Religious Liberty Task Force

[Eddyr2]

33 minutes ago, World Citizen said:

Nope.  None at all.  At least that was not the intention.  My apologies if that offended you but the using of religion as a way to deny people basic rights is wrong and that was the point. 

btw, love me some Naked Gun and Frank Drebin

 

Your photo, I believe, was in reference to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. In that case the baker, Jack Phillips, told the gay couple they could buy any “off the shelf” cake he had but he would not make them a custom can due to religious views. He also gave them a reference to a baker who would bake them there custom cake. Philips in the past has also done the same thing for a “divorce cake” (that person was not gay).

forcing someone to due something for you against you with the force of a gun (anything that is a law, has the force of a gun behind it because of you don’t comply with the law people with guns get you and put you in jail.) is unjustifiable. Your “right” to a custom cake does not over rule my right to liberty.

If I was a baker and some one wanted me to make a “Servite is the best school ever cake” I would say no. That is because it goes against what I believe. Forcing me to doing thing for you against my will is not a “right”, it’s slavery.

 

naked gun is awesome. 

[HSFBfan]

2 minutes ago, Eddyr2 said:

Your photo, I believe, was in reference to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. In that case the baker, Jack Phillips, told the gay couple they could buy any “off the shelf” cake he had but he would not make them a custom can due to religious views. He also gave them a reference to a baker who would bake them there custom cake. Philips in the past has also done the same thing for a “divorce cake” (that person was not gay).

forcing someone to due something for you against you with the force of a gun (anything that is a law, has the force of a gun behind it because of you don’t comply with the law people with guns get you and put you in jail.) is unjustifiable. Your “right” to a custom cake does not over rule my right to liberty.

If I was a baker and some one wanted me to make a “Servite is the best school ever cake” I would say no. That is because it goes against what I believe. Forcing me to doing thing for you against my will is not a “right”, it’s slavery.

 

naked gun is awesome. 

Bingo.

[World Citizen]

9 minutes ago, Eddyr2 said:

Your photo, I believe, was in reference to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. In that case the baker, Jack Phillips, told the gay couple they could buy any “off the shelf” cake he had but he would not make them a custom can due to religious views. He also gave them a reference to a baker who would bake them there custom cake. Philips in the past has also done the same thing for a “divorce cake” (that person was not gay).

forcing someone to due something for you against you with the force of a gun (anything that is a law, has the force of a gun behind it because of you don’t comply with the law people with guns get you and put you in jail.) is unjustifiable. Your “right” to a custom cake does not over rule my right to liberty.

If I was a baker and some one wanted me to make a “Servite is the best school ever cake” I would say no. That is because it goes against what I believe. Forcing me to doing thing for you against my will is not a “right”, it’s slavery.

 

naked gun is awesome. 

I respectfully disagree.  If your belief is too fragile to serve the public based on personal and arbitrary beliefs; that is a problem and probably shouldn't be in the baking cakes business.  Can you see where someone might not want to bake a cake bc of any number of arbitrary reasons.  I understand it's their belief and all but you must see where the narrow minded bigot would use it to deny people just bc they are an ass.  People justify their racist views and bigotry behind religion all the time.  There is a reason church and state should be separate.  Anyone could choose from any number of passages from the Old Testament and discriminate all day if they wanted to bc of this new task force.  It's dangerous and narrow minded, esp in the public square.

As an aside, imo, that is Islam's main issue with coming in to the 21st century.  Their religion and the functioning of society are inseparable even if they wanted to separate the two and thus making it extremely difficult to reconcile. 

[Eddyr2]

1 minute ago, World Citizen said:

I respectfully disagree.  If your belief is too fragile to serve the public based on personal and arbitrary beliefs; that is a problem and probably shouldn't be in the baking cakes business.  Can you see where someone might not want to bake a cake bc of any number of arbitrary reasons.  I understand it's their belief and all but you must see where the narrow minded bigot would use it to deny people just bc they are an ass.  People justify their racist views and bigotry behind religion all the time.  There is a reason church and state should be separate.  Anyone could choose from any number of passages from the Old Testament and discriminate all day if they wanted to bc of this new task force.  It's dangerous and narrow minded, esp in the public square.

