davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Oct 19, 2019 9:34:31 GMT -8
I’m certain we can all find other examples of the American Communists attacking Christians, usually in violation of the U.S. Constitution. But this one from American a Thinker caught my eye: Minnesota Persecutes Christian CoupleHOWEVER, The Larsens used and it has gone through the courts: Round 1, a federal judge appointed by Clinton, decided for Minnesota but Round 2, 8th District Court of Appeals, gave it to the Larsens... but here’s the kicker... Rather than pursue that case further, Minnesota filed a second lawsuit against the Larsens with the obvious intent to use the comparatively large State’s resources to either force the Larsens out of business or force them to cave. |
|
Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by Luca on Oct 19, 2019 11:58:36 GMT -8
There is an old saying that "History repeats itself." I think it was Mark Twain who perfected the adage by paraphrasing it as: "History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes."
In centuries past, religious zealots would brutally struggle to suppress the others' beliefs. The Romans tried to suppress the Christians. The Christians tried to suppress the pagans. The various Christian sects would try to suppress each other, the Muslims would try to suppress everybody, etc. etc. All in the belief that they were actually helping the benighted victims and doing God's work at the same time.
Now for the most part - with at least one obvious exception - most of the major religions don't try to eradicate each other, but we do have the anti-religious bigots/atheists with their own deified convictions - and intentions - trying to suppress the religious. Because, of course, they have The Truth on their side and are likewise struggling to achieve the perfection of mankind...........as they alone have the gift to see it.
The cycle doesn't repeat itself precisely, but it certainly does rhyme.............................Luca
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Oct 19, 2019 15:17:19 GMT -8
Today, and here, we have the U.S. Constitution, though.
That has been brought to near in a number of persecution’s that Christians have perpetrated on others, such as the Westboro Baptist Church (although I don’t rightly recall what the outcomes were)...
IMO, the Minnesota AG is isolating this couple and using the power of the state to drive the down.
|
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Oct 20, 2019 2:24:41 GMT -8
The problem comes when they decide what marriages will please God. In Virginia in the early 1960's it was illegal for blacks to marry whites. One reason given was that such marriages went against God's wishes. According to the Supreme Court God now likes interracial marriages so much it would be illegal for a person to deny a black person the right to marry a white person.
If you think it's ok for a person to say NO to a gay person under these circumstances than you should be fine with a person saying the same to a black person, or Christians being denied a service by a group of bigoted Muslims or Jews.
You live in a secular society, not a Christian one. The government will defend your right to hold whatever beliefs you wish, but stop expecting the government to defend your absurd beliefs over someone else's absurd beliefs.
|
|
Bick
Administrator 
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Oct 20, 2019 7:13:52 GMT -8
Today, and here, we have the U.S. Constitution, though. That has been brought to near in a number of persecution’s that Christians have perpetrated on others, such as the Westboro Baptist Church (although I don’t rightly recall what the outcomes were)... IMO, the Minnesota AG is isolating this couple and using the power of the state to drive the down. Wouldn't it be possible to use religion as a means of discrimination in other areas as well? That said, I think businesses SHOULD be allowed to discriminate who they serve, just as consumers discriminate who they patronize. |
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Oct 20, 2019 8:00:55 GMT -8
The problem is not gay marriage. We jumped that hurdle some years ago. The problem is forcing someone to perform involuntary labor for someone else.
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Oct 20, 2019 8:05:44 GMT -8
Couldn't that also apply to race, age, or political affiliation?
|
|
MDDad
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,814
|
Post by MDDad on Oct 20, 2019 8:13:13 GMT -8
Probably, although it would be difficult to justify it on religious grounds if it were based on age, race or political persuasion. And forcing someone to perform involuntary labor just makes their antipathy worse.
|
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Oct 20, 2019 21:43:53 GMT -8
The problem comes when they decide what marriages will please God. In Virginia in the early 1960's it was illegal for blacks to marry whites. One reason given was that such marriages went against God's wishes. According to the Supreme Court God now likes interracial marriages so much it would be illegal for a person to deny a black person the right to marry a white person. If you think it's ok for a person to say NO to a gay person under these circumstances than you should be fine with a person saying the same to a black person, or Christians being denied a service by a group of bigoted Muslims or Jews. You live in a secular society, not a Christian one. The government will defend your right to hold whatever beliefs you wish, but stop expecting the government to defend your absurd beliefs over someone else's absurd beliefs. We already went round-and-round on this on TOB so I am a bit reluctant to address this again. But a few points: 1. The discrimination analogy that same-sex marriage advocates like to make to the interracial marriage bans in places like Virginia is not valid. Those bans had no basis in the Bible and were an historical anomaly (just as justifications for antebellum black slavery as practiced in the South had no Biblical basis). There have been interracial marriages for almost all of human history and race has nothing to do with the intrinsic nature of marriage, which virtually every society in human history has understood to be about joining a man and woman in a permanent union for the purpose of bringing forth and raising children. 2. The NO is to the message, not the person. If you support compelling these videographers to contract business for a same-sex marriage because the SCOTUS deems same-sex marriage a constitutional right, then you must equally support compelling Muslim or Orthodox Jewish business owners to validate messages which violate their faith, both of which religious traditions also forbid same-sex marriage. The gay printer would also be forced to make signs saying "God hates fags," since such vile speech is also constitutionally protected. (For anyone who would request such a message I say 'God hates your sign', if you want to know my opinion) 3. Live and let live. These lawsuits are not about equal rights (as these have already been won) but about punishing dissent from the prevailing orthodoxy of the day. They are about the desire for moral approval of intrinsically disordered actions and the need to pronounce a secular decree of excommunication upon the heretics of so-called sexual freedom. |
|
Credo
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 6,242
|
Post by Credo on Oct 20, 2019 21:57:11 GMT -8
Attorney General Willaim Barr recently weighed in on the issue of growing threats to religious freedom in a speech at the University of Notre Dame Law School.
