What damage would that be? What damage has SSM caused exactly?
I know, right? They even did the same thing when they struck down the bans on mixed-race marriage. That forced racist bakers who belong to the same Southern Baptist cult as Jack Phillips to serve mixed-race couples and blacks! It was a tragic day in Amerikkka.
You lovers of totalitarian government remain bent on destroying liberty in America.
"The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man ; but only to have the law of nature for his rule."-
If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave "
Samuel Adams November 1772
Your libelous statement aside, name one liberty you've lost! Then cry us a river!
Yep, that's EXACTLY what the racist conservatives in the confederate states whined about when the 1964 Civil Rights Act was passed.
Bummer, dude.
Racist Democrats, you mean.
The only thing that's changed about southern conservatives in the past 150 years is their party affiliation. Otherwise they're still the same dumb bigots they always were. That's why a racist, homophobic, misogynistic, Islamophobic and theocratic pedophile will likely win the Alabama Senate race.
My goodness!
Today's progressive ideology opposes individual liberty to the pursuit of happiness; instead they keep trying to enslave everyone to statist collectivism.
When government seizes the fruit of the labor of it's citizens, we have surrendered our liberties
When government determines how much of your income you are allowed to keep, we have surrendered our liberties
When government states that it is the arbiter of when and where you should grow (Wickard v Filburn), we have surrendered our liberties
When government states it determines the wage agreements between employer and employee, we have surrendered our liberties
When government determines how and where we educate our children, we surrender our liberties
When government determines that we must purchase health insurance with a threat of tax penalties whether we use health care services or not-we have surrendered our liberties
When government forces us to participate in a retirement ponzi scheme-we have surrendered our liberties
When government forces us to participate in old age government run health care-we have surrendered our liberties
When doctors are forced by the Government to provide free services, we have surrendered our liberties
When government tries to control the environment, we have surrendered our liberties
When government forces us to participate in a marxist redistribution of wealth-we have surrendered our liberties
When Govt controls the air waves, we have surrendered our liberties
When Govt determines what vehicles we can purchase, how they must be equipped, and how they must perform, we have lost our liberties
When Govt determines what foods or beverages are acceptable, we have lost our liberties
When Govt determines what substances you can ingest, smoke, or otherwise assimilate into your body, we have lost our liberties
I can go on endlessly on how this totalitarian government has incrementally reduced our natural rights until they are almost nonexistent.
the core of the civil rights act that all people should be equal before the law was both noble and the right thing to do. The excess comes from it stripping of us of our basic liberties in freedom of association, especially in commerce.
We need to get the state (both Federal and States) out of meddling in commerce, education, and private institutions like marriage. These are issues for each individual and family to determine without Government dictate
And, here we have it folks, the Alt-Right mantra, the Anarchists wish, complete bedlam in order to get what they want, everyone doing exactly what they wish, treating people exactly the opposite of the way they would want to be treated. If you ain't white then you ain't right type of mentality.
LOL.....thus speaks our resident expert on freedum, the wannabe theocrat who voted for Prop h8 in order to deny gay Californians the civil rights he enjoys.
But don't worry Larry.....even with public accommodations laws in place you can run your Hate Cakes business as a private club and deny membership to any group of people you hate like gays, women, blacks, Jews, Catholics, etc. You can even post a sign saying "No fags or Papists allowed."
First, in this country and, many others, marriage has been a government licensing provision for century's, in recent decades it was a way to prevent people from marrying their cousins or, sisters or, from marrying someone who had a medical problem that could be passed on to their children. Since that time things have changed, I remember my mother talking about having to get a blood test to get her marriage license so dad and, she could marry. To say that marriage is a private institution and, not related to the government is to deny the truth.
Second, commerce was so fucked up in the past that regulations had to be imposed on it to insure people not only got a fair deal when buying something that what they did buy, was safe.
Third, education was a hit and, a miss in the past, the rich got a good education and, the poor got the shaft when it came to an education, that is why the Department of Education was created.
"Meddling" in these institutions is what has made us smarter, healthier and, less likely to marry our sister or, brother. Unlike the people in the south.
The past eight years proves me right.
So, the past eight years never happened?
The religious right lost their right to claim moral superiority a long time ago. Like I said, if a Christian is supporting Roy Moore...they are not a Christian. Kim Davis, Larry "wide stance" Craig, the Duggars, Newt Gingrich...the list goes on and on and on..
Marriage is a legal contract, has been that way for a very long time. The only reason people are taking the stance you have now is because they no longer hold the, "high ground" with regards to marriage. Heterosexual people that don't like the LGBT community were always able to play the, "ha ha ha ha ha...we can get married, you can't!!!", card. Now they can't do it anymore so now they attack the institution of LEGAL MARRIAGE. If you want to be wed in Holy Matrimony, you are welcome to do so, just know that the states and federal government will NOT recognize it as a LEGAL marriage. Simple as that.
.
When SSM was passed? The right insisted that our country would collapse into chaos, it didn't. But then the right also said that ending slavery, allowing women to own land, and vote, interracial marriage, etc...would all cause our society to collapse into chaos.. We're still here. The fascist right is always screaming that the sky is falling, it isn't. Relax.
Racist Democrats? That's a joke right? Democrats elected the first black president.....TWICE. Look at the make up of our congress.
.
Minority*
Democrats
Republicans
African-American
48
3
Hispanic/Latino
30
13
Asian/Indian/Pacific Islander
16
0
Total
94
16
.
The first part of Pocan’s claim is about women. The report shows that Democrats, even though they are outnumbered by Republicans, have three times more women in the two chambers.
Democratic women
Republican women
78
26
Racist Democrats? LMFAO!!!!!
Kind of shocking when someone states the truth about Roy Moore, isn't it?
Federal and, state cuts to education since the '70's, the most recent are coming under the Trump Administration.
1. We did fine without marriage license laws for the first 140 years of this nation.
2. Holy Matrimony is a term from the cult of the Church of Rome. It is not a Biblical term and I have never used it in the hundreds of marriage ceremonies I have conducted.
I also do not require couples to have a marriage license. I inform them that it is their choice, but that God does not require it for their marriage to be honorable in His sight.
The fact is, when compared to other nations, the US has ranked last or next to last in K-12 since 1965. Even though we have a Department of Education, we have a decentralized education system. Most of the countries that we compete against have a uniform, centralized curriculum.
Maybe if we spent as much money in education as we do in our over bloated defense system we would have smarter kids.
Well, we have them now, so deal with it. We did well without a LOT of things for the first 140 years, we have them now.
Did you inform them that in some states their marriage might not be legal without it? Nah, I bet you didn't.
We also did fine without paved roads and, bridges for that period of time. Would you like to give those up? Or, how about getting rid of cars, planes, trains, buses as well.
I'm part of a movement of pastors, and both liberal and conservative libertarians to end government licensing of marriages (marriage privatization)
Marriage privatization is the concept that the state should have no authority to define the terms of personal relationships such as marriage . Proponents of marriage privatization, including certain minarchists , anarchists , libertarians , and opponents of government interventionism, claim that such relationships are best defined by private individuals and not the state. Arguments for the privatization of marriage have been offered by a number of scholars and writers. Proponents of marriage privatization often argue that privatizing marriage is a solution to the social controversy over same-sex marriage . Arguments for and against the privatization of marriage span both liberal and conservative political camps.
