RE: Jefferson on Freedom of Religion

RE: Jefferson on Freedom of Religion (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

dcnovice -> RE: Jefferson on Freedom of Religion (7/3/2015 10:44:05 AM)
quote: Enough about the damn cake! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rZVjKlBCvhg [;)]

Zonie63 -> RE: Jefferson on Freedom of Religion (7/3/2015 11:28:06 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: thishereboi No they are not making it up out of thin air, they actually believe what they are doing is right. And as a lesbian I have no problems with them saying so. In fact it makes it easier to decide where I will spend my money. And I am getting really sick of the ones who are using the issue to score political points by pretending they really give a fuck when all they really want is another excuse to spew their hatred at those evil cons. Well, see, that's the thing I'm wondering about. Are they acting in good faith in accordance with their religious beliefs, or is this just some kind of disingenuous ploy motivated by politics more than their religion? If they were really that devoted to their religious beliefs, they would have left the country the same day that homosexuality was made legal in the United States (whenever that might have been). By holding citizenship and paying taxes to a government which views homosexuality as legal, they have already compromised their religious beliefs. So, if they say that they believe what they are doing is right, I say that they are hypocrites who are talking out of both sides of their mouths. Either they believe in their religion or they don't, but when they use their faith as a convenience or for some sort of political agenda, then it's pretty hollow and transparent. I'm not saying that they don't have the right to do it; that's really up to the courts to decide on a case by case basis. But when they say "I'm doing this because of my religious beliefs," I have to call bullshit on that kind of thing, at least until they can cite whatever Scripture or belief they're referring to.

Real0ne -> RE: Jefferson on Freedom of Religion (7/4/2015 8:15:57 AM)
Unfortunately we are past that point wondering about good faith and the gubmint already made their decision to stomp the religious rights of one party while granting the religious rights of another. The problem you have with your line of reasoning is that there was no investigation into EITHER parties claims and the us constitution RESERVED the right of the people not only to any have any religion but to exercise their religion in public. The larger problem is that ones religious leaning and morals cannot be and are nearly impossible to prove in a commercially based court of law. The Kliens claim to be Christian and Christian laws predate todays courts by about 2000 years standing despte what you or I or anyone else would like think about it. Polygamy – Gen.4:19 – And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. Sinful Thoughts – Gen.9:22-23 - And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. The word saw has the idea of “looking on with pleasure and delight.” Adultery – Gen.16:2- And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the Lord hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. Homosexuality – Gen.19:5- And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. Lev.20:13– If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. 1 Cor.6:9 - 10 – Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate-[male-male], nor abusers of themselves with mankind, [10] Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. Fornication and Rape – Gen.34:2 - And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her. Prostitution and Incest – Gen.38:15-16 – When Judah saw her, he thought her to be an harlot; because she had covered her face. And he turned unto her by the way, and said, Go to, I pray thee, let me come in unto thee; (for he knew not that she was his daughter in law.) And she said, What wilt thou give me, that thou mayest come in unto me? Seduction–Gen.39:7 - And it came to pass after these things, that his master's wife cast her eyes upon Joseph; and she said, Lie with me. That is a snapshot of the Christian beliefs and the laws they follow. What gives gays the right to trample those ancient precedential laws? If I were asked to defend the Kliens I would first have had demanded a full jury, second I would point out to the court that the gays were merely transposing their dysfunctional personality issues to extort money from the kliens, third I would point out that its a religious matter which reserved under the first amendment to the people therefore outside the courts jurisdiction and move for dismissal as the frivolous suit that it is. The state of course would come back and brief that it violates the statutory code, and the court would take notice of a fact in controversy and then the constitutional fight over the reserved right to exercise religion begins, al the way to the supreme and granted I have not seen the transcripts evidence or case at this point but from what I have read so far it would be a slam dunk win for the kliens having been properly presented in court. Unfortunately the BAR owns the legal industry and you wont find a good attorney now days and most prose's do not understand that the deck has been carefully stacked against them. Keep in mind I am all for gays having their rights and against the fact that the gubmint did not recognize it in the first place. However the gubmint incited this bullshit in the first place and use these kinds of gubmint created problems them to further gubmint agenda by in addition stomping on peoples rights to exercise their religion in the name of commerce is dead wrong.

