@coldjoint,
It is true. Its a way to irritate you joint and make you dig in and get more strident and even more absurd than normal. Seems to be working. Good work frank.
Just a word about the OP:
It was not to question whether the various causes were in themelves good or bad. It was to discuss whether the attempt to satisfy all causes might have unintended and/or harmful collateral effects.
@coldjoint,
coldjoint wrote:
Quote:If conservative Christians want to exclude certain people from society
It doesn't say that Frank. I thought you could read. And it is the left that twists words, like you just did.
Yeah, it really does, cj.
It says,
Quote:The progressive left is not content to “live and let live.” They’re not content to let conservative Christians and others who oppose them to live their lives.
Yeah, when conservative Christians insisted the Bible tells them it is okay to own slaves...the progressive simply would not leave them alone to "live their lives."
And now some conservative Christians want to exclude certain people from society by crafting laws like those in Indiana and Arkansas...and the progressives will not let them "live their lives."
But I will agree with you. The scum on the far right should be allowed to "live their lives."
Why is when the liberals bring us a law so Indians can use peyote its a wonderful ******* thing, but when conservatives bring the SAME LAW to protect constitutional rights, theres's a problem???
Well, for starters, because peyote use doesn't impact anyone elseother than the users, but the Indiana and Ark laws go well beyond that, and allow "religious" people to deny equal protection of the law to others if they can somehow claim it's part of their religion. Businesses provide public accomodation (which is pretty broadly defined, as a result of the civil rights laws of the '60s). And those people that joint and others have cited apply it pretty selectively. Their religions presumably also dfine living together before marriage and premarital sex as sins. I don't see them questioning if a couple are living together before selling them something, or asking if the woman has a child out of wedlock, or questioning whether they've ever taken the name of the lord in vain, and turning them down if they have. Their use of their religion is pretty capricious. Further, they're denying service to people who are doing something that, by now, is perfectly legal in the vast majority of the US (37 states and counting). Do they question a woman as to whether she's ever had an abortion or used a birth control method that some religions deem abortifacients? (Keeping in mind that over 90% of Catholic women have used birth control methods not condones by the church)?? Highly doubtful. If they did any of those things, they'd basically have no business at all, bewcause chances are good it'd catch pretty much all of their customers. Sorry, their behavior is purely arvbitrary and inconsistent. If this were pre-1960, they could claim their religion forbade them to sell to blacks, as many preachers at the time preached. No. "Religious rights" as people choose to apply them, conflict too often with fundamental American rights to stand as the bad laws as written they've proven to be.
@MontereyJack,
Quote:but the Indiana and Ark laws go well beyond that, and allow "religious" people to deny equal protection of the law to others if they can somehow claim it's part of their religion.Businesses provide public accomodation (which is pretty broadly defined, as a result of the civil rights laws of the '60s). And those people that joint and others have cited apply it pretty selectively.
You're wrong. Firs,t you are using the phrase "equal protection of the law to others" and that , while phrased incorrectly, if phrased correctly still does not apply in this situation.
I believe your argument centers around the second part of the above quote regarding private businesses. In that regard, in the other states that have the same law it was attempted to be used in that fashion as a defense and the defendants did not pervail. The law is a prohibition against Government action.
The hoopla is the latest attempt by the liberal media and hollywood types to rail against any group that is a majority in a desperate attempt to keep these disingenuous liberals relevant.
@Frank Apisa,
Quote:No one doing business as a public business
Businesses are not owned by the public, they are owned by individuals in many cases.