Senator Rand Paul supports the marriage privatization movement
In 2009, author and journalist Naomi Wolf wrote about getting the state out of marriage in The Times :
I fully inform couples of both the legal and the moral aspects of marriage with or without a marriage license. There is NOTHING ILLEGAL about marriages that have no marriage license. In most states and the Federal Government it simply means that you don't have that legal recognition. But most of the so-called "benefits" can be obtained with a simple partnership agreement and power of attorney agreements.
Marriage licenses are about government control and government revenue. They have nothing to do with the best interests of couples
What constitutional rights have you lost that someone else enjoys? You complain about LGBT getting married and then you claim that all people must be equal. How can LGBT possible have equal rights if they don't have the same rights as WASP heterosexuals do?
Your arguments are laughable, but expected right-wing libertarian tripe. Your idea of equal rights is your unfettered right to trample the rights of others without the government getting in the way to protect minorities and guarantee them the same rights that you enjoy.
Irrelevant.
.
Also irrelevant. What's relevant is that only a state licences and regulates marriage. All of your superstitious cults are irrelevant to marriage.
.
If they don't have a license then you're not officiating a marriage. You might be acting in a religious capacity for a religious wedding but that's not what officiating a marriage is. You only officiate a marriage when you act as a proxy for the state in the solemnization of a legal marriage contract.
LOL. Funny that you folks didn't bring that up when the bible-babblers were whining that SCOTUS had struck down the bans on mixed-race marriage. For some reason you only bring it up now (and only after you've utterly lost).
It's also not clear how getting the government out of the legal contract of marriage would resolve any of the supposed "social controversy" since dumb bigots were just as opposed to gays living together (or gays having sex, gays having civil unions, gays having inheritance rights, gays adopting, gays in public office, gays teaching school, gays getting equal treatment in employment, housing, public accommodations, etc) as they were to gays getting married. The bigots who oppose marriage equality have always opposed gays having the same rights as everyone else as you should well know, given that you voted against those rights.
.
That's just a stupid idea since marriage in the US is inherently a legal contract about kinship and property rights, and it's legally binding on non-signatory 3rd parties like the states, the feds, insurers, employers, etc.
In fact it's such a stupid idea that it reveals its advocates don't even understand what marriage is. Marriage isn't a mere "personal relationship", it's a legal contract between two persons and the government. If you're only interested in a "personal relationship" then you have no need to be married.
No wonder your ilk lost every court case about marriage equality.
Really? All states now recognize any marriage that was legal in the state it was performed.
If you have a marriage license from that state. You forgot that little nugget.
As long as you don't try to claim an individual as a legal spouse, then there is no problem. If you do without a license, then it is illegal.
A marriage license is much cheaper, more encompassing, and easier to obtain. It's also harder for others to challenge.
So tax breaks and the 1000+ legal benefits associated with marriage licenses is not in a couple's best interests?
You don't represent me! What if I want government involvement and licensing of marriage? Who are you to put your desires above mine?
You are performing a religious commitment ceremony if you marry someone without a state issued license because those couple would not have the legal and financial benefits of being an officially recognized married couple. They are not married. These ceremonies were common among LGBT couples before they were able to get a marriage license.
Without that state issued license the marriage is not legally recorded in that state. That is the difference between a religious commitment ceremony and a legal marriage.
That's exactly what could happen. Antidiscrimination and public accommodation laws could be nullified as a result under the excuse of "religious freedom."
Somehow I get the feeling (if the baker prevails) that such a situation wouldn't be just an unfortunate and unintended consequence.
Indeed. If anything, that will be the consequence.
How terrible. Why that would mean striking down totalitarianism and restoring individual liberty and the natural right of freedom of association
"The natural liberty of man is to be free from any superior power on earth, and not to be under the will or legislative authority of man ; but only to have the law of nature for his rule."-
If men through fear, fraud or mistake, should in terms renounce and give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the great end of society, would absolutely vacate such renunciation; the right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of Man to alienate this gift, and voluntarily become a slave "
Samuel Adams November 1772
"A wise and frugal government ... shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government."
Thomas Jefferson, First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801
William Blackstone, whose legal writings were considered as the final authority in American courts for a century-and-a-half after the adoption of the U. S. Constitution, declared: “So great moreover is the regard of the law for private property that it will not authorize the least violation of it – no, not even for the general good of the whole community”
Charles Montesquieu, whose writings were recommended by major Framers such as James Madison, John Adams, and Alexander Hamilton, declared: “Let us therefore lay down a certain maxim: that whenever the public good happens to be the matter in question, it is not for the advantage of the public to deprive an individual of his property – or even to retrench the least part of it by a law or a political regulation”
It's funny, and very telling, how you associate anti-discrimination with totalitarianism.
As a straight white Christian extremist male, Larry Robinson doesn't understand why anyone would need non-discrimination laws.
your statist ideology blinds you to the principles of liberty. Our Constitutional Republic was established to keep government out of our lives and businesses
“If Congress can employ money indefinitely to the general welfare, and are the sole and supreme judges of the general welfare, they may take the care of religion into their own hands; they may appoint teachers in every State, county and parish and pay them out of their public treasury; they may take into their own hands the education of children, establishing in like manner schools throughout the Union; they may assume the provision of the poor; they may undertake the regulation of all roads other than post-roads; in short, every thing, from the highest object of state legislation down to the most minute object of police, would be thrown under the power of Congress… Were the power of Congress to be established in the latitude contended for, it would subvert the very foundations, and transmute the very nature of the limited Government established by the people of America.”
– James Madison, Letter to Edmund Pendleton, January 21, 1792
"The mania for giving the Government power to meddle with the private affairs of cities or citizens is likely to cause endless trouble, through the rivalry of schools and creeds that are anxious to obtain official recognition, and there is great danger that our people will lose our independence of thought and action which is the cause of much of our greatness, and sink into the helplessness of the Frenchman or German who expects his government to feed him when hungry, clothe him when naked, to prescribe when his child may be born and when he may die,
and, in time, to regulate every act of humanity from the cradle to the tomb, including the manner in which he may seek future admission to paradise." Mark Twain
Ah, so you are pro-choice then?
Yeah.....that must be why you claimed that the law should treat everyone equally but you voted to deny gays the same civil rights you enjoy. Because "liberty".
No, I oppose infanticide. Murder is both a sin and a crime against humanity
marriage is not a civil right. there is NO authority in the Constitution for the Federal govt to meddle in marriage which is a private act between individuals.
Try getting a marriage license without going to the courthouse.
Then your not for individual liberty.
there is no Christian requirement for a marriage license to be married before God
Murder is not part of liberty.
But, an individuals right to chose is.
Certainly people have the liberty to murder, steal, or rape. But that doesn't mean there are no consequences.
This nation has bloody hands for the more than 15 million innocent babies that have been murdered by those with your mindset
Your Christian preacher can't grant you a marriage license, that can only be granted by the state, which means that no preacher worth his salt will marry you until you go to the courthouse and, get a marriage license so, that being said, marriage involves the government and, is contracted through the government, that is why you must follow the law when getting married. If the law says that Gays can get married then guess what, Gays can get married.
Sorry Larry but you're quite obviously wrong. Not only has marriage been a basic civil right since 1888 (and thus subject to strict scrutiny), but when a state issues marriage contracts it must do so in compliance with the 14th Amendment guarantee of equal protection. That's why your ilk lost all the marriage equality rulings including the one in 1967.
