I kinda like Trump's Executive Order on Religious Freedom

[konbini guy]

And who were the lawyers hired by?

they're non-profit, so the bakers and the chief firefighter are represented for free

also, I don't agree with you that Trump won't be fulfilling his promise. He was actually about to sign the executive order, but Ivanka and her husband intervened. They have a lot of gay friends.

 

[konbini guy]

and lastly,

having him sign it isn't really the end goal here. It is enough, at least in my perspective, that this issue be brought to light, and simply discussed.

People now are so overprotective of LGBT, that they take for granted basic human rights such as freedom of expression. Other people are losing livelihood just because of LGBT's vanities. That's not right.

 

[TheScientist]

Perhaps the LGBT groups best bet would be to argue that the right to refuse service isn't a protected religious freedom.

Which I believe is exactly what lawyers representing the LGBT community are doing in this case.

Based on the opinions of most scholars of Constitutional law that I've read, that is a losing strategy. This seems to be the fact even though Scalia as the "Chief Originalist" has died.

I have to laugh at that.

That is your Constitutional right to express your opinion that way but it doesn't make you correct in matters of law.

but I can't see how anyone on either side is getting their rights trampled.

Any law that excludes religious practice can end up struck down by SCOTUS, thats how it works.

I think the free market can solve this particular issue better than the government.

The Constitution disagrees with this position, thus the Bill of Rights.

But a bakery? It must not be so hard to find another who will gladly make a beautiful wedding cake for you.

Here you argue against the Alphabet Soup crowd and in favor of the Christians who feel they shouldn't be forced to support Alphabet Soup Culture, is that your intent?

I myself think executing gays just because the Bible says it, is ridiculous

Asa a Jew, I personally don't understand:

1. How Christians interpret the very specific prohibition in Leviticus against homosexual sexual acts (not being homosexual) this way
2. How Christians deal with the contradiction between Mosaic Law not applying to them in the first place (only applies to Jews plus the "Jesus fulfilled the law" bit) yet feeling the need to do freestyle interpretation of Mosaic Law

But those are points of theology not of Constitutional law. Since the Constitution forbids the government from establishing laws limiting or supporting particular religions, I recognize that SCOTUS & Congress don't get to say how the Christians should interpret the Hebrew Bible.

 

[TheScientist]

People now are so overprotective of LGBT, that they take for granted basic human rights such as freedom of expression.

Thats the paradox of tolerance. I've found that most people who shout loudest demanding tolerance are in fact the least tolerant of those who hold other ideas & ideals. The ironic thing for me is that as someone who belongs to a religious/ethnic minority group, the "tolerant" people end up calling me a bigot, baby killer, imperialist, racist, blah blah blah.

 

[User#8628]

Here you argue against the Alphabet Soup crowd and in favor of the Christians who feel they shouldn't be forced to support Alphabet Soup Culture, is that your intent?

Yeah, you read my post right.

Like i said, i am disgusted by the views of the extremist Christians. This is why i wish them to be able to deny customers. That way hard earned money of people does not go to a company that hates them.

I have mixed feelings about this because its terribly inconvient to be send away as a customer somewhere. But in the end, do you want to be served by someone who probably spits in your food?

As much as i despise people who are against gay rights, forcing them to make wedding cakes doesn't seem like the solution to me. Better give that business to someone who is happy and deserving of it.

 

[TheScientist]

As much as i despise people who are against gay rights, forcing them to make wedding cakes doesn't seem like the solution to me. Better give that business to someone who is happy and deserving of it.

I'm not entirely sure if there really is any such thing as "gay rights". I have not seen any legal argument that puts sexuality on the same grounds as legislature such as the ADA or the 14th Amendment or the Voting Rights Act.

Lets say that in general the solution is to add the words "sexual orientation" to various protective legislature.

If we assume that sexuality is a a protected class then the legal problem is whether to go de maximus or de minimus. Most often the argument is about marriage. Do only homosexuals and lesbians deserve legal protections or do the polygamists also deserve "rights" as well? What about groups like NAMBLA? As soon as you draw even one line in the sand along comes another group desiring expansion or exceptions.

An extreme de maximus position of 'don't deny any "rights" to anyone for any reason' goes beyond any Pandora's box of invented protected groups.