Zonie63 -> RE: Jefferson on Freedom of Religion (7/4/2015 11:39:04 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Unfortunately we are past that point wondering about good faith and the gubmint already made their decision to stomp the religious rights of one party while granting the religious rights of another. The problem you have with your line of reasoning is that there was no investigation into EITHER parties claims and The larger problem is that ones religious leaning and morals cannot be and are nearly impossible to prove in a commercially based court of law. The Kliens claim to be Christian and Christian laws predate todays courts by about 2000 years standing despte what you or I or anyone else would like think about it. And if they consider themselves subject to those laws, then that's their decision to make. However, under the principles of religious freedom, they can not apply those Christian laws to anyone but themselves. They can't even legally apply it to other Christians, since not all Christians believe the same interpretations of the Bible or even have the same belief system. Even under Christian law, Jesus said "Judge not, lest ye be judged," which would indicate that only God can enforce the law. quote: Polygamy – Gen.4:19 – And Lamech took unto him two wives: the name of the one was Adah, and the name of the other Zillah. Sinful Thoughts – Gen.9:22-23 - And Ham, the father of Canaan, saw the nakedness of his father, and told his two brethren without. And Shem and Japheth took a garment, and laid it upon both their shoulders, and went backward, and covered the nakedness of their father; and their faces were backward, and they saw not their father's nakedness. The word saw has the idea of “looking on with pleasure and delight.” Adultery – Gen.16:2- And Sarai said unto Abram, Behold now, the Lord hath restrained me from bearing: I pray thee, go in unto my maid; it may be that I may obtain children by her. And Abram hearkened to the voice of Sarai. Homosexuality – Gen.19:5- And they called unto Lot, and said unto him, Where are the men which came in to thee this night? bring them out unto us, that we may know them. Lev.20:13– If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them. 1 Cor.6:9 - 10 – Know ye not that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate-[male-male], nor abusers of themselves with mankind, [10] Nor thieves, nor covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor extortioners, shall inherit the kingdom of God. Fornication and Rape – Gen.34:2 - And when Shechem the son of Hamor the Hivite, prince of the country, saw her, he took her, and lay with her, and defiled her. Prostitution and Incest – Gen.38:15-16 – When Judah saw her, he thought her to be an harlot; because she had covered her face. And he turned unto her by the way, and said, Go to, I pray thee, let me come in unto thee; (for he knew not that she was his daughter in law.) And she said, What wilt thou give me, that thou mayest come in unto me? Seduction–Gen.39:7 - And it came to pass after these things, that his master's wife cast her eyes upon Joseph; and she said, Lie with me. the us constitution RESERVED the right of the people not only to any have any religion but to exercise their religion in public. That is a snapshot of the Christian beliefs and the laws they follow. What gives gays the right to trample those ancient precedential laws? Well, first off, most of the laws you've cited here don't even apply to gays, although they do apply to behaviors which are present and evident in society today (e.g. fornication, adultery, lust, covetous, drunkards, thieves, "abusers of themselves," etc.). What about all the other people who are trampling on those ancient laws? "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," yet all these sinners feel they have the right to pass judgment on others because they've "sinned"? Is that the theological argument that is being made here? quote: If I were asked to defend the Kliens I would first have had demanded a full jury, second I would point out to the court that the gays were merely transposing their dysfunctional personality issues to extort money from the kliens, third I would point out that its a religious matter which reserved under the first amendment to the people therefore outside the courts jurisdiction and move for dismissal as the frivolous suit that it is. The state of course would come back and brief that it violates the statutory code, and the court would take notice of a fact in controversy and then the constitutional fight over the reserved right to exercise religion begins, al the way to the supreme and granted I have not seen the transcripts evidence or case at this point but from what I have read so far it would be a slam dunk win for the kliens having been properly presented in court. The thing is, we all have the same rights in this society, and in order for it to run as harmoniously as possible, the law has to make every attempt to balance it all out and make sure everyone's rights are respected and enforced by law. Over the past half-century or more, society has made a concerted effort to ensure this balance and emphasized the principle of non-discrimination, whether it's by race, gender, nationality, religion, or sexual orientation. If the Kleins claimed that their religious beliefs forbade them from serving black people, that wouldn't fly either. No one is forcing them to open a business, but if they openly discriminate against a group of people like that, then they're violating the law. It doesn't even matter what their religious beliefs are, since they always have the option to close up shop and live in accordance with their religious principles. quote: Unfortunately the BAR owns the legal industry and you wont find a good attorney now days and most prose's do not understand that the deck has been carefully stacked against them. Keep in mind I am all for gays having their rights and against the fact that the gubmint did not recognize it in the first place. However the gubmint incited this bullshit in the first place and use these kinds of gubmint created problems them to further gubmint agenda by in addition stomping on peoples rights to exercise their religion in the name of commerce is dead wrong. As you already know, I'm not a fan of the government, but in this case, I don't think the government has much of a choice. Some might argue that they're being overly harsh over a silly cake, but I can see that there might be a certain practical necessity in maintaining a somewhat harsh and aggressive policy against discrimination in matters like this. If one store is allowed to discriminate, then what's to stop an entire block of stores from discriminating against entire groups of people? It could get ugly rather quickly if they don't nip it in the bud early.