And when you voted for Prop h8 you did so with the clear intent of denying gays the marital rights you enjoyed. So your obfuscation about "whether marriage is a civil right" is both deliberate and profoundly dishonest. You acted in a selfish and homophobic manner when you placed that vote.
.
The state literally doesn't give a crap about your nutty cult. It's simply irrelevant to marriage. It's also clear that you've confused the legal contract of marriage with a completely irrelevant cult ritual like "holy matrimony." No wonder you're so confused on this topic.
What babies have been murdered? Oh wait, you mean abortions. As has been stated before, those aren't babies.
I am a preacher and I never said that we issue marriage licenses. I said I don't require couples to have one to be married because God doesn't require them.
Homosexuals can never be married. They can get a state license to have their perversions sanctified by the state. But they remain an abomination before God.
Of course they are. NOT a single woman ever calls her baby in the woman "invading tissue", "a parasite" or any other irrational terms used by you supporters of infanticide to justify these murders.
No, the DOCTOR however, calls it a zygote, not a baby.
Laughable. Neither the doctor who delivered my children, nor the doctors who delivered my grandchildren ever referred to the baby in the womb as anything other than a baby.
With most of my grandchildren I was at visits to the doctor where we observed the baby in sonograms and the doctor pointed out the babies laughing, responding to touch, and sucking their thumbs.
No, it's a legal contract between individuals. And yes, there is authority in Constitution, it's called equal protection under the law. If a heterosexual couple can LEGALLY marry, a gay couple can LEGALLY marry. Don't like it? Leave.
True, but it will not be recognized by the government. In other words, it affects your insurance, survivor benefits, property, etc..
Ah ok, so you want individual liberty....just not for women. Got ya.
The SCOTUS and the US Constitution disagrees with you.
Bull shit ! You don't speak for all women. Who do you think you are ???
Funny stuff.. You are aware that there are gay Christians, that are married.. Right? LOL
That, according to the law, is marriage. It doesn't matter what you have to say about it, Jesus said it best, "Render unto Caesar what is Caesars and, unto God what is Gods." The government says that Gays can marry, that is the end of it.
So you are opposed to the death penalty?
And where will God be when one spouse dies and wants to collect the ins.? Or the property? If they are not legally married, and there is no will, the state gets it all. How exactly is God going to help? He sure as hell didn't help those 26 people in a Texas church, did he? No.
SCOTUS is often wrong. Or do you always agree with them (I doubt it)
So, tell me where does it say "baby" there?
Wrong. There are all kinds of people who call themselves Christians, but that does not make them one.
“Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ And then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ Matthew 7:21-23
“He who has My commandments and keeps them, it is he who loves Me. And he who loves Me will be loved by My Father, and I will love him and manifest Myself to him.” John 14:21
Then Jesus said to those Jews who believed Him, “If you abide in My word, you are My disciples indeed. John 8:31
And He went through the cities and villages, teaching, and journeying toward Jerusalem. Then one said to Him, “Lord, are there few who are saved?”
And He said to them, “Strive to enter through the narrow gate, for many, I say to you, will seek to enter and will not be able. When once the Master of the house has risen up and shut the door, and you begin to stand outside and knock at the door, saying, ‘Lord, Lord, open for us,’ and He will answer and say to you, ‘I do not know you, where you are from,’ then you will begin to say, ‘We ate and drank in Your presence, and You taught in our streets.’ But He will say, ‘I tell you I do not know you, where you are from. Depart from Me, all you workers of iniquity.’ Luke 13:23-27
Matthew 5:20 ”For I say to you, that unless your righteousness exceeds the righteousness of the scribes and Pharisees, you will by no means enter the kingdom of heaven.”
Therefore as the tares are gathered and burned in the fire, so it will be at the end of this age. 41 The Son of Man will send out His angels, and they will gather out of His kingdom all things that offend, and those who practice lawlessness, 42 and will cast them into the furnace of fire. There will be wailing and gnashing of teeth. 43 Then the righteous will shine forth as the sun in the kingdom of their Father. He who has ears to hear, let him hear! Matthew 13:40-43
“Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword. For I have come to ‘set a man against his father, a daughter against her mother, and a daughter-in-law against her mother-in-law’; and ‘a man’s enemies will be those of his own household.’ He who loves father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who loves son or daughter more than Me is not worthy of Me. And he who does not take his cross and follow after Me is not worthy of Me. He who finds his life will lose it, and he who loses his life for My sake will find it. Matthew 10:34-39
When He had called the people to Himself, with His disciples also, He said to them, “Whoever desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. 35 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it.
When He had called the people to Himself, with His disciples also, He said to them, “Whoever desires to come after Me, let him deny himself, and take up his cross, and follow Me. 35 For whoever desires to save his life will lose it, but whoever loses his life for My sake and the gospel’s will save it. Mark 8:34,35
Jesus declares “I am the Alpha and the Omega, the First and the Last, the Beginning and the End.”
Blessed are those who wash their robes. They will be permitted to enter through the gates of the city and eat the fruit from the tree of life. Outside the city are the dogs—the sorcerers, the sexually immoral, the murderers, the idol worshipers, and all who love to live a lie.
“I, Jesus, have sent my angel to give you this message for the churches. I am both the source of David and the heir to his throne. I am the bright morning star.” Revelation 22:13-16
Jesus- “But cowardly, unfaithful, and detestable people, murderers, sexual sinners, sorcerers, idolaters, and all liars will find themselves in the fiery lake of burning sulfur. This is the second death.” Revelation 21:8
that passage has nothing to do with civil laws. Credible hermeneutics interprets the passage very differently. the coin had Caesars image and Jesus said it must be his so give it back to Caesar
I don't have to agree with them, I'm not the law, I don't make law and, I don't enforce the law. That is why we have a SCOTUS and, law enforcement officials. From what I can see of you, you are putting yourself above the law or, you at least think that because Trump and, the Republicans are in charge it gives you some special right to think you can tell the SCOTUS what to do, that is laughable.
Like you?
nonsense. You simply have partnership agreements it's easy to get the insurance.
That is a leftist living Constitution interpretation. SCOTUS has been wrong many times and it is wrong on the issue of marriage.
the death penalty is not murder. Murder is the taking of INNOCENT life. The death penalty is the just sentence for those who take the lives of others.
So, again you are saying you know more than all those Justices about what the Constitution and, the Civil Rights Act says?
What nonsense. like most on the left, you can only lie about the statements of others when you cannot argue the substance
That's false as the Windsor v US case proved. There are many legal rights which hinge on marital status, not the least of which is a spousal inheritance tax exemption.
So you're either being willfully obtuse or you literally don't understand even the most basic aspects of this issue. No wonder your ilk lost in court on marriage equality.
Larry, it sounds like you're an apostate and definitely not a Christian at all. You've perverted the message to support your homophobic views.
Except when it's inflicted on innocent people.
I think it has everything to do with civil laws, especially when the main documents in question suggest that what you have been saying in this whole thread are wrong. Taken directly from Jesus's quote,
The laws have the government all over them, in other words, they are THE THINGS of Caesar so, according to Jesus you are to render or, GIVE, the government due when it comes to the laws, even if you disagree with them, if you don't then you are going against what Jesus said to do, which, according to your Bible makes you a sinner.
the coin had ceasars face on it so it belonged to caesar and that has nothing to do with "govt"
besides... unlike in rome... we the people own this country.
therefore in this country? the people are caesar. so the govt better give to the people that which is the peoples
Hey you are the one that said it, not me.