Please don't take the above as though I'm taking a position which would argue in favor of legal limits on sexuality, that is not the case.

 

[meiji]

Well, I symphatize with the victims of LGBT activists.

Personally, I sympathize with LGBT victims themselves, that have endured decades of harassment, discrimination, and violence at the hands of people who believe pretty much the same thing that your 'victims of LGBT activists' believe.

exactly,

I myself think executing gays just because the Bible says it, is ridiculous

Sure. The Bible also says that people shouldn't eat shrimp or pork, but you don't see anyone in the US Congress trying to ban Red Lobster. People hide behind their bigotry toward gay people as a 'religious objection' when it's really just 'the thought of gay sex makes me feel icky inside, and keep it away'.

It's perfectly legal in the US to have hatred in your heart for a certain type of people. It's NOT legal to discriminate against them, and further more, expressing bigotry opens you up to protests and boycotts (ie, the baker 'victim' that you referred to earlier). People have to pay for their words and actions. If people disagree with you, the 1st Amendment only protects your right to say your piece. It doesn't protect you from people arguing with you or affecting your business because of what you said.

Homosexuals aren't a protected class in the US (yet), but it's pretty easy to imagine situations where the repeal of Obama's executive order or Congress passing a bullshit 'religious freedom' law might cause other discrimination. Up until quite recently, Mormons in the US officially believed that black people wore the Mark of Cain as a race, and banned them from the Mormon Church. With a religious freedom law, any business in that scenario could tell black people they can't shop there, or tell black people they won't be hired there, or tell black people that they aren't welcome in the community. All due to "religious" bigotry.

The moral of the story is: you can be a bigot, but it shouldn't be legal to act in an official capacity (business or government) as one.

 

[Jbagz]

Sure. The Bible also says that people shouldn't eat shrimp or pork, but you don't see anyone in the US Congress trying to ban Red Lobster. People hide behind their bigotry toward gay people as a 'religious objection' when it's really just 'the thought of gay sex makes me feel icky inside, and keep it away'.

.

You've touched upon one of the most absurd aspects of Christianity and religion in general.

The endless cherry picking of doctrine and the interpretation of passages to justify abhorrent behavior.

Individuals, preachers, and entire sects of major religions just invent policies and claim it was the word of a supreme and perfect deity.

That is why I laughed so hard when @TheScientist said earlier in the thread that rights (gay rights) couldn't be invented out of thin air.

Why not?

Every god and supernatural claim that I have investigated has evidence indicating that it is most likely a combination of folk lore, myths and outright fabrications. There is zero evidence to indicate that any god exists.

Talk about inventing shit out of thin air! That is precisely what any religion is based on.

Christianity, Judaism and Islam do not deserve the amount of reverence that society affords them.

The idea that a "perfect" supreme being chooses to communicate to humanity through a series of texts cobbled together in the Bronze Age and then revised and rewritten by human authors over the course of several centuries is a tremendous red flag that there is nothing sacred or devine about religious texts.

One most certainly can invent rights out of thin air. The hard part is getting enough people to agree with you so it becomes a widely accepted right.

I'll invent a right to demonstrate it.

Abracadabra!

Gays have the right to marriage and to not be discriminated against due to there sexual orientation.

See? Look how easy that was.

 

[TheScientist]

The Bible also says that people shouldn't eat shrimp or pork,

Actually it says Jews are not to eat those things. Everyone else can enjoy a nice tonkatsu.

Up until quite recently, Mormons in the US officially believed that black people wore the Mark of Cain as a race, and banned them from the Mormon Church.

People railing against religion love to mention this one but rarely bring up Nation of Islam as the counter example. By law in the US both are allowed.

With a religious freedom law, any business in that scenario could tell black people they can't shop there, or tell black people they won't be hired there, or tell black people that they aren't welcome in the community.

This isn't axiomatic at all and does not even follow the reality of Mormon doctrine in the example you used above. A legal claim of religious freedom requires evidential support both of standing doctrine and practice. That is you need to be able to say "this is how our group has done this and here is why".

There is also the issue of Conflict of Laws so again, not an axiomatic claim.

That is why I laughed so hard when @TheScientist said earlier in the thread that rights (gay rights) couldn't be invented out of thin air.

