I think you are just pressing buttons, having a joke, one of those keyboard fools, but laugh about this. Current inquiry into child sex abuse by ONLY the Catholic Church here in Australia, 4500 victims in 35 years, covered up. Find that funny? Want to keep spruiking about your imaginary friend?
The Pilgrim Fathers must be turning in their graves with what has happened with their dream of the freedom of the new land and the repressive religion where you have to do what you are told to do.
The Pilgrims who settled Plymouth Colony were part of a faction known as Separatists; they had left the Church of England to create their own denominations. Separatists were a minority, and most Puritans, including the ones who later settled Massachusetts Bay Colony, sought to reform the Church from within.
People tend to proclaim Separation of Church and State so that they may impose their religion of atheism upon all of us. To tell us we cannot speak in public of our beliefs or live our lives (Oregon Bakers) according to our Faith. They are in fact, imposing their religion upon us.
Certainly atheists have a stake in separation of church and state, but so do many others. A person invited to give an invocation at the Drain Commission meeting who preaches against the existence of God would (rightly) be thought inappropriate, as well. It doesn't happen. There are times and places for such discussions, and governmental business meetings are not among them. Over the counter at a bakery? Oh, OK. That feels like a borderline case because of the nation's history with public accommodations; once upon a time blacks really couldn't effectively participate in interstate commerce because of local public and private restrictions on the services available to them; the 1964 Civil Rights Act was a needful corrective, given the history and makeup of the country. I grant that to apply the same logic to cake-baking and wedding photography stretches that logic to the breaking point.The difference between the socialist nature of Christian beliefs and modern day socialism is huge. The former is voluntary and founded in Love. The latter; dictatorial at the point of a gun with exceptions given to favored people and based in acquisition of power. In other words---Holy vs. evil.
True as to Christian belief. But there's socialism and there's socialism. Soviet-Union-style socialism was of course wrenchingly violent. The present socialist governments of northern Europe are probably less coercive that many free-market countries. I don't mean to defend socialism. Only to make the point that there's nothing particularly Christian about a devotion to a free-market polity.
I don't eat meat, and follow a religion that discourages the killing of animals. My business is to grow, pack, and sell culinary herbs. Every November, I'm asked to provide more-than-usual amounts of parsley, sage, rosemary, and thyme, which I know full well, and am sometimes told, is going to be used to stuff a turkey. I've had to give this some thought.
I could refuse. The customer would (correctly) feel judged, and would very likely be offended. As dissatisfied customers will, she might communicate her dissatisfaction to others. Now, no one has asked me to slaughter a turkey, nor has my action stopped the slaughter. All I've really accomplished is to communicate my judgement. This may be my right. But it's very bad for business. If a business owner chooses to indulge in behavior that they know full will upset customers, who exactly is responsible for ruining their business?
There's a certain satisfaction in expressing a judgement about someone else's behavior. Do it publicly, and you'll enjoy support from members of your idealogical team. But is there real merit in doing this? Is it good for anybody? I don't think so.
Our country was founded on the beliefs of Christian teaching-it's irrevocable from the founding documents. The problem of today is that the pendulum of freedom of religion has swung far to the point of freeing communities from religion. That is not what the Founders intended. The motive was to guarantee all to practice without restriction. Including a prayer at the borough meeting.
Some of the founding fathers were Christians, some Deists, and some rather well known atheists; Christianity may have been the majority religion but it was certainly neither the only religion or the official religion. The flip side of "freedom of religion" is "freedom from religion". They are opposite sides of the same coin. Everyone has the right to practice their own religion. But one's right to practice their religion does not include the right to adversely effect others due to said practice.
In prior decades people of color did not receive the same rights as the white majority. Prior to the civil rights movement there were "white only lunch counters"; water fountains, public schools, public accommodations, and even segregation in the US Armed Forces. Christianity itself was supportive of segregation with white only churches and preaching to keep the races separate. Separate but equal was ruled illegal and in current times racial integration is the law of the land.
A person or business is prohibited from saying that they don't serve or accommodate those of a specific race. If that person or business states they are prohibited from "the mixing of the races" and refuse to serve or accommodate those of a specific race they would be in violation of federal law.
Bruce supports the right of a florist shop not to provide flowers to a gay wedding. Bruce believes that the flower shop's owners religious beliefs allow them to discriminate and not serve the public. Bruce believes that the flowers could have been purchased at another florist. In short, Bruce wants to take us back to SEPERATE BUT EQUAL. The reason that the florist shop received the $1,000 violation is because they are a public business and refused to serve the public based upon discrimination. Bruce, in prior years when churches preached against mixed-race marriages would you have supported the florist's right not to sell flowers for a black/white wedding?
Taking Bruce's logic further, let's say I go to a candlestick shop to purchase candles to celebrate the Sabbath? Since I'm Jewish would it be ok for the Muslim/Christian/Buddhist to refuse to sell me the candles since s/he doesn't particularly care for Jewish people and say it's a tenant of their religion?
