The Totalitarian Leftist Tactics against the Right

You did not provide an example of where the first amendment is violated. I shall take that as indicating that you do not have an example. This is just nonsense.You clearly do not understand the first amendment. It does not give a religion free rein to do whatever it wants.If a particular religion had a requirement that the first born son must be killed on his 12th birthday as a sacrifice to the Gods, the first amendment would not prevent that from being considered a criminal act of murder. The laws on murder apply to all, regardless of religion, so banning murder is not a restriction on freedom of religion.Likewise, as long as school policies apply equally to all, regardless of religion, they are not a restriction on the freedom of religion.

Whatever the basis for treating gay marriage as legitimate, whether it's originated by the state or by SCOTUS, the fact is that wherever it clashes head-on with Christian belief, as it does in the serving of a gay wedding, Christians are losing their religious freedoms. Although I often just throw up my hands and assume we're headed back to the paganism Christianity supplanted centuries ago (which supplanting is what built Western Civilization), which regression does fit Biblical prophecy of the End Times, I can't give up without a fight. The loss of freedom of religion is too great an attack on American culture to tolerate passively. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

In the case of Christianity yes it does.

Sorry but that is simply not true Faith.No Christian has lost any religious freedoms in the US and to claim that has happened is at best ignorance and denial of reality.You cannot show a single example and have never shown a single example of a Christian losing their religious freedom in the US. Nonsense Faith, again that is simply another perversion of what the Bible actually says.

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

---

Wrong again.

Faith explodes her brain: YOU ARE SO WRONG. You are the totalitarian here. Jeezo-man.

Obviously we should stick with the truth, but I suspect that even Oregon would argue that their laws were supported by the 14th amendment. In my opinion, anti-discrimination laws that are not well grounded in constitutional principles can be suspect, because state laws cannot trump the constitution. An Oregon law that prevented discrimination against democrats probably would not survive court review if it interfered with a first amendment right. I suppose so. But that federal/state argument is ridiculous anyway. And beyond that, despite NCE's statement that any discrimination ought not to be challenged beyond the state level, it seems that he would find appealing to the state to be just a little less totalitarian that suing in federal court.

A totalitarian mentality would want what Hitler had or what Kim Jong-un has. That message is from Theodoric, and the exchange that actually followed doesn't support you. It goes like this: Also, I interpreted Theodoric's use of the phrase "were passing" to mean "were in the legislative process." Note that you said "passed" while Theodoric said "were passing." Big difference. Higher levels of government do not equate to a greater level of totalitarianism, and neither does appealing to them. What I hear in all your words is that you object to laws where you believe common sense should rule. But the universality of common sense is a myth, and for civil rights the federal government is the correct jurisdiction.--Percy

But of course only a true christian.PoeEdited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

True Christian

If we relied on common sense we would still believe the earth was flat and the sun revolved around the earth.Common sense is about as reliable as eyewitness testimony. In other words not very.

Weird, I haven't objected to a single law. Oh well, I'm spent. Have a nice day.

Why? Where in the Constitution & Amendments does it say that? Where is Christianity called out for unique treatment not given to other religions?Remember, the Constitution was written at a time when specific Christian sects were afforded special legal and financial consideration by individual states. If the writers had wanted to provide specific federal protection, why didn't they?

The whole point of the First Amendment was based on that fact. It was created to limit Christian sects ability to force their beliefs on others. No one wanted to see the crazy Puritans have the right or ability to impose their nonsense on the other states.Edited by jar, : appalin spallin of ---> onEdited by jar, : want ---> wantedEdited by jar, : fix attribution