Real0ne -> RE: Jefferson on Freedom of Religion (7/4/2015 1:08:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 And if they consider themselves subject to those laws, then that's their decision to make. However, under the principles of religious freedom, they can not apply those Christian laws to anyone but themselves. They can't even legally apply it to other Christians, since not all Christians believe the same interpretations of the Bible or even have the same belief system. Even under Christian law, Jesus said "Judge not, lest ye be judged," which would indicate that only God can enforce the law. quote: That is a snapshot of the Christian beliefs and the laws they follow. What gives gays the right to trample those ancient precedential laws? Well, first off, most of the laws you've cited here don't even apply to gays, although they do apply to behaviors which are present and evident in society today (e.g. fornication, adultery, lust, covetous, drunkards, thieves, "abusers of themselves," etc.). What about all the other people who are trampling on those ancient laws? "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," yet all these sinners feel they have the right to pass judgment on others because they've "sinned"? Is that the theological argument that is being made here? quote: If I were asked to defend the Kliens I would first have had demanded a full jury, second I would point out to the court that the gays were merely transposing their dysfunctional personality issues to extort money from the kliens, third I would point out that its a religious matter which reserved under the first amendment to the people therefore outside the courts jurisdiction and move for dismissal as the frivolous suit that it is. The state of course would come back and brief that it violates the statutory code, and the court would take notice of a fact in controversy and then the constitutional fight over the reserved right to exercise religion begins, al the way to the supreme and granted I have not seen the transcripts evidence or case at this point but from what I have read so far it would be a slam dunk win for the kliens having been properly presented in court. The thing is, we all have the same rights in this society, and in order for it to run as harmoniously as possible, the law has to make every attempt to balance it all out and make sure everyone's rights are respected and enforced by law. Over the past half-century or more, society has made a concerted effort to ensure this balance and emphasized the principle of non-discrimination, whether it's by race, gender, nationality, religion, or sexual orientation. If the Kleins claimed that their religious beliefs forbade them from serving black people, that wouldn't fly either. No one is forcing them to open a business, but if they openly discriminate against a group of people like that, then they're violating the law. It doesn't even matter what their religious beliefs are, since they always have the option to close up shop and live in accordance with their religious principles. quote: Unfortunately the BAR owns the legal industry and you wont find a good attorney now days and most prose's do not understand that the deck has been carefully stacked against them. Keep in mind I am all for gays having their rights and against the fact that the gubmint did not recognize it in the first place. However the gubmint incited this bullshit in the first place and use these kinds of gubmint created problems them to further gubmint agenda by in addition stomping on peoples rights to exercise their religion in the name of commerce is dead wrong. As you already know, I'm not a fan of the government, but in this case, I don't think the government has much of a choice. Some might argue that they're being overly harsh over a silly cake, but I can see that there might be a certain practical necessity in maintaining a somewhat harsh and aggressive policy against discrimination in matters like this. If one store is allowed to discriminate, then what's to stop an entire block of stores from discriminating against entire groups of people? It could get ugly rather quickly if they don't nip it in the bud early. which is precisely what they did when they refused to make the cake, they applied their laws to themselves. So do you believe that a christian should be able to walk into a synagog and demand holy communion? The other people that are trampling on those laws are not suing and the government is not establishing religion. Its their religion that is being argued here. "The thing is" However we reserved religion and its practice to ourselves, which means the government has no jurisdiction despite fluffy rhetoric cozy pillow talk. Making the same argument 50 different ways will not change the fact that the court stomped on the kliens constitutional rights. The law despite its enforcement is unconstitutional therefore is a nullity. My whole point is that had the kliens had the fortitude and know how to PROPERLY fight it the gays most likely would have had their asses handed to them. Its the judge that didnt have a choice because even if these judges know their judgment will be wrong if the litigants do not give them the tools to work with they have no choice but to rule with what is on the table at the time of the ruling. Judges are supposedly only referees and has no obligation to research the law. That is the job of the appelate and supreme courts. Like I said the kliens would have needed to counterclaim or countersue with a ommon law tort. anyone got the case number if its federal I can look it up.