That sounds like fascism.

Should a gay baker be forced to make a cake that says “Marriage is only between one man and one woman”, if not why not? If they don’t arent their beliefs to fragile to be challenged? I’m am always for liberty over force. 

[dan in daytona]

19 minutes ago, Eddyr2 said:

Your photo, I believe, was in reference to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. In that case the baker, Jack Phillips, told the gay couple they could buy any “off the shelf” cake he had but he would not make them a custom can due to religious views. He also gave them a reference to a baker who would bake them there custom cake. Philips in the past has also done the same thing for a “divorce cake” (that person was not gay).

forcing someone to due something for you against you with the force of a gun (anything that is a law, has the force of a gun behind it because of you don’t comply with the law people with guns get you and put you in jail.) is unjustifiable. Your “right” to a custom cake does not over rule my right to liberty.

If I was a baker and some one wanted me to make a “Servite is the best school ever cake” I would say no. That is because it goes against what I believe. Forcing me to doing thing for you against my will is not a “right”, it’s slavery.

 

naked gun is awesome. 

You do realize how slippery this slope can become. Seeing that Anyone can establish a house of worship, and therefore claim a new religion based on a following of believers. What's to stop the nut jobs, wacko's, bigots from enforcing their belief system that may be counter to our Constitution. How about "The White Church of Hate." Their God says it's OK and you can't eat in their restaurant. You think the Rastafarian Americans get a nod of approval from authorities when smoking weed ?    

[Eddyr2]

1 hour ago, dan in daytona said:

You do realize how slippery this slope can become. Seeing that Anyone can establish a house of worship, and therefore claim a new religion based on a following of believers. What's to stop the nut jobs, wacko's, bigots from enforcing their belief system that may be counter to our Constitution. How about "The White Church of Hate." Their God says it's OK and you can't eat in their restaurant. You think the Rastafarian Americans get a nod of approval from authorities when smoking weed ?    

If there was a place called “the White Church of Hate” and its members own a bakery, I would never go there. That is liberty, they are free to be hateful and I’m free not to eat their cake.

You do realize how slippery of a slope we would have if we force people to do things against their will, I thought the Government stopped doing that after the Civil War in this country.

[AztecPadre]

19 hours ago, HSFBfan said:

Have you been reading my posts I've been saying that the 1960s started the destruction of America

What year did the first settlers arrive? Lol. That's when it began.

[AztecPadre]

2 hours ago, Eddyr2 said:

Your photo, I believe, was in reference to the Masterpiece Cakeshop case. In that case the baker, Jack Phillips, told the gay couple they could buy any “off the shelf” cake he had but he would not make them a custom can due to religious views. He also gave them a reference to a baker who would bake them there custom cake. Philips in the past has also done the same thing for a “divorce cake” (that person was not gay).

forcing someone to due something for you against you with the force of a gun (anything that is a law, has the force of a gun behind it because of you don’t comply with the law people with guns get you and put you in jail.) is unjustifiable. Your “right” to a custom cake does not over rule my right to liberty.

If I was a baker and some one wanted me to make a “Servite is the best school ever cake” I would say no. That is because it goes against what I believe. Forcing me to doing thing for you against my will is not a “right”, it’s slavery.

 

naked gun is awesome. 

If you want to do business in this country, then they have to follow the rules. Plain and simple. It would be like me deciding I dont want to pay taxes cuz it infringes on my religious beliefs. How would that go over with the IRS? Cant pick and choose homie.

[AztecPadre]

23 minutes ago, Eddyr2 said:

If there was a place called “the White Church of Hate” and its members own a bakery, I would never go there. That is liberty, they are free to be hateful and I’m free not to eat their cake.

You do realize how slippery of a slope we would have if we force people to do things against their will, I thought the Government stopped doing that after the Civil War in this country.

They do have liberty. They have the liberty to not open a business.

[dan in daytona]

35 minutes ago, Eddyr2 said:

If there was a place called “the White Church of Hate” and its members own a bakery, I would never go there. That is liberty, they are free to be hateful and I’m free not to eat their cake.