So you're absolutely certain that 100% of all convicted and executed criminals were guilty?
So? They can call it a baby to appeal to your emotion. But it's still just a fetus, no matter how you want to refer or anthropomorphize it.
And you know this how?
What babies have been murdered? That sounds like something tat would be quite newsworthy. But I have heard no such story of babies being murdered.
Merely your opinion, which accounts for squat in regards to the law or Constitution.
No True Scotsman fallacy.
The SCOTUS disagrees with you!
See previous statement.
That's all that's needed. You or your god's approval is not!
You say that like it's supposed to mean something, especially to anyone who doesn't follow you religion or god. Not everyone believe that nonsense, nor is required to.
Or gays.
Of you had bothered to study the implications of the federal paper #45 you would know that Madison's ideas lost out to the power of the federal government. The Civil War ended the idea of states rights being equal to the power of the federal government. Legally your opinions are only 150 years behind the times.
Men obviously can't have an abortion, but if you support equal personal liberty than how can you logically claim that you have the right to stop women from exercising that right in regards to her medical decisions? Either you support personal liberty for all people or you don't. A 20 week old fetus isn't a person, so don't bother with that argument.
These are the arguments where conservative libertarian claims traditionally to go off the rails and expose that they are patriarchal religious hypocrites.
What they want is a WASP heterosexual male patriarchy. They hate the idea that anyone but men like them have rights that they cannot trample on.
Save the Kleenex for the time when some old white guy who has more money and friends in higher places comes along and uses his power to trample on their rights. Most of us have seen this scenario before, which is why we have the US Constitution the current amendments and all of our civil rights protections.
Excuse me. A 20 week old "fetus" is a baby!!!!!!!!! 5 months to be exact. At 5 months the baby is moving.
Personal rights could, also, extend to the father of the baby. She wants an abortion and he doesn't. What rights does he have? None.
Calling religion followers hypocrites is getting old. Get a new script!
If you claim to be a Christian then the death penalty is wrong. Matthew 5:38.
If you claim to be a libertarian then how can you give the government the power to take a life in revenge when libertarians support a government with limited power?
Until the fetus is born and living interdependently is not a baby. A 20 week old fetus cannot survive outside of the mothers body, even with heroic medical measures. Her rights are not subordinate his his when she gets pregnant, so he cant make that decision.
Why do you believe that you get to determine the medical decisions of another person because of your religious belief, unless others can make your medical decisions based on their religious beliefs?
Wrong! it's a fetus. Look it up.
And a bacterium moves (via cilia/flagellum) in response to its environment. Your point?
Sure, after birth occurs.
That's right! And why should he have rights over the woman? He's not the one getting pregnant!
And, why do you assume I base my beliefs on religion?
You know what they say about assuming!
A 5 month fetus in a baby! Is a baby! Is a baby!
I am pro choice BTW, And, the male should have as much say so in this matter as the female, but doesn't. Now, I will say that it would be a rocky road to go down because the woman is still carrying her unwanted child. I don't want her to have a child she won't love and care for. But, what if the man said you carry it and give the baby to me?
Because to a significant portion of citizens it is not JUST a medical decision.
Nancy "Hamas is a humanitarian organization" Pelosi last Thursday said God sides with Democrats.
One has to wonder what Nancy's reply will be when God asks her "What did you think I meant by that whole 'Thou shall not kill' thing?"
The rational/moral/humanitarian part of the Human Race thinks the Nazis were monsters because they killed eight million Jews during WWII in their death camps - and that part of the human race is correct. Since Roe V Wade, the average number of abortuions in the US has been pegged at about one million per year. How could a liberal like Pelosi - or anyone - believe that this kind of war on children is "progressive", that the murder of innocents - this unabated infanticide gain God's support?
While there may be rational reasons for some abortions, substituting the slaughter of children as retro-birth control for using free and available contraceptives because it's easy is not one of them.
That's the point. The father will never have the rights over the mother before birth.
It doesn't matter what you believe because you do not get to determine what rights another person enjoys because of your beliefs. Someone needs to sit that supposed significant portion of society down and explain to them in term that they can understand that the US is not a direct democracy and our constitutional rights are not determined by popular vote or ballot. The Roe v.Wade decision is based on our inherent right to privacy from interference into our most intimate decisions. Nobody has ever been forced by the state to have an abortion and the church doesn't get to decide our rights because of its beliefs of a god that has never been proven to exist. if you don't want to have an abortion you have the right to do just that but the majority doe not have the right to determine the rights of anyone else just because their population status.
Keep your rosaries off of our ovaries!
It is an amazing thing that some people believe this to be a religious misunderstanding. It is not. It is humanitarian, it is human - it is ethics and morals. It is a question of taking life.
Those that have no ethical or moral issue with butchering an an unborn human baby point to Roe V Wade and whine - "It's our right".
Do you suggest that Blacks have no rights? Because there was a time the court said so. Remember when the SCOTUS - through political pressure from liberals - "decided" that Blacks were not humans - and therefor had no right to freedom - or even life? Dredd Scott was overturned when the morally/ethically challenged liberals were over-ruled.
Aren't you glad your parents didn't find you a crimp in their style? Ironic that those that wish to take life from human babies are the same ones that survived because their parents DIDN'T decide to butcher them for body parts.
People that support abortions have no moral or ethical leg to stand on - just the ability to justify animalistic, inhuman and horrific behavior as long as it satisfies their need for gratification........how inhuman would someone need to be to assume a snappy little catch phrase would excuse the murders of the most innocent among us?
How can you logically say that you are both pro-choice and you do not make your decisions based on religious beliefs when you posted these claims? There is nothing in your many arguments that even suggests that you are pro choice.
And, the laws are agreed upon by the peoples representatives in Washington and, in the state legislatures which is the government, which means "Caesar", so, you, according to your Bible must "render unto Caesar" or, the government what the government says is the LAW. Tell me, do you believe that when a police officer stops you for speeding that the officer has a right to give you a ticket for breaking that law? Do, you believe that you MUST pay that ticket when you get it?
i would love to see one of these religious conservative people defending the baker tell the police officer they can't pay their speeding ticket because it's against their religious beliefs
no i did not say that. only the leftist justices support your view
Jesus never opposed the death penalty. He is the one who established the death penalty with Israel
So, I suppose that this would apply to God, who, after all, is the biggest abortionist in the world.
Hey Kathleen.
Looks like you were subjected to a fair amount of abuse for stating your opinions. Sorry I missed the chance to weigh in for you.
As for being "pro life/pro choice" I am against the cruel and needless slaughter of unborn human babies as retro-birth control. In cases of rape, incest, or the certainty of a severely handicapped child I don't feel justified in society holding the victim accountable - they must make their own choice based on what their heart tells them.
What's the difference? Why can't you let every woman make this choice based on what her heart tells her. According to you, a pregnancy is still an unborn baby whether it was rape or incest that created it. And why do you feel that a woman has a right to terminate a pregnancy where the fetus is severely handicapped? Doesn't that fetus have a right to life?
Look....if you're going to be for some abortions but not all, you're being disingenuous. I say let all women decide what they are going to do. It's not society's or the government's business.
Not your body, not your business, not your decision, how much plainer can it be said.
If ya want to have a conversation then first let me suggest that you listen to - or read - what was said rather than put words in someone's mouth and then argue about what you WISHED they'd said.
I'm for FOR any abortion.