Let's say Bruce needs to take either a taxi or bus home from shopping. Let's say that Bruce stopped at the meat market to buy a pork product. Can you imagine Bruce if the Muslim/Jewish taxi driver or bus driver wouldn't let him ride because both the Jewish and Muslim religions disallow the consumption of pork products and the driver(s) said it was against the religious beliefs to drive Bruce home?
Nice letter to the President, I don't understand the hatred for the President, But i'm sure they are in the minority. Alot of them are paid protesters. Most people I talk to like what he is doing. There is a small group of Rich people(Illuminati,etc) who are losing control of America, They wanted to turn it into a one world government, They control the News media, They control politicans,They put teachers in our schools to brainwash our kids.They control other countries. And they are doing everything they can to make Trump look bad, But its not working, Alot of people have woken up to all the corruption.
Shameless, you must be operating under what is now being called "alternative facts" The small group of ultra-wealthy people is Trump's cabinet! Take a look at who he has brought into his administration! I hope you enjoy the Kook-Aid that you have been drinking from AM/Hate radio and Faux News: He appointed a Secretary of Education who has never experienced public schools. She, and her children went to private school. She is a b I l l I o n a I r e who has spent millions advocating for charter schools. The new head of the EPA has sued the EPA for protecting the air we breathe and the water we drink since such regulations get in the way of the oil industry's profits. Need I remind that Steve Bannon, Steve Mnuchin, Gary Cohn, and others are all multi-millionaires who have been employed at Goldman Sachs. Yes, Mr. Shameless, that is the very same Goldman Sachs that President Trump vilified while he was campaigning. In fact candidate Trump condemned candidate Clinton for associating and giving lectures to the very same Goldman Sachs.
Sadly Mr. Shameless you were duped!
I don't eat meat, and follow a religion that discourages the killing of animals. My business is to grow, pack, and sell culinary herbs. Every November, I'm asked to provide more-than-usual amounts of parsley, sage, rosemary, and thyme, which I know full well, and am sometimes told, is going to be used to stuff a turkey. I've had to give this some thought.I could refuse. The customer would (correctly) feel judged, and would very likely be offended. As dissatisfied customers will, she might communicate her dissatisfaction to others. Now, no one has asked me to slaughter a turkey, nor has my action stopped the slaughter. All I've really accomplished is to communicate my judgement. This may be my right. But it's very bad for business. If a business owner chooses to indulge in behavior that they know full will upset customers, who exactly is responsible for ruining their business?There's a certain satisfaction in expressing a judgement about someone else's behavior. Do it publicly, and you'll enjoy support from members of your idealogical team. But is there real merit in doing this? Is it good for anybody? I don't think so.I am in full agreement with you. That's how it should be. The difference with the bakers is that the customer deployed the power of government through people with an ideological agenda to destroy the lives of the bakers. What you just described is how it should be; what I described is akin to the Stalins and the Hitlers. It's the power of the government destroying innocents over their faith.
In essence Bruce, you just stated that using the government to enforce the law is wrong and that you don't support civil rights laws.
So, when the taxi driver, bus driver, first responders or emergency room physician asks your religion and says he chooses not provide services to those of the Catholic faith you'd be fine looking for another provider? I think not! If an anti-Catholic EMS worker wouldn't tend to a Catholic's heart attack is it ok just to wait for another ambulance crew?
I am a gay Jewish male. What if instead of a flower shop it was a pharmacy and they wouldn't sell me my insulin since the store owner had issues with both Jews and males? What if... What if.... what will it take for you to understand that discrimination is immoral and illegal and rightly so?
Discrimination based upon race, religion, gender, or sexuality is unacceptable and illegal.
I said no such thing. You've completely twisted my point. The bakers would bake a birthday cake for the gay couple. They are not opposed to people having birthdays. Their faith does not recognize a voluntary service and so they choose to not participate in the service. No life or death issue. No discrimination. A decision to not participate in an activity that they do not support as a matter of their faith. And the government destroyed their lives. Heil Leftism!
You just posted that discrimination is OK depending upon it's degree. The baker can support a gay individual's birthday by selling a cake. But the baker can discriminate against a gay couple by not selling the wedding cake.
The corollary would be that if there is an apartment above the bake shop for rent they could rent it to the single gay person. But if it's a married gay couple they could discriminate in the rental of housing.
Discrimination is a very slippery slope.
No, you won't find any mention of Christianity in the Constitution nor will you find any mention of ANY religion. The Constitution does mention religion which is encouraged by our founding fathers and is to be left up to the individual. Yes, the Constitution was written by men of several different sects who let us to be free to choose our own faith, or free not to choose any faith. This is the way it should be--for each and every citizen to have the right to choose the religion (faith) of their choice or freedom to reject any and all religions (faiths) if they so desire. I recall King Constantine of the Roman Empire once decreed Christianity as the official religion of the kingdom and for all citizens to become Christians or else. This was wrong on at least one account: no leader can force anybody to accept any religion, dogma or doctrine. The result may be death for refusing but then that's the price one must pay. I am glad the Constitution leaves that decision up to us as the individual.
Actions
Back to TopicsReply to TopicShare this topic
Get paid just by sending us users/traffic.
Signup takes seconds, start now!
Signup as an affiliate!