How to protect religious freedom and conscience rights

[ImmortalFlame]

Now you're just being difficult, bless your pagan heart, when you understand my point: saying gay marriage has been "legal" since the 1860's belies your knowledge of 19th century culture (and that you use unfair debate tactics).

Since I never wrote that, this post is moot.

Further, do you not understand constitutional law?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Lawrence v. Texas established that those laws were unconstitutional.

Anti-sodomy laws were illegal in your country from the day they came into force. It just took a while for the justice system to recognize this fact.

Yes, so exciting when revisionists look into the past and not only read the founders' minds, but somehow, magically decide that 50 different states with sodomy laws were "always" tolerant regarding homosexuality and non-biblical gay marriage. Yawn.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Yes, so exciting when revisionists look into the past and not only read the founders' minds, but somehow, magically decide that 50 different states with sodomy laws were "always" tolerant regarding homosexuality and non-biblical gay marriage. Yawn.

Do you not understand what "unconstitutional" means?

 

[tas8831]

Well, the Republicans DID abolish slavery via changing crappy laws in America... Jesus is proud of anyone who votes R because they support families, freedom and is pro life!

Hilarious.

Clearly you do not hobnob with any history professors at your amazing university - or remember stuff.

Exclusive: Lee Atwater’s Infamous 1981 Interview on the Southern Strategy

The late, legendarily brutal campaign consultant Lee Atwater explains how Republicans can win the vote of racists without sounding racist themselves:

You start out in 1954 by saying, “Ni@@er, ni@@er, ni@@er.” By 1968 you can’t say “ni@@er”—that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites.… “We want to cut this,” is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than “Ni@@er, ni@@er.”
​

What is a little out and out race hatred among fellow GOPers, as long as they wave the flag, spew the buzzwords, and love other peoples' fetuses!

From Wiki:

"Harvey LeRoy "Lee" Atwater (February 27, 1951 – March 29, 1991) was an American political consultant and strategist for the Republican Party. He was an adviser to US presidents Ronald Reagan and George H. W. Bush and chairman of the Republican National Committee. Atwater aroused controversy through his aggressive campaign tactics."​

 

[tas8831]

You seem blithely unaware that rather than live and let live, the liberals often have an angry agenda!

Tell us all about it, and how Republican Jesus let the poor starve while urging his Dad to send mammon the way of the folks that supported him...

 

[tas8831]

Yes, so exciting when revisionists look into the past and not only read the founders' minds, but somehow, magically decide that 50 different states with sodomy laws were "always" tolerant regarding homosexuality and non-biblical gay marriage. Yawn.

The GOP loves all kinds of revisionism - Civil War revisionism, 2nd Amendment revisionism, etc.

 

[1213]

Here.

“Knowing that something that is not nice will come and trying to avoid it, doesn’t” is not same as “we have to behave and appease your god or else you "know" bad stuff will happen”.

 

[Milton Platt]

Hey everyone. I am not sure if this is the right forum for this question so if I am putting it in the wrong forum, I apologize.

Anyway, lately, there have been some problems in the United States with laws against discrimination and religious freedom or conscience rights. Basically, these laws say that you cannot discriminate against someone because of sexual orientation or gender identity among other things. However, these laws are causing the religious freedom and conscience rights of Christians and others to be violated by forcing such people to provide services for same-sex weddings. If they don't comply and provide the services, they are found in violation of the law.

My question is this. Isn't there some sort of compromise where religious freedom and conscience rights can be protected while minimizing the amount of discrimination that would take place against minorities or is it just simply a fact that religious freedom will have to be sacrificed in order for these laws to take effect? Why can't Christians and those with sincere moral or religious convictions against same-sex marriage be exempted from these laws? After all, it's not like your average gay couple is going to have a hard time finding a baker to bake their wedding cake for them if one baker on the corner refuses to bake the cake for their wedding. There are plenty of places they can go to.