You do realize how slippery of a slope we would have if we force people to do things against their will, I thought the Government stopped doing that after the Civil War in this country.

EDDY,  do you also believe a restaurant, motel, or store owner can deny service on race, religion, nation origin, sex, or gender ID ?  

What if the above businesses are church owned. Does it make a difference ?     

[dan in daytona]

1 hour ago, Eddyr2 said:

 

You do realize how slippery of a slope     " we would have if we force people to do things against their will,"      I thought the Government stopped doing that after the Civil War in this country.

It took the FEDS another 100 years for Blacks, Asians, Mexicans, Native Americans, and others to gain access in the south. 

[Eddyr2]

58 minutes ago, AztecPadre said:

If you want to do business in this country, then they have to follow the rules. Plain and simple. It would be like me deciding I dont want to pay taxes cuz it infringes on my religious beliefs. How would that go over with the IRS? Cant pick and choose homie.

So would you force and gay baker to make a cake that said “marriage is only between one man and one woman”? If not, why not? If you want do to business in this country you have to follow the rules. Plain and simple. If the gay baker doesn’t bake that the cake then he isn’t filling the rules you set forth. Can’t pick and choose homie.

[AztecPadre]

12 minutes ago, Eddyr2 said:

So would you force and gay baker to make a cake that said “marriage is only between one man and one woman”? If not, why not? If you want do to business in this country you have to follow the rules. Plain and simple. If the gay baker doesn’t bake that the cake then he isn’t filling the rules you set forth. Can’t pick and choose homie.

Yes I would. He would have to bake whatever as long as it's obviously not vulgar which is the law.

[Eddyr2]

1 hour ago, dan in daytona said:

EDDY,  do you also believe a restaurant, motel, or store owner can deny service on race, religion, nation origin, sex, or gender ID ?  

No, but that is not what happened in the masterpiece cakeshop case. The gay couple could have bought what ever they wanted from the baker off the shelf, but they couldn't force him to do something against his will and bake them a custom cake.

DAN, do you also believe a gay baker should be forces to bake a cake that reads "marriage is only one man and one woman"? if not why not?

29 minutes ago, dan in daytona said:

It took the FEDS another 100 years for Blacks, Asians, Mexicans, Native Americans, and others to gain access in the south. 

So now we should we should once again force people to do work for us against their will? that seems odd.

15 minutes ago, AztecPadre said:

Yes I would. He would have to bake whatever as long as it's obviously not vulgar which is the law.

no, that is not the law. the law is:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

No law can be passed that prohibits the free exercise of ones religion and no law can be passed abridging one’s freedom of speech. In this case, the STATE wanted to prohibit the Baker’s ability to exercise his religion by forcing him to do something contrary to his faith AND abridge his free speech by forcing him to create art they he didn’t want to make. Art is speech and SCOTUS has interpreted the 1st Amendment's protection extends not only to books, theatrical works and paintings but also posters, television, music videos and comic books (whatever the human creative impulse produces), therefor a custom cake. Making a custom cake seem to require the human creative impulse to produce.

 

[thc6795]

1 hour ago, AztecPadre said:

If you want to do business in this country, then they have to follow the rules. Plain and simple. It would be like me deciding I dont want to pay taxes cuz it infringes on my religious beliefs. How would that go over with the IRS? Cant pick and choose homie.

The Supreme court ruled in favor of the baker. Those are now the rules

[Eddyr2]

45 minutes ago, thc6795 said:

The Supreme court ruled in favor of the baker. Those are now the rules

the Supreme court ruled in favor of the 1st amendment. The rules from 1791 are still the rules now. 

[Nolebull813]

6 hours ago, AztecPadre said:

What year did the first settlers arrive? Lol. That's when it began.

If the "settlers" didn't arrive this country would be filled with people running around naked killing animals with spears. Kinda like how Africa is now. 

Europe would be the super empire. 

Anytime you turn your AC on, or charge your phone, or do anything that involved electricity of any kind, please be sure to thank a white guy from Boston. 