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Jefferson on Freedom of Religion (7/4/2015 5:45:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne which is precisely what they did when they refused to make the cake, they applied their laws to themselves. (Themselves AND their customer, the lesbian couple.) As private citizens, the Kleins are free to make a cake or not make a cake for anyone they please (no explanation needed). However, as a business, they are a Public Accomodation, and are under many regulations. (Which include providing for public safety on their property, as well as prohibitions against discrimination. For the millionth time. Individuals have freedom of religion. Businesses do not. quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne So do you believe that a christian should be able to walk into a synagog and demand holy communion? Religious institutions are ALWAYS an exception. (And they are NOT "Public Accomodations") quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne The other people that are trampling on those laws are not suing and the government is not establishing religion. Its their religion that is being argued here. All nosensical B.S. quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne "The thing is" However we reserved religion and its practice to ourselves, which means the government has no jurisdiction despite fluffy rhetoric cozy pillow talk. Making the same argument 50 different ways will not change the fact that the court stomped on the kliens constitutional rights. There is no US Constitutional right to discriminate against anyone. That is complete nonsense. This matter is not enumerated in the Constitution, and therefore is left to the states. The state of Oregon has spoken loud and clear on the issue. quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne The law despite its enforcement is unconstitutional therefore is a nullity. My whole point is that had the kliens had the fortitude and know how to PROPERLY fight it the gays most likely would have had their asses handed to them. No one has a constitutional right to act unlawfully in the process of expressing his/her relgious beliefs. There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about states "Public Accomodation" laws. It is not a "nullity". It is a state law that is perfectly valid. You can jump up and down and scream that it is unconstitutional all you want, but non-discrimination laws, in no way violate our Constitution. EVEN if the person discriminating, is doing so in the expression of his/her relgious beliefs. Your whole premise is completely false.

Real0ne -> RE: Jefferson on Freedom of Religion (7/4/2015 9:28:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne which is precisely what they did when they refused to make the cake, they applied their laws to themselves. (Themselves AND their customer, the lesbian couple.) As private citizens, the Kleins are free to make a cake or not make a cake for anyone they please (no explanation needed). However, as a business, they are a Public Accomodation, and are under many regulations. (Which include providing for public safety on their property, as well as prohibitions against discrimination. For the millionth time. Individuals have freedom of religion. Businesses do not. Hey I get it, I disagree on the grounds the code is unconstitutional. If you want to cut to the chase lets get down to it and have it out! I assume you realize that code is overturned all the time as being unconstitutional. That is not accomplished by simply doing a judge dredd routine and repeating its da lew. You would need to, at least if you want to argue the matter with me take it to the next step and argue the constitutionallity of the code. But first if you were the kliens what you would need to do or file to get a ruling constitutionalilty of the code? OR---are you saying the kliens do not have the constitutional right to exercize their religion. OR--are you saying the kliens ceded their constitutional rights by selling cakes to put food on the table? I cant seem to locate this damn case anywhere for some reason. (incidentally I noticed they slipped travel in there as well, another inherent right they want to interfere with to protect their unconstitutional 'driving applies to everyone' system when it does not. quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne So do you believe that a christian should be able to walk into a synagog and demand holy communion? Religious institutions are ALWAYS an exception. (And they are NOT "Public Accomodations") Ok bad example, so a jewish cake store and someone wants a swastika on their cake? I find it interesting (and odd) that the frcp net version specifically has bakery listed and as the first entry no less. quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne The other people that are trampling on those laws are not suing and the government is not establishing religion. Its their religion that is being argued here. All nosensical B.S. But its my argument and it is the argument both you and the courts would need to convince people that you are correct. Its da lew is not convincing. Firstly its the 'code' which granted has the force of law, but there is a difference. There is no US Constitutional right to discriminate against anyone. That is very true, so then where does the government get this presumed authority? That is complete nonsense. This matter is not enumerated in the Constitution, and therefore is left to the states. The state of Oregon has spoken loud and clear on the issue. I cant find it enumerated in the oregon constitution? would you quote it for me please? The Oregon Constitution contains fundamental laws outlining principles by which Oregon is governed. Section 3. Freedom of religious opinion. No law shall in any case whatever control the free exercise, and enjoyment of religeous [sic] opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.— It seems oregon constitution reserves the right of the people to exercise their religion. Now what? If what you say is true then how come the code presumes people mysteriously gave up their constitutional rights and discriminates against the exercise of religion? The business is not the individual and cannot exist without the individual flesh and blood making the cakes. As I pointed out in another thread the kliens were exercizing their religion, where does the constitution authorize the government to trample ones persons rights over another or abolish them in fave of their commercial religion? No one has a constitutional right to act unlawfully in the process of expressing his/her relgious beliefs. There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about states "Public Accomodation" laws. It is not a "nullity". It is a state law that is perfectly valid. I reject that unless you can prove or support that with convincing evidence. I have seen none to date from anyone. In fact I cant imagine what you could come up with that requires any person to give up their reserved rights so they can put food on their own table? which is the higher pecking order? Constitutional rights or administrative code? You can jump up and down and scream that it is unconstitutional all you want, but non-discrimination laws, in no way violate our Constitution. EVEN if the person discriminating, is doing so in the expression of his/her relgious beliefs. Your whole premise is completely false. Nope no jumping up and down necessary, I have already lawfully disposed of this argument despite it may not be popular with those who misunderstand the nature of the constitution. The constitution is a 'reservation of rights'. A reservation of rights is a restraining order on the government and its agencies from crossing a line. The government has crossed the line when they first made the rule and second when the judges violated the constitutional rights of the kliens by putting admin code above organic law. The constitution enumerates what the government has the power to do, not the people. So many do not understand that since it started being abused by legislators and judges alike. You need to show by a evidence how the kliens may have knowing ceded their rights or that the code trumps the constitution.