I did not define pregnancy
So - you ignored the point I made before, that liberals can decide who has rights and who does not - that liberals can treay any class of human being they way they wish as long as they don't recognize them as "human". How is this kind of phsyco-babble a substitute for logic in the fantasies of the liberal mind? How is butchering your own progeny considered as being "progressive"?
When suggesting this as your argument you are saying you think that the SCOTUS had it right the first time - that as they rendered their decision in the Dredd Scott case Blacks have no rights. You argue that - based on today's definition of human life that you can kill unborn babies willy nilly - as a convenience - right? In fact then you agree - as the court decided - Blacks have no claim to freedom - or even the right to live......and so neither do unborn babies?
You'd think that after 160 years that even a liberal could grow a conscience, develop empathy - or at least stop themselves from slaughtering innocent unborn babies.....but then - isn't that the point of being liberal - that you can pretend any reality, justify any definition as long as it serves your convenience?
And let me suggest to you that you stay on the topic (Dredd Scott?) and don't move the goal posts (unborn babies). And at least try to answer the question you've been asked
I won't argue with someone who is highly emotional about this topic.
Not anyone's right to take another's life - how come liberals aren't bright enough to understand such a simple idea? Or is it that they understand - but simply don't possess enough humanity to care?
Again, not your medical decision so none of your business.
How about you simply admit it when you can't address a rebuttal intellectually?
Sadly - this is precisely why the carnage of a million human lives snuffed out by liberals every year by abortionists continues. The fantasy world where liberal put morals and ethics on hold when they cannot take responsibility for themselves or their own behavior and instead do the right thing.
Just as the Nazis justified the atrocity of killing eight million Jews as their right because Jews were a "sub species", just as liberals in the South bought/sold/raped/killed their black slaves because it was their right as the owners of their property, modern day progressive liberals claim it as their right to murder their unborn children using the very same foul reasoning process.
Same excuses, same bogus logic, same lack of morals - the same inhuman ability to justify horrendous animalistic self aggrandizing behavior. The only difference is the timeline.
This is an ignorant argument. No one says that fetuses have no rights, but what you deliberately ignore is that there are other rights involved. There is this person called the mother, and believe it or not, she has rights too. That is why Roe v Wade was settled, whenever 2 sets of rights are involved, a compromise is needed. So, the mother's rights are paramount in the first trimester, the fetuses rights start coming into effect in the second, and absent a health or life and death problem, the fetuses rights are paramount in the last trimester. We are a secular republic, if you want to worry about what a god has to say in the matter, that is your concern only. You have no right to force that concern onto anyone else.
I really need that eye rolling emoji or a face palm so I'll settle for this:
You are simply wrong. Killing is not equal to murder, you can kill someone in self-defense and you can kill a fetus in abortion and neither one is murder. Your problem is you cannot separate your religious feelings from the fact that you live in a secular nation. Tell me, do you feel that every American combat soldier is a murderer?
But if someone shoots and kills both the host and the fetus....according to the law......it is a double murder. Weird huh !
Yes it is. I have always found it curious when people legislate laws based on their religious preferences. The weirdest thing is that the Jews who wrote the Bible did not consider it murder, but don't expect me to explain Christians to you, I am not one.
and it's a stupid law
I don't know if I should apologize to you or not for calling you a Christian. It's just that you come across as kind and compassionate. You know....Christ-like
Or Not ?
Seems to me that Abortion rights has NOTHING to do with religion.....since religion doesn't believe in abortion......But it's okay by law......wouldn't you agree ?
Sooooo.....Based on the law as I noted in my post (shooting host and killing fetus is a double murder by law), and you agreed with this ..... a fetus either is a human or it's not.......which "IS" the correct version.
One puts you in jail, one doesn't. Why the double standard anyway.
Why ?
I know as a husband....and someone shot and killed my pregnant wife and child, I'd want the murderer to be nailed to the wall.....lterally.... and shot in each kneecap on Monday, shot in the elbows on Thursday, and then shot in each shoulder on Sunday, before he was actually laid to rest after giving them the coup-de-grace on Monday.
Now.....as a women..... who may be pregnant........ if someone shot your husband before you gave birth, wouldn't you feel the same ?
Would it be because this ass took your "Life Partner" away from you, and now your child was fatherless ?
Do you know the bible condones abortion.....Numbers 5:11-31
Because a fetus has no rights. I don't care how far along a woman is in her pregnancy, the fetus has no rights. It's just one more step to making abortion illegal
Wrong! Double murder (fetal homicide) is based on harm inflicted against the woman in questions, which forcibly takes away her choice. It's also based on the stage of gestation, the circumstances surrounding the death, individual state laws, and whether a prosecutor attempts to push for such a charge.
But arguments to limit or prohibit abortion rights does seem to have much to do with religion. It seems religion doesn't believe in individual rights or choice.
Interesting !
"It's just one more step to making abortion illegal" !
It's already a law....so tell me how that has worked on getting rid of abortion rights again ?
You need to read up on the subject a bit more !
Even the likes of the Supreme Court of California disagrees with you:
In the latest ruling on the question of when a fetus should have the legal status of a person, the California Supreme Court decided on Monday that an assault on a pregnant woman that kills her fetus can be prosecuted as murder, even if the fetus is not viable.
It's more of a State thing, than a gustation thing.
AND THEN YOU HAVE THIS:
The Unborn Victims of Violence Act of 2004 (Public Law 108-212) is a United States law which recognizes an embryo or fetus in utero as a legal victim, if they are injured or killed during the commission of any of over 60 listed federal crimes of violence. The law defines "child in utero" as "a member of the species Homo sapiens, at any stage of development, who is carried in the womb". [1]
The law is codified in two sections of the United States Code : Title 18, Chapter 1 (Crimes), §1841 (18 USC 1841) and Title 10, Chapter 22 ( Uniform Code of Military Justice ) §919a (Article 119a).
No need, no offense taken. You don't need to be a Christian to be kind and compassionate, in fact, sometimes it helps not to be.
That "law" is flimsy because it's a SCOTUS decision. All that's needed to overturn it is one case that makes an argument that convinces the conservative justices to overturn it. You know that as well as I do.
Legal abortion has always been on shaky ground. The powers that be keep making laws making it harder for women to obtain abortions, then they pile on the bullshit with garbage like imprisoning a pregnant woman because she won't stop taking drugs. Whose privacy is being violated here? Not the state's that's for sure. Now we have this double murder nonsense.
Where does it all end?
I'll tell you where it ends. When people of your sensitivities finally get a case together that convinces the SCOTUS to overturn Roe vs Wade
I had no idea that Missouri was a liberal bastion. And funny thing, history doesn't consider it "liberal" either, and neither did the majority in Missouri or the justices who first ruled against Dredd Scott on a technicality.
Conservative: adjective - holding to traditional attitudes and values and cautious about change or innovation, typically in relation to politics or religion.
Liberal: adjective - open to new behavior or opinions and willing to discard traditional values.
In 1846 the tradition was slavery and conservatives fought hard to preserve it. It was the "liberal" North who rejected tradition and were willing to discard it in favor of a new behavior of equality.
I can only assume you meant to say "Democrats" when you said "liberals", though even that wouldn't be entirely correct as there was a rift between two opposing Democrat parties, the Northern Democrats and the Southern Democrats who each had their own candidates for President in 1860. You had Stephen Douglas as the candidate for Northern Democrats who opposed slavery and you had John C. Breckinridge for the Southern Democrats who supported slavery.
