Zonie63
Posts: 2826
Joined: 4/25/2011
From: The Old Pueblo
Status: offline
|
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.
|
RE: Jefferson on Freedom of Religion - 
Profile
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. 
New Messages
No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages
Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages
Locked w/o New Messages
Post New Thread