tweakabelle -> RE: Jefferson on Freedom of Religion (7/4/2015 9:38:18 PM)
Hasn't SCOTUS found in favour of anti-discrimination laws when their constitutionality was challenged? I'm not certain but it seems unlikely that they haven't been challenged by someone.

Real0ne -> RE: Jefferson on Freedom of Religion (7/4/2015 10:17:21 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: tweakabelle Hasn't SCOTUS found in favour of anti-discrimination laws when their constitutionality was challenged? I'm not certain but it seems unlikely that they haven't been challenged by someone. I am all for anti-discrimination as long as it does not conflict with the rights (make no law zone) that we reserved. That is the problem when people do not realize that the only way to change this around is to have jurys for everything and when jury give them the big [sm=sodoff.gif] that is the only means the people of this country have to voice their opinion. By non-conviction. Its is the reason they have made it so hard to get a jury now days and have made a labyrinth and maze of unclear language so as a pro se you fuck up, and attorneys wont touch most of the stuff that needs to be dealt with because there is big money an uninformed public since they get paid win or lose. what a racket. Regardless of any court decision supreme or otherwise the constitution is precisely clear that we have the right to exercise our religion (caveat it does not damage another, or that person a does not trespass on person b's religion) etc etc What I am saying is the us government state or otherwise made an agreement with the people they would not breach the lines and they have went far beyond and are in contempt. If you can think of a scotus case that examples what you are talking about I will check it out. Usually these cases in the past have been very precisely worded though the courts including the supreme one have gotten quite sloppy lately. (Its good for business) Remember in america: Seventh Amendment - Civil Trials. In Suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any Court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law. Williams v. Florida, 399 US 78 - Supreme Court 1970 The purpose of the jury trial, as we noted in Duncan, is to prevent oppression by the Government. "Providing an accused with the right to be tried by a jury of his peers gave him an inestimable safeguard against the corrupt or overzealous prosecutor and against the compliant, biased, or eccentric judge." Duncan v. Louisiana, supra, at 156. Given this purpose, the essential feature of a jury obviously lies in the interposition between the accused and his accuser of the commonsense judgment of a group of laymen, and in the community participation and shared responsibility that results from that group's determination of guilt or innocence. I disagree with the reduction to a petite jury but the above highlighted part is good opinion. ..and as we can see in the dukes of hazard matter that oppression is coming from everywhere. These companies removing it are liable to be sued, since no court determined that the dukes had anything to do with racism or hatred. and worse the government in the us has gone to hoards of illegitimate administrative boards that make quasi judicial rulings and have the power to fine people, which is maybe why I cant so far find the klien case anywhere? These quasi judicial hearings while sounding rosy deny due process and direct access to the courts, and raise the bill sky high if you neglect them before you can even get things rolling in court. People have to just sue immediately, its the only option to get due process.