So to claim "liberals decided that blacks were not humans" is a flat out lie. Racist conservative Southern Democrats fought to protect slavery, fought to protect segregation and Jim Crow laws, fought against women's rights to vote, fought blacks right to vote and fought to protect bans on interracial marriage. And now those southern States are conservative Republican Red and continue to fight equality as they fight against liberals and progressives who support LGTBQ rights.
To all those who claim any Democrat should be labeled with the racist South or starting the KKK I'd just like to ask, do you believe all the previously registered racist Democrats moved out of the South over the last 50 years? Was there some migration that occurred where the neo-confederates and KKK members left those States en masse and their homesteads and farms were bought up by these new supposedly non-racist Republicans who now make up the majorities in those States? If that didn't happen then the same people who voted against the 1964 civil rights act and the 1965 voting rights act are still there, they just have a different letter behind their names. Those are the people who rightfully should continue to be labeled as the founders of the KKK and who supported segregation and still cling to extremely racist views.
Many are still xenophobic, homophobic, Islamaphobic and sexist as conservatives throughout our history have always been regardless of the party they have registered with. Today the majority of them register Republican and support the xenophobic, homophobic, Islamophobic and sexist President. A leopard can't change its spots, but it can register with a different party, though it's still going to be a leopard...
Could you imagine if a person who was a registered Republican robbed a bank and was caught and later chose to register as a Democrat and started complaining about those damn bank robbing Republicans? It may seem ridiculous but that's exactly what I see often with these now "Southern Republicans" trying to lay all the blame for their racist pasts on Democrats.
So SCOTUS rulings are "Flimsy" if you don't like them....but "SOLID" when you do ?
"Legal abortion has always been on shaky ground."
I haven't seen ANY SHAKE what-so-ever, even after Roe/Norma (which ever) came out saying she was wrong in what she wanted.
This verse gives a recipe on how to induce an abortion: So the bible condones abortion/miscarriage.....deal with it.
‘The priest shall bring her and have her stand before the Lord . 17 Then he shall take some holy water in a clay jar and put some dust from the tabernacle floor into the water. 18 After the priest has had the woman stand before the Lord , he shall loosen her hair H)" data-cr="#cen-NIV-3811H" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;"> and place in her hands the reminder-offering, the grain offering for jealousy, I)" data-cr="#cen-NIV-3811I" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;"> while he himself holds the bitter water that brings a curse. J)" data-cr="#cen-NIV-3811J" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;"> 19 Then the priest shall put the woman under oath and say to her, “If no other man has had sexual relations with you and you have not gone astray K)" data-cr="#cen-NIV-3812K" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;"> and become impure while married to your husband, may this bitter water that brings a curse L)" data-cr="#cen-NIV-3812L" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;"> not harm you. 20 But if you have gone astray M)" data-cr="#cen-NIV-3813M" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;"> while married to your husband and you have made yourself impure by having sexual relations with a man other than your husband”— 21 here the priest is to put the woman under this curse N)" data-cr="#cen-NIV-3814N" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;"> —“may the Lord cause you to become a curse b]" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;">[ b ] among your people when he makes your womb miscarry and your abdomen swell. 22 May this water O)" data-cr="#cen-NIV-3815O" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;"> that brings a curse P)" data-cr="#cen-NIV-3815P" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;"> enter your body so that your abdomen swells or your womb miscarries.”
“‘Then the woman is to say, “Amen. So be it. Q)" data-cr="#cen-NIV-3815Q" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;"> ”
23 “‘The priest is to write these curses on a scroll R)" data-cr="#cen-NIV-3816R" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;"> and then wash them off into the bitter water. 24 He shall make the woman drink the bitter water that brings a curse, and this water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering will enter her. 25 The priest is to take from her hands the grain offering for jealousy, wave it before the Lord S)" data-cr="#cen-NIV-3818S" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;"> and bring it to the altar. 26 The priest is then to take a handful of the grain offering as a memorial c]" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;">[ c ] offering T)" data-cr="#cen-NIV-3819T" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;"> and burn it on the altar; after that, he is to have the woman drink the water. 2 7 If she has made herself impure and been unfaithful to her husband, this will be the result: When she is made to drink the water that brings a curse and causes bitter suffering, it will enter her, her abdomen will swell and her womb will miscarry, and she will become a curse. U)" data-cr="#cen-NIV-3820U" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;"> 28 If, however, the woman has not made herself impure, but is clean, she will be cleared of guilt and will be able to have children.
29 “‘This, then, is the law of jealousy when a woman goes astray V)" data-cr="#cen-NIV-3822V" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;"> and makes herself impure while married to her husband, 30 or when feelings of jealousy W)" data-cr="#cen-NIV-3823W" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;"> come over a man because he suspects his wife. The priest is to have her stand before the Lord and is to apply this entire law to her. 31 The husband will be innocent of any wrongdoing, but the woman will bear the consequences X)" data-cr="#cen-NIV-3824X" style="box-sizing: border-box; font-size: 0.625em; line-height: 22px; position: relative; vertical-align: top; top: 0px;"> of her sin.’”
You're comparing my spouse's life to a fetus? That makes no sense. For one thing, Mr Giggles makes me dinner every night, can a fetus do that?
And you are awfully vengeful. Hope to never cross you
This has been repeatedly explained, but I can do it again. In the first instance, the mother & fetus are innocent and are having their rights abrogated by someone who is not innocent, a murderer. In the second instance, the mother, the child and the Dr are innocent. Therefore a compromise is needed, and we have one. For the life of me, I cannot comprehend why conservatives are so thick that they cannot grasp this concept. Possibly their religious blinders get in the way.
buh-bye
Our laws have a lot to do with consent whether you like it or not. If you meet a woman at a bar and she goes home with you and you have a consenting sexual encounter, perfectly legal. If you meet a woman at a bar, roofie her, take her home unconscious and rape her it's a crime.
If a person shoots a pregnant woman killing them their was no consent, it's murder of both the fetus and the mother. If a mother, who has the right to consent to an abortion up until viability, chooses to get an abortion then it's legal.
It's not a stupid law, it makes perfect sense in our secular nation.
I did say the application of such laws is dependent on individual state laws.
I also said the application of such laws is dependent on intentional harm inflicted against the woman.
Show me where in the law books it says a fetus has rights! Especially over the rights of the woman in question!
You've made a very valid argument. But I still disagree that's it not a stupid law. And you and I don't disagree on much
some statues are based on personhood for the unborn child.
The same people who state that abortion is wrong no matter what, will turn right around and say abortion is ok if the mother's life is at stake. That tells me that they think the woman's rights are more important than the fetus
You should have remanded that in your comment as a number 1.
That would have made sense then. your other "Stuff" just came across as just ideological fillers.
I didn't know the Bible was Law.
most uneducated comments I have ever read. Skirting the CoC [ph]
Reality Hurts ?
That's what I have been saying the ENTIRE time.....A double standard. The rest of your comment was "Feel Good" Filler. Nothing more.
"If a mother, who has the right to consent to an abortion up until viability, chooses to get an abortion then it's legal."
So the Fathers consent comes into account.....where again ?
Or are Abortions mostly "Ssssshhhh, don't tell him" thingy's !
Makes perfect sense. You really DON'T NEED your husband.....do you ?
"And you are awfully vengeful. Hope to never cross you"
Not at all. In fact, I would probably give you a big hug, as long as you promised not to go to the authorities and claim sexual harassment, by signing an agreement before I gave out the hug.
