The Totalitarian Leftist Tactics against the Right

Should I be allowed to sacrifice children to Moloch, then?

Perhaps so, but in many cases - including the Oregon case - the State laws came years before the SCOTUS ruling. The laws in question are nothing to do with marriage, but about discriminating against gays. The natural outgrowth of the zeitgest was that gay people were starting to 'openly marry' even where lawful marriage was not permitted (such as in Oregon at the time of that case).This extends to the Federal/State Totalitarian argument. Since this was a State's decision - this should be acknowledged. It was not a Federal decision, it was not a SCOTUS decision. Equal access to services is nothing to do with marriage; trying to make the argument that SCOTUS exceeded its authority to make this happen needs to be addressed and rebutted where this is presented as evidence of totalitarian tactics.

Freedoms that came at the expense of the freedoms of gay people. The difference is that Christians and Muslims have ways of avoiding those losses, by changing their businesses so they are not public accommodations, or so their products/services never have to conflict with their religious beliefs. Gay people had no such recourse. Either they have free and equal access to public accommodations or they don't. So their freedom loss has no mitigating method they could use.So why should one person's religious freedom trump another person's freedom? That's fine, and nor can the queer community.On the one hand, a religious freedom to provide lesser service to women could be allowed - at the expense of women (or old people, or Jews, or black people or gays or whatever). Or we could ask people who have religious qualms about serving women equally to adjust their business so that this issue never comes up preserving as much freedom as possible for everyone.I think the minority groups have a stronger case, and you simply reasserting that when you take away our freedoms its not 'totalitarian' is insufficient. The Minorities loss is more 'totalitarian' as it truly is total - there is nothing we can do about those losses. When we ask you to not take away our freedoms that is not totalitarian. You can still live and operate within your religion.I can't sacrifice children to Moloch.
Or marry ten 12 year old girls.
Or supply heroin to my community. Even if my religion says I can, or even should. Religious freedom is important, but it cannot be such that it supercedes the rights of other people.You wouldn't want a Muslim or atheist or Marxist majority dictating which shops you were allowed to use would you?

quote:

---

[N]o man shall be compelled to frequent or support any religious worship, place, or ministry whatsoever, nor shall be enforced, restrained, molested, or burthened in his body or goods, nor shall otherwise suffer, on account of his religious opinions or belief; but that all men shall be free to profess, and by argument to maintain, their opinions in matters of religion, and that the same shall in no wise diminish, enlarge, or affect their civil capacities.

​

--Thomas Jefferson

---

My religious, or if you prefer, philosophical opinion that gays should be able to marry should not result in my suffering a loss of access to goods and services that are publicly in the free marketplace.

quote:

---

That all attempts to influence it by temporal punishments or burthens, or by civil incapacitations tend only to beget habits of hypocrisy and meanness, and therefore are a departure from the plan of the holy author of our religion, who being Lord, both of body and mind yet chose not to propagate it by coercions on either, as was in his Almighty power to do

​

--Jefferson

---

Indeed, hypocrisy and meanness if you get to have your freedom at the expense of mine.

quote:

---

Religious exercise shall be permitted so long as it does not violate general laws governing conduct.

​

--Antonin Scalia

---

quote:

---

The legitimate powers of government extend to such acts only as are injurious to others. But it does me no injury for my neighbor to say there are twenty gods, or no God. It neither picks my pocket nor breaks my leg

​

--Jefferson

---

Refusal of service is injurious to others. You can believe same-sex marriage is wrong and it does me no harm, but your actions can. And its your actions that can be legislated. So if your religious exercise causes injury, they can be restricted.The state has the right to take life, liberty and impinge on the pursuit of happiness when the individual they are depriving those rights to has carried out injurious acts.

quote:

---

Remember civil and religious liberty always go together; if the foundation of the one be sapped, the other will fall of course

​

--Hamilton

---

I'm not really sure what your point is here. I mean, I don't disagree with any of this. I was just pointing out that Faith was blaming the wrong group for things. SCOTUS was not acting as a legislature - the legislature was. Naturally her response was to confirm that the SCOTUS acting beyond its authority was a red herring.The Totalitarian concept is that SCOTUS' same-sex marriage decision was forcing private citizens to bake cakes for gay weddings is nonsense. That's all I was pointing out. That 'forcing' is the same 'forcing' that requires private citizens to bake cakes for interracial marriages. It wasn't the Loving decision, but Civil rights laws that created it. Faith would do well to keep these things....straight.