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Jefferson on Freedom of Religion (7/5/2015 10:40:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Ok bad example, so a jewish cake store and someone wants a swastika on their cake? Also, a bad example. The couple just wanted a cake with icing on it. No homosexual activity depicted on it. quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne I cant find it enumerated in the oregon constitution? would you quote it for me please? The Oregon Constitution contains fundamental laws outlining principles by which Oregon is governed. Section 3. Freedom of religious opinion. No law shall in any case whatever control the free exercise, and enjoyment of religeous [sic] opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.— It seems oregon constitution reserves the right of the people to exercise their religion. Now what? There is NO way that could be interpreted literally. It is flawed. If Section 3 were enforced literally, it could mean that NO law could be passed that restricts behavior of any kind. ANY behavior (lawful or not) could be deemed as "expressing one's religious beliefs". Theft? sure why not. "I am exercising my religious beliefs." Rape? "Yep. ISIS and Boko Haram do it all the time in the name of exercising religious beliefs." Maybe even murder, if it wasn't covered under the US Constitution. ANYONE could claim any religion (even if they made it up a week ago), and justify their otherwise unlawful behavior. Surely you see how absurd it would be to enforce that clause literally. IN FACT, if it WERE enforced literally, it would be in violation of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne The business is not the individual and cannot exist without the individual flesh and blood making the cakes. As I pointed out in another thread the kliens were exercizing their religion, where does the constitution authorize the government to trample ones persons rights over another or abolish them in fave of their commercial religion? STRAWMAN. The Kleins are free to make any cake, or not make any cake they want as individuals. But when they are serving the public, the Oregon State legislature has determined, they have to serve all customers equally. Million and oneth time: Individuals have religious freedom. Businesses do not. quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne I reject that unless you can prove or support that with convincing evidence. I have seen none to date from anyone. In fact I cant imagine what you could come up with that requires any person to give up their reserved rights so they can put food on their own table? Our friend, the Strawman again. No one is saying that

Zonie63 -> RE: Jefferson on Freedom of Religion (7/5/2015 11:41:25 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne which is precisely what they did when they refused to make the cake, they applied their laws to themselves. So do you believe that a christian should be able to walk into a synagog and demand holy communion? A synagogue is not the same thing as a store which is open to the public for business. Nobody could go into a synagogue and demand that they bake them a wedding cake either. Another difference is that the bakery in question already made cakes and it was listed as one of the products they sell. So, as I mentioned in a similar thread, it's just like a Big Mac at McDonald's. If it's on the menu, then they sell it to whoever orders it. If they say they're not going to sell Big Macs to white people, then they're guilty of discrimination. quote: The other people that are trampling on those laws are not suing and the government is not establishing religion. Its their religion that is being argued here. I disagree. The government's position is to enforce laws already on the books regarding non-discrimination. As a private citizen who often finds reason to criticize religion and its various hypocrisies, I might question their religious convictions, but in the eyes of the government, their religion is irrelevant. Just as with any other right, an individual's rights end where another individual's rights begin. quote: The law despite its enforcement is unconstitutional therefore is a nullity. My whole point is that had the kliens had the fortitude and know how to PROPERLY fight it the gays most likely would have had their asses handed to them. So, are you saying that the Kleins had incompetent legal representation?

Real0ne -> RE: Jefferson on Freedom of Religion (7/5/2015 6:51:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Zonie63 I might question their religious convictions, but in the eyes of the government, their religion is irrelevant. So, are you saying that the Kleins had incompetent legal representation? most of your post the horses already left those barns and was previously discussed, so with regard to the above. Their convictions are clear as the say state the purpose and intent and limitations of their business on their website. Welcome to Sweet Cakes! Are you looking for a wedding cake or for an occasion? Our cakes are custom made and designed to fit you. We here at Sweet Cakes strongly believe that when a man and woman come together to be joined as one, it is truly one of the most special days of their lives, we feel truely honored when we are chosen to do the cake for your special day. removed her email. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" John 3:16 http://www.sweetcakesweb.com/ their purpose and scope of their business and purpose is stated as man and woman. Therefore they were not supplying cakes to the general public at large for any reason what so ever. But in the eyes of the government religion must be relevant, otherwise it is a violation of the peoples reserved rights. Your statement basically shot your position in the foot. I wasnt but now that I found more information it appears their attorney was totally incompetent.