See what The Whiney Snowflakes have done to everyday life now ?
Makes me cautious in what I used to be able to do, before normal meant weird.
Double Standard !
You say a fetus isn't viable if a women wants to get an abortion on her own by law, but it is viable according to the law when it comes to an outside entity murdering both, which is okay in Liberal Land apparently.
I get that weird thought !
Now here is the weird conservative thought of mine that is off topic....but looks at Liberal Thinking at it's finest:
How is it that liberals are gung-ho in wanting to regulate away actual rights from Law Abiding citizens, and want to pass laws that only effect those law abiding citizens that own guns legally...... yet ........ say that conservative types have no right to legislate away the Abortion RIGHT .
You know it is a constitutional right to bear arms from the beginning of this country .....yet you want it changed to meet what you "Feel" is right.
How come You Liberal types are always saying you are right, and the conservative types are always wrong ?
Get the Jist ?
God forbid you give a woman an impromptu hug.....I think it is called groping!
It's not a double standard. The standard relies on consent, just like it does when separating a legal sexual encounter from rape. It's the same difference that many States now recognize with right to die legislation. If a terminal patient in pain consents to end their lives then those assisting are not considered murderers. It's not a double standard, it's a matter of consent.
As for the males consent, when males start carrying fetuses to term and giving birth then they can have that right as well.
Touch me and you will pull back a bloody stump. The only people who can touch me without asking are my children and my husband. Strangers are an absolute no-no. Even people I do know are not allowed to touch, especially the creepy ones
No, the standards rely on what the LAW says, and the LAW contradicts itself. If you were shot and lived, but your baby was killed, would you call it an abortion, or would you go after the one that killed your baby, with every being of your soul.
An abortion is the killing of a fetus by another also, but I suppose it's okay, since the fetus wasn't wanted when that happens.
I guess not wanting makes it "Self Defense/Birth control" ?
That's why I said you will have to sign a consent form before I even come close.
I figure a person of need, needs to sign a consent form also. I'm not gonna extend my hand until they do that.
Life is soooooo wonderful these days.
How about you just have respect for others and don't touch people period. If men would just learn that when a woman gives you a disgusted look*, she has a bad feeling towards you. Maybe it's all in her head, but the point is, she's disgusted by you so don't make it worse by trying to engage her in conversation or even looking in her direction.
This is not rocket science people
*The same goes for women...if a man acts like he doesn't like you, he doesn't like you. Just go about your work and leave him alone
Pretty sad!
Well, for all those people who don't want a friendly hug BEWARE and don't come to the South. We might even call you "sugah" on first meeting you.
Not in the work place you don't. I live in the South, too, or did you conveniently forget that?
It is !
Once I spent a week in Chattanooga for some audit training with company I was a new hire with. Everyone called me "sugah". Every phone call from headquarters same thing...How ya doin' sugah? Male/female didn't matter everyone was a "sugah". I thought it was sweet.
Well, we are a strange bunch, That's what I love about the South we just befriend, have fun and let the good times roll! "Pass the sweet potato"!
I don't believe we were talking about the workplace, but in general terms.
So I'm not a warm and fuzzy kind of person. That doesn't make me a bad person. I will tell you what I'm not and that is fake and phony. The only thing on me that is fake is my hair, I don't even wear make-up.
I also don't pretend to like people that I can't stand and I call people by their names, not cutesy, made up names because you can't be bothered to learn a person's name.
Most Southerners that I have met, are not fake, either. And while they are warm and fuzzy, they also respect differences and distances.
Exactly.
I used to work at WalMart corporate in Bentonville, AR.
In the early 90s, the women in my department would sometimes rub one another's shoulders in the afternoon to ease tension from using a computer and phone all day. By the mid-90s, we were NOT ALLOWED to do this any longer in order to avoid sexual harassment lawsuits.
However, around 1999, a 28 yr old woman in my dept was written up for not being friendly to a married male co-worker who was sexually harassing her. She and a 20 yr old pregnant co-worker came to me and asked for my help in addressing the issue of being stalked and sexually harassed by this man at work. I went to the personnel manager and made a case on why the women should be believed.
The woman in charge of personnel really did not to address the harassment or the stalking and asked why it was "my business". I told her that I worked for the company and really did not believe that having my co-workers raped would result in good publicity for the company. Security was alerted to watch the man's activities on the premises. Within a month the man was fired for stalking women.
Thank-you for standing up for those women.
I guess got my coldness from being in the military (tho I don't come from a family of huggers, either). Airman are not warm and fuzzy kinds of people and don't address others except by name. There certainly is no touching of any kind, either. And this was all during the late 80's mid 90's.
It was not an option for me to do otherwise - which is probably why these women came to me.
Except for my immediate family....whom... by the way..... love hugs.....I back away from a strange women tooty toot sweet. You want to get close to me or want to shake my hand ....."Sign Here" !
Thank You, you "Don't ever touch me no matter what types". You made my life so much easier. Now I really know WHAT NOT TO DO WHEN YOU COME NEAR.
I don't even have to help you when you are in need...."God Forbid I should touch you" !
And "God forbid I should say NO" ! I see a sexist law suite coming my way over that little tidbit. Now I just say "Maybe" !
The law says a woman can consent to terminating a pregnancy up to viability. The law says if you shoot someone it's a crime as you are depriving them of their right to life and liberty without their consent. So the standard is consent, there is no double standard. If someone came in and held you down and cut the tip of your foreskin off it would be assault and bodily harm. If you asked someone to circumcise you then it's not. How are you not understanding the concept of consent here?
I can give away my car and it's perfectly legal, you steal my car and it's a crime. Do you consider that a double standard because in both cases I am losing my car? Of course not. If you shoot a pregnant woman and the fetus dies it's a crime whereas if the woman chooses to terminate her pregnancy prior to viability it's not. It's not a double standard because the law takes into consideration consent. There is no contradiction here.
First off don't call me Missy, who the hell do you think you are talking to. Second off I don't care about "grace"....I care about women being able to make their own reproductive choices without some busybody trying to interfere. Prochoice is for all choices and letting a woman decide out of the three choices what is best for her.
I find it odd that strangers even shake hands.
My adopted grandmother was a hugger (which I could tolerate), but I avoided being kissed when at all possible.
As an adult, I understand her need for love and affection from people she loved and trusted.
I don't know if it is nature or nurture or just that touching some people brings up comfort and even the thought of being touched by other people gives us the heebie jeebies.
My two daughters have always been radically different. My older one loved physical affection and the younger wanted to be held as little as possible.
Liberals and progressives aren't trying to take all your guns away, they simply accept Justice Scalia and the SCOTUS ruling that the 2nd amendment isn't unlimited. Most progressives and liberals support universal background checks, limits on magazine size and limits of some assault style weapons. No one is trying to take all your guns away so go burn the straw man you keep buildings trying to say we are, it just isn't happening.
Liberals are also not trying to force anyone to get an abortion and they're not forcing anyone to get gay married. It's conservatives who are trying to ban abortions and gay marriage forcing their beliefs on others contrary to the constitution.
There is no double standard with a person shooting someone and killing their fetus versus a woman choosing to terminate a pregnancy. I could choose to take my car to the wrecking yard and smash it into a cube, that's my right. But if you stole my car and crushed it into a cube, it would be felony theft and property damage. See the general trend in the law? Regardless of how similar you may see the outcome, the law considers consent to be primary when deciding if something was a crime or not. It's not a double standard, you can't say to the judge "Well he could have taken his car and smashed it up tomorrow if he wanted to, so I shouldn't be charged with any crime", or "Well she could have gone and gotten an abortion tomorrow if she wanted to so I shouldn't be charged with killing that fetus". Well, I suppose you could make that claim in front of a judge but you'd look awful stupid doing it.