Laugh all you want, in the US & Japan that's your right. On the other hand your laughter does not make you correct. "Rights" indicates a very specific area of law. Your words there may be popular but merely saying those words doesn't mean you are correct.

 

[Jbagz]

Laugh all you want, in the US & Japan that's your right. On the other hand your laughter does not make you correct. "Rights" indicates a very specific area of law. Your words there may be popular but merely saying those words doesn't mean you are correct.

I fear we are not speaking to the same aspect of the claim, "rights can not be invented out of thin air".

I think you mean that a right needs to be approved and passed into a law by a legislative body, and then upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court when challenged.

However, all rights can be traced back to a point where they were merely ideas. Hence the analogy of inventing them out of thin air.

I found that statement about inventing rights out of thin air hilarious when juxtaposed with the concept of organized religion.

Both can be traced back to mere ideas that originated in the minds of humans. They were essentially created out of thin air.

I think you know this, and I suspect that you might be ignoring it on purpose.

 

[Jbagz]

Actually it says Jews are not to eat those things. Everyone else can enjoy a nice tonkatsu.

Christians attempt to address who falls under Mosaci law in the New Testament book of Acts. The Epistles of Paul (letters from a founder of the early Christian Church) are also very influential to how Christian sects attempt to resolve this.

Some sects of Christianity divide Mosacic law into two parts, the moral law (still followed by Christians) and the ceremonial law (not followed by Christians).

But there has always been a lot of confusion and disagreement over it. It is also one of the reasons there are so many offshoots of Christianity.

 

[TheScientist]

I think you mean that a right needs to be approved and passed into a law by a legislative body, and then upheld as constitutional by the Supreme Court when challenged.

In the case of creating a right that is summarily essentially correct however in the specific area of this discussion there are elements of both claiming a right exists based on existing law and the question of if an executive order either creates a right or reaffirms an existing right. Not as simple as you suggest.

I found that statement about inventing rights out of thin air hilarious when juxtaposed with the concept of organized religion.

This is appeal to emotion. Neither atheism nor theism are more than paper testable positions. Without a "godometer" the existence or absence of one or more gods can not be proven except by non testable argument.

However as to legal matters, both Originalists and Activists agree that pre-existing constitutional matters are not to be erased with a wave of the hand. Even Activists will agree that the right created from Roe vs Wade was poor legal procedure in that it its methodology opens it up to challenge.

I think you know this, and I suspect that you might be ignoring it on purpose.

No. I don't treat matters like this lightly nor do I appeal to the crowd for support.

 

[meiji]

Actually it says Jews are not to eat those things. Everyone else can enjoy a nice tonkatsu.

Most of the scripture quoted out of the Bible talking about homosexuality being an abomination is from the Old Testament. It's not an invalid comparison. And FWIW, the state of Israel, for most intents and purposes a Jewish state, doesn't allow LGBT discrimination under law.

People railing against religion love to mention this one but rarely bring up Nation of Islam as the counter example. By law in the US both are allowed.

I'm not railing against religion. I'm railing against religion as an excuse to re-introduce bigotry into the public sphere. The NOI is allowed under law, but if a NOI member were elected to the county clerk's office, they couldn't prevent non-Muslims from getting marriage licenses. And they couldn't open restaurants where they wouldn't allow white people to eat at them.

 

[Jbagz]

In the case of creating a right that is summarily essentially correct however in the specific area of this discussion there are elements of both claiming a right exists based on existing law and the question of if an executive order either creates a right or reaffirms an existing right. Not as simple as you suggest.



This is appeal to emotion. Neither atheism nor theism are more than paper testable positions. Without a "godometer" the existence or absence of one or more gods can not be proven except by non testable argument.

However as to legal matters, both Originalists and Activists agree that pre-existing constitutional matters are not to be erased with a wave of the hand. Even Activists will agree that the right created from Roe vs Wade was poor legal procedure in that it its methodology opens it up to challenge.



No. I don't treat matters like this lightly nor do I appeal to the crowd for support.

For Pete's sake!

It was obvious that I was straying from discussing this topic from a legal aspect.

The "invented out of thin air" remark was put forth by you.

Yes, I attacked that remark by lampooning religion as being "invented out of thin air" and it was painfully obvious that my words were not addressing the constitutionality of gay rights or religious freedom.