Real0ne -> RE: Jefferson on Freedom of Religion (7/5/2015 7:05:03 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Ok bad example, so a jewish cake store and someone wants a swastika on their cake? Also, a bad example. The couple just wanted a cake with icing on it. No homosexual activity depicted on it. Nope its a precise example, this kliens cakes were all 'CUSTOM' made with figurines so the swastika fits perfectly. During the tasting, AK asked for the names of the bride and groom, and RBC told him there would be two brides and their names were “Rachel and Laurel.” So its 'not just a cake'. Otherwise just answer the question please or I will be forced to conclude you concede the point. quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne I cant find it enumerated in the oregon constitution? would you quote it for me please? The Oregon Constitution contains fundamental laws outlining principles by which Oregon is governed. Section 3. Freedom of religious opinion. No law shall in any case whatever control the free exercise, and enjoyment of religeous [sic] opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.— It seems oregon constitution reserves the right of the people to exercise their religion. Now what? There is NO way that could be interpreted literally. It is flawed. If Section 3 were enforced literally, it could mean that NO law could be passed that restricts behavior of any kind. ANY behavior (lawful or not) could be deemed as "expressing one's religious beliefs". Theft? sure why not. "I am exercising my religious beliefs." Rape? "Yep. ISIS and Boko Haram do it all the time in the name of exercising religious beliefs." Maybe even murder, if it wasn't covered under the US Constitution. ANYONE could claim any religion (even if they made it up a week ago), and justify their otherwise unlawful behavior. Surely you see how absurd it would be to enforce that clause literally. IN FACT, if it WERE enforced literally, it would be in violation of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. Pls explain how it would be a violation of the 14th? So then you feel the organic law of the land was NOT meant to be taken literally? There are very specific elements that constitutes a religion, I have posted them several times, I am not sure why you posted such extreme irrelevant non-sense that amounts to mere drama? No one is or ever said or implied that religion is anything and every thing crazy people can come up with. There are particular elements involved. quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne The business is not the individual and cannot exist without the individual flesh and blood making the cakes. As I pointed out in another thread the kliens were exercizing their religion, where does the constitution authorize the government to trample ones persons rights over another or abolish them in fave of their commercial religion? STRAWMAN. The Kleins are free to make any cake, or not make any cake they want as individuals. But when they are serving the public, the Oregon State legislature has determined, they have to serve all customers equally. Million and oneth time: Individuals have religious freedom. Businesses do not. quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne I reject that unless you can prove or support that with convincing evidence. I have seen none to date from anyone. In fact I cant imagine what you could come up with that requires any person to give up their reserved rights so they can put food on their own table? Our friend, the Strawman again. No one is saying that Ok so the business got sued then right and the business has no money so they simply close it down, no one to pay the bill and all is well, then turn around and open another under a different name, right? TRhe dumb asses sued a broke business! LOL OR are they liable in the own person for the debt? [8\|]

MasterJaguar01 -> RE: Jefferson on Freedom of Religion (7/5/2015 7:30:26 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne quote: ORIGINAL: MasterJaguar01 quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne Ok bad example, so a jewish cake store and someone wants a swastika on their cake? Also, a bad example. The couple just wanted a cake with icing on it. No homosexual activity depicted on it. Nope its a precise example, this kliens cakes were all 'CUSTOM' made with figurines so the nazi flag fits perfectly. Just answer the question please or I will be forced to conclude you concede the point. Show me proof that the couple wanted ANY figurines on it, or ANYTHING beyond some writing in icing. If they did, then I put this case, in my category as an artist, and side with the Kleins :) quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne I cant find it enumerated in the oregon constitution? would you quote it for me please? The Oregon Constitution contains fundamental laws outlining principles by which Oregon is governed. Section 3. Freedom of religious opinion. No law shall in any case whatever control the free exercise, and enjoyment of religeous [sic] opinions, or interfere with the rights of conscience.— It seems oregon constitution reserves the right of the people to exercise their religion. Now what? There is NO way that could be interpreted literally. It is flawed. If Section 3 were enforced literally, it could mean that NO law could be passed that restricts behavior of any kind. ANY behavior (lawful or not) could be deemed as "expressing one's religious beliefs". Theft? sure why not. "I am exercising my religious beliefs." Rape? "Yep. ISIS and Boko Haram do it all the time in the name of exercising religious beliefs." Maybe even murder, if it wasn't covered under the US Constitution. ANYONE could claim any religion (even if they made it up a week ago), and justify their otherwise unlawful behavior. Surely you see how absurd it would be to enforce that clause literally. IN FACT, if it WERE enforced literally, it would be in violation of the 14th Amendment of the US Constitution. Pls explain how it would be a violation of the 14th? So then you feel the organic law of the land was NOT meant to be taken literally? There are very specific elements that constitutes a religion, I have posted them several times, I am not sure why you posted such extreme irrelevant non-sense that amounts to mere drama? No one is or ever said or implied that religion is anything and every thing crazy people can come up with. There are particular elements involved. RE: the 14th Amendment: Equal protection Clause. If there is no limit to the expression of religious beliefs, then there is no limit to the abridgement or immunities of citizens of the United States. Specific elements that constitute a religion???? Show me those elements in the US Constitution. And the Oregon Constitution for that matter. quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne The business is not the individual and cannot exist without the individual flesh and blood making the cakes. As I pointed out in another thread the kliens were exercizing their religion, where does the constitution authorize the government to trample ones persons rights over another or abolish them in fave of their commercial religion? STRAWMAN. The Kleins are free to make any cake, or not make any cake they want as individuals. But when they are serving the public, the Oregon State legislature has determined, they have to serve all customers equally. Million and oneth time: Individuals have religious freedom. Businesses do not. quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne I reject that unless you can prove or support that with convincing evidence. I have seen none to date from anyone. In fact I cant imagine what you could come up with that requires any person to give up their reserved rights so they can put food on their own table? Our friend, the Strawman again. No one is saying that Ok so the business got sued then right and the business has no money so they simply close it down, no one to pay the bill and all is well, then turn around and open another under a different name, right? TRhe dumb asses sued a broke business! LOL OR are they liable in the own person for the debt? [8\|] The fine was grossly excessive. I disagree with fining them at all. I think they should be warned the first time. The second time they should lose their business license and be banned from getting another one for 5 years.