I always find it funny when people charge their phone invented by a white person, with electricity invented by a white person, go online to say white people stole Indian land. 

Lol. You guys would be running around like cavemen starting fires and living in huts if the Europeans never came. 

[dan in daytona]

4 hours ago, Eddyr2 said:

No, but that is not what happened in the masterpiece cakeshop case. The gay couple could have bought what ever they wanted from the baker off the shelf, but they couldn't force him to do something against his will and bake them a custom cake.

DAN, do you also believe a gay baker should be forces to bake a cake that reads "marriage is only one man and one woman"? if not why not?

So now we should we should once again force people to do work for us against their will? that seems odd.

no, that is not the law. the law is:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

No law can be passed that prohibits the free exercise of ones religion and no law can be passed abridging one’s freedom of speech. In this case, the STATE wanted to prohibit the Baker’s ability to exercise his religion by forcing him to do something contrary to his faith AND abridge his free speech by forcing him to create art they he didn’t want to make. Art is speech and SCOTUS has interpreted the 1st Amendment's protection extends not only to books, theatrical works and paintings but also posters, television, music videos and comic books (whatever the human creative impulse produces), therefor a custom cake. Making a custom cake seem to require the human creative impulse to produce.

 

I agree, to disagree. I foresee others (people and jurisdictions) claiming similar rights to legally discriminate against persons and life styles they find offensive. Maybe my thinking is the minority view , so be it.   

[Eddyr2]

17 minutes ago, Nolebull813 said:

If the "settlers" didn't arrive this country would be filled with people running around naked killing animals with spears. Kinda like how Africa is now. 

Europe would be the super empire. 

Anytime you turn your AC on, or charge your phone, or do anything that involved electricity of any kind, please be sure to thank a white guy from Boston. 

I always find it funny when people charge their phone invented by a white person, with electricity invented by a white person, go online to say white people stole Indian land. 

Lol. You guys would be running around like cavemen starting fires and living in huts if the Europeans never came. 

Spanish settler landed in Florida in 1521

[Eddyr2]

2 hours ago, dan in daytona said:

I agree, to disagree. I foresee others (people and jurisdictions) claiming similar rights to legally discriminate against persons and life styles they find offensive. Maybe my thinking is the minority view , so be it.   

We always have the option to admend the constitution and take out the freedom of religion. 

[On2whls]

1 hour ago, Eddyr2 said:

We always have the option to admend the constitution and take out the freedom of religion. 

UNFATHOMABLE

[dan in daytona]

12 hours ago, Eddyr2 said:

We always have the option to admend the constitution and take out the freedom of religion. 

I don't think that's necessary or appropriate, but the tax exempt status of all church properties, outside of the physical buildings themselves, could be addressed. Some might think writing off 50 million dollar planes and waterfront investment properties is taking advantage of a good thing not afforded to individual taxpayers and businesses.

[AztecPadre]

15 hours ago, Nolebull813 said:

If the "settlers" didn't arrive this country would be filled with people running around naked killing animals with spears. Kinda like how Africa is now. 

Europe would be the super empire. 

Anytime you turn your AC on, or charge your phone, or do anything that involved electricity of any kind, please be sure to thank a white guy from Boston. 

I always find it funny when people charge their phone invented by a white person, with electricity invented by a white person, go online to say white people stole Indian land. 

Lol. You guys would be running around like cavemen starting fires and living in huts if the Europeans never came. 

Ignorance is bliss.  But carry on. 

[Eddyr2]

12 minutes ago, dan in daytona said:

I don't think that's necessary or appropriate, but the tax exempt status of all church properties, outside of the physical buildings themselves, could be addressed. Some might think writing off 50 million dollar planes and waterfront investment properties is taking advantage of a good thing not afforded to individual taxpayers and businesses.

Ask your senators to propose a change to the tax code.

[dan in daytona]

2 minutes ago, Eddyr2 said:

Ask your senators to propose a change to the tax code.

That would go over about as well as questioning the military budget. Against God and Country you say?  Politicians, especially in an election year, won't touch those high voltage lines.... Instant death