Yet you felt compelled to point out what I was saying didn't jive with the Constitution. No shit, that wasn't my claim. I was pointing out something I found absurd.

As far as theism goes.... (another rant on absurdity, not on constitutional law)

Let's suppose that a god really does exist and he created the universe and all of these curious laws about not eating shrimp and he also gave us instructions to put men to death for assfucking each other.

Well, there is your proof that not only rights can be created out of thin air, but also laws, planets, solar systems, and billions upon billions of galaxies.

If one wants to dwell in a reality where burning bushes pass down laws to scribes upon mountain tops, then have at it.

However, some of the consequences of believing in unverifiable claims like that are divinely sanctioned genocide, the oppression of women and slavery. All approved by a peaceful, loving and merciful god.

The source material for Judaism, Christianity and Islam contains absurdities that are rejected by civilized nations. About the only ones I see buying into that Bronze Age nonsense full scale are groups like ISIS, the Taliban and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia.

So please excuse me for getting emotional when I hear a fellow American bring up the Old Testament to rationalize and justify discrimination against gays.

 

[TheScientist]

Most of the scripture quoted out of the Bible talking about homosexuality being an abomination is from the Old Testament. It's not an invalid comparison.

Exactly one line, Leviticus 18:22. That section also lists many other prohibited relationships as well. Even the dietary code section of Leviticus is longer and more specific. Note also that the word "abomination" is considered a translation problem. Biblical Hebrew has plenty of words that really do not map well to English. As a bilingual person yourself you may be familiar with this general concept.

Also let me clarify the point about applying only to Jews. This isn't only a "religious" issue since traditional Judaism sees the Hebrew Bible as a legal code, essentially a constitution. That is to say that in Biblical times, this would have been handled by what were essentially civil courts. Beyond just the "constitutional law" issues there are legal commentaries and records of judges decisions which can't be over ruled. There is also plenty of formal legal procedure and requirements around witnesses and evidence.

Its not a simple thing at all especially for capital crimes which includes the prohibition of male/male sexual acts. Historically the courts worked as hard as they could to see that these cases never even reached the trial stage. There was a saying that if a court passed a death sentence it was known as a "killing court" and even once in 70 years was too often.

How Christians interpret any of this is another matter.

And FWIW, the state of Israel, for most intents and purposes a Jewish state, doesn't allow LGBT discrimination under law.

The State of Israel is not run according to Mosaic Law. The idea of a Jewish State is about the fact of the Jews as a people regardless of if Jews practice Judaism. Even the Japanese term ユダヤ人 reflects this as it recognizes that our origin and homeland are from the Kingdom of Judea.

And they couldn't open restaurants where they wouldn't allow white people to eat at them.

While a NoI civil official could not enforce something like that, NoI businesses were in fact well known for refusing service to white patrons.

 

[TheScientist]

Chill. You have misread me.

The source material for Judaism, Christianity and Islam contains absurdities that are rejected by civilized nations.

1. "Civilized nations" as you put it tend to have laws in place similar to the US 1st Amendment. The discussion here was never advocating Biblical law as a replacement for civil law.
2. You might be surprised how much of US civil law can be traced back to various biblical law. Since this topic upsets you, I'll let you do your own research.

So please excuse me for getting emotional when I hear a fellow American bring up the Old Testament to rationalize and justify discrimination against gays.

You missed where I said this?

Please don't take the above as though I'm taking a position which would argue in favor of legal limits on sexuality, that is not the case.

 

[Jbagz]

You missed where I said this?

I was referring to the OP....

 

[TheScientist]

I was referring to the OP....

Then you missed where @konbini guy said this*

I myself think executing gays just because the Bible says it, is ridiculous

 

[Jbagz]

Then you missed where @konbini guy said this*

No, I didn't miss that.

How gracious of him to stop short of executing homosexuals, but he seems to be onboard for using a bible passage to justify other forms of discrimination against them.

 

[TheScientist]

No, I didn't miss that.

Instead you seem to have decided to assign intent behind the words without asking the person in question.

 

[Jbagz]

You might be surprised how much of US civil law can be traced back to various biblical law. Since this topic upsets you, I'll let you do your own research.

Why would that be surprising? Are you bringing this up to suggest that there is value or validity in religious texts?

Humans are social creatures that pass on knowledge and moral values from one generation to the next.