|
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Oct 21, 2019 5:20:55 GMT -8
They are both valid and on point.
An opinion not shared by many people including those in a position to enforce their opinion like the judge who first convicted Mr. and Mrs. Loving of breaking the law in Virginia. In his decision he quoted the Bible and stated his reasons for not allowing these two people to be married as following God's wishes. Those "historical anomalies' as you call them were in place for many years as the law of the land.
|
|
davidsf
Master Eminence Grise
Posts: 5,252
|
Post by davidsf on Oct 21, 2019 6:23:40 GMT -8
The problem comes when they decide what marriages will please God. In Virginia in the early 1960's it was illegal for blacks to marry whites. One reason given was that such marriages went against God's wishes. According to the Supreme Court God now likes interracial marriages so much it would be illegal for a person to deny a black person the right to marry a white person. If you think it's ok for a person to say NO to a gay person under these circumstances than you should be fine with a person saying the same to a black person, or Christians being denied a service by a group of bigoted Muslims or Jews. You live in a secular society, not a Christian one. The government will defend your right to hold whatever beliefs you wish, but stop expecting the government to defend your absurd beliefs over someone else's absurd beliefs. We already went round-and-round on this on TOB so I am a bit reluctant to address this again. But a few points: 1. The discrimination analogy that same-sex marriage advocates like to make to the interracial marriage bans in places like Virginia is not valid. Those bans had no basis in the Bible and were an historical anomaly (just as justifications for antebellum black slavery as practiced in the South had no Biblical basis). There have been interracial marriages for almost all of human history and race has nothing to do with the intrinsic nature of marriage, which virtually every society in human history has understood to be about joining a man and woman in a permanent union for the purpose of bringing forth and raising children. 2. The NO is to the message, not the person. If you support compelling these videographers to contract business for a same-sex marriage because the SCOTUS deems same-sex marriage a constitutional right, then you must equally support compelling Muslim or Orthodox Jewish business owners to validate messages which violate their faith, both of which religious traditions also forbid same-sex marriage. The gay printer would also be forced to make signs saying "God hates fags," since such vile speech is also constitutionally protected. (For anyone who would request such a message I say 'God hates your sign', if you want to know my opinion) 3. Live and let live. These lawsuits are not about equal rights (as these have already been won) but about punishing dissent from the prevailing orthodoxy of the day. They are about the desire for moral approval of intrinsically disordered actions and the need to pronounce a secular decree of excommunication upon the heretics of so-called sexual freedom. It is sad to see the ass hats of the world still using those tired old excuses to rationalize their support for trashing the U.S. Constitution. your three points have been exercised for a decade or more. Regrettably, the feeble minded will never get it. |
|
|
|
Post by vilepagan on Oct 21, 2019 6:58:58 GMT -8
It is even sadder to see morons try to use the Constitution to discriminate against gays because they don't like gay people. The Constitution does not protect your bigotry.
|
|
Bick
Administrator
Posts: 6,900
|
Post by Bick on Oct 21, 2019 7:04:35 GMT -8
Probably, although it would be difficult to justify it on religious grounds if it were based on age, race or political persuasion. And forcing someone to perform involuntary labor just makes their antipathy worse. I've been dealing with this issue for some time now, just different flavors of the protected classes - disabilities as defined by the ADA, and the gender fluid men who insist on using the women's restroom. These laws may have originally been designed to protect those people from discrimination, but like all laws, the consequences have provided fertile grounds for lawyers to shake down businesses. Defending this stuff is an absolute joke, and yet another assault on small business. |
|
Luca
Master Statesman
Posts: 1,316
|
Post by Luca on Oct 21, 2019 7:14:59 GMT -8
The depiction of a mere refusal to make a homosexual wedding marriage cake as a civil rights issue is not valid.
In the case of civil rights we forbid discrimination on the basis of what people are or believe. We cannot in general discriminate against someone because of race or sex or religion, for example.
But we can exercise our discretion on the basis of what others do. We can refuse service to someone who is profane or we feel is inappropriately dressed, for example. The baker did not refuse to bake a cake because the guy was a homosexual, he refused to make it because he was opposed on religious grounds to homosexual marriage, and participating in it implies his acceptance of a dubious behavior contrary to his beliefs.
This does not deny anyone's "civil rights." The violation here is compelling someone to act in opposition to his personal religious convictions. You don't have to agree with his convictions just as he does not have to agree with homosexual marriages, but he has a right to practice them just as that homosexual couple has a legal right to get married .....................................Luca
|
|