I take it you can't address the challenge then. Duly noted.
Not quite. It's still based on the infliction of harm against the woman. Some states have actually tried to pass fetal "personhood" laws and all such attempts were shot down.
"First off don't call me Missy, who the hell do you think you are talking to."
Unfortunately, there are some male members here on NT that like to think they are entitled to take verbal liberties with the female members for some reason. Demeaning, belittling, vulgar, condescending and bullying comments are their way of trying to put female members in "their place". And it is one of the reasons fewer female members hesitate to participate in the discussions.
Respect for others seems to be something they lack, while demanding it for themselves from others. They seem to forget that NT is non-discriminatory and both sexes are entitled to comment freely as long as it is within the CoC and ToS.
I already mentioned it in a previous post.
Nope. Just facts.
It's a fetus, not a baby. And I would call it attempted murder. Now, if an actual baby was killed, then that would be murder.
That's like saying taking antibiotics is the killing of bacteria. Regardless, an abortion is a medical procedure to remove an embryo/fetus.
Yes, it is ok.
Not wanting it makes it a personal choice.
The solution is to remove fetal homicide laws.
When it comes to abortion, why would his consent be needed?
And, the same thing applies to women on NT. It works both ways.
Using dear or hon sarcastically to a male poster is the same thing. Using dear or hon to a female poster is the same thing. And, sweetie, really gets to me.
I have been a member of NT for a few years now, and I have never seen any women make nasty or vulgar comments to any male members. Nor have I seen any females make the kind of comments you are speaking of, unless in response to a disrespectful comment from a male member here on NT.
But, I have seen women members make such comments to other women to try to show their superiority.
First off, don't call me Missy, who in the hell do you think you are. Second, I don't care about "grace" all I care about is for women to control their reproductive choices. Pro choice is for all choices and letting the individual woman deciding which of the 3 choices is best for her.
Of course the bible isn't law. I'm pointing out the fact that people claim there are passages in the bible condemning abortion when in fact what I posted condones abortion/miscarriage.
WTG!
I didn't expect anything less from you. Denial of any wrong doing and an attempt to justify your words was a given.
You have no clue as to Ravens age or stature so calling her "little missy" is obviously being dismissive and condescending. It may be a term of endearment for someone you know personally who is a young lady, but it's still talking down to them even then. It would be like calling you "little boy" or just calling you "boy" which has been used in the south to demean and dismiss black Americans for centuries and is very offensive.
Also, it's not up to you to determine whether someone else should or shouldn't be offended, she obviously was offended by your dismissive words and tone so if you actually had any manners you'd simply apologize instead of doubling down trying to excuse your behavior.
Why can't you accept that he meant no harm to anyone?
Unfortunately, these types of males are common throughout the internet and women don't feel safe on the Web because women are not safe on or off of the Web.
These are the types of men that women have to deal with every day of their life wherever we are.
I guess she will just have to get over it like so many of us do each day.
Do you live in a glass house? I sure don't.
I don't go telling the choir what some person said to me that I was offended by.
If you can't take the stuff that is thrown at you on a site like this, then, it is best to stay off. This is not write in my yearbook something good.
Well, little maggiekins, because it is disrespectful.
I've encountered this on the web as men have used variations of mocowgirl to be disrespectful....and with men off the internet as they call me names other than own, but few dare to call me bitch to my face. My favorite is when my ex-husband told me that I was the reason that there are more pricks in the world than men. LOL!
You know the answer to that? Stay off those sites. Simple.
You mean like News Talkers?
I doubt that Perrie agrees that women should be demeaned or talked down to on News Talkers.
I was married for 32 years, my husband passed away 4 years ago from pancreatic cancer, I watched him take his last breathe, he died in my arms. He was my soul mate, the love of my life, whom I met at the age of 14. I am not nor have I ever been a man hater.
If one shows me respect, I show it back.
That's why u are the lady in black. I am so sorry. A terrible illness for him. Again, I am so sorry!
I haven't seen NT doing that.
I thought women wanted to be treated the same as men. If you put it out.....you are gonna get it back.
Thank you.
Lets put it another way. Do you know how many PP there are in KY.? One. One, in the whole state. Making abortion illegal? No, but might as well be. I wonder how the NRA and the 2nd amendment folks would feel if a blue state outlawed every gun store, except for one and it's only open once a week, between midnight and 3am. Pretty sure there would be some real outrage. But you want to curtail the rights of a woman? "Oh sure, that's totally ok!!!!!
Other than the SCOTUS said so? If it had rights, they would never have made abortion legal in the first place. You don't like abortions? Don't get one. You manage your vagina, let others manage theirs. What do YOU think gives YOU the right to tell others what they can do with their own bodies? None. Get over it.
It's been my observation that Perrie does not like for people to be personally attacked. As far as the talking down to, or being demeaned, well better put on your big boy pants, because talking down to a person, or even demeaning a person is just a fact of life on these sites, and notice how I used the term "person", not "women", because you should not, get special treatment because you claim to be a woman.
What? Name calling? Sexual harassment? Threats of violence?
There are women on NT that are name calling, sexually harassing and threatening violence on male members?
Correct.
And that does include how members address one another, correct?
So I should not expect be addressed as MOOgirl, correct?
What do you call addressing a woman as 'little missy" in a sarcastic way. I can only imagine how you would react if one of the males here addressed YOU in that manner. And just because you have not seen it does not mean it does not happen, and if you look just a few comments above, you will see that term used to address a female member, right here on NT.
My method of discussing anything is to attack the issues, not the person I am debating.
Over the decades of my life, I have found that it is the people who cannot debate the issues are usually the ones who try to make the discussion personal in a derogatory way. And for me, I tend to ignore those people because nothing beneficial is gained from interacting with them when they are in meltdown mode.
Because I am not brain dead, and I know how he meant it, and so did the person he addressed in that manner, as noted by her reply. That you are trying to defend that kind of crap and put me and others down because we won't accept that kind of disrespect is very telling.
And there is no reason at all that I, or any other female member of this forum, should be expected to accept that kind of disrespect. That you think it is A-OK in your book, speaks for yourself. And that does not mean that I, or any other female member, should refrain from visiting this site in order to allow some other member, male of female, to disrespect us. And stop talking down to me as if I'm some sort of empty headed burp!!
You are free to speak for yourself, but, don't even think you have the right to speak for me or anyone else here!
Ok little missy, just don't let it happen again!
"I'm not discriminating against Jews, I just don't want to serve people who celebrate a bar mitzvah."
But later in the argument, he said: "Tolerance is essential in a free society. And tolerance is most meaningful when it's mutual. It seems to me that the state in its position here has been neither tolerant nor respectful of Mr. Phillips' religious beliefs."
Tolerance is important, which is why anti-discrimination laws are passed. I see that Mr. Phillip has been neither tolerant nor respectful of the states right to pass laws, or the right of gays to shop where they want in a public marketplace. No one is taking away his right to worship as he pleases.
Wedding cakes are overrated. Have more shrimp. ham, roast beef, wings, pork and BEER
Wedding cakes are overrated. Have more shrimp. ham, roast beef, wings, pork and BEER