To find an imprint of biblical law on civil law isn't surprising, nor does it speak to the authenticity of theistic belief systems.

The fact that many religions have played a role in development of law over the centuries says nothing about the validity such laws.

Opinions and moral values are not static as many theists would have you believe.

Even something as basic as "Thou shall not kill" has exceptions to it. Exceptions that are not clearly defined in biblical texts. Another clear indicator that these texts are not the work of a perfect and all-powerful deity.

I grew up in the American South where there were many Blue Laws on the books that dictated what could and could not be sold on Sundays. Most of these laws have been repealed because society changed and viewed them as nonsensical or at least not worth upholding.

Let's not forget the Volstead Act (Prohibition on alcohol) that was supported by politically connected religious groups. That was a disaster of epic proportions that should illustrate the dangers of religiously motivated political movements.

The Evangelical groups clamoring for a Trump executive order on religious freedom aren't seeking religious freedom. They are seeking to suppress and marginalize another group. They already have religious freedom.

I used to believe in the Bible, I was born into it and took it seriously until I actually read it and studied the history of the early Christian Church.

I've read that book front to back twice. I've also studied it for countless hours as part of groups and as an individual.

It is full of nonsense and horrible advice. The fact that it gets a few things right here and there isn't surprising.

 

[Jbagz]

Instead you seem to have decided to assign intent behind the words without asking the person in question.

Did you miss @konbini guy 's other posts in this thread that said as much? Not to mention his open hostility toward gays in several other threads.

I'm perfectly comfortable assessing his intent on this issue.

 

[TheScientist]

Why would that be surprising? Are you bringing this up to suggest that there is value or validity in religious texts?

Humans are social creatures that pass on knowledge and moral values from one generation to the next.

To find an imprint of biblical law on civil law isn't surprising, nor does it speak to the authenticity of theistic belief systems.

The fact that many religions have played a role in development of law over the centuries says nothing about the validity such laws.

Opinions and moral values are not static as many theists would have you believe.

Even something as basic as "Thou shall not kill" has exceptions to it. Exceptions that are not clearly defined in biblical texts. Another clear indicator that these texts are not the work of a perfect and all-powerful deity.

I grew up in the American South where there were many Blue Laws on the books that dictated what could and could not be sold on Sundays. Most of these laws have been repealed because society changed and viewed them as nonsensical or at least not worth upholding.

Let's not forget the Volstead Act (Prohibition on alcohol) that was supported by politically connected religious groups. That was a disaster of epic proportions that should illustrate the dangers of religiously motivated political movements.

The Evangelical groups clamoring for a Trump executive order on religious freedom aren't seeking religious freedom. They are seeking to suppress and marginalize another group. They already have religious freedom.

I used to believe in the Bible, I was born into it and took it seriously until I actually read it and studied the history of the early Christian Church.

I've read that book front to back twice. I've also studied it for countless hours as part of groups and as an individual.

It is full of nonsense and horrible advice. The fact that it gets a few things right here and there isn't surprising.

I don't take issue with your atheism no matter how dogmatic or reactionary it may be, thats never been part of the discussion. However trying to impose your atheism on others is no better than the Evangelicals you complain about.

 

[Jbagz]

I don't take issue with your atheism no matter how dogmatic or reactionary it may be, thats never been part of the discussion. However trying to impose your atheism on others is no better than the Evangelicals you complain about.

Yes, I'm being very blunt about it. Where as I'm getting the impression that you are being coy and subdued with your support of theism.

I was an Evangelical Christian. My entire family are Evangelical Christians.

I feel like I'm qualified to speak about it their political aspirations, motives and tactics.

One of their prime tactics is to create a aura sacredness and reverence around their holy book. They claim that it is a book inspired by a perfect, omnipotent deity.

That is an extraordinary claim that there is absolutely no evidence of.

I will not apologize for throwing cold water on that idea.

 

[TheScientist]

Where as I'm getting the impression that you are being coy and subdued with your support of theism.

Given that some people are religious and given that I'm a member of a people that has dealt with state and non state persecution regarding religious practice, and regardless of my own level of practice or non practice, my interest is in the legal structures around the topic.

I will not apologize for throwing cold water on that idea.

Try understanding that others see things differently and they too may have a point.