It is important to make sure there is a wall of separation between religions and the state. You only have to look back at history to see what happens when religions begin to influence the government. Then you have government enforced discrimination of all religions except the one that holds the power.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

“Knowing that something that is not nice will come and trying to avoid it, doesn’t” is not same as “we have to behave and appease your god or else you "know" bad stuff will happen”.

It kind of is, since you claim to "know.. something that is not good" will happen if we don't obey your god.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, so exciting when revisionists look into the past and not only read the founders' minds, but somehow, magically decide that 50 different states with sodomy laws were "always" tolerant regarding homosexuality and non-biblical gay marriage. Yawn.

Try to keep up:

They weren't tolerant. They were intolerant in illegal ways for a very long time. It took them a long time to get them to get past their bigotry and start obeying the law.

Still, getting these governments to start obeying the law isn't a change to the law themselves. It would be idiotic - and more to the point, not reasonable business planning - for a business to expect that their state's illegal laws would stay on the books forever.

 

[1213]

It kind of is, since you claim to "know.. something that is not good" will happen if we don't obey your god.

Some bad things just happen to have unpleasant side effects. And, if person rejects God, it is kind of futile to expect God to rescue when things go badly. I think this could be compared to burning fire, if I tell you, don’t put your hand on fire, is it my fault, if your hand burns when you disobey?

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Some bad things just happen to have unpleasant side effects. And, if person rejects God, it is kind of futile to expect God to rescue when things go badly. I think this could be compared to burning fire, if I tell you, don’t put your hand on fire, is it my fault, if your hand burns when you disobey?

More like a stove that never shows itself to those who don't believe.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Try to keep up:

They weren't tolerant. They were intolerant in illegal ways for a very long time. It took them a long time to get them to get past their bigotry and start obeying the law.

Still, getting these governments to start obeying the law isn't a change to the law themselves. It would be idiotic - and more to the point, not reasonable business planning - for a business to expect that their state's illegal laws would stay on the books forever.

The founders and the state legislatures until, say, the 1990s, were "illegal"?

Nonsense.

I will agree on the intolerance, however, as you come to understand that God and God's people ARE intolerant--of heinous sin. I can love homosexuals while hating the sin that causes them and others hurt.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

The founders and the state legislatures until, say, the 1990s, were "illegal"?

Nonsense.

Again, don't you understand how constitutions work?

See, when you have a country based around a constitution, the government can set up whatever rules it likes - but they have to abide by the constitution. In the case of the laws we're talking about here, they were put in place a long time ago and, fairly recently, they were reviewed and found to be unconstitutional. In other words, the laws existed, but it was later determined that said laws were in contravention of the constitution and, therefore, illegal.

That's how constitutional law works. The fact that a law was in place doesn't make it constitutional, or even legal. Strictly speaking, the laws should never have been put in place because the constitution strictly forbids the putting in place of those laws. The fact that for many generations the government ignored this fact doesn't mean that said laws were just or legal.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Again, don't you understand how constitutions work?

See, when you have a country based around a constitution, the government can set up whatever rules it likes - but they have to abide by the constitution. In the case of the laws we're talking about here, they were put in place a long time ago and, fairly recently, they were reviewed and found to be unconstitutional. In other words, the laws existed, but it was later determined that said laws were in contravention of the constitution and, therefore, illegal.

That's how constitutional law works. The fact that a law was in place doesn't make it constitutional, or even legal. Strictly speaking, the laws should never have been put in place because the constitution strictly forbids the putting in place of those laws. The fact that for many generations the government ignored this fact doesn't mean that said laws were just or legal.

I understand how jurisprudence works, and how the Supreme Court operates, but as an originalist, I would challenge (as would anyone who thinks about it) whether the framers were hunky-dory with gay marriage! NONSENSE!