Zonie63 -> RE: Jefferson on Freedom of Religion (7/6/2015 7:50:55 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Real0ne most of your post the horses already left those barns and was previously discussed, so with regard to the above. That doesn't mean it was adequately addressed. quote: Their convictions are clear as the say state the purpose and intent and limitations of their business on their website. Welcome to Sweet Cakes! Are you looking for a wedding cake or for an occasion? Our cakes are custom made and designed to fit you. We here at Sweet Cakes strongly believe that when a man and woman come together to be joined as one, it is truly one of the most special days of their lives, we feel truely honored when we are chosen to do the cake for your special day. removed her email. "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life" John 3:16 http://www.sweetcakesweb.com/ their purpose and scope of their business and purpose is stated as man and woman. Therefore they were not supplying cakes to the general public at large for any reason what so ever. That doesn't matter. It wouldn't matter if McDonald's had a website which said "We believe that Big Macs are only for white people." quote: But in the eyes of the government religion must be relevant, otherwise it is a violation of the peoples reserved rights. Your statement basically shot your position in the foot. How is their religion relevant? They made their religion irrelevant when they decided to open up a business.

NathanD1992 -> RE: Jefferson on Freedom of Religion (7/6/2015 8:36:00 AM)
The right of a business owner to discriminate against certain groups of people because of their "freedom of religion" rests upon the premise that businesses and corporations are people, which they are not.

Aylee -> RE: Jefferson on Freedom of Religion (7/6/2015 10:14:44 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: NathanD1992 The right of a business owner to discriminate against certain groups of people because of their "freedom of religion" rests upon the premise that businesses and corporations are people, which they are not. So. . . say you own a business (and you may), you are hunky-dory with LEOs or other bureaucrats coming in at anytime to search it and take whatever they would like? What about car insurance? How well do you think it would work if an individual was on the hook for repairs or replacement after an accident? What about the army? Why even build barracks? Have the local businesses shelter and feed soldiers. Throw some sailors on the cruise ships when they are not at sea duty?

mnottertail -> RE: Jefferson on Freedom of Religion (7/6/2015 10:21:36 AM)
There is an exact prohibition of that in the constitution.

PeonForHer -> RE: Jefferson on Freedom of Religion (7/6/2015 11:13:33 AM)
quote: Also, a bad example. The couple just wanted a cake with icing on it. No homosexual activity depicted on it. I think if I owned a cake-making shop I'd be inclined to put a huge wedding cake in the window with a giant icing sculpture on the top of it of one man whacking his todger up another man's arse. Strewth.

Moderator3 -> RE: Jefferson on Freedom of Religion (7/6/2015 4:48:21 PM)
I am condensing a few threads that seem to be arguing some aspect of the same topics. Feel free to copy and paste your post if you would like to use it on another thread. You might want to wait until I'm done locking threads.

Page: << < prev 1 2 3 [4]

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.078125