That's up to you, but it does not force you to do anything. It's a government ruling about what the government is and is not allowed to prohibit or limit.It turns out that freedom wins, the government doesn't get to institute a marital contract and exclude certain couples from it. It has to be open to all, or none. Hey, you were the one that was making the big stink out the source, take it up with you. They are allowed to not provide that service, but they cannot provide it selectively. That's business, I'm afraid. Play by the rules or don't play. Then stop making arguments along the following lines:

quote:

---

The Left/SCOTUS treats the public school system as the equivalent of Congress .... a law that prohibits Christians from acting on our beliefs, that came from SCOTUS, as usual usurping the role of Congress, .... if we can illegally prohibit it by SCOTUS pretending to be Congress

---

Because I will point out that you have the facts wrong each time. If it doesn't matter, don't bring it up! Yet you are. You do it all the time. You are totally free to do this. You aren't allowed to operate a business that discriminates against gays though. This is not totalitarian, it's ensuring 'freedom and justice for all'. My point is that refusing service for a gay wedding is nothing to do with legalizing gay marriage. It was unlawful to refuse service in Oregon even as it was not legally possible for gays to get married! That's not twisting the point, that was my point. You've confused the legalizisation of marriage with the prohibition of discrimination. They are different things. And you remain free to do so. Totalitarian it is not.If some Conservative Biblical Christians think that little girls should be forced to use the little boys room and that this is by God's word - would you regard this is as totalitarian? For someone who has not dropped this subject, you are being very coy about this. Well clearly there is something to get straight. One, you shouldn't make arguments about the source of the tyranny if it is irrelvent. Two, the source of the tyranny is not the legalization of same-sex marraige.The prohibition of discrimination in public accommodation is not tyrannical. The insistence that little girls use the little boy's room to pee is far more tyrannical that saying 'you can't get the benefits of business while discriminating against certain people as this is detrimental to society'.

The victims and witnesses of those benign actions disagree. I wish. Unfortunately they also refuse people service, dehumanize them, argue they don't deserve life saving medical intervention, harass them, vandalize their property and try to exclude them from society and
deny people freedom and equality.This is not benign. One might say it is totalitarian. Like when they force little girls to go the little boys room. In Oregon it has been unlawful to discriminate your services based on group membership for over a decade. I haven't seen a single person even suggest you should be penalized for saying otherwise. It took us decades of yelling and demanding and so on to get the law that made discrimination in public accommodation passed. You'd think if that's what anybody wanted, we'd already have been yelling and demanding it. They gay marriage law is called the 14th Amendment. So basically you are saying that there hasn't been a conflict until 1868. The actual law you running into problems with is anti-discrimination in business. I understand that it is harder to run a propaganda campaign against the 14th Amendment, it's harder to run a propaganda campaign arguing against 'anti-discrimination in business' laws. But when you try to re-cast the truth you will continue to find me correcting you. You say it isn't important, but the fact that you repeatedly do it, suggests that you do think it is important.

Because people who refer to their Bible and call themselves Christian did those things. So the anti discrimination laws that the Klein's ran afoul of during a time in a place when there was not legal gay marriage did not conflict with your understanding of Christian teaching? Yeah, I'm pretty sure there's be more - there was last time Christians claimed that. But regardless - the removal of unlawful prohibitions against gay marriage is not the issue that Christian service providers have run afoul of.

Yeah, selectively denying service to them is discrimination. Well, you get to make your argument that the conviction was wrongful, but I don't see how. Denying a service in this fashion is discriminatory, so you have a lot of work to do to convince me anything totalitarian was going on here.Now about those bathroom bills....?

quote:

---

Where the hell is Dr Adequate

---

He posted relatively recently: Message 5038