Take another example, to preserve the Union from Colonial times up, slavery was considered okay in certain States (known by the North to be immoral in outlook!). There's no way, however, that any State North or South was "down with gay marriage" from the beginning.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

I understand how jurisprudence works, and how the Supreme Court operates, but as an originalist, I would challenge (as would anyone who thinks about it) whether the framers were hunky-dory with gay marriage! NONSENSE!

Then please find the part of the constitution that forbids gay marriage.

Take another example, to preserve the Union from Colonial times up, slavery was considered okay in certain States (known by the North to be immoral in outlook!).

Hence why the law changed when it was determined that slavery was unconstitutional.

That's how it works.

There's no way, however, that any State North or South was "down with gay marriage" from the beginning.

It's not about whether they were "down with it". The question is whether forbidding gay marriage is a value that is consistent with the values of the constitution. Using your own example, many people were "down with" slavery, but that didn't change it from being unconstitutional - even if it took time for this idea to actually take root.

That's how constitutional law works. Bans on gay marriage are and were unconstitutional, and that is just a fact.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

I understand how jurisprudence works, and how the Supreme Court operates,

Seems like you don't, actually.

but as an originalist, I would challenge (as would anyone who thinks about it) whether the framers were hunky-dory with gay marriage! NONSENSE!

It's not so much that they had same-sex marriage in mind as it was that they enshrined certain rights that same-sex marriage bans happen to violate.

They also had no idea what wiretapping was, for instance, but the principles in the Constitution can still be used to determine whether warrantless wiretapping is legal or illegal.

Take another example, to preserve the Union from Colonial times up, slavery was considered okay in certain States (known by the North to be immoral in outlook!). There's no way, however, that any State North or South was "down with gay marriage" from the beginning.

Yes: take the example of slavery.

Even though it was still widely practiced when the Bill of Rights was passed, we can recognize today - and with the passage of the 14th Amendment - that slavery goes against the Bill of Rights.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Then please find the part of the constitution that forbids gay marriage.


Hence why the law changed when it was determined that slavery was unconstitutional.

That's how it works.


It's not about whether they were "down with it". The question is whether forbidding gay marriage is a value that is consistent with the values of the constitution. Using your own example, many people were "down with" slavery, but that didn't change it from being unconstitutional - even if it took time for this idea to actually take root.

That's how constitutional law works. Bans on gay marriage are and were unconstitutional, and that is just a fact.

You're not believable, frankly. I see where you wrote, for example:

Then please find the part of the constitution that forbids gay marriage.

Is that a joke? Or is it the worst argument from silence I've heard at RF? You could go to the most deist of founders and say, "Are you good with letting the Sodomites into the churches to wed? Isn't it time we undid millennia of rule and let the accursed men marry other degenerates?" and see if they would find this LAWFUL or MORAL or NATURAL.

NONSENSE!

 

[ImmortalFlame]

You're not believable, frankly. I see where you wrote, for example:

Then please find the part of the constitution that forbids gay marriage.

Is that a joke? Or is it the worst argument from silence I've heard at RF? You could go to the most deist of founders and say, "Are you good with letting the Sodomites into the churches to wed? Isn't it time we undid millennia of rule and let the accursed men marry other degenerates?" and see if they would find this LAWFUL or MORAL or NATURAL.

NONSENSE!

I notice you can't actually find the part of the constitution that forbids gay marriage and instead just made up homophobic nonsense.

I wonder why.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Seems like you don't, actually.


It's not so much that they had same-sex marriage in mind as it was that they enshrined certain rights that same-sex marriage bans happen to violate.

They also had no idea what wiretapping was, for instance, but the principles in the Constitution can still be used to determine whether warrantless wiretapping is legal or illegal.


Yes: take the example of slavery.

Even though it was still widely practiced when the Bill of Rights was passed, we can recognize today - and with the passage of the 14th Amendment - that slavery goes against the Bill of Rights.

All you said is accurate based on whether you are interpreting and contextualizing properly, you know, like when we read the